Sitting of 26 March 2002

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

    CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (BY ORDER)
    Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
    To be further considered on Tuesday 9 April.

    MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (BY ORDER)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Wednesday 10 April.

    LONDON DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BILL (BY ORDER)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 11 April.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  HEALTH

    Nurse Recruitment (London)
    Joan Ryan: If he will make a statement on the latest figures on nurse recruitment in London. [43715]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): There are currently 52,480 qualified nurses working within the national health service in London. That represents an increase of 5,330 compared with 1997. In the last year alone, an extra 3,250 qualified nurses began working for the NHS in London.
    Joan Ryan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that welcome news on nurse numbers in London. He will know that access to affordable housing is an important factor in the recruitment and retention of key workers, especially nurses, in London. What progress are the Government making in tackling that issue?
    Mr. Hutton: I agree strongly that housing is a key issue and that it will have a bearing on the success of our recruitment and retention initiatives. My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions announced significant additional resources for the starter homes initiative, and next year 2,300 NHS staff will he given an opportunity to get on the property ladder in London. That is a start.
    686
    In addition, we are on track to meet our NHS plan commitment of an extra 2,000 units of affordable low-cost subsidised rented accommodation for NHS staff in London. Nearly 1,000 of those units have recently been commissioned. We have also introduced a new cost of living supplement for staff who are coping with the high cost of living in inner London. There is clearly more to do to tackle the problems, but the vacancy rate for nurses in London is decreasing and we are getting more nurses into training. Overall, we have a solid platform on which to build for the future.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: As it costs some £35,000 to train a nurse, can Her Majesty's Government place real emphasis on retention of skilled and experienced nursing staff? In that connection, can the Government bear it in mind that it is most important to have stability in nursing careers? For example, proposals to move the cancer centre from Mount Vernon hospital can only cause a disturbance, a loss in morale and a haemorrhaging of nursing jobs. Can the Minister also bear it in mind that the proposed transfer of Harefield to inner London was also unpopular with nursing staff?
    Mr. Hutton: I understand the hon. Gentleman's general point. That is why we have introduced a number of changes, which we will continue to pursue. First and foremost, the way to produce the stability that he and others would like is to keep the investment going into the NHS, and there is a message in that for his Front-Bench spokesmen and party.
    We have made a significant investment to improve the working terms and conditions of staff. Hundreds of nurses who left the NHS have returned to work in it in London since 1997. That is in no small part to do with the substantial increases in the salaries of nurses who work in London and the growing investment that is helping to improve child care facilities. Those two factors are likely to make a positive contribution in the future as well.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: What recruitment has taken place in the developing world for nurses in London? On a recent visit to Ghana, we were told that agencies, not trusts, were recruiting "jumbo jet loads" of nurses to fly to London and elsewhere in the country, thereby denuding the developing world of the health staff that it needs? It is important that those nurses are recruited locally. Will the Minister comment on that?
    Mr. Hutton: I agree that it is important to protect health services in developing nations. I simply point out to the hon. Gentleman that given 18 years in which to do that, his party never quite managed to take the opportunity to do anything positive to resolve the problem. We now have a firm set of arrangements with commercial agencies. The NHS is not recruiting, and will not recruit, in developing third-world countries because that is unfair to the people there. The hon. Gentleman's description of jumbo jet loads of nurses coming from Ghana is somewhat exaggerated.

    Health Care (Deprived Areas)
    Helen Jones: What steps he is taking to improve health care for those living in deprived areas. [43716]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): Extra resources and staff are being provided in many deprived areas. Alongside that, there is a better focus on preventing ill health rather than just on treating it.
    Helen Jones: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Within Warrington's boundaries are examples of precisely the sort of health inequalities that the Government are tackling. What assurances can he give me that, when it is set up, the new Warrington primary care trust will direct extra resources to those health deprived areas of my constituency? What monitoring arrangements will the Government put in place to check that that is happening and to ensure that we get the outcomes we want?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is right about her constituency-of course she is; she probably knows it better than I do, although I have visited it on occasion.
    David Taylor: It's by the sea, you know.
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is being helpful, as he sometimes is.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) is well aware that there is in her area a problem of health inequalities. That problem is the reason why extra money has been made available through the health inequalities adjustment.
    Primary health care trusts, which are to come online in factors from next week, provide a better opportunity to focus on public health and health inequalities than the previous structures, which were to some extent distant from the local communities they were intended to serve. Health authorities are somewhat at a distance, whereas PCTs will be much more local and will be able to forge closer working relationships with local authorities, local businesses, voluntary sector providers and others precisely to deal with the problems my hon. Friend identifies. We will take care to ensure that PCTs do not merely commission good services, but do all within their power to ensure that health inequalities, which are a problem in her part of the world and mine, are dealt with properly.
    Mr. George Osborne: How will health inequalities be tackled by the massive bureaucratic reorganisation currently taking place within the health service? My constituency faces a new mental health trust, a new primary care trust and a new strategic health authority-all at the same time. There is concern in Cheshire, for example, that being lumped in with Merseyside, which has very different health needs, will result in different health inequalities not being properly dealt with by the new bureaucracy.
    Mr. Milburn: I do not think that there will be more bureaucracy-far from it. In fact, we have taken money out of the bureaucracy that was, as the hon. Gentleman
    688
    well remembers, introduced under the Conservatives' internal market, of which he is a passionate supporter but which has now gone from the national health service. The Conservatives constantly urge the Government to be less centralising and less interventionist and to ensure that our health service is built more from the bottom up than from the top down, and that is precisely what the new primary care trusts are designed to achieve. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on his remarks and, for once, learn something.
    Mr. Neil Turner: I welcome the 50 per cent. real-terms increase in health funding that we in Wigan have received since 1997. However, more than 20 of the 24 wards in the borough of Wigan are in the worst 20 per cent. of this country's wards in terms of health. Unfortunately, when the weighting is applied, the current formula reduces the amount of money we get. That works against the Government's plans to sort out both health inequalities and social exclusion. Is my right hon. Friend going to make progress on creating a new formula that recognises real health needs and ensures that PCTs get the funding they require to tackle those needs?
    Mr. Milburn: Yes, that is precisely what we want to do. Two things have happened, the first of which is that we made some interim changes to the formula for distributing NHS cash to local health authorities. We introduced the health inequalities adjustment, which is about £130 million this financial year, and is £148 million next financial year, starting 1 April. That is designed to recognise the particular problems faced by deprived communities in many parts of the country in dealing with ill health and some of its root causes.
    Secondly, we are now in the process of reviewing the whole way in which NHS cash is distributed to local communities. In future, it will be important to ensure that health cash goes to those areas with the greatest health need. That is right and it is part and parcel of what we need to do generally in our country: of course we must improve the health of the population overall, but as a Government and as a nation we legitimately have the objective of securing faster improvements in health among the poorest people in our society.

    Midwife-led Maternity Units
    Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on the future of midwife-led maternity units. [43717]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): The NHS provides various types of care for women during pregnancy and childbirth, including care in midwife-led units for low-risk births. The Government expect that variety to continue to support choice for women, although it is for health authorities and trusts to decide the pattern of service provision in each area.
    Michael Fabricant: Before the last election, the Government said that they would undertake a review of the future of midwifery-led units. The Minister may know that I led a delegation of people from Lichfield and Burntwood, local charities and Conservative and Labour councillors to discuss the future of in-patient care in

    689
    Lichfield and Burntwood. The visit took place in November, when I also wrote a letter to the Department; the answer came in January, but there was nothing at all about what would happen to midwifery and maternity care in Lichfield, nor was there anything about the future of health care in Burntwood. Can the hon. Lady finally put people in Lichfield and Burntwood out of their misery and say what is the future for in-patient health care?
    Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is for the health authority and, in future, primary care trusts to propose local services and their configuration in his area. However, I can tell him that the Government support properly established midwife-led maternity units, which are extremely popular with women. The maternity and neonatal work force group is looking at all kinds of models of care in maternity services and the different work force requirements and procedures needed to support them.
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Secretary of State visited the maternity unit at Northwick Park hospital last year and saw for himself the care provided by midwives there. There is an undertaking to modernise that maternity unit. What will be the role of midwife-led care in that modernisation, how much money will be made available and when we can expect an announcement?
    Yvette Cooper: I know that hon. Members are keen to secure improvements to their local services. We have already announced £100 million of investment in maternity services this year and next to improve the physical infrastructure and facilities for women, their babies and professional staff. I will write to my hon. Friend about progress on the situation at Northwick Park. He is right to say that midwives are crucial in providing high quality maternity services, wherever they are delivered and whatever the care model and play a critical role.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Last month, I welcomed the decision of the Minister's predecessor to override the plan of local management to close the special care baby unit and maternity and women's units at Hemel Hempstead hospital. Can the Minister confirm that last week local management decided to reverse that plan and close the special care baby unit, but not to announce that until Parliament was in recess? Can she confirm that no fewer than two thirds of the nursing posts in that unit are vacant-I accept that that means that it must close-but that one third of the posts in the unit at Watford, with which it is to merge, are also vacant, so she must draft in extra nurses? She must set out a plan for the full restoration of services at Hemel Hempstead, and must appoint permanently two consultants to replace those who have gone, subject to an inquiry which reported unsatisfactorily this week.
    Yvette Cooper: I understand that the relevant trust has made and announced a decision today to close temporarily the special care baby unit at Hemel Hempstead on safety grounds and that a further meeting is taking place this afternoon to discuss maternity services. We have always said that patient safety is paramount; trusts have a duty not to put women and babies at risk. A series of local
    690
    factors has been involved in the situation at Hemel and Watford, but there are no clinical reasons why a maternity unit of that size should not be viable.
    The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of staffing; the local trust must address concerns about staffing, not just at Hemel, but at Watford. My noble Friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath has already asked the NHS Modernisation Agency to work closely with the trust to try to improve the staffing situation. If the trust decides this afternoon to close the maternity unit temporarily, my noble Friend will ask the chair of the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire strategic health authority to convene a taskforce to restore appropriate services at Hemel as rapidly as possible.
    Ms Julia Drown: Midwife-led units have been very successful in reducing caesarean rates and increasing breastfeeding rates. Does my hon. Friend agree that a major part of every local maternity service, whether it is provided by an acute hospital or by a community hospital, should be midwife-led? Could we not obtain major public health benefits from reduced medicalisation of births-allowing interventions only when midwives and parents agree that they are appropriate?
    Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right: many midwife-led units have proved extremely popular and successful. It is important for women to have a wide range of choices, and not to feel that a birth is being over-medicalised when that is not appropriate. Those choices should include the availability of a variety of pain-relieving drugs in maternity units throughout the country.

    Delayed Hospital Discharges
    Miss Anne McIntosh: How many delayed discharges there were in (a) May 1997, (b) May 1999 and (c) January 2002; and if he will make a statement. [43720]
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: If he will make a statement on delayed discharge. [43730]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): The figures we have show that the number of delayed discharges fell by 21 per cent. between June 1997 and the start of this year. The number of people aged over 75 whose discharge from hospital was delayed in June 1997 was 5,973; in June 1999 the figure was 5,276, and in December 2001 it was 5,117. The numbers have fallen further since then.
    Miss McIntosh: Is the Secretary of State saying that the Northern and Yorkshire region is bucking the trend? The figures there have risen by 20 per cent.
    Is the Secretary of State aware of the particularly acute problem affecting elderly and mentally infirm patients who have nowhere to go? What is he going to do about

    691
    the lack of funds, especially for personal social services, and the lack of co-ordination between primary and acute health care providers and social services departments?
    Mr. Milburn: It is true that there are capacity problems in nursing and residential care homes in some parts of the country, including the hon. Lady's area. Three things need to be done.
    First, we need to invest more in social services, and that is precisely what we are doing. It is worth remembering that whereas investment in social services rose by a miserly 0.1 per cent. during the last Government's final Parliament, it has risen by an average of 3.1 per cent. in real terms under this Government.
    Secondly, in dealing with capacity problems we must not just focus on providing more residential and nursing home places, but respect what most elderly people and people with mental health problems want-which is not to be banged up in a care home, but to be cared for in their own homes. That is why we are making extra resources available.
    As the hon. Lady says, one issue is the relationship between primary care trusts and acute hospitals. As she knows-this is the third point-we have provided the necessary legislative powers to enable them to work together rather than separately.
    All those measures-measures to provide extra cash, extra capacity and reforms of the structures between health and social care-we support, and the hon. Lady and her party oppose.
    Miss Kirkbride: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), we in Worcestershire have a significant problem with delayed discharges. Along with many of my hon. Friends, I receive a steady stream of letters from distraught people who are watching their elderly parents spending the final moments of their lives in hospital, rather than being cared for in their own homes or in nursing homes where they can be surrounded by their possessions and photographs.
    As in much of the rest of the country, the problem in Worcestershire is not a lack of capacity, but finding the money to fund places in nursing homes. What is the Secretary of State going to do about that in places such as Worcestershire?
    Mr. Milburn: What we are doing, in Worcestershire and in other parts of the country, is providing extra resources. The hon. Lady should know that Worcestershire county council has received an extra £700,000 for this financial year and the next. That is already having an impact, and it is part of a £300 million package intended to deal with the problems that the hon. Lady has cited.
    It is pretty self-evident that when we put resources in they produce results. Since September last year, when we provided that £300 million, the number of so-called bed blockers-delayed discharges from hospitals-has fallen by 1,400. We need to go on investing, and to make changes as well.
    The hon. Lady cannot have her cake and eat it. She cannot say that her constituents are experiencing troubles-and I acknowledge that there are difficulties-while at the same time not committing her party, as her
    692
    Front Bench refuses to do, to extra investment in health and social services. There is a straightforward choice. If she is worried about these problems, the answer is self-evident-to get more investment into public services, particularly the NHS and social services.
    Mr. David Hinchliffe: I warmly welcome the improvements secured by the Government in addressing delayed discharges. I think that my right hon. Friend will accept that within the improved figures, there are still marked differences from area to area. I wonder whether he and his colleagues are evaluating the reasons for these marked differences, particularly the fault line between social care and health, and whether the joint budgeting arrangements, taken up in certain areas, have had any impact on delayed discharges.
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. He is well versed in these issues and in dealing with the interface between health and social services. An extra £1 million or thereabouts has been made available to Wakefield to deal with some of the problems.
    My hon. Friend is right to say that the picture is pretty patchy. Overall across the country, the number of delayed discharges from hospital is falling. However, particular parts of the country have particular problems. Frankly, the situation gets worse the further south we get. That is not to say that there are not problems in some parts of the north, but as my hon. Friend knows, labour market problems and property prices down here make the situation much worse. We will be evaluating the take-up of the pooled budget, lead commissioner arrangements, and so on. We also need to ensure that we move towards a system under which there is a much closer working relationship between the national health service and social services than there has been in the past.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: The Government's cash for change money is reducing the amount of delayed discharge in my constituency. Does the Minister agree that it is important that social services departments make the best use of their core money? Will he crack down on departments that continue to exercise their inspection role under the guise of contract monitoring, even though we are about to move to national care standard inspections? Is that not a wasteful duplication?
    Will my right hon. Friend also look at the delayed discharge of elderly mentally infirm patients—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask one question only.
    Mr. Milburn: On the first issue, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. As for elderly mentally infirm patients, to whom he was about to refer, in many parts of the country, sadly, local provision is not available in the way that it should be. That means that sometimes relatives and carers have to travel further to visit their elderly relatives in accommodation that is some distance from their home. Again, the answer is precisely the same-we must keep putting money into public services. [Interruption.] I know that Opposition Members do not like that because their commitment is not to increase investment in public services but to go for tax cuts. We cannot have one and the same agenda, with tax cuts on one side

    693
    [Interruption.] Frankly, Harrogate was one of the more unbelievable weekends in anyone's experience. Conservative Members know all about vulnerability—they created it.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Paul Burstow: Does the Secretary of State accept that delayed discharges and emergency readmissions are the symptoms of a wider crisis in the funding and staffing of social care, and that the investment that he has told us about today has resulted in 100,000 fewer people receiving care in their own home over the past five years and the loss of 50,000 long-term care beds, not the 19,000 that is claimed by his Department? This has been an unplanned and unforeseen loss of capacity in the care sector. When will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that health and social care are two sides of the same coin and that because of his actions, he has undermined those services and not invested in them enough?
    Mr. Milburn: I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman has been reading my speeches. With regard to extra investment and the number of extra beds, it is true that there has been a loss of residential and nursing home beds, but not on the scale that he suggests-not 50,000; probably closer to 11,000. On extra spending, may I say to the hon. Gentleman in all candour that he should look at the performance of individual local authorities? I had the pleasure of being in Liverpool last week to visit Alder Hey hospital. I was horrified to learn that the extra investment that is going into the national health service there is being compromised by decisions being taken by Liverpool city council-a council, as hon. Members are aware, that is controlled by the Liberal Democrats.
    The Liberal Democrats are cutting from social services in Liverpool £9 million in the current financial year and £7.5 million from 1 April for the next financial year. Why? In order to pay for a measly council tax cut. So when the Liberal Democrats say in the House that they want to see more investment in social services, they should look to their own. They should look to themselves. They are always talking about a postcode lottery in care. What we have with the Liberal Democrats is a postcode lottery in policy, where different fare is served upߞ
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Dr. Liam Fox: I hope that the Secretary of State will reflect on the phrase that he used at the beginning of his answer to the question, when he referred to elderly patients being banged up in nursing homes, which will have caused huge offence to many dedicated staff who look after elderly patients.
    The right hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the proportion of patients with delayed discharge who are kept in hospital more than a month has rocketed to 40 per cent., and that that is having a major impact on cancelled operations. What does he say to a trust which advises that
    "if there is doubt as to whether admissions can be accommodated the following day, the cancellation should occur the day before"
    and that
    "this will enable the Trust to deliver our target of NIL same day cancellations"?
    694
    Does the right hon. Gentleman approve of such a policy?
    Mr. Milburn: As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, the number of cancelled operations is falling. I know that he prepared his question prior to my answer to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), but I remind him that the number of delayed discharges is falling, not rising, because of the extra investment that is going not just into the national health service, but into social services.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: Fiddled figures.
    Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman is muttering from the Front Bench that those are fiddled figures. They come not just from the national health service, but from local authorities. I would guess that among those are many Conservative local authorities.
    Dr. Fox: The Secretary of State should read a little more carefully the answers given by his own Ministers. They show that the number of patients with delayed discharge who are in hospital for more than a month has risen. In the latest quarter the figure is up from 36 per cent. to 40 per cent. Waiting lists are going up again. Cancelled operations are at a record level. There is a bed-blocking crisis and a collapse in the care home sector, and all that despite the Government, admittedly, putting in more money. Can the Secretary of State tell us how, despite a 30 per cent. rise in expenditure, the NHS managed to treat fewer elective patients last year than the year before?
    Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the waiting list figures, but for his convenience I shall remind him of them. Under this Government waiting lists have fallen by 100,000. Under his Government, they rose by 400,000. He asks where the money has gone. Under his Government the number of nurses in training fell; the number of GP training places fell; and the number of acute beds in hospital fell. Under this Government, all those indicators are moving in the right direction-they are increasing. The number of beds is up, the number of nurses is up, the number of GPs is up, the number of patients treated is up, and the number of accident and emergency departments being modernised is up. We have the biggest new hospital building programme that the country has ever seen. What people will see is the greatest contrast between the Labour party, which believes in building up the NHS, and the Conservative party, both in government and in opposition, that believes in running it down and talking it down.

    Accident and Emergency Services (Solihull)
    Mr. John Taylor: What the consultation procedure is to inform a decision on the future of accident and emergency services at Solihull hospital; and who will make the decision. [43721]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): Solihull primary care trust is currently considering options on the future of accident and emergency services at Solihull hospital. Should major changes be required, there will be a full, open, transparent

    695
    and inclusive public consultation, and if the proposed changes are not agreed locally, the matter will be referred to Ministers for a decision.
    Mr. Taylor: In March 1997, the then Minister of Health gave a pledge about A and E services at Solihull hospital. Cannot new Labour, which said that it would do better, at least match that pledge?
    Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman will know, as I explained this to him in the Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall last week, that local people will be considering future services at Solihull hospital. He will also know that I said that we see a vibrant and healthy future for the hospital. Indeed, there have been a number of dramatic improvements in services—in renal care, ophthalmology, oncology and dermatology. The hospital is doing extremely well on its waiting lists. Local people will be involved in any consultation that takes place about the future of all these services at Solihull, including accident and emergency. Last week, the hon. Gentleman told me how much his local economy was thriving in Solihull. I am delighted about that. We will be ensuring that high-quality services are available to everyone in that community.
    Dr. Richard Taylor: Will the Minister inform the House when the independent reconfiguration panel will begin its work to resolve such issues, as the chair was appointed more than six months ago?
    Ms Blears: As the hon. Gentleman said, we are appointing members to the independent reconfiguration panel. The panel will help us with guidance and clinical advice so that we can study some of the more controversial reconfigurations that are proposed in a more consistent manner. Dr. Peter Barrett is the chair. We will be making further appointments to the independent panel in due course. We hope that it will be operating by the autumn and playing a significant role in bringing consistency to some of these decisions.

    Digital Hearing Aids
    Mr. Steve Webb: What plans he has to ensure that primary care trusts and hospital trusts have the funding necessary to expand provision of digital hearing aids. [43722]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): We are committed to extend the benefits of digital hearing aids, provided as part of a modernised service, more widely.
    We are making £20 million available to extend the provision of digital hearing aids in 2002–03. That will enable at least a further 30 sites to start fitting digital aids and at least a further 15 sites to receive the equipment and training that they need to enable them to start fitting digital hearing aids from April 2003.
    Mr. Webb: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. Is she aware that my primary care trust, South Gloucestershire, which is one of the most efficient at prescribing in the region if not the country, has a prescribing deficit of £2 million this year? Although it has put in for digital hearing aids as part of the pilot, it has
    696
    said that it is having enough trouble doing what it is doing and that the chances of improving services are very limited. Given that all hon. Members have been swamped with postcards from people who want digital hearing aids, what prospects do my constituents realistically have of getting them?
    Jacqui Smith: I understand that United Bristol Healthcare, for example, and the hospital in Bath are already able to offer digital hearing aidsߞin the case of Bristol, to children. Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman's area already has new-born hearing screening. While I understand that Bristol did not feel able to put itself forward for consideration this year, it has been invited to become one of the 15 sites to be equipped and trained in 2002–03 to enable it to start fitting aids from 2003–04. Not only are the hon. Gentleman's constituents already benefiting from the extra investment that this Government have put into developing digital hearing aids, but we will ensure, through the way in which we continue to invest and modernise, that as soon as possible they can get the full benefit of the investment that this Government are making.
    Paul Goggins: The initiative has been warmly welcomed in Trafford, which is one of the 20 first-wave areas—550 patients have so far been fitted with digital hearing aids. Given that we are now moving into a further phase—the initiative is to be rolled out to other areas—and that more than 900 people are waiting for digital hearing aids to be fitted in Trafford, will my hon. Friend confirm that after the programme is rolled out, all first-wave areas, including Trafford, will receive proper national funding in the year ahead?
    Jacqui Smith: I know that my hon. Friend has been concerned about the continuation of the very good service that his constituents are receiving in getting digital hearing aids with the modernised service on the national health service. I can assure him that we take very seriously the need to continue work at the first-wave sites. That is why the Department will be allocating £100,000 to each of the 20 first-wave sites at the beginning of April, to allow them to continue to fit digital hearing aids within the modernised context while we study in more detail the activity figures, staff costs and so forth, so that we can make accurate allocations of funds later in the year. I can assure my hon. Friend that the benefits that his constituents have received from the modernised service and the provision of digital hearing aids will continue.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister not agree that all people in this country should be treated the same? If people can benefit from digital hearing aids, they should be allowed to gain that benefit from this high-technology, sophisticated equipment, wherever they live. Does the Minister accept that the East Cheshire NHS trust, which includes the Macclesfield district general hospital, has made an application for designation to receive assistance from the Government? Will she give the matter very urgent consideration? There are people in my area who would benefit from digital hearing aids, which can provide a new quality of life.
    Jacqui Smith: I agree that it is important that we ensure that the benefits of a modernised service and the

    697
    ability to obtain digital hearing aids are spread as far and as quickly as possible. The success that the Government have already had, including, for example, the fitting of more than 25,000 digital hearing aids by the end of February 2002, shows the benefits of the investment that we have made so far. The extra £20 million that I have announced for next year will enable extra trusts to come online. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall consider very carefully the expression of interest from his constituency as we take forward investment and development in relation to this very important service.
    Caroline Flint: I am sorry about my voice, but the thought at the weekend of the Tory party being the party of the most vulnerable has made me feel very sick.
    Does my hon. Friend agree that, in delivering an expanded service in relation to digital hearing aids, high street opticians are in a good position to provide a dual service? Many such opticians, including Dollond and Aitchison, already provide free hearing services. What progress has my hon. Friend made in considering such opticians as a new and modern way of delivering both sight and hearing services?
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend has raised this issue with me on several occasions; she is a very doughty campaigner for the extension of digital hearing aid provision. I assure her that we are making progress in developing pilots to consider how we can involve private sector and high street providers, very possibly including high street opticians, to ensure that people can get treatment as quickly as possible as we develop the service. We are currently working on a private sector pilot that will operate in Shrewsbury, where a senior audiologist on the NHS site will consider GP referrals and, in cases that are considered straightforward, offer people the opportunity to have a digital hearing aid fitted on the high street or in a community centre. This is a very important initiative and we will consider the approach in detail and develop it as we take forward investment to ensure that as many people as possible can receive digital hearing aids on the NHS.
    Mr. Simon Burns: If one strips out the Minister's soundbites and spin, one is left with only a cruel con. Does she not recognise that what the Government have been doing in the past few years is rationing and delaying, and depriving people who are badly in need of the finest, latest hearing aid technology of what they require, which has not been supplied? Will she explain how this latest spin can be fulfilled? Given the deficits and overspending this year by health authorities, and the fact that under the funding settlement for next year, primary care trusts will be penalised and get reduced funding, how will they honour the pledges that she is spinning?
    Jacqui Smith: What a cheek! It is this Government and this Government's investment that have ensured that 18,351 people are now benefiting from a modernised hearing aid service and that 30 more sites will come online next year. When the hon. Gentleman was in government, he made no provision whatever for that service on the NHS. [Interruption.] Actually, it did happen towards the end of his time in office.
    698
    As we know from the speech that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) made last weekend, Conservative party policy is now clear. It is to talk down the NHS and the extra provision that is being made. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: I welcome the Minister's statement that the 20 pilot projects have been a huge success and that they are being expanded to afford further opportunities in new areas. Can I take her comments to mean that Health Ministers in the devolved regions can no longer hide behind the fact that they have been waiting for an evaluation of the pilot projects, and that she is now able to recommend that, should they so desire, they may allocate funding for digital hearing aids in the devolved regions such as Northern Ireland?
    Jacqui Smith: Allocating funding in the devolved regions is clearly a matter for the Administrations concerned. It is important that we evaluate the success of this new NHS service. That is why, with the Institute of Healthcare Research, we are carrying out an evaluation process. If Ministers in the devolved Administrations want to share in the information that we are gathering from that, I shall be more than happy to do so.

    Private Operations
    Mr. Mark Hoban: How many people have funded their operations themselves in the past year. [43723]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): We do not collect information on the number of people who have operations performed privately in the independent sector, nor on the source of funding for those operations.
    Mr. Hoban: Given that independent health care companies calculate that there has been a 30 per cent. increase in the number of people who are paying for their own operations, are the Government proud of the fact that they have created a two-tier health service in which those who can pay do so, and those who cannot pay are left on longer and longer waiting lists for out-patient appointments and operations?
    Mr. Hutton: This is all getting slightly ridiculous. The policy that the hon. Gentleman describes is the Conservative policy to encourage greater take-up of the private sector. That is not our policy. It is worth pointing out to the hon. Gentleman and to his hon. Friends, who appear to be unaware of it, that the NHS is treating more people and that waiting lists and waiting times are coming down. That is very much what we want to achieve and that is where the investment is going in order to produce the results that the hon. Gentleman and others want.
    As regards the private sector, there is a strong case, where it represents value for money, for using spare capacity in the private sector to shorten waiting times for

    699
    NHS patients and to give them a good and sensible result. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would at least be able to support that initiative.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: Does not the Minister agree that the huge rise in the number of people who are paying for their own operations highlights the dilemma of patients in having to decide whether to wait for months in pain and fear for an operation or to use their life savings to pay for it? Is not that choice creating the two-tier health service that we have today-a tier of those who wait and a tier of those who pay, neither really able to afford it?
    Mr. Hutton: I thought that when we heard from the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) we had reached rock bottom, but obviously I was wrong. This is preposterous hypocrisy by Conservative Members, who never showed any interest in or concern about such issues when they were responsible for running the affairs of the NHS. [Interruption.] They did not do better; they did substantially worse. The way to deal with the issues is not to indulge in such ludicrous, absurd posturing, but to keep the investment going in, keep the reforms on track, and, as we do so, ensure that we reduce waiting lists and times and treat more patients on the NHS. That is what we are committed to doing and that is what we are delivering.

    Edgware Hospital
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement about services at Edgware hospital. [43724]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): Edgware community hospital currently provides a range of out-patient and day care acute services, which include intermediate care services, an urgent treatment centre, maternity services, diagnostic facilities and acute mental health services. The development of the new Edgware community hospital means that they will continue to be provided in improved surroundings, together with a range of additional services for the local community such as a dedicated children's service. The contract for the new hospital is expected to be signed next month with a view to building work beginning in May.
    Mr. Dismore: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate the Department on the progress in restoring services at Edgware since the Tories closed the hospital before the 1997 election. However, the fly in the ointment is last week's decision to close the urgent treatment centre at night. It has caused great anger and resentment in the community and is universally opposed. Given that overnight services in our area are generally not up to scratch, the decision should be reconsidered.
    Mr. Hutton: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend. It is worth putting it on record that the urgent treatment centre at Edgware hospital has been much used by local people during the day. The figures have increased from about 19,000 when it opened to approximately 47,000. Clearly, the service is used. At night, the circumstances are different because the number of people who use it is much reduced. However, I understand that the local community health council will oppose the
    700
    service reconfigurations. In those circumstances, I have to reserve my comments on the scheme today. I have listened to my hon. Friend and I shall consider the proposals carefully.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Whether the urgent treatment centre at Edgware remains open at night or not, will the Minister assess the number of people who are sent there wrongly, believing that they will receive attention for a serious injury? The phrase "urgent treatment centre" causes confusion and delays in dealing with serious injuries.
    Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that matter, which local doctors and nurses have also brought to our attention. I assure him, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and others who are worried that we shall consider carefully the proposals that are likely to come before me. I shall have to make a decision on the matter and the comments of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) and others will contribute to it.

    Health Inequalities
    Fiona Mactaggart: What his priorities are for reducing health inequalities. [43725]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): There are six priorities for reducing health inequalities: early years; children and young people; primary care; heart disease and cancer; disadvantaged communities, and addressing the wider determinants of ill health.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. He will not be surprised to hear that of those priorities, I am most concerned about heart disease. Many communities such as the one that I represent have high levels of it. Slough is in the top 10 constituencies for early male deaths from heart disease, yet it is in the healthiest county in the country. I am worried that the new health authorities will take money but not action to deal with the problems.
    I am grateful for the action that has been taken so far such as statins prescribing and the new cardiology unit at Wexham Park hospital, but I want my right hon. Friend to reassure me that he will ensure that new health authorities direct resources where they are needed, especially when there are pockets of serious ill health in relatively healthy counties.
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Her constituency is not unusual in being a deprived community in a sea of greater affluence. Two things need to happen. In the short term, the health authorities and the new strategic health authorities that will come into being in the next financial year in a week or so, must ensure a reasonable distribution of resources to tackle the problems in the most deprived communities. Secondly, as my hon. Friend knows, from the next financial year, allocations will go directly to primary care trusts, thus creating a much more localised system of getting the money where it is most needed.

    701
    My hon. Friend is right to raise the question of heart disease. It kills more people than cancer and is the disease that kills most people in our country. There is some progress; deaths have fallen by 5 per cent. in the last year for which we have figures. The number of operations is increasing, and waiting times for operations are falling. My hon. Friend has rightly mentioned statins; prescribing of that treatment is up by one third. In addition, the smoking cessation services are beginning to have a real impact in her constituency and elsewhere. That shows that, despite the fact that these are intractable problems, if we adopt the right approach—the right policy—and back it with the right level of resources, we can get results. We now have to keep that moving in the right direction.
    Mr. David Tredinnick: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the worst inequalities in the health service is in the provision of complementary and integrated medicine? Will he confirm that I gave him notice of a question on the use of homeopathy in deprived areas, and is he also aware that he gives the impression that he really does not care about complementary and integrated health care? That is rather dangerous, given Labour's slide in the polls and the fact that one fifth of the population uses such health care.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Acupuncture for the vulnerable.
    Mr. Milburn: That is obviously the answer. The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) is nothing if not persistent, and consistent, on these problems. I well remember him asking my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), a question, and my right hon. Friend quite rightly referring to him as the hon. Member for Holland and Barrett. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, however. As he is aware, there is an increasing evidence base for some of the interventions that he is incessantly, persistently and consistently talking about, and it is important that general practitioners should be aware of that information so that they can make their own decisions about what is right for their patients in different parts of the country.
    Derek Twigg: The mortality rate from cancers and heart disease in my constituency is among the highest in the country; there is a shortage of GPs in Widnes; and we have been trying to get a health care resource centre for more than eight years now. Will my right hon. Friend do something about the north-west office of the NHS executive, which is shortly to be abolished, and perhaps use his good offices to get things moving? The executive has still not made a decision about what is to happen in Widnes, and it is crucial to get more GPs in to get the good facilities that we deserve. Will my right hon. Friend do something about that when he has discussions with
    702
    the new strategic health authority, because we need these services quickly and the executive has not made a decision after many years of deliberation?
    Mr. Milburn: I am aware of my hon. Friend's frustration. He has asked us to do something about the north-west regional office, and I can promise that that will happen, because it is being abolished in about a week's time. I do not know whether that is what my hon. Friend was asking for. So far as the issue of GPs in his constituency and other deprived communities is concerned, a specific initiative is under way—of which he is aware, and which I hope will be of benefit to him and his constituents—involving GPs being recruited from Spain to work in the north-west of England. In the more medium term, we also have to ensure that the incentives are right for GPs to work in the more deprived communities. We have made a start, and I personally think that we need to do more to ensure that we get the right level of primary care resources in the most disadvantaged communities.

    Smoking Cessation
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: What assessment he has made of the impact of smoking cessation publicity measures on smoking cessation. [43726]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): The evidence suggests that tobacco education campaigns, including the advertising of smoking cessation support services, play an important part in helping people to give up smoking. The Government have run a campaign on the dangers of smoking for the past two years. In the first six months of this financial year, more than 100,000 people set a quit date using the NHS smoking cessation services, and half of them were still not smoking at the four-week follow-up stage.
    Dr. Tonge: Does the Minister not agree that the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill that has been successfully piloted through the other place by my noble Friend Lord Clement-Jones is also an important factor? Does she have any idea of how many young people—women in particular—have taken up smoking while the Government have been dithering over a ban on tobacco advertising for five years? Is she not ashamed to be a member of a Government who kowtow to big business at the expense of young people's health?
    Yvette Cooper: That was a complete load of nonsense. I am pleased that the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill will have its Second Reading after Easter. Banning tobacco advertising is an important part of a programme to help people who want to give up smoking. That ban would already be in law if Opposition Members had not decided to block it at the last minute before the election by trying to introduce a sunset clause because they wanted the ban to last just two or three years. A fat lot of use that kind of ban would have been.

BILL PRESENTED
  ENTERPRISE
  Ms Secretary Hewitt, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Reid, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Mrs. Secretary Liddell, Miss Melanie Johnson and Mr. Paul Boateng, presented a Bill to establish and provide for the functions of the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Appeal Tribunal; to make provision about mergers and market structures and conduct; to establish the Competition Service; to amend the constitution and functions of the Competition Commission; to create an offence for those entering into certain anti-competitive agreements; to provide for the disqualification of directors of companies engaging in certain anti-competitive practices; to make other provision about competition law; to amend the law relating to the protection of the collective interests of consumers; to make further provision about the disclosure of information obtained under competition and consumer legislation; to amend the Insolvency Act 1986 and make other provision about insolvency; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Tuesday 9 April, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 115].

  Point of Order
  12.30 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would be grateful if you could attempt to protect the House from the rampant verbal inflation from which we have suffered this morning. We have just reached Question 10. In exercising your role as the protector of the interests of Back Benchers, could you please instruct Ministers to give crisp, precise answers and not the rambling diatribes to which we have been subjected today?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is right. The replies have taken far too long, and, in some cases, the questions were far too long. I agree that we should get further down the Order Paper.

Trespassers on Land (Liability for Damage and Eviction)
12.31 pm
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make a person liable for any damage caused to land, or property on that land, on which he is trespassing for the purpose of residing there; to amend the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 in respect of eviction from land; and for connected purposes.
As members of the public, we are constantly aware of trouble surrounding the illegal occupation of land by members of the travelling community. A steady diet of local newspaper stories occasionally break into the national press. With depressing frequency, they focus on alleged traveller misbehaviour. As Members of Parliament, too many of us are brought face to face with that reality. My experience of that reality culminated during the last general election. One particular group of travellers moved between three different sites in my constituency. At each site, they left damage, mountains of waste and intimidated local residents in their wake. Despite the robust and determined approach of the borough of Reigate and Banstead—an engaged and willing local authority prepared to act to protect the interests of its citizens—the legal framework seemed to protect the interests of misbehaving travellers rather than the settled community.
I came across this group of Irish travellers on Radstock way, which provides the outer ring of a large estate in Merstham. The road was being used as a race track by vans advertising paving and driveways. Their reckless use of the road was frightening. About 30 caravans and accompanying cars, vans and lorries had occupied a piece of land normally used for recreation by all the local residents. On it, several piles of tonnes of building waste had started to grow. Local residents would not let their children out, local people had been abused and sworn at, houses and shops had been subjected to thefts. I found the eviction notice served on the travellers by the borough council thrust into a hedge of one of the houses that I was canvassing. Unsurprisingly, I gave an undertaking to try to put the situation right.
A briefing from the borough solicitor made it clear that all that could be done to move them on was being done. However, the process was prolonged, and travellers were generally expert at prolonging it. Magistrates would take at face value claims of pregnancies and injuries detaining children in hospital, which were liable to extend the process indefinitely. Subsequently, the travellers were given a deadline by which to leave. At the deadline, I returned to the site, and they were still there. To my surprise, no police were evident. My inquiries of the travellers as to why they had not moved on produced, at first, a complicated tale about a boy in an unidentified local hospital and, finally, abuse. The following day they did move—to another common two miles away and the process began again.
Now under pressure from the borough and the then Conservative parliamentary candidate, the travellers moved up the police priority list. A pedestrian who had a stone thrown at him reported it to the police, which gave them the necessary cause to remove the travellers under section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. A police and local borough operation ensued, and,
706
at considerable expense, was able to move them on, with their vehicles being towed away if necessary. Again, mountains of waste were left behind for borough council tax payers to pay for their removal. At one site alone, the clean-up costs came to £40,000 yet no individual could be identified as being responsible for those mountains of waste.
This Bill is my first attempt to deliver on my promise to make things better for my constituents. I judged that two issues in particular had to be dealt with: the way in which the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 works in practice and the liability for damage.
I am not alone in seeking a solution to the problem. All of Surrey, not least around the time of the Derby, has grown used to the seasonal invasions of travellers. My neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), has been battling on behalf of his constituents recently, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) raised the issue on the Adjournment in Westminster Hall on 15 January 2002. The description of the appalling behaviour that my right hon. Friend's constituents suffered mirrored events in Reigate.
In replying to that date, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), made an important statement of principle with which I concur. She said that
"travellers are part of our society, and they should be accorded the same rights and dignities as others: they have equal human rights to the settled community. However, human rights also extend to the settled community, and travellers' behaviour and the expectations of that behaviour should therefore be the same for those in the travelling community and the settled community. Anyone who thinks that that is not the case is profoundly wrong. The minority status of travellers and gypsies should not allow them to indulge in crime or antisocial behaviour; nor should it excuse that behaviour. The law should be enforced equally on them."
The Under-Secretary went on to identify one of the problems. She added:
"We have noticed in the operation of the 1994 Act that there is not always sufficient co-ordination between local police and local authorities over whether section 61 or section 77 is appropriate … In the worst examples, the local authority expects the police to use section 61 and the police want the local authority to use section 77, so not a lot of progress is made."
Unfortunately, she also said that
"I am not giving a commitment that it will be the Home Office's top priority"—[0fficial Report, Westminster Hall, 15 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 67-69WH.]
In which case, no further progress will be made.
However, I am pleased to be able to give the Home Office the opportunity to address the matter. My Bill would amend the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to clamp down on the antisocial behaviour of those groups of the travelling community who cause damage. The Bill is designed to strengthen the powers of those who are at the sharp end of dealing with travellers illegally trespassing on land and who are democratically accountable to the public.
The proposals would improve existing legislation in the following ways. It would make all travellers on a site individually responsible for damage caused during their illegal occupation; it would reduce the six-car minimum that the police currently require to evict travellers; and it would clear up any confusion between sections 61 and 77 by enabling a local authority to request the chief

707
constable to take action and the chief constable shall comply with any such request. That would give locally accountable politicians more power to effect evictions, as intended by the current law, when illegal occupation has occurred. That would address our constituents' frustration and anger at much current inaction. The Bill would also provide powers of eviction from land forming part of a highway. That point was previously excluded, and the loophole had become obvious and the Under-Secretary referred to it in the debate on 15 January.
Law-abiding travellers have nothing to fear from such legislation. Indeed, their position is made much worse by the reputation they have to carry from the misbehaviour of others. If all travellers respected the settled communities who play occasional host to them, much of this problem would not exist. This change in the law is designed to promote accountability and good behaviour. It would also give the unwilling host communities some protection from antisocial behaviour and damage. This one issue has caused a greater degree of heartache and distress among my constituents than any other single cause. Hon. Members have within their gift the power to support my attempt to address this problem. I seek leave to bring in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Crispin Blunt, Mr. Peter Ainsworth, Sir Paul Beresford, Virginia I3ottomley, Chris Grayling, Mr. Philip Hammond, Mr. Nick Hawkins, Mr. Andrew MacKay, Mr. Humfrey Matins, Richard Ottaway, Mr. Ian Taylor and Mr. David Wilshire.

TRESPASSERS ON LAND (LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE AND EVICTION)
Mr. Crispin Blunt accordingly presented a Bill to make a person liable for any damage caused to land, or property on that land, on which he is trespassing for the purpose of residing there; to amend the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 in respect of eviction from land; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 10 May, and to be printed [Bill 116].

Standards and Privileges
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House approves the Sixth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (House of Commons Paper No. 624), Registration of Interests by Members who have not taken their seat, and resolves that its provisions should come into force three months after the date of this Resolution.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
12.41 pm
Sir George Young: Mr. Speaker, I can introduce the Standards and Privileges Committee's report very briefly. The House will recall that, on 18 December, we debated a Government motion to allow Members who had chosen not to take their seats to use the facilities of the House and to claim certain allowances. In answering an intervention from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) during that debate, the Leader of the House said:
"The motion will enable the four Sinn Fein Members to make an entry in the register. They are not required to do so under the rules, which provide that Members shall he obliged to make an entry only within three months of taking their seat. If that disappoints Opposition Members, I can give them the assurance that the motion will bring the four Sinn Fein Members within the scope of the remit of"
the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards,
"who will be able to apply the code of conduct."—[Official Report, 18 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 158.]
When the House reassembled after Christmas, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and other Ulster Unionist, Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat Members made representations to me to the effect that it was unacceptable for the four Sinn Fein Members to be exempted from the requirement to register their interests. I told the right hon. Gentleman that the Standards and Privileges Committee would look into the matter.
The Committee sought authoritative advice from the Clerk of the House, who explained succinctly the position of the four Members vis-à-vis the rules of the House, and made a practical suggestion for ending the anomaly that the debate of 18 December had brought to light. His memorandum is published with our report.
I should explain to the House that Members who, for whatever reason, have not taken their seat are still Members of this House. The code of conduct and the rules on registration and declaration of interests apply to all Members of this House, whether or not they have taken their seat. However, the rules are so worded that Members have three months from taking their seat to comply with the requirement to register their interests. So a Member who does not take his seat is not exempt from the requirement to register, but is, in effect, given an unlimited period within which to do so.
We propose that the rules be changed, so that Members have to register within three months of their election. For the vast majority, that will reduce by about a week the time available to complete and return the registration form. I doubt whether that will cause them any inconvenience.
I am entirely content with the proposition on the Order Paper that Members of the current Parliament who have not taken their seat should have three months' grace in which to put their affairs in order, although I understand

709
that three of the four Sinn Fein Members have already completed and returned their registration forms. Their entries will be included in the next update of the register, which is available in the Library and will be available on the internet in a few days' time. I commend my Committee's report to the House.
Mr. Eric Forth rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Leader of the House.
12.44 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): I welcome the report by the Standards and Privileges Committee, and I think that I can be at least as brief as its Chairman, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). The report itself is short, just three paragraphs; it concerns a narrow point of procedure; and, as I understand it, the House is unanimous in its wish for this change. I am well aware that the House is capable of continuing all day a debate in which we all agree, but I hope that on this occasion we can protect the Easter recess Adjournment debate.
As the Chairman has said, the origins of this debate go back to the debate in December, when it emerged, to my surprise, I must confess, and no doubt to the surprise of many hon. Members, that the obligation to register runs not from the date of election but from the date of taking the Oath or affirming. That requirement has been a provision of the register ever since it was introduced in 1974 following the election of the then Labour Government. I have found nobody who can remember why the distinction was made in the drafting, and I suspect that it was regarded at the time as a distinction without any meaning.
Today, of course, it is a very meaningful distinction in that there are four Members of the House who have been elected to this place but who have neither taken the Oath nor affirmed. As the Clerk's memorandum makes clear, the fact that they have not taken the Oath does not exempt them from the obligation to register, but it gives them an indefinite period in which to fulfil that obligation.
That is plainly unsatisfactory since Members of the House, whether or not they have taken their seat, can fulfil all the functions of a Member of the House so long as it is outside the Chamber, for instance, they can make representations to a Minister in which any private financial interest might be thought relevant. It is therefore logical that they should be brought within the registration regime that applies to those Members who have taken the Oath. Indeed, it would be possible to argue that there is an even greater case for those who have not taken their seat to declare their financial interest because they do not have the opportunity available to other Members of declaring their interest when they intervene in the House.
I started by saying that I understand that the provision has unanimous support. It has support even among the four Sinn Fein Members of Parliament, who have all accepted in principle that they should register. As the Chairman pointed out, three of them have already completed a return to register their financial interests. I therefore welcome this as a sensible, worthwhile reform. I am grateful to the Committee for having given us the opportunity to take it forward, and I commend the motion to the House.
12.47 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: I am happy to join the Leader of the House in lending my support and that of Her Majesty's official Opposition to the motion before the House. It was rather revealing when the Leader seemed to imply that when the Government forced this measure on what, as far as we were concerned, was a very reluctant House last December, the Government had not realised the implications of it. Only now are we seeking to correct at least one of the major implications, but I shall let that slip by, because I would not dream of making this a party political occasion.
We can all welcome the rapidity with which the Standards and Privileges Committee has reacted and the elegant solution that it has brought to us. I was going to seek to intervene on my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) with a question that I shall now pose to him in the hope that he might seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and wind up this very brief debate. Can we have an undertaking from the Committee that it will monitor closely the position with regard to that fourth Member, so that when the three months from today expires, it will take appropriate measures if, for any reason, full compliance has not been achieved?
It is fair to say that the Committee has at its disposal measures that it can take against any Member who is unprepared to comply with the requirements that I hope we will approve today. That being the case, will my right hon. Friend, as Chairman of the Committee, reassure us that the matter will not be lost sight of, that it will not be allowed to slip by unnoticed and that his Committee will, if necessary, consider the matter and bring to the House any recommendations that it may have?
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend understand that the measure might cover the money received by Sinn Fein for the funding of the party? All Members of political parties in this House are subject to very strict rules about the amount of money that they receive and where it comes from. I wonder whether Sinn Fein might be covered as well as the other legitimate parties of the House in matters relating to fund-raising, not least from Noraid in north America.
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend raises an interesting and, I suspect, important point. Although it is not really my province and I should want to seek advice from my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire, my initial response would be that the best test would be if someone were to make a complaint to the commissioner and that he should determine whether it was a matter for the Committee on Standards and Privileges. That would be the correct procedure and vehicle. However, as my hon. Friend raises such an important point, I am sure that it will not go unnoticed.
I am happy to lend my support and that of my party to the motion.
12.50 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: My colleagues and I fully endorse the recommendation of the Committee and the motion.
My only query relates to the fact that as the anomaly and the solution were so obvious, it is sad that it has taken several months and the precious time of a Select

711
Committee to sort it out. I hope that in future we can find some mechanism to deal with such minor problems more effectively and expeditiously.
I hope that the Chairman of the Committee will be able to refer to the point made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). If all Members were required to include in the Register of Members' Interests any financial interest of their party, they would, first, have some difficulty in obtaining the information and, secondly, the register would become extremely lengthy—not least, if I may say so, in relation to the Conservative party—
Mr. Forth: I wish that it were so.
Mr. Tyler: The right hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that cash is not going into the party coffers as it used to. That depends how far back one goes. It could be said that Members might be influenced by past donations of substantial size, going back several years
We should be clear that the Register of Members' Interests is just that—it is not a register of party interests. There is a different mechanism for registering party interests.
Mr. Robin Cook: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. The requirement that we are placing on the four Sinn Fein Members is identical to that on all of us. Although he is correct to say that it is not an obligation to declare donations that might be received at party headquarters, it puts Members under the same obligation to declare substantial constituency funding that rests on all of us.
Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for those comments. I was about to come to that point. I do not have personal knowledge of what may or may not happen in Northern Ireland, but there are circumstances in which there is careful targeting, and if that is done on a constituency basis it could influence the judgment of an individual Member.
With those few words, my colleagues and I fully endorse the recommendations.
12.53 pm
Mr. Roy Beggs: I commend the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and his colleagues on the Committee on Standards and Privileges for the report. I am sure that the whole House will want to approve it.
It is, however, a matter of regret that the Committee was forced to fill in for the Government's failings last December when they tabled the original motion on access for Sinn Fein-IRA Members. One can only conclude that the error was made in haste, as a result of the Government's desire to deal with another entry on Sinn Fein-IRA's wish list at the earliest opportunity.
I thank the right hon. and hon. Members who signed the letter drafted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire asking for the report to be produced. I also convey my gratitude to the 71 Members
712
on both sides of the House who signed early-day motion 678, tabled by my right hon. Friend, which also sought to bring about that result.
The motion will bring Sinn Fein-IRA Members of Parliament one step closer to being treated in the same way as normal Members of Parliament. I welcome that, but the fact remains that they are still far from the fully fledged article. Indeed, the journey of those four individuals will be complete only when they decide to go that final step by taking their seats in the Chamber. In the meantime, despite what the Government might like to have us believe, we are left with two classes of Members in the House. As things stand, Sinn Fein-IRA MPs and their staff are permitted almost unrestricted access to the confines of the Palace of Westminster and to parliamentary allowances without being made accountable like the rest of us.
Only yesterday, two Sinn Fein Members were in the Palace for meetings and refreshments, before flying back to Northern Ireland using House of Commons air warrants: all gain and no pain. That is the republican way. Interestingly, they had a guest with them as they drank tea in the area reserved for Members in the Terrace Cafeteria. His name was Martin Ferris. He, like Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, is a member of the IRA's ruling army council. Maybe next time, Messrs. Adams and McGuinness will invite along one or two other members of the army council for tea and an unescorted wander through the precincts of this building. Perhaps they will even book a table for seven towards the end of the year and hold an IRA army council Christmas party in the Churchill Room. They could bring Mr. Adams's Irish tricolour down from his House of Commons office and plant it on the floor beside them. They would certainly be arrogant enough to do that.
Mr. George Howarth: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has set out graphically the special privileges that are accorded to Sinn Fein Members, which set them completely apart from the rest of us. Is he aware that I continue to receive letters, as I am sure many other hon. Members do, about the grave offence that that has caused to people throughout the country? I wonder whether he is receiving continuing expressions of regret that the House has bent to Irish republicanism in this way.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are beginning to reopen an argument that was put before the House previously. This is a very narrow matter on the registration of interests. The hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) should not respond to that intervention; he should confine himself to the subject of the registration of interests.
Mr. Beggs: I will be guided by the wisdom and experience of Mr. Speaker and not be further misled. Nevertheless, I have to say that there is no credible argument to justify the fact that four Members of the House have been given access to facilities without taking their seats. If any of the rest of us had asked for such a privilege, our request would have been given short shrift, and rightly so.
The fact remains that these individuals were given their new entitlements only because of the Government's unceasing desire to pacify the republican movement.

713
The House and many others not only in this country but especially in the United States are, thankfully, beginning to catch on to the Government.
We are here today because a Committee of the House moved to stop these individuals being allowed their many privileges without at least being made to declare their interests. I sincerely hope that hon. Members will move with equal vigour to block any attempt to grant the next item that the Government are considering on the republican wish list—the odious amnesty for on-the-run terrorists.
12.58 pm
Mr. Gregory Campbell: The Standards and Privileges Committee has moved to close an anomaly that has existed for several months. I believe that everyone in the House should welcome it, and the Leader of the House said that that was the case. In fact, he went further. He said that the four Sinn Fein Members had welcomed the move, and, indeed, why would they not welcome it? The move, several months ago, to create the two-tier membership has advantaged them, and only them. Therefore, they would obviously want to take advantage of that. The hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) described the way in which advantage was taken of the House's facilities yesterday. That is what is happening, and hon. Members should be aware that, increasingly, such advantage will be taken.
The anomaly is being addressed today, but hon. Members should be aware that as the Sinn Fein-IRA machine utilises the political process while maintaining its military capability—in the past month, the IRA has murdered a person in Northern Ireland—it will increasingly take advantage of all that is on offer within the precincts of the House.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) alluded to Sinn Fein's wealth and affluence, and Members should not underestimate that. The Conservative and Labour parties would look with some envy at the resources that are available to Sinn Fein, which is the wealthiest political party in the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland. Part of the reason for that, of course, is the fact that it not only takes all the advantages that go with membership of the House and the Northern Ireland Assembly, but acquires many resources by illegal means.
Only yesterday, I noticed that Consignia was complaining and reference was made to the fact that many thousands of people may have to be made redundant. Sinn Fein and its political alliances with the Provisional IRA have acquired many millions of pounds from the Post Office in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Tom Levitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House should know that the issues described by the hon. Members for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) and for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs), who spoke previously, are nothing to do with the debates that took place in the Standards and Privileges Committee, which, as you have said, had a very narrow remit. I wish to dissociate members of the Committee—certainly from a personal point of view—from the arguments that have been made. I ask you to direct the hon. Member for East Londonderry to stick to the narrow confines of the motion.
Mr. Speaker: It is very kind of the hon. Gentleman to remind me of my job, but he is quite right. I remind the
714
hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) that we are examining a narrow issue and that he should not include other matters. The debate is about registration and nothing else.
Mr. Campbell: I accept that, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) wishes to check the veracity of the comments on the millions of pounds that Sinn Fein has acquired, he may do so, but I will, of course, accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House ought to be aware that, as Sinn Fein moves into the precincts in the coming months, it will take advantage of every facility that is on offer in the House. It will do so as a means not of moving towards the political process but of corrupting it, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be well aware of that move.
1.2 pm
David Burnside: As a new Member of the House, I visited Elizabeth Filkin soon after being elected to seek her advice on what I was required to register. This motion raises many interesting questions, and I look forward to reading the entries in the Register of Members' Interests relating to the four members of Sinn Fein, three of whom are members of the army council of the Provisional IRA—Martin McGuinness, Gerry Adams and Pat Doherty. I sought advice from Elizabeth Filkin and the new commissioner, who will, I hope, advise members of Sinn Fein.
I understand the history and background of English company law; I am chairman of David Burnside Associates—a public relations company established under English company law. It declares its returns, and anyone can visit Companies House to see its audited reports. People know the legal entity that is the company. I also register the company's clients for whom I would have to register an interest in the House. I have taken guidance on my remunerated interest, and I hope that I will adhere to the rules so long as I am a Member. I also register company directorships for which I am unremunerated.
The army council of the Provisional IRA comes from the very clear, historic legal structure of an army. If I may, with respect, I would advise the Commissioner for Standards to get hold of the Provisional IRA's rule book, which is very similar to a company's articles of association. It contains guidance, rules, regulations and instructions on the operation of the Provisional IRA, three members of which have joined the House, but will not take the Oath and will not become equal Members of Parliament with the rest of us. They should come into the House and be open to the same scrutiny as I and all other right hon. and hon. Members would be if we breached the rules and standards to which we are meant to adhere. We cannot call those Members into the Chamber because they will not take the Oath of Allegiance.
The Inland Revenue does not investigate the Provisional IRA, but I think it is fair to suggest that the new Commissioner for Standards should carry out a clear and open investigation. I hope that he will invite Mr. McGuinness, Mr. Adams and Mr. Doherty to the office across the road to get the full details of their articles

715
of association and their membership of the Provisional IRA. I also hope that the commissioner will examine its overseas fund-raising activities, including its links with the FARC, a drug-running terrorist organisation in Columbia that has international links with the Provisional IRA and the three Members whom I have mentioned.
We continue to have two classes of Members of Parliament—first class and second class. We are second-class Members because the IRA and Sinn Fein are being given rights and privileges without responsibilities. That is an insult to the traditions of the House.
1.6 pm
Mr. Simon Thomas: I want to place on record the parliamentary support of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party for the report. I congratulate the Committee's Chairman and its members on their work. They swiftly produced a report to plug an obvious gap in the membership rules of some Members of the House.
We supported the Government's motion in December and agree with the principle that Sinn Fein Members should use the facilities of the House, bearing in mind the particular circumstances that have arisen over many years and generations in Northern Ireland. We hope that we are taking steps towards the normalisation of democratic politics in Northern Ireland. We certainly support the report.
1.7 pm
Sir George Young: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the support of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber for the recommendation. Some hon. Members raised issues that go broader than the motion. I understand those strong feelings, but I hope that they will understand if I do not respond to their points.
Peter Bottomley: Perhaps it would help if the Electoral Commission picked up on those points that are more relevant to its remit than to the commissioner.
Sir George Young: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) asked about compliance, which the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) also mentioned. If all Members have not registered at the end of the period, anyone can make a complaint that will be considered in the normal way by the commissioner and my Committee. As with other reports, we would make recommendations to the House for it to decide on the appropriate action.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) touched on the circumstances in which a donation to a constituency association needs to be registered. Paragraph 22 of the code of conduct sets out the circumstances in which it is necessary to register a donation to an association—namely, when it is linked to the candidacy or the membership of the House. Otherwise, as the hon. Member for North Cornwall said, it is a matter for the Electoral Commission.
The commissioner is an independent officer of the House. If a complaint is made, he will make inquiries in the normal way, and that would be the route for the hon. Member for South Antrim to follow.
With those remarks, I commend the report to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House approves the Sixth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (House of Commons Paper No. 624), Registration of Interests by Members who have not taken their seat, and resolves that its provisions should come into force three months after the date of this Resolution.

Orders of the Day
  Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill
  Lords amendments considered
  Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill
    Clause 1

      REPEAL OF PROVISIONS OF FOOTBALL (DISORDER) ACT 2000
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in part 1, line 2, leave out "In".
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): I beg to move that this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 2.
      Mr. Ainsworth: Amendment No. 1 is a technical change consequent to amendment No. 2, which introduces a five-year sunset provision in respect of sections 14B, 21A and 21B of the Football Spectators Act 1989, which contain measures introduced in the Football (Disorder) Act 2000.
      The House will recall that the original aim was, through the Bill, to enshrine those measures on the statute book without time limit. When he introduced the Bill, the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who has responsibility for crime reduction, policing and community safety, made it clear that there was compelling evidence in favour of maintaining sections 14B, 21A and 21B on the statute book. The measures they provide are a tailored and proportionate response to the menace of English football disorder abroad. They strike a balance between national and international interests and individuals' civil liberties, and, having undergone a thorough practical legal examination in the past 19 months, they have not been found wanting.
      The House will have noted that when England played Netherlands in Amsterdam a few weeks ago, about 12,000 England fans made the trip. As those who monitor such events already know, although it was a high-risk game, not least because the Dutch have their fair share of football hooligans, there were only 12 English arrests. The behaviour of the overwhelming majority of England fans was excellent, and they are to be congratulated. The fans are clearly working hard to improve their image and reputation.
      It is important to recall that in 1993—the last time England played an away international against Netherlands—there were riots in Rotterdam and about 1,000 English fans were arrested. We have moved on since the dark days of mass football hooliganism, which culminated in the appalling scenes witnessed during Euro 2000. However, the Bill makes clear our aim of making further progress in the spirit of co-operation, and I am pleased to report that that is exactly what happened in the other place.
      Members on both sides of this House and of the other place recognise the need to avoid any hint of complacency. To lose the measures, which are due to lapse in August, would send out an entirely negative
      718
      message to our European partners and to the increasingly well-behaved majority of England fans. It would undermine the anti-hooligan strategy and weaken the power of the police and courts to act against the thugs. Furthermore, it would be regarded by some as an encouragement to resume a pattern of repeat offending overseas at a time when England prepares to embark on its Euro 2004 campaign.
      Simon Hughes: We all agree that seeing the current season and the World cup through will enable us to judge sensibly the long-term effectiveness of the measures. Will the Minister update the House on the number of orders issued and implemented, and the number of convictions that have followed? He will be aware that in the past Ministers have tried to keep us up to speed, and if he has up-to-date information it would be helpful if he passed it on to the House.
      Mr. Ainsworth: I shall try. I was present during the debates, so I know that the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the main concern expressed when my right hon. Friend the Minister of State introduced the Bill in the Commons was that there should be an opportunity to see the measures through a number of obstacles, so that we could decide how effective they were. There can be no doubt that both Houses hold the strong view that the measures need to be tested over a longer period, which is why we did not hesitate to table a five-year sunset provision in Committee in the Lords. We were delighted that the Front-Bench spokespersons for the two main Opposition parties felt able to join us in presenting an agreed amendment, the outcome of which is before the House now.
      The Bill as amended will extend the lifespan of the relevant measures for a further five years, after which they will lapse or be renewed by statute. I assure the House that the five-year period was chosen not at random, but after careful study of the international football calendar. It will ensure that powers are in place for the 2006 World cup in Germany—a point made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes)—and, importantly, for the 2008 European championship qualifying matches that will take place while the measures undergo further parliamentary scrutiny. Once the measures have been exposed to both those situations before the expiry of the five-year limit, we should be able to discuss and evaluate their effectiveness.
      1.15 pm
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey asked about the number of orders. Of the 984 current orders, 722 deal with conviction under section 14A of the Football Spectators Act 1989, and 107 deal with complaints under section 14B. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman to understand the current position. I repeat the commitment given in the other place and by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in this House to provide Parliament with regular impact reports on how the measures are working. Detailed reports will be submitted on an ad hoc basis before the question of renewal is resurrected so that we can see how the measures are being used.
      Mr. Dominic Grieve: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation. I do not know whether he can

      719
      help the House today, but in addition to the figures he gave the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), it would be useful to know whether there is any information on the number of applications that have been refused. As the Minister will appreciate, one concern is the extent of any impact on the civil liberties of people who have been taken through the process unjustifiably.
      Mr. Ainsworth: If we are to maintain cross-party coherence on the issue, we must be as open as possible and provide Front Benchers and Back Benchers with timely information. That will assist with consideration of the proposals and with whether they need to be renewed, amended or otherwise. I am therefore more than happy to try to provide the hon. Gentleman with that information. If I cannot do so today, I shall certainly do so as soon as possible.
      Simon Hughes: I wish to pursue a similar line of inquiry. Can the Minister provide us today with one final key piece of information that would help us to judge the Bill? Can he tell us how many of the 107 people subject to banning orders have relevant previous convictions for assault or anything to do with football disorder? As he knows, that issue has come up on previous occasions.
      Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman has raised those issues before. The reports that we shall try to make available must be comprehensive and must cover such issues so that everyone gets as complete a picture as possible; that is our intention.
      With those comments, I commend the Lords amendments to the House.
      Mr. Grieve: I shall not detain the House long. I welcome the Minister's comments and the Government's approach to the matter, which illustrates how Parliament can work effectively. The Government had good intentions in coming to Parliament to seek to extend the life of the measures. At the same time, the Opposition had genuine concerns about the civil liberty impact of the measures, even though we fully acknowledged the need to renew the orders. A compromise has been reached, which means that the orders will come back for consideration in five years' time; the House will be able to see whether they are working and whether they are still needed. You never know, we may reach a happy point at which, owing to the continuing decline in football hooliganism, measures of this kind are no longer required. That may be a little over-optimistic—I rather suspect that they will need to be renewed again—but at least the House will be able to retain some control over measures which, although required and well intentioned, have an impact on the civil liberties of the individual. It is clearly desirable for the House to monitor how they are working over the coming five years.
      The measures include a provision allowing a police officer to stop someone at a place of exit from the United Kingdom and detain that person for up to 24 hours before he is brought before a court, so that a complaint can be made and a banning order obtained. That is quite draconian. The complaints provision itself is an unusual hybrid, in that it is neither criminal nor entirely civil, but
      720
      imposes restrictions on individuals' liberties in the same way that an injunction does. These matters need careful consideration.
      We welcome the spirit in which the Government have worked in the other place, and their response to our representations in Committee. We are happy to support the amendment, and look forward to the enactment of a Bill that extends necessary powers.
      Simon Hughes: Like others, I propose to be brief, but the Bill is important even though its scope is limited.
      As the Minister will recall, we have returned to this subject quite often in recent years. The Government wanted the original Bill to be unlimited, but they were up against a deadline—the summer holidays and the football matches leading up to the World cup qualifying games, particularly the Germany game—and were consequently forced to make some concessions. Effectively, a compromise was agreed.
      The first Bill produced a two-year Act with a one-year renewal provision. As the Minister implied, it will expire this summer. It was given a maximum lifetime of two years because, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said and as the Government conceded, here was Parliament legislating to remove from people with no previous or relevant convictions the power to leave the country. Parliament was, potentially, preventing people from leaving in order to attend a match abroad, although eventually they might be found to have done nothing to justify that. That detention power could have made a trip to Belgium or Italy useless to people who were able to continue on their way later.
      The Liberal Democrats felt that the Government had brought back the legislation rather early—before we had had a proper chance to assess the consequences of the original Act. As it happens, however, although they brought it back in October—at the beginning of the Session—it has taken nearly six months for it to go around the course. It went to the Lords before Christmas.
      The Minister said that discussions had resulted in a further compromise on both sides. The Government had accepted that the successor legislation should also have a limited life. The first Act will have had a two-year life, and the second will have a five-year life. That is a good principle. When evidence exists but it is not certain that it will be there indefinitely, we should not legislate to keep a law on the statute book indefinitely. We should give ourselves the power to return to the matter. We can do that in one of two ways: we can have a Bill with a limited life, or we can have renewal orders. We feel that emergency powers, and particular restrictions of liberty, should always have to return to this place.
      We welcome the Government's acceptance that the legislation should have a maximum lifetime of five years, starting this summer. We in turn have agreed that rather than seeking an annual or two-yearly renewal order, we will let it run for that period.
      On the principle, we are still unhappy and uncomfortable about the idea that people with British passports should be precluded from travelling on the basis of a complaint and no relevant previous conviction. That is still the law and it will continue to be the law. We do not sign up to that proposition, but we are effectively signing up to a trial period to see what happens in the courts, what banning orders are made and what effect

      721
      there is on football disorder. That is the limit of our agreement to the proposition. We do that for the common interest that this country should teach people who go to football matches and call themselves football supporters but do very little to support the game that such behaviour is unacceptable to the country and its reputation and to the rest of the people who play, manage and support football, whose name and reputation such behaviour tarnishes.
      I have no problem in declaring my allegiance to Millwall football club, whom I support regularly. The club went through a period when it had bad supporters. There are now mercifully very few of them and the club has worked very hard to make sure that the bad practice of the past—the abuse and racism—has gone.
      We all want football that we can be proud of, whether we win or lose, in terms of the behaviour on and off the field. We have a potentially excellent English team for the World cup and an exciting Irish team, for those who have Irish allegiance. We want them to do well. They are going to two parts of the world which have no reputation for football disorder and where the behaviour of fans is extremely good. The last thing that we want in Japan or South Korea is bad behaviour in the name of supporting the English team.
      There is one other comment that seems appropriate. It will allow us to avoid having the second debate, although the Minister may be kind enough to come back with the figures for which we asked. There is clearly a link in the public mind between the behaviour of footballers on and off the pitch and that of their so-called supporters in the ground or going to or from the ground. I have always believed it right for the management of a club and of a national team to take the view that if footballers publicly misbehave and are found by the court to have misbehaved, they are punished professionally because of their role model status.
      I do not know Mr. Jonathan Woodgate—I have never met him. He was taken to court and convicted. People might say that he has served his punishment. He has served his punishment to society, but as well as being a citizen he is a professional footballer—a very good footballer. We must stand behind the decision of the manager of the England football team that because of that bad, disgraceful and unacceptable behaviour, Jonathan Woodgate is not entitled to be part of the squad going to play in the World cup. Good behaviour by footballers on the pitch and in their civil life off the pitch is far more likely to lead to good behaviour on the streets by those who go to football matches.
      It is not coincidental that the great debate about law and order, crime and juvenile crime is hugely influenced by the role models that young people have. They could be seen on television or video; it could be someone like the person convicted yesterday who is a musician in a band, or it could be footballers. Unless the role models behave, people will always be subject to banning orders. Impressionable teenagers will often follow the example of people whom they regard as heroes. Sadly, the people who misbehave are often no longer teenagers; they are in their 20s, 30s and 40s and are simply thugs. They certainly need to be dealt with, and dealt with firmly.
      This is an experiment that has apparently been working relatively well, but we hope that in five years' time it will not be necessary to have these orders in place because the
      722
      culture in England will have changed. On that basis, we happily sign up to the compromise agreement that gives the Bill a limited life of five years. We hope that in five years' time the Government of the day will not feel it necessary to suggest that we need a replacement Bill to succeed this one.
      1.30 pm
      Paul Flynn: I apologise for missing some of the Front-Bench speeches. I shall make a brief contribution.
      Because there was a measurable improvement in the behaviour of English fans after the 2000 Act, the temptation is to believe that the improvement was due to the Act. It is understandable that the Government should claim that, but let us consider the origins of the Act and the reasons for its introduction. It arose from three football matches. There might well be an alternative interpretation of the extraordinary differences in the reaction of English football fans after two of those matches, compared with the other one.
      At two of those matches—one in Belgium and the other in France—there was an expectation of violence. The police turned up in riot gear, the fans were allowed to drink double-strength beer, which they did in prodigious quantities, and inevitably there was a riot. At the other game, the police arrived in leisure wear; they played pop music to the fans so loud that the fans could not even hear their own chants, and they allowed them to indulge in a drug whose effect is very different from that of alcohol.
      Alcohol inspires football fans to give each other a good kicking. The drug used in Holland makes them want to give each other a big hug. The result was that in the Dutch game, according to the police, the fans reacted to England's defeat—we should remember that these are the same fans who rioted in the other countries—with mild disappointment and polite applause. That is rather remarkable, given that a few days earlier they had reacted violently.
      Although one respects the claims that the legislation is effective, it has many drawbacks. In future we might be able to copy the example of the Dutch police with pop music and their informal and friendly approach to the fans. We hope that in the more enlightened future the fans will be able to use a drug that does not make them violent, but has a calming effect.
      Simon Hughes rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Has the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) completed his remarks?
      Paul Flynn: If the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) wishes to intervene, I shall manage a few extra sentences.
      Simon Hughes: I am grateful. Can we interpret the hon. Gentleman's remarks as an invitation for football to be played in the part of south London where he lives when he is staying in London during the week, before he goes back to Newport for the weekend?
      Paul Flynn: I have rejoiced in the reduction in the menace on the streets of south London. The hon.

      723
      Gentleman is my Member of Parliament and represents me in that part of London. I believe that we will see concrete evidence of the effect of the wise decisions of Commander Brian Paddick in south London, and that we can build on his pioneering reforms. That would be a splendid place to play all future international games.
      Mr. Bob Ainsworth: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) on his ingenuity in using the debate to raise once again in the House matters that are dear to his heart. No doubt he is correct about the impact of alcohol, and policing methods are central to the issue, but we are aware that sadly, in addition to the associated problems that must be planned for and dealt with, there is a core of people who have been following our national game for no other purpose than to indulge in violence. They are not football fans. They use the game to provide themselves with such opportunities. Through intelligence they can be identified and, to a large extent, prevented from travelling. To date the legislation has shown that that is effective.
      Of course, other issues and wider problems of disorder have to be dealt with too. I do not claim that the measures have been solely responsible for diminishing the problems, but they have had an impact on the more serious elements, who travel for the purposes that I described.
      I thank the spokesmen for the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, the hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), for their comments and for the support that they have given the measures. It would be good to think that at the end of five years we might not need these measures—at least we can travel in hope—and that we will be able to walk away and say that that was a job well done. Personally, I doubt that that will be so.
      The hon. Member for Beaconsfield also said, as did the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, that we will have an opportunity to study the effectiveness of the measures over a period of time in potentially difficult circumstances. We will be able to reflect on that and study exactly how the measures have been used. When we are impinging on people's liberties and their ability to travel, it is only right that the House should be satisfied that the measures are effective and proportionate. The Bill will give us an opportunity to do so and to undertake that evaluation over a required period of time. I am grateful for the support that the measures have received.
      Lords amendment agreed to
      Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to

    Adjournment (Easter)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
    1.37 pm
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: This Easter, an innocent man—innocent of the monstrous crime that he has been found guilty of committing—languishes in Barlinnie prison in Glasgow. His name is Abdel Basset Al Megrahi. Before Parliament rises, the House ought to get an undertaking that the British Government—yes, the British Government—and not a highly controversial, devolved Crown Office in Edinburgh, will address certain questions.
    Our country's relations with the Arab world have not been devolved to a Scottish Parliament, where, perhaps for understandable reasons, not one of the 129 Members has been prepared to take a sustained, in-depth view of the Lockerbie case.
    Now that the appeal is over, what steps are being taken to preserve the productions amassed by the Crown for use in the Lockerbie trial? Can an assurance be given that they will not be destroyed in the same way as certain police note books have apparently been destroyed?
    In particular, the British Government have a duty to look at the statement of my former constituent—she is at present a constituent of the Leader of the House—former Woman Police Constable Mary Boylan, a thoroughly credible retired police constable. She states:
    "Towards the latter part of 1999, I was asked to attend at Dumfries Police Station, to give a statement to the Procurator Fiscal regarding my duties at Lockerbie. Almost eleven years had elapsed since the disaster, so I phoned 'F' Divisional HQ at Livingston Police Station to request my notebook to refresh my memory. I was told that someone would be in touch with me, and after a few days I was informed that my notebook could not be found. Shortly after this I read in a Scottish broadsheet that Lothian and Borders Police notebooks had been destroyed."
    Who gave the instruction for the destruction of notebooks? After all, this was the biggest unresolved murder trial in Scottish legal history. The answer to that question is likely to be found not in Edinburgh, but in London.
    I have known and worked closely with the following distinguished police officers as heads of F Division covering West Lothian: David Garbutt, Tom Wood, David Mitchell, Kenneth Mackenzie, Gordon Munro and Allan Shanks. I have also worked with the chief constables of Lothian and Borders police: Sir William Sutherland QPM between 1983 and 1996, and Sir Roy Cameron QPM between 1996 and 2002. I simply do not believe that any one of them, off their own bat, would have allowed, for reasons of routine and storage space, the destruction of notebooks relating to the biggest murder trial in Scottish history.
    Mary Boylan, the ex-police constable, states:
    "A short time later, while searching in field F72"—
    this happened on 28 December 1988—
    "I recovered the handle and rim of a brown coloured suitcase (Production Label No. unknown to me). This was entered in my notebook. PC Forrest corroborated the find and signed my notebook and production label."

    725
    Her statement continues:
    "Towards the latter part of 1999 … On attendance at Dumfries Police Station I was asked to describe some of the debris from memory. I was then shown the suitcase rim with handle I had found and was asked to identify it, which I did. The Production Label with my signature and that of PC Forrest, and of others whom I did not know, was still attached. A photograph was then shown to me of the said suitcase rim I had found, plus other pieces of the suitcase material. I recognised the rim but not the material. I asked the Fiscal about the significance of the suitcase and he said he could not tell me. What he did say was that the owner of said suitcase was a Joseph Patrick Curry and that I would be hearing and reading a lot about him at the time of the trial."
    Mary Boylan continues:
    "After giving my statement I left Dumfries and drove to Lockerbie's Garden of Remembrance to pay my respects. I noticed a brass plaque there with the inscription 'Joseph Patrick Curry, Captain US Army Special Forces. Killed in the line of duty'."
    He is also remembered at the Arlington cemetery and, I believe, in the Pentagon.
    In 1989, Police Constable Boylan was informed by a colleague that the suitcase belonging to Curry was that which contained the bomb that blew up Pan Am 103. That is what she says. I want to know who will verify the statement and show whether it is true or false. If the bomb was in Curry's suitcase, Mr. Megrahi is hardly likely to be guilty. There is a whole literature on this subject—one almost needs to be a professor of Lockerbie studies—and it would be inappropriate and selfish to take up more of the House's time to go into the matter, but these questions must be addressed.
    It has been said that eight Scottish judges cannot possibly be wrong. I draw to the House's attention the conclusion of the Appeal Court's ruling, which some of us have read very carefully. At paragraph 369, Lord Cullen and his colleagues state:
    "When opening the case for the appellant before this court Mr Taylor stated that the appeal was not about sufficiency of evidence: he accepted that there was a sufficiency of evidence"—
    "he" being William Taylor QC. The paragraph continues:
    "He also stated that he was not seeking to found on section 106(3)(b) of the 1995 Act. His position was that the trial court had misdirected itself in various respects. Accordingly in this appeal we"—
    Lord Cullen and his colleagues—
    "have not required to consider whether the evidence before the trial court, apart from the evidence which it rejected, was sufficient as a matter of law to entitle it to convict the appellant on the basis set out in its judgment. We have not had to consider whether the verdict of guilty was one which no reasonable trial court, properly directing itself, could have returned in the light of that evidence. As can be seen from this Opinion, the grounds of appeal before us have been concerned, for the most part, with complaints about the treatment by the trial court of the material which was before it and the submissions which were made to it by the defence."
    That is an extremely careful statement, as one would expect of Lord Cullen and his colleague judges. It does not go into the detail of the matters that were before the trial court at Zeist.
    These are complex matters, and it would be wrong and absurd of me to ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to respond off the top of his head. All I ask is that these extremely serious matters be taken on board by the Government in London, not just passed over to the Crown Office in Edinburgh. I ask for careful reflection on what I have said and proposed, and for a response in the fullness of time.
    1.47 pm
    Mr. Paul Tyler: I apologise in advance to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Previously, at the end of Adjournment debates prior to a recess, I have been called before Members on the other two Front Benches to respond on behalf of my colleagues to hon. Members' contributions. I have enjoyed doing so and felt that it was a valuable contribution to the general debate. However, I was informed this morning that that would not be possible today. I do not know the explanation for that change of attitude, so I have to speak when I am called—which is now.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): The hon. Gentleman is getting very close to questioning the order in which the Chair calls Members to speak. I think that he should get on with the points that he wants to make.
    Mr. Tyler: That is precisely my intention. Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    The situation does, however, give me an opportunity to ride a couple of important hobbyhorses of my own. Since my re-election to the House in 1992, I have been chairman of an all-party group concerned with organophosphate pesticides. Several hon. Members have been generous with their time and expertise in supporting the work that we have done, in co-operation with successive Ministers, to try to ensure that such pesticides are properly assessed, that appropriate warnings are given to the people who use them, and that anything remiss in the way those people have been treated in the past is rectified with proper examination, proper research and, if possible, some redress for those who have been so badly affected by their use.
    In that capacity, the all-party group had a meeting yesterday with the Minister for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), who has been meticulous—both in opposition and in government—in the care with which he has dealt with this issue, and generous with his time. I give him and his colleagues credit for the work that has been done to expand the research field, and to ensure that increased emphasis is put on the preventive principle. I should also like to give credit to the former Agriculture Minister, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), as she is in the House at the moment. She, too, played a proactive role on this issue, and I know that she has a constituency interest in it which will have informed her attitude.
    The reason I mention this is that, unbeknown to us yesterday—and, I suspect, to the Minister—the Food Standards Agency was to issue an extraordinary piece of advice today. It seems to have been forced to disclose its change of attitude by an item on the news this morning from Friends of the Earth. This matter calls into question the expertise available to the Government, and the extent to which the Government's advisers are influenced by the commercial considerations of some of the largest chemical companies in the world.
    In a statement that seems to have been forced out of it today, rather than voluntarily given to the media, the Food Standards Agency has
    "concluded that washing fruit and vegetables is not required as a protection against pesticide residues."

    727
    The agency was, apparently,
    "worried that some consumers were being put off eating fruit and vegetables"
    by the previous advice that they had been given; and it has therefore decided that it is perfectly easy, proper and safe not to wash or peel vegetables.
    The extraordinary thing about this is that it became increasingly apparent from our discussions with the Minister yesterday—and, indeed, over many months—that the body of research evidence is far from conclusive on these issues. There is nothing in the agency's statement today to illustrate any change in the research basis for its advice. It would appear that the advice has been changed only because pressure has been brought to bear by commercial interests, not because of any change in the research base.
    At our meeting yesterday, the Minister acknowledged that there was a body of scientific and medical opinion which continued to raise real concerns about the use of these pesticides, and in particular about children's exposure to them.
    As recently as 15 February, in a letter sent to interested parties, the Food Standards Agency said of the action it was taking on the risk assessment of the pesticides:
    "This followed concerns of a 'cocktail effect', particularly when potentially contaminated foods were to be consumed by children. Furthermore the impact of multiple residues of pesticides with similar toxic actions had been considered in the USA, under the Food Quality Protection Act."
    The letter—written on 15 February, just over a month ago—went on to set out in detail further anxieties on the matter, making reference to a whole number of research projects that are in hand, and to the way in which the results of that research programme could be assessed internationally.
    The decision to issue the revised advice today is extraordinary, because it does not appear to take account of any of the research already seen to be extremely relevant to the issue, and which, in many cases, is not due for completion for months, or even years. Furthermore, other research projects now coming to fruition raise new concerns about the issue. The precautionary principle that scientists increasingly accept is a good start, and represents a good basis for their advice to Ministers. I understand from my discussions with Ministers that it is one that they accept as the proper starting position for any responsible Administration. It is, however, effectively being discarded as a result of this new advice.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: The hon. Gentleman will know that I share many of the concerns that he is expressing today. As a former Minister who was obliged to advise the public about the preparation of vegetables, I have two points to make.
    First, on the grounds of food hygiene—I say this as a former home economist—washing fruit and vegetables is a requirement anyway. Secondly, in the case of carrots, the evidence is clear that the top of the carrot—if it is sprayed with a substance that has an organophosphate base—absorbs far more than the rest of the carrot. Therefore, topping and tailing the carrots is sound,
    728
    practical advice. I am astonished that there is no scientific verification or endorsement for the advice that is now being given to the public.
    Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. There were great hopes on both sides of the House that the Food Standards Agency would provide independent advice to Ministers that was clear of all commercial considerations. However, I think that she will agree that serious questions have been raised about the practicality of the advice given by the Food Standards Agency and the basis on which it is supporting that advice. Real concern is shared on both sides of the House that, after many food scares, we must be absolutely confident that Ministers have access to the best possible advice.
    As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton is a former Minister, she will agree that it is extraordinary that, at a meeting yesterday, Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—food is in its title, for goodness' sake—were apparently totally unaware of the U-turn by official advisers. I accept that the agency also has a relationship with the Department of Health, but if we have joined-up Government, surely Ministers with responsibilities for the environment and food should have been aware that a Government agency was about to change its mind.
    This development has occurred at the very time when there are even more concerns about the way in which organophosphates have affected different people. Last week, I spent some time with the Gulf war veterans group, which is organised by the Royal British Legion and of which I am a corresponding member, in common with other Members of Parliament. There is increasing evidence that at least one of the possible triggers of so-called Gulf war syndrome is extensive exposure, as we subsequently discovered, to organophosphate pesticides. Work that has been undertaken in the United States points to that, too. I am seeking to pursue that matter with appropriate Ministers.
    A few weeks ago, a preliminary report from yet another research group was published in The Lancet. It indicated that there may be a genetic propensity to the serious ill health that is associated with organophosphates.
    Ministers and their advisers should not have been relaxing their guard; they should have been doing precisely the opposite. If the preventive principle means anything, this is a classic case where it should be applied. In layman's terms, that principle is, "If in doubt, don't." That is certainly not the current approach.
    I had not intended to speak on this issue at all this morning. It was only because of the sudden appearance of the statement from the Food Standards Agency that I have done so. I had different speaking notes in my back pocket, and I now want to refer briefly to the issue of value added tax on church repairs and conservation work.
    Hon. Members of all parties have shared anxiety about this issue over the years, not just because of the organisations concerned but because of this country's great historical heritage of churches, chapels and other places of worship. It was a nonsense and an anomaly that when VAT was first imposed by the previous Government, they insisted that repairs to buildings of all sorts—and particularly to those buildings—should be subject to that extra surcharge. In a way, that was against the spirit of an age in which we seek to conserve buildings

    729
    of historic and architectural value. The measure did the reverse: it encouraged people to pull those buildings down and build new ones, which was nonsensical.
    I recall that the then Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), made a spirited but totally absurd defence of the imposition of VAT on church repairs and conservation work. Thank goodness that the general view in the House in more recent years has been that that is an anomaly and that it should be corrected. The current Chancellor decided, 18 months ago, that action should be taken. Hon. Members will recall that the Chancellor indicated that he would seek to reduce VAT to the minimum level. Of course, that is impossible in the short term. As a result a few months later—in 2001—he introduced what was referred to subsequently as the listed places of worship grant scheme.
    The last thing that I want to do is express to the Minister—he will be communicating with the Treasury—any regrets that the Chancellor introduced the scheme. However, we all recognise that it was a second best and that it is immensely cumbersome. It causes a great deal of administrative inconvenience. It would have been much better if VAT had not been imposed in the first place, and we know that we cannot remove it in the short term because of the agreement that previous Governments struck with the European Union Commission and our EU partners. Nevertheless the scheme is burdensome and creates administrative problems for those responsible for churches and chapels.
    I appeal to the Minister to make urgent representations to the Chancellor so that all concerned—not just Members of the House—receive a careful explanation of how the scheme operates now and how it can be simplified to improve its efficacy. It is extremely inconvenient and it is not easy to work through. I shall not describe all the details for reasons of time, but it is significant that it was left to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), who answers for the Church Commissioners, to try to explain how the system works. Surely, at the very least, the Treasury and the Chancellor should explain how it operates. The scheme does not apply just to the Church of England, so it was anomalous that the Second Church Estates Commissioner, who happens to be a Member of the House, should try to explain what happened in the past, how the scheme operates at the moment and how those responsible for churches and chapels can access it.
    Richard Younger-Ross: Would my hon. Friend be surprised to learn that a question on this issue that I tabled to the Chancellor was not answered by his Department, but was referred to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport? I am still awaiting a reply.
    Mr. Tyler: That does not surprise me in the least. My hon. Friend touches on a subject that I would like to discuss again, but we had a debate in Westminster Hall last week on the way in which Ministers tend to juggle questions for their own convenience rather than the convenience of the House.
    To give an idea of the scale of the problem, the hon. Gentleman answering for the Church Commissioners said that the
    "total cost of repair work in the Church of England amounts to £120 million"—
    730
    I take that to be an annual figure, but it seems incredible—and that
    "the VAT on listed building work is about £10 million."—[Official Report, 21 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 614.]
    Those are quite large sums, and other denominations face a similar problem.
    I appeal to the Minister to ask appropriate colleagues, by whatever means may be most convenient and speedy, to give us all guidance on how the schemes operates, to try to find a simpler way for those applying for grant support to obtain it, and to give us a clear undertaking about what will happen next. This is an interim scheme for the transitional period until it is possible to review the whole VAT scheme, and that cannot be before 2003–04, or perhaps even later. In those circumstances, those directly involved with the repair and conservation of historic churches and other buildings and those who represent them in the House feel that this is an important issue.
    I have campaigned on this issue for years and, last year, when I tried to impress upon the Chancellor the urgency of the matter, I received more letters on this subject than on any other, including even cruelty to children or cruelty to foxes. I hope that that fact alone will persuade the Minister that the issue is of some importance. I suspect that he, too, has received a similar volume of correspondence.
    2.4 pm
    Mr. Alan Hurst: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise some thoughts on local government before the House rises for Easter. Like many hon. Members, I served on borough and county councils before I was elected to this place. I first became involved in electoral politics 40 years ago when, I am pleased to say, I was still too young to vote. Several fundamental changes have taken place since then.
    The fall in turnout at local elections exercises the minds of people both nationally and locally. When I first campaigned in the early 1960s in Southend-on-Sea, turnout was normally 50 per cent. It was poor if it was 40 per cent., and it often reached 60 per cent. However, over the years, turnout has gone down and down. Last Thursday, there was an election in my division of Braintree Central—I cannot resist adding that there has been a 4 per cent. swing to Labour since the general election—but the crucial point for my argument is that the turnout was only 21 per cent., which would have been unbelievable 30 or 40 years ago.
    The only year that I can think of when the general trend was not followed was 1990, after the poll tax legislation. Some people thought that it was marvellous legislation, but others took a different view. Consequently, the local elections in 1990, in effect, performed the function of a referendum on the merits of the poll tax. In some ways, that was unfair because local authorities had no power to decide whether to have the poll tax, but electors saw a clear and divisive issue on which they could make a judgment, and responded accordingly.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman is correct. Although he might be right to suggest that the elections in 1990 were a referendum on the poll tax, another possible interpretation is that people took more interest in what local authorities were doing

    731
    because they had to pay for their services. One problem with the council tax is that it has reduced the number of people who actually pay for the services.
    Mr. Hurst: I do not entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, but the purpose of my remarks is to stimulate thought on why local government prowess has declined over such a long period.
    I was first elected to the borough council in Southend-on-Sea in 1980 and I served on the airport committee and the bus or transportation committee. The borough owned an airport and ran its own bus services. I could speak to those who had served on those committees before me, and I could see the minute book for the Shoeburyness urban district council's gas works committee. Shoeburyness owned its own gas works, and I could also speak to those who served on Braintree rural district council, which owned its own water works.
    By the late 1970s, a whole range of municipal enterprises, including electricity supplies, were in their final phases and had passed the more glorious stages of their development. However, if there was something wrong with our water supply, we could speak to Councillor Jones or Councillor Smith. If the gas service was defective, we would see Mrs. Brown, the local councillor on the relevant committee. There was an immediate connection between the voters and the supply of public services. Those we elected sat on the committees that could make changes.
    These days, the problems are at their worst with bus services. When I served on the bus committee, I would be asked, "Why does the bus not stop at the top of Acacia drive?" Now, I can make representations to the local private bus undertaking in a town distant from the one that I represent, and it will provide me with many arguments. The main one is that it is uneconomic to provide such a service. I am sure, however, that the private undertaking thinks, "If we withdraw a service, the Government will come along with a subsidy to reinstate it." Because we have moved away from democratic local control, there is not the pressure on those providing services to respond to the wishes of the people in the localities that they serve.
    There has also been a decline in the number of councils employing their own labour force. I entered municipal politics when that was a hot issue. Indeed, the borough of Southend had the great claim to fame that it privatised refuse collection in 1980. However, it is significant that it did not privatise anything else after that. The then Conservative leader of the council, Norman Clarke—he is still with us, but not as a member of the council—told me that privatisation might have been right in that case, but the ultimate advantage of a council having a direct labour work force is that they are accountable to the council. With contracts, councils have no day-to-day supervisory role and can judge only whether to renew them. By its very nature, that process could well diminish local councils' effectiveness and responsiveness.
    Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Southend borough council, but will he consider unitary authorities, of which Southend is now one? Does he think that such authorities constitute a way to reconnect
    732
    local people with councils and councillors, and will he comment on the fact that the council tax levied by Conservative-controlled Southend council for a band D property is just over £700, whereas Labour-controlled Castle Point council charges well in excess of £1,000 for the same category of property?
    Mr. Hurst: It would be discourteous to other hon. Members to debate unitary authorities as such. I strongly opposed them when I served on Southend borough council and the county council. My purpose is not to argue that one form of council is better than another, but that we should consider the crucial reason why the influence of councils has declined. We have sought to change councils many times in the past 25 years, but without making a fundamental difference to the electorate's participation in local government.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: One other attitude is important. Has my hon. Friend noticed a change in reporting of what happens in council chambers since he and I served in local government? Virtually no reference is now made in my local papers to the work of the council; indeed, only pejorative references are made. Is it not clear that, if people do not know what councils are doing—other than through receiving political propaganda—they may fail to make any connection with their elected representatives?
    Mr. Hurst: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I recollect when local papers would report almost word for word what councillors said. To read such verbatim accounts, electors must have had a high boredom threshold. Nevertheless, such accounts enabled people to ascertain what took place in local authorities, unlike the "crash" headlines that tell readers very little.
    The rise of compulsory competitive tendering, which was introduced apace in the 1980s, followed fast on the decline of municipal enterprise and direct labour forces and sounded their death knell. There may or may not be an argument in favour of compulsory competitive tendering, but we should remember that, when a local authority bid for a contract, the overheads included the cost of the mayor's car, and a proportion of the costs associated with the town clerk, the running of municipal elections and almost every other element. There was never an argument in favour of that. Of course, the private contractor did not have to account for such factors in making his tender bid. I do not know whether such nonsense still applies, but the process was blatantly unfair to local authorities.
    With the rise of so-called best value, I thought that the worst days of compulsory competitive tendering were over. However, some local councillors have forcefully drawn to my attention a procedure known as competitive procurement, which I thought had been abolished by the Street Offences Act 1959. Apparently, competitive procurement sets, and urges the adoption of, standards and values that make it increasingly difficult for councils to qualify as offering best value, unless they put most of their services out to tender.
    Mr. Andrew Rosindell: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the problem with local government is not the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering and the extensive use of private contractors, but

    733
    the absolute failure of local government itself to monitor and assess what tendering companies are doing? Does he agree that the logical conclusion is to opt for compulsory private tendering, thereby allowing local government to focus on ensuring that the job is done efficiently, cheaply and properly? That way, people will, I hope, regain confidence in local government, and in the ability of councillors to do the job that we elect them to do.
    Mr. Hurst: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to follow that course, it would be better to elect a clerk of works, rather than a councillor. A councillor's function is much broader than the monitoring of contracts, which is a job for professionals.
    The decimation of local government continues apace, and extends to local authority housing. Many hon. Members doubtless represent towns with council estates that are an amazing credit to the councillors—some Labour, some Conservative, and perhaps even some Liberal Democrat—who oversaw their creation. We should consider the building style of the 1940s and 1950s, the spaciousness and sturdiness of the houses, the incorporation of village greens and greensward, and the concept that communities were created to be lived in as communities. One can still see such elements in council developments in small towns and villages throughout the land. In the 1960s and 1970s, decline set in as more and more was compressed into an ever smaller area—culminating, of course, in the ultimate folly of the tower block. We lost the concept of the community, and that loss has greatly harmed local government.
    The end of council housing was probably foreshadowed by the right to buy. The right-to-buy legislation of the 1980s was entirely different from that pioneered by Sir Edward Heath, who wanted to put money from the sale of council houses towards building. We eventually reached the stage where there was no purpose beyond their being sold. As a result, local authorities' function was essentially reduced to that of a landlord's managing agent, managing properties and housing people as best they could in diminishing housing stock. Ultimately, the transfer of the entire housing stock to other bodies leaves local authorities with no function whatsoever in respect of housing its citizens, save making recommendations for housing lists that others will run.
    The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) asked whether a unitary authority would deal with such matters better than a district or county council. The question of whether a mayoral or presidential local authority is preferable to the prime ministerial or cabinet form has been discussed. Some of those forms may have their attractions, but such discussions miss the central point that local government—be it Mayor Livingstone or a committee of a small district council—has lost responsibilities and the power to effect change.
    Richard Younger-Ross: I fear that the situation is even worse than the hon. Gentleman suggests. There is a crisis not just with people voting in local elections, but with finding councillors to stand in some areas. In some parish and town councils in rural Devon, nearly half the councillors are unelected because not enough people contest the elections. Is there not a danger that, unless we can reinvigorate councils and, as he says, give power back to them, we will be fighting a losing battle?
    734
    Legislation is being enacted that will impose on councillors a duty to disclose their interests and land far more onerous than that imposed on Members of this House. As a result, many councillors in my area are considering resigning. Will that not undermine local democracy?
    Mr. Hurst: I agree that it will hardly help. As I have said, if one makes the job of councillors difficult, unattractive and lacking in power and responsibility, people will not be encouraged to come forward. All hon. Members, particularly those who represent rural districts, will have met the old timer—perhaps an agricultural labourer—who served as county councillor, district councillor, magistrate, lay preacher and union official, brought up a family, did not own a car and used to pedal from village to village. They may be mythical figures, but each of us has met people like that who had a commitment to their community and made a difference to it.
    Ms Julia Drown: Are not new regulations for parish councillors less stringent than the existing guidance, so although parish councillors might not be aware of that guidance, the regulations could be seen as an improvement? They provide a realistic and practical way forward for parish councillors.
    Mr. Hurst: I do not feel as strongly about that as I do about some of the other matters that I have mentioned today. When we talk about modifying this or that regulation, there is a danger that we will dance around the issue rather than looking at it. Today, I noticed on the calendar in my office a quotation from Mr. Attlee, if one is permitted to mention Mr. Attlee these days, in which he observed:
    "Democracy means government by discussion, but it is only effective if you can stop people talking."
    It seems to me that we do an awful lot of talking, and all of us, councillors and Members, have e-mails, computers and every other mechanical device to transmit information, knowledge and correspondence, but the danger is that we do less because there is less for us to do—we are permitted to do less.
    I fear that if responsibility for education and social services is removed from local authorities, there will be very little left for them to do. The ultimate absurdity that I have come across in my county council of Essex—it may be taking place elsewhere—is that it proposes to undertake appraisals of councillors. I am sure that that is a best value method straight out of New York city, but it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy. The only appraisal of councillors that matters is the appraisal at the ballot box.
    2.22 pm
    Mrs. Angela Browning: I should declare an interest in that I have a contract with Vodafone for provision of a personal mobile phone, because I want to talk about mobile phone masts and the concerns that they cause in my constituency.
    I shall come on to a particular case, but I am aware that people in many locations throughout the country are becoming so concerned about this rather grey area and the lack of scientific evidence to persuade them that masts are safe that some are even moving house to avoid living in

    735
    close proximity to one. I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office is nodding. He has been extraordinarily helpful to me in earlier Adjournment debates, and I hope that he will be helpful again today. I wrote to the relevant Under-Secretary at the Department of Health on 14 February on behalf of my constituent, Mrs. Anne Cann of Crediton. Mrs. Cann has a six-year-old daughter who has been diagnosed with leukaemia, and the Canns live within 90 m of a mobile phone mast.
    I raised the matter with the Under-Secretary following a report commissioned by my local daily newspaper, the Express & Echo. Despite sending a reminder to the Minister, I have still not received a response from the Department of Health. Will the Parliamentary Secretary ensure that I receive a substantive reply? In putting to the Under-Secretary the concerns of my constituent I also made available the information from the Express & Echo, and I offered to make available the detailed findings of research by Exeter university, commissioned by the newspaper and carried out in the Canns' home and the adjacent area.
    Since I wrote to the Minister, we have identified four cancer sufferers living within 300 m of the mast. I am well aware from previous debates that one cannot snatch out of the air conclusions about cancer clusters. In the adult population in particular, one would expect to find people suffering from cancer in any community. However, my concern is that the Canns, to protect their daughter's health and to remain in the family home, have been forced to take measures to help to screen the house, and particularly the bedroom where their daughter Emma sleeps, from any harmful rays that may enter the property. The Parliamentary Secretary will be aware that families like the Canns live with not only the problem of having a child with a very serious illness but the constant anxiety that their home is not safe because of an external factor.
    The research commissioned by the Echo was carried out by Dr. David Coley of the Exeter university centre for energy and the environment. The results show that the microwave emissions inside the Canns' home are more than twice the levels accepted in many other countries. Dr. Coley took measurements at nine locations in and around the property in George Hill, Crediton, and he recorded a figure of 6.5 volts per metre in the kitchen, in the garden in front of the daughter's bedroom window and just outside the property. That is more than the highest permitted limit in countries such as Russia, Italy, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Luxembourg, and it is more than 10 times the limit set in the Austrian city of Salzburg.
    One of the problems that we face is that around the world there are differences in permitted levels of exposure. Most countries comply with the guidance of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, but Britain allows emissions of more than three times the Commission's recommended levels. Limits in other countries include 6 volts per metre in Poland, Russia and Italy, and half that amount in Genoa. In New Zealand the limit is 0.28 volts per metre, and in the USA it is 0.2 volts per metre for the average city dweller.
    736
    Around the world, authorities have taken decisions that are diverse and, in many cases, the permitted levels are much lower than those decided, on scientific advice, by the UK Government. When Dr. Coley visited the Canns' property, he said it was 100 per cent. certain that the microwave field was produced by the mast. There was no extenuating factor. He said:
    "Although this is well within UK guidance, it is interesting to note that it is above permitted, or recommended, levels in other parts of the world."
    Since the Government came to office they have commissioned the Stewart report on the subject for their own guidance. It was written by an independent group of experts led by Sir William Stewart, the former chief scientific adviser to the Government and the current chairman of the Microbiological Research Authority. The report recommended that
    "in making decisions about the siting of base stations (masts), planning authorities should have the power to ensure that the radio frequency fields to which the public will be exposed, will be kept to the lowest practical levels that will be commensurate with the telecommunications system operating effectively".
    At the beginning of my remarks, I declared my contract with Vodafone. I suspect that I am not unique in the House in having a mobile phone. More and more of us rely on our mobile phones, and we are all aware of what a great boon they are. However, there has to be some balancing of the convenience to the individual of having a good signal to be able to use the phone and the significant concern about masts.
    The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) mentioned the precautionary principle. The Government should be looking seriously at adopting that principle, especially as regards the UK permitted levels. We are at odds with other countries and we need to know the scientific basis for their decisions. The Stewart report also notes that we need to take the precautionary principle into account.
    When I asked Health Ministers to look into the evidence about the Cann household in Crediton, I put some other questions; for example, in the light of the recommendations of the Stewart report, why has so little research been undertaken into the health effects of mobile phone masts? There seems little tangible evidence on which to make decisions.
    Bob Spink: My hon. Friend makes an extremely sound point. A lack of evidence that damage has been caused does not prove that there will be no damage in the future. Surely, we should adopt the precautionary principle especially as regards our children, who have a long time to live on this planet and who deserve care. After all, in the past there has been a lack of evidence in matters that turned out to be extremely dangerous and we got our fingers burned, so the precautionary principle is right.
    Mrs. Browning: Indeed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.
    We should be careful about children's exposure to hazards—especially ionising radiation—that might not affect adults. We should always be extremely cautious about children's health. The situation of people who live in close proximity to the masts is different from that of people who are near them only occasionally.
    Mr. Rosindell: In the light of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), does my

    737
    hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) agree that it would be sensible not to permit mobile phone masts at schools or in areas where there could be a large number of children?
    Mrs. Browning: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is a responsibility for local planning authorities. They should be able to make enlightened decisions based on Government guidelines.
    We have a bizarre attitude to regulation in this country. All too often, we over-regulate on absurd matters while taking a cavalier approach to life and death issues. I am only too well aware that the lay public are fearful of science because they do not understand it. However, it is worrying to feel that the Government do not have the scientific facts on which to make informed decisions to give guidance to the general public and to planning authorities.
    What health research are the Government relying on? There is an audit—a series of measurements—but is there any research into the health effects? The audit is useful, but how do those figures relate to health research? The Government's claim that there is no evidence of risk from masts should not be based on a collection of figures but on proper research into what such figures mean for the health of individuals.
    What have the Government done as regards the Stewart recommendations on research and on adopting new limits? There must be evidence from other countries to show why they have set permissible limits that are so much lower than those in the UK.
    The Department of Health may be having difficulty in encapsulating all these points in a letter of reply to me. However, I should like an answer to my questions. Like many Members, I want to pursue the subject in debates, questions and—I hope—meetings with Ministers and those who can give us the proper scientific evidence that will either reassure us or enable us quickly to come to a conclusion about what is and is not safe.
    I commend the Express & Echo, an Exeter-based daily newspaper that circulates in five or six Devon constituencies, for not only taking up the problem but devoting resources to investigating it, especially in relation to my constituents in Crediton. I hope that the Minister will take the paper up on its offer to make available the detailed research carried out by Exeter university on its behalf.
    I should like to bolt on to my speech a small matter that is of grave importance in rural communities. In a previous existence—in the previous Parliament—I was the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The current Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions was then the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He and I held many exchanges at the Dispatch Box about the Government's proposals for the future of the Post Office—the Royal Mail and the network of sub-post offices that are so much a part of our daily lives.
    Many assurances were given—some of them are engrained in my memory. However, in recent weeks, all those assurances and reassurances have fallen like dust. For example, the right hon. Gentleman assured me that there would be every opportunity for people to get cash from their local rural post office. When I contended that there was no such thing as free banking, he argued me down by saying that the Government would provide
    738
    Something. This weekend, there will indeed be a facility to obtain cash in many rural areas from cash dispensers—but at a cost of £1.50 per transaction. That is not free banking, especially for the many people who are dependent on state benefits and retirement pensions and who draw them from the post office. A fee of £1.50 is a big chunk from one's benefit if one is obliged to use that system to draw out money.
    We were also given reassurances about the Royal Mail. Members may be surprised to hear me—old Eurosceptic that I am—pray in aid the European Commission. However, some time ago, when this matter was debated by the Commission, the importance of universal delivery in these islands was recognised by Commissioners—although, interestingly, not by British Commissioners. The Commission noted that the costs should be contained and that the next-day, or second-class, delivery on which we all rely should be maintained, despite the European plan to liberalise mail and parcel services. Commissioners suggested that when licences for mail delivery were issued a levy should be made to subsidise the universal delivery of mail, so that we could continue to enjoy that service.
    When I read the rather obscure minutes of that meeting, I could not believe that Ministers had rejected that proposal and were prepared to let universal delivery go hang: in other words, if we do not get our post the next day, so what; and if the price of stamps cannot be kept at a reasonable level, so what. I asked the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he was prepared to consider a levy on licence holders to protect universal delivery. He sent me a one-word answer, which is on the record of the House: "No." The Government have allowed the Royal Mail and the sub-post office network to disintegrate and have made absolutely no effort to honour the pledges that the right hon. Gentleman made at that Dispatch Box in a former incarnation, just a couple of years ago.
    I realise that the Parliamentary Secretary cannot be expected to give a detailed answer and I do not expect him to, but I want to place my remarks on the record of the House. Under the Conservatives, the sub-post office network was guaranteed, in perhaps a rather uncharacteristic, subsidised way. We are always being told by the Labour party that it was down to us, and it was indeed down to us, in that we recognised the importance to the community of the sub-post office network. We developed plans to continue to allow people to collect their benefits from sub-post offices and plans to give the sub-post offices the right to charge for such transactions. Those charges were intended to be an important part of the remuneration of sub-post offices, to help preserve that network, which for years has faced competition from the local supermarket and other extraneous factors. To see the Royal Mail and that network disappear, as it surely will, should not come as a surprise to any hon. Member, because Conservative Members warned two or three years ago that it might happen. I am sorry that those prophecies are now—
    Mr. Tyler: I am sure that the hon. Lady would not want to mislead the House but we all recall, I think, that the number of sub-post offices in the network fell dramatically during the period when her party was in government—and even more dramatically after the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley),

    739
    the then Secretary of State for Social Security, decided that in future benefits should be paid through banks. The hon. Lady is a very fair Member of the House and I am sure that she will agree that some of the current tendencies and trends did not start in 1997.
    Mrs. Browning: Having agreed with the hon. Gentleman earlier, I shall disagree with him emphatically on the point that he has just raised. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who served not only as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry but as Secretary of State for Social Security, recognised the importance of making changes in post offices—moving away from the old benefit book, which was so open to fraud—but also established, with public financial support, the importance of maintaining remuneration for sub-postmasters in return for giving people the opportunity to claim benefits across the counter at their local post office.
    The hon. Member for North Cornwall is right to say, as I said, that sub-post offices had been closing for many years, but such closures were largely due to the fact that many sub-post offices were also the village shop. We all know that the shopping habits of people who live in villages have changed. The proliferation of out-of-town supermarkets and the fact that people are working in towns and shopping in their lunch break have all too often led to a decline in the shop section of sub-post offices. Post offices closed for many reasons, but certainly not as a result of the policies of the last Conservative Government.
    When we left office in 1997, we left in place a proposal that would have brought sub-post offices into the world of modern technology. Computers would have been introduced with, ultimately, swipe cards to reduce fraud, to ensure the guaranteed income of sub-postmasters. Sub-post offices are, after all, privately run, independent businesses. Now many people cannot sell their business for love or money although they want to because they can see that, in a year or two, their income will be halved because of the Government's policies.
    The Government should address the problem, because time is running out. I predict that before the end of this Parliament our mail delivery service will be in chaos, and that thousands more post offices will go out of business and disappear from the communities that they serve. That will be down to one thing, and one thing only: the mismanagement of the Post Office by the Government.
    2.44 pm
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The management of a democratic society is never easy, and government becomes even more difficult when it appears that, for one reason or another, the Government are not explaining their policies sufficiently clearly that they take with them the members of the electorate who are most affected.
    I believe that the House of Commons has a special responsibility. It has a responsibility not only to look carefully at legislation but to question and, indeed, to demand an open explanation of the decisions that are being taken, either in Whitehall, to use a generic name for Government Departments, or in local government. I would not like the House to adjourn without thinking seriously about two aspects of Government policy that I regret.
    740
    The Committee that I chair produced a very specific, detailed report on the public-private partnership for the London underground. We set out the problems. Some of the problems have arisen from the fact that the underground has never been assured of a firm and continuing programme of investment, has never been able to plan properly and has always faced difficulties that are common in our railway systems, with old systems not receiving the maintenance or improvements that they need, but others have simply arisen from the fact that, over time, various Governments' policy decisions have impinged directly on the finance available—in this case for the London underground, one of the most important systems for our capital city.
    I hope that the House will have the opportunity to debate at greater length the topics covered in the report. We went into not only the problems that had arisen with the PPP but the difficulties that we foresaw. We asked, among other things, for a number of safeguards that we considered important enough to be debated. First, we said that the Health and Safety Executive should be given more time to consider the case than it was being given. Secondly, we said that that contracts for the London underground should not be signed until it was clear that the House of Commons had debated, on a substantive motion, the implications of the proposals. Thirdly, we said that it was important that the House should examine the finance and the financial dealings involved in the public-private partnership.
    I was therefore somewhat dismayed to receive the news that the House of Commons was not to be given the usual full 14 days to debate the issuing of what are called letters of confidence. Sometimes the English language is used, in government and elsewhere, as a means not of telling us precisely what we are doing but of confusing the issue, and in my judgment letters of confidence come rather high in that category.
    It may come as a considerable surprise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to hear that a letter of confidence is really a guarantee. Either the Government guarantee a public-private partnership or they do not, but if they choose to call the arrangement that is entered into the issuing of a letter of confidence, it is not always clear to the electorate exactly what is happening. However, this week letters of confidence were issued on the PPP of the underground, and normally the House of Commons would have 14 days in which to discuss, examine and report. Because of the imposition—I withdraw that word—
    Mr. Tyler: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I gladly give way.
    Mr. Tyler: I wonder whether the hon. Lady would like to comment on the expression "letters of comfort", which is the term that she uses in her early-day motion, which seems to sound more like a letter of discomfort.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I should have called it a letter of comfort, not a letter of confidence. The lovely thing about the English language is that it can frequently be used in the most wonderful and flowery ways to confuse an arrangement to guarantee—a banker's undertaking. It is as simple as that. In effect, the Government tell someone who enters into what is supposedly a PPP that they will guarantee whatever happens in the future. That is the basic point that concerns me.

    741
    Many Labour and Opposition Members will have different interpretations. Some may say that PPPs are a good idea because they lever in extra money, about which many interesting arguments will be advanced. The difficulty is that if the House adjourns before it has debated those issues, it will foreshorten not only the period of time, but the responsibility of the House of Commons. That has happened not only in relation to the underground deal, because I have received a short letter from the Treasury in which it states that the Government's insurance undertakings to the aviation industry have been extended. That, too, will not be debated because of time constraints.
    Let me make it clear that I have absolutely no objection whatsoever to the Government's undertaking to ensure that aviation is properly insured after the events of 11 September, so that airlines can continue to fly and people can continue to use them. I do not dispute the need for such a move. All I am saying is that the House of Commons has the right to debate such issues. If we are told that, unfortunately, such debates will not be held because of the Easter holiday, it is important to raise such issues on the Floor of the House.
    I am sorry to say that that seems symptomatic of a rather real problem. Her Majesty's Government seem to have lost an ability that I prize among all others—the facility of explaining to us exactly what is their attitude on industrial policy and, above all, on a policy that directly involves the financing of major infrastructure deals. That problem should be debated, but I am very concerned about another aspect of this matter.
    The House of Commons may be an inadequate organisation. Its procedures may not always be exactly what we want. From time to time, it may hold debates or behave in a way that others think are unacceptable, juvenile or even—dare I say it?—verbose and boring, but the reality is that the Houses of Parliament are the only safeguard that we and the voters have against an over-mighty Executive, who can push through decisions and decide that what is important to them is not necessarily important enough to be debated. I believe that both those tiny instances are examples of the sort of difficulty that we face.
    I would have preferred the House to debate both those extensions in Government arrangements. I should have preferred to hear a clear statement from the Government on the PPP for the underground on a substantive motion. I should have preferred Treasury Ministers not to appear the Select Committee and say that they had such a narrow brief that they were unable to debate the full implications of the financial deals. I should have preferred it if all those things had happened because I do not think that the Government have a right to override the basic and vital rights of Parliament.
    We may be inadequate. We may not do properly what we are asked to do. We may, as elected Members, fall short of what the voters demand of us, but if we ever stand aside and allow those rights to be pushed gently away on the basis that, somehow, it is administratively convenient—I have seen many Governments of all colours do that—we fail the electorate. We then have only ourselves to blame if people no longer want to cast their votes, and we fail in the most outrageous way to fulfil our duty as Members of Parliament. I hope that I never live long enough to see that happen in the House.
    2.54 pm
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who has, for a long time, spoken to defend the rights of Members of Parliament, and she has done so again today with the passion that we have come to expect from her.
    I want to raise several issues to show why we should receive better explanations from the Government on exactly what is happening with their policies. I shall start with perhaps one of the most worrying aspects for several hon. Members. Just over 24 hours ago, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made a statement on the future of the Post Office and Consignia. Several of us were very worried about the issues that were omitted from the statement.
    I do not believe that yesterday's statement reflected the full range of problems that the Post Office faces and the future announcements that will be made by the Post Office as it strives to compete and to turn around its business. I am particularly worried about the rumour that some 2,000, possibly more, rural post offices will close.
    For just over 12 months during the last Conservative Government, I was privileged to serve as the Minister responsible for the Post Office at the Department of Trade and Industry. I asked other colleagues who held similar ministerial positions in that Government how many debates we had on the Post Office during the last five years of the Major Government. The truth of the matter is that we had very few, because the Post Office was not a national concern at the time—things were going quite well.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Stephen Twigg): Privatisation?
    Mr. McLoughlin: The Minister may say that from a sedentary position, but the only debate was on the Post Office Green Paper, and it was inspired by the then Government—I know that because I responded to the debate. I am not saying that the Post Office was not mentioned. Of course it was mentioned, but we certainly did not have the continual debates that have been held in the past few years. We have had those debates because hon. Members are concerned about the Post Office's future structure. We are very concerned about the way in which the Post Office is owned and managed by the Government.
    I found out a fascinating fact yesterday. Apart from getting her geography wrong, the Secretary of State told us that the Government have decided that the Post Office will not have to pay a dividend. She also told us, however, that it is a wholly independently operated company—so why should the Government decide whether the dividend is paid? The Post Office obviously could not a pay dividend because it is losing so much money. If it were a company with proper commercial freedom, as the Government suggest, the Secretary of State or the Chancellor would not decide whether a dividend should be paid; the chairman of the Post Office would do so. Despite the mirage that the Government have created about the Post Office being a wholly separate company, we found out yesterday that it is still wholly controlled and operated by the Government.

    743
    The other issue that I want to raise is the Government's continual increase in stealth taxes. Council tax increases throughout the country represent one of the biggest stealth taxes. I have the council tax figures for Derbyshire Dales district council, which forms the greater part of my constituency. In 1997–98, its precept on a band D property was £88.78. Council tax bills are just going out and the figure is now £118.23—an increase of £30 in five years, but that is a small element of the overall council tax bill.
    In 1997–98, Derbyshire county council's precept on a band D property was £576. It is now £846—a huge increase over a limited period for people who live in band D properties.
    The Government should be more honest and open about council tax rises, which are mainly a result of Government policy. As we are always being told that we have to brace ourselves for tax increases because people want better services, it was strange to discover in a small parliamentary written answer slipped out this morning that big business will pay less tax. On the one hand, we are told that the population must be prepared to pay extra taxation; on the other, the Government announce another course for big business.
    The Chancellor uses stealth taxes and applies them to the British people. When I dug a little deeper to get more detail to explain the increases in council tax, I received worrying information from Amber Valley borough council. It told me:
    "All pension schemes have to be actuarially revalued every three years. At the last revaluation late last year it was found that the Derbyshire Fund was significantly under funded. The major reason for this was that the returns made by Derbyshire, although well above the average achieved by local authorities in general, were not as great as had been anticipated by the actuaries in 1998. The shortfall was due to poor performance on the stock market which was itself due to a poor perception of the strength of both the world and, in particular, the British economies. The increased charge is necessary to recover the shortfall over the life of the fund. It should also be noted that the Council is also paying over £300,000 per year to compensate the fund for the effects of the cancellation of Advance Corporation"
    tax levied by the Chancellor in 1997. That is one reason why Amber Valley had to increase its council tax.
    One of the first things that the Government did when they took office—one has to admire them to a degree—was to do away with advance corporation tax. They said that we should not worry because the pension funds will be able to manage. That policy took £5 billion a year out of the pension system, which is fine in a bull market, but when things start to go wrong on the stock market it is not so easy to compensate for shortfalls. That is one reason why council tax is increasing throughout the country. Indeed, I understand that one of the largest increases is in the Prime Minister's constituency and I hope that his constituents make representations to him. However, council tax often falls hardest on older people because they tend to live on more fixed incomes. If the Government are not aware of that problem, they will become aware of it as the anger rises when people realise that the rate of inflation is 2 per cent., but the increase in council tax is, in the case of Derbyshire county council, 8.9 per cent.
    The funding of sixth forms concerns me. Some time ago, the Government announced that they would de-layer the education funding system, which I favour. There is
    744
    too much smoke around the allocation of the standard spending assessments to local government and the various spending bodies involved. The Government say that they have made a start by de-layering the funding system for sixth forms. Under the new proposal for sixth form funding, the Government will make grants to learning and skills councils. Those councils will make a further grant to local education authorities, which, in turn, will fund the sixth forms in their areas. I do not know how much simpler that is, but secondary heads in my constituency do not think that that does much to de-layer the system.
    There are two issues to consider: the amount of money and the way in which it is funded. On the new proposal, a Derbyshire secondary head teacher wrote to me and said:
    "For 24 hours in December, this was very good news indeed. Our provisional allocation from the LSC was £170,000 in excess of the RTG"—
    the real terms guarantee. The head teacher went on:
    "However, the next day we received a letter from the LEA stating that this excess has to come from the LEA and that the LEA would therefore have to recoup it from our 11–16 allowance."
    The school is told that it is getting a bigger allocation for its sixth form, for which it is grateful, only to discover the next day that the extra money for 16 to 18-year-olds is to be taken from the 11 to 16-year-olds—so extra money there is none.
    The Government are supposed to be working on a new funding allocation for all LEAs and on school funding in the future. I just hope that they do not try to use the same card trick that they used on the 16 to 18-year-olds because they will soon be found out and that will cause greater resentment in schools. What happened in Derbyshire is a prime example of that.
    Some Labour Members have argued that education in Derbyshire has been underfunded for some time. One headmaster told me:
    "If the problem of the resourcing of Derbyshire schools is ever to be sorted out, it must start with Central Government accepting the premise that there is an entitlement for funding levels for each pupil in the country from 5 to 18. Any adjustment can then reflect the disadvantage or cost. The fact that they have now done so for post 16 only makes the pre 16 situation even more shambolic. The Government is aware of the facts—they are simply ignoring them in the hope that somehow schools will cope."
    The truth is that schools will cope because the staff are dedicated to ensuring that their pupils get a good education. However, they want to be treated more fairly. The introduction of the LSCs has not sorted out the problem; instead, it has added to the problem of the overall funding of schools for 11 to 18-year-olds.
    On a separate issue, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) mentioned that she had written to a Health Minister. I have had the same problem with getting answers from that Department, which I wrote to on 13 February and 6 March. A former health centre in Wirksworth would make a tremendous care home facility, which is desperately needed. Such a facility was built in 1985 at Under Hall in Darley Dale. It has 40 flats and offers short-term care. Meals on wheels are administered from there—a service that does a great deal of good for the local community.
    I am sure that the Government are concerned about residential care, but we have no idea how they intend to address the problem. Residential beds in care homes are being lost, partly because of the Care Standards Act 2000.

    745
    Some 35,000 care beds have been lost over the past three years throughout the country, which adds to the problem of bed blocking. It is not a problem in isolation because it feeds back to the national health service. The Government must address the problem of residential care.
    Local people are keen to establish a centre that offers residential care in Wirksworth. The project has been on their minds for more than five years. A hearty local campaign team has worked to establish a care home project, and a health care centre has now become available, but we find ourselves in an awkward position. All the trusts are about to change status, PCTs are to come online, the area health authority is to change, and so on and so forth—all of which is to take place in the next few weeks. The result is to make it difficult to assemble the combined effort needed to make our scheme work.
    One of the trustees has written to me saying that the process for funding long-term care is "constantly changing", and that
    "The Government's 'Supporting People' initiative will limit the funding mechanisms applicable to the project and so the ability to generate finance for development purposes. All of this unexpected and legislative change needs to be taken into consideration in order to ensure that the overall viability of the project is established. This is all rather difficult when planning within a 'fog' which sometimes seems to clear and then … becomes much thicker"
    as local people try to secure a solution that will have a great impact on the quality of life of elderly residents of small villages and towns in the area.
    I should like to pass on to the House some information that came to my attention this morning. I shall also take some time to praise Derbyshire constabulary. Various hon. Members have heard me raise with the Prime Minister the case of Stephen Downing, whose conviction for murder was quashed by the Appeal Court in January. Since the quashing, I have called on Derbyshire constabulary to re-open the case, but there has been some question about whether it would do so. Mr. Downing's conviction was regarded as very unsafe by the appeal court when his case was heard, after he had served 27 years in jail—an horrendous length of time, as any hon. Member would agree.
    This morning, I received a statement from the chief constable saying:
    "Following consultation with Stephen Downing, his representative and Wendy's widower, David Sewell, I have decided to carry out a re-investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Wendy Sewell."
    In short, the case is to he re-opened by Derbyshire constabulary. I want to put on record my gratitude to the chief constable for ensuring that that is to happen. I first met Mr. Downing's father nine or 10 years ago, when he first raised his son's case with me. The fact that such a miscarriage of justice could occur and last so long in this country, in this day and age, shows an appalling failure of and gap in our judicial system. I am extremely pleased by today's announcement that the police are to re-open the investigation. I hope that in the not-too-distant future, some sound solutions will emerge as a result.
    When we returned to the House in January, it looked as though the Government could be confident. That has changed in the past few weeks, however, as the issues surrounding Railtrack and the Post Office—two major industries for which the Government are responsible—have blown up. As the Chairman of the Transport Sub-Committee has just made clear, important questions
    746
    remain to be answered and we will return to those subjects on our return after the Easter recess. I think that the issues I have raised today are also of great importance to local people and communities, and I hope that they will be addressed.
    3.14 pm
    Ms Julia Drown: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) who, like the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), raised issues relating to the Post Office. Hon. Members on both sides of the House share their enthusiasm for the Post Office, but it should be pointed out that the closure of 3,500 post offices under Tory Governments is not a record of which those Governments should be proud.
    At a time when the market is changing, the Labour Government are trying to help the Post Office to adapt. Investing £480 million in computerisation of the post office network is a step forward, and those of us who represent rural communities consider important the ring-fenced £270 million to invest in rural networks support. Both measures are important means of ensuring that key parts of our communities survive. As other hon. Members have said, there are issues relating to urban post offices, especially in disadvantaged communities, and some of that money has been set aside to ensure that those post offices survive.
    The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton voiced her opinion, without quoting much evidence, of the Government's intentions regarding the universal postal service. In all the statements made in the House it has been made clear that that service is important and should remain—indeed, the Postal Services Act 2000 created the independent regulator whose very function is to ensure that the universal postal service continues. I joined those Members of Parliament who criticised the regulator for being too keen to promote competition rather than to stand up for businesses in the sector. I believe that the regulator's No. 1 role should be to protect the universal postal service, and thanks to the pressure exerted by Members of Parliament and others we are in the process of impressing on the regulator that that should be its No. 1 goal. That is what the Government also want to achieve.
    No one could doubt that the Government have throughout all their work borne in mind the continuation of the universal postal system. To voice doubt about that is unfairly to increase anxiety in the population—just as the hon. Lady did when she spoke about people on low incomes having to pay £1.50 to cash a cheque. The hon. Lady misunderstands the proposals made by the Government and the Post Office for the post office card account, which is for people who do not want a bank account but want to continue to collect their pension or benefits in cash. That account allows them to do so. There is nothing in the proposals about a £1.50 charge on the payments, and when hon. Members start to say things like that, fears are raised unnecessarily in the general population, especially in the more vulnerable groups.
    Mr. David Heath: All of us want the post office card account to succeed, but is the hon. Lady confident that it will be up and running in time for April 2003, which is when, under new legislation,

    747
    credits will have to start being paid through our sub-post offices? The contracts were only let in November, prior to which no preparatory work had been done. Is she confident that the machines will be in place, people will have been trained and the migration policy will be settled by April 2003?
    Ms Drown: I am confident that the House can ensure that our constituents are able to get their pensions and benefits. We must ensure that the Government and the Post Office deliver that. There is no question but that that has to happen, and we can all play a role in ensuring that it does. To voice fears unnecessarily simply increases fear among the most vulnerable members of our population.
    Recently, we have spent much time discussing international affairs. That has produced a significant response in my constituency postbag, and I shall take this opportunity to summarise that response for the House. One of the most positive responses has been to the Export Control Bill, which has been widely welcomed as a huge step forward in ensuring that Britain behaves responsibly in its international trade. As the Bill passed through both Houses, I witnessed a most constructive dialogue between Back Benchers and the Government to ensure that the best Bill possible was produced.
    I am especially pleased that, with other hon. Members, I helped to ensure that the Government included in the Bill provisions making sustainable development a key criterion by which exports are judged. I hope that dialogue will continue and that there will be further improvements to the Bill, particularly the inclusion of a ban on offshore brokering, before it completes its passage through the House.
    There is a wider issue about balancing our responsibilities to the defence industry, British jobs and exports against our international responsibility to promote peace and security. One does not need a degree in economics or marketing to realise that if our foreign and international development policy of conflict prevention is successful, that will lead to a decline in defence sales. However, the Government do not seem to have anticipated that outcome; sensible work is still not being done on defence diversification. My constituents are suspicious that, as the second largest player in defence sales, we are partly responsible for fuelling some conflicts by giving Governments and rebel movements the ammunition to fight, rather than discuss a solution. If we expect our policies to be successful, and if we hope to create a better world with less conflict, should we not do something to get the most talented people in the defence industry into more productive sectors of the economy?
    I shall give two specific examples. First, my constituents are concerned that Ministers have spent Government time promoting to India and Pakistan the sale of Hawk jets, which could be used in conflict between those countries. The Government have also promoted the sale of a military air traffic control system to Tanzania—there are deep suspicions that that technology is both out of date and exceeds Tanzania's needs. Money spent on that system could be spent on health and education, which are more important for Tanzania, given the stark facts of life there: 45 per cent. of the population do not have access to essential drugs, and 160 of every 1,000 children
    748
    die before the age of five. The statistics are getting worse, not better—at the beginning of the 1990s, 140 of every 1,000 children died before the age of five.
    Those stark figures demonstrate the need to use our international aid budget to try to reverse that awful trend. My constituents welcome the Government's initiative to increase overseas aid and the commitment of the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development to that goal. We should try to reach the United Nations target of spending 0.7 per cent. of our national output on aid as soon as possible. There is still a long way to go, but huge steps have been taken. In our diplomatic engagements, we should encourage others to follow suit, notably the United States, which has spent a pathetically small proportion of its budget on aid. Indeed, even after the recent increase of $5 billion, which will come into force in 2004, it will not spend even 0.2 per cent. of its national output on international aid.
    Last week, we heard about a further increase at Monterrey but, given America's influence in the world, it is inexcusable that it is not spending more on aid. I hope that the Government will use their influence to get the United States to make a commitment to the target of 0.7 per cent. and deliver on it as soon as possible. Our society increasingly recognises that international aid is not just a moral duty but is in our interest. We need to make it clear to civil society in America that aid is about promoting peace and stability as well as creating more markets for our products and services in future.
    My constituents have two further anxieties about international development. First, they are seriously concerned about possible military action in Iraq. They appreciate the fact that there are appalling human rights abuses in Iraq, that Iraq poses a threat to its neighbouring countries and that it is flagrantly ignoring UN resolutions, but they are also concerned about the situation in the middle east and our involvement in Afghanistan, and do not feel that now is the right time for the UK and the USA to embark in isolation on further military action. They urge that we should use the coalition built up to tackle terrorism to keep the pressure on Iraq and introduce via international institutions new UN resolutions to take action. They also want the international coalition to take more action against Mugabe and the problems in Zimbabwe.
    Finally on international issues, I have spoken in the House on a number of occasions about the need for Britain to take a lead on the problem of child soldiers. There is no justification for sending children into conflict, yet our Government have still not fully signed up to the UN optional protocol on child soldiers. There is no reason why we could not have a separate training organisation for 16 or 17-year-olds who are interested in military service. Only when they reach adulthood at 18 should they join our military personnel. Until such an arrangement is made, we cannot be sure that we will not send 17-year-olds into conflict. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can raise that with the relevant Ministers. I should like an assurance that there will not be any 17-year-olds among the troops who, it was recently announced, are to be sent to Afghanistan. I trust that no 17-year-olds will be sent into that conflict.
    Briefly, on domestic issues, my constituents' primary concern is funding for public services, which is especially relevant in the light of the forthcoming Budget. Concerns about health, social services and education regularly

    749
    appear in my postbag. I accept that the Government have taken major steps to deal with all those issues, but people are still waiting too long for treatment in the health service and too long for social services.
    There is a particular educational issue worrying my constituents. Like the constituents of a number of other Members, they believe that the existing funding formula cannot be justified. Swindon is the lowest-funded unitary authority and is among the six lowest-funded education authorities, although the standards achieved by its students do not justify that low funding. There are huge disparities across the board: some authorities have hundreds of pounds more per pupil, even though those children achieve higher standards. That cannot be allowed to continue. I am pleased that the Government are reviewing the formula, as a new one needs to be put in place as soon as possible. It needs to be simple so that people can understand the figures, and it must increase the funds of the lowest-funded authorities like Swindon borough council. I have received that message loud and clear from my constituents. I can guarantee to the Government that more money for Swindon will be well spent in raising the standards achieved by my constituents' children.
    I hope for good news about that in the forthcoming Budget which, I hope, will also deal with another concern raised by a number of my constituents—restrictions on the working families tax credit. At the moment, that credit provides a huge amount of help for many of my constituents, rewarding them for the first time for being in work. However some of my constituents, particularly those who do shift work, have a problem: they want to employ nannies to cover them at night, rather than use child minders or nurseries, which are not as flexible. I understand that the Government have been looking at that and I hope that we will get good news in the Budget so that more people will have access to the working families tax credit.
    Before I conclude, I should like to raise with the Parliamentary Secretary my concern about how we make decisions in the House, and the speed with which we do so. A year ago, I requested that we e-mail oral and written questions to save the time involved in running to and from the Table Office. That issue has still not been resolved.
    Two years ago, we asked for a revision of the rule about breastfeeding in the House of Commons. We have made progress on that. After our request two years ago, the previous Speaker—having referred the matter neither to the House nor to any relevant professional organisation—changed the sensible ruling allowing breastfeeding in Committees subject to the approval of the Chair, and simply banned it. The present Speaker has gone about this in exactly the right way, ensuring that professional organisations are approached and referring the issue to the Select Committee on Public Administration.
    Given that all professional organisations consulted said that breastfeeding should be allowed in Committees, given the Select Committee's view that it should be allowed and given that Members are in favour of it by a ratio of three to one, it is odd that the ban continues. I am very pleased that the Speaker has said we have a responsibility to promote breastfeeding. He has been very accommodating, and I hope that further progress can be made in the near future.
    750
    What worries me is this: if we cannot secure a decision on an issue like breastfeeding, which should be non-controversial, how can we get things right when it comes to other issues on which more finely balanced judgments must be made? How can we respond to criticism from our constituents who say that we constantly pass laws insisting that people note and act in accordance with the views of professional organisations if we are not doing that ourselves?
    Some may say that this is not important. It is important. Parliament should be seen to be leading the way in regard to breastfeeding, which hugely benefits both mothers and babies. Throughout the world, 1.5 million babies die every year because of low breastfeeding rates. We all have constituents whose children are readmitted to hospital owing to infections, because our breastfeeding rate is one of the lowest in Europe.
    There are less clear-cut issues on which our decisions should also be right. I congratulate the Leader of the House on what he has done about some of them. One is often raised with me by constituents: why, they ask, do we start work so late? Why do we not start until 2.30 pm? If we consider this to be a serious place of work, it is hard to answer that question. Why do we start at 2.30 pm? I agree with the Leader of the House that we should at least match Thursday's hours on Wednesdays.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am sure the hon. Lady would not wish to mislead her constituents. I am sure she explains to them that Westminster Hall sits at 9.30 am two days a week, and that many Committees meet at 10.30 am. To say that an MP's day starts at 2.30 pm would be misleading, and I hope the hon. Lady will point out to her constituents that the House is working in one way or another at many other times.
    Ms Drown: I entirely accept that point, but if this is indeed the supreme Chamber, why does its work start so much later than the House's other work? Of course, Members have two places of work. It is right for us to start at 2.30 pm on Mondays, so that constituency surgeries and the like can be dealt with in the mornings. But there is no reason for us not to work from 10 am until 7 pm on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and start at 10 am on Thursdays. Then, perhaps, we could leave at 3 pm on Thursdays, and more of us could be in our constituencies by the evening.
    The House is divided over the report on Select Committees. I do not think we should pay Select Committee Chairs extra; I do not think that that will change the culture in this organisation. I would prefer the money to be spent in other ways.
    I hope we shall see two more measures in the Queen's Speech. Earlier today, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) presented a ten-minute Bill to draw attention to continuing antisocial behaviour on the part of travellers. My constituents regularly experience such behaviour, and I fully expect them to experience more in the summer. We could make sensible changes, which I think would he supported throughout the House.
    Then there is the issue of legislation on sexual offences. The Government have rightly reviewed it, but it is outrageous that in rape cases the defence of honest but unreasonable belief in consent remains on the statute book. It has a real impact on all rape cases: it deters rape

    751
    victims from coming forward and pressing charges, as they rightly should. I hope that the issue will be a key priority in the Queen's Speech.
    I am grateful for the opportunity to raise so many of the issues that my constituents have raised with me. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will in turn raise them with the relevant Ministers.
    3.35 pm
    Mr. David Lidington: I want to raise three constituency issues, each of which is the responsibility of a different Department—thus landing the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy-Council Office with a varied task.
    The first issue, the future of the sub-post office network, has already been mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin). I hope that the Government will act on the commitment that I understood the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make yesterday—to keep the House informed of further developments in the planned reorganisation of what we must now think of as the company formerly known as Consignia.
    I willingly acknowledge that for many years sub-post offices, like other small retail businesses, have experienced the squeeze experienced by most high-street shops as shopping habits have altered. I believe, however, that their plight has been worsened by the present Government's policy of requiring all pensions and benefits to be paid into bank accounts from next April, rather than being collected in cash over the counter. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) mentioned that.
    Coupled with the drastic restructuring of the Post Office organisation announced by the board in the last couple of days, that shift in Government policy raises serious questions about the future of the sub-post office network. All of us who represent rural or part-rural constituencies will know of sub-post offices that have closed for various reasons in recent years. My constituency has lost sub-post offices in villages such as Loosely Row and Great Kimble, and even Butlers Cross and Ellesborough. My weekend constituent, the Prime Minister, cannot just walk down the drive from Chequers to visit his sub-post office on a Saturday morning; he must mount his bicycle and cycle several miles to Wendover or Great Missenden to perform whatever transactions he has in mind.
    I agreed strongly with what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said earlier. Given the Government's record of handling information technology projects, the question of whether the new system will be up and running on 1 April 2003, as promised, is at the very least subject to some doubt and apprehension. When we look back on the national insurance computer system or on the systems of the Passport Agency and the immigration and nationality directorate, or if we even consult the 1901 census website, we see a track record of promises which—although I am sure they were made in good faith by Ministers and officials—have not been delivered. It is members of the public who have lost out.
    In her statement yesterday, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry acknowledged the need to focus on the impact of the reorganisation of Parcelforce and,
    752
    probably, to update the House on further developments regarding Post Office reorganisation on future occasions. We know from the way every newspaper had been briefed over the weekend and on Monday that it is a part of the Post Office's new corporate strategy to reduce the number of urban post offices, to follow the reduction in the number of rural sub-post offices that we have seen in recent years.
    For those of us who represent urban or part-urban constituencies, as I do, there is a real concern that the people who will be most seriously and adversely affected by such a change in the Post Office's strategy will live in the poorer areas of our towns and cities. In places such as Southcourt, Quarrendon or Elmhurst, in Aylesbury, or in large council estate areas of the town, people regard their local sub-post office and the small parade of shops that surround it as providing an important service in the local community and as an important focus of community life. I impress upon the Minister my hope that the Government will provide early opportunities to brief the House on further developments and to provide it with ample opportunity, in Government time, to debate the future of the Post Office system once we return from the Easter recess.
    My second subject concerns the approach of the Ministry of Defence to the future development of the Princess Mary hospital site at RAF Halton, in my constituency. The site is part of the extensive RAF base at Halton. The hospital itself has been closed since 1996; two years later, the Ministry declared that the hospital was surplus to military requirements, and the site was handed over to Defence Estates for it to plan for its future.
    Every organisation in the villages of Wendover and Halton, which are separated by the base at RAF Halton, accepts that it is reasonable and proper to have development—probably residential, in the main—on that brownfield site. The argument locally, which is now with the Ministry, is about the scale and density of the proposed development and about the way in which the Ministry has handled this local controversy.
    This is a sensitive site; it lies immediately below the scarp of the Chiltern hills and is on the fringe of the green belt and the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty. Wendover, the parish within which the site lies, is a small community of just under 7,000 people. The local services have been developed to deal with the needs of a community that size. Even so, the schools, the family doctor practice and parking facilities in the village are all under considerable pressure.
    The Ministry of Defence wants a return on its site and planners want to squeeze houses into rare brownfield development sites. The local village communities are fearful that the development will make a sudden and drastic change to their size and character. Surely the right forum in which to resolve these competing demands should be the planning system, particularly the local plan inquiry for Aylesbury Vale district council. That had been proceeding for a considerable number of months in 2000–01 and is subject to an inspector's report. The initial conclusions are expected probably in July this year.
    There have been competing interests as well. During the course of the public inquiry, Aylesbury Vale district council argued that the site should be developed to provide 230 homes, a hotel and a sports pitch, while the Ministry of Defence argued for a more densely packed

    753
    development, with some 330 or more homes and a small play area. What came as a bolt from the blue was a letter dated 12 October 2001 from GVA Grimley, the Ministry of Defence's advisers and agents. It wrote to Aylesbury Vale district council, while the evidence from the public inquiry was being considered by the inspector, to submit a planning application for no fewer than 480 homes on that one site.
    The application went in despite the fact that all the evidence and arguments were before the inspector, whose conclusions should be known in July this year. It went in despite the fact that the Ministry of Defence had argued for a significantly lower number during the course of the inquiry. It went in despite the fact that the Ministry of Defence had spent £67,500 of taxpayers' money in fees for its legal and other professional representation in the course of the public inquiry.
    What aggravated and sharpened the sense of grievance in Wendover and Halton was the written answer that I received on 27 November 2001, reproduced at column 763. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr Moonie), made it clear that the decision to instruct agents to submit the planning application had been made as early as December 2000, while the inquiry was taking place. So while the Ministry was submitting its evidence for 330 houses to be put on the hospital site, it was secretly authorising a later planning application for a much higher figure, without consulting anyone in the local community.
    Mr. Andrew Love: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that one of the recommendations of the planning Green Paper is that planning applications such as he has described should be outlawed. The hon. Gentleman expresses concern on behalf of his constituents about density, a concern that is shared by people up and down the country. Yet we must recognise, especially in urban areas such as my own in London, that we need to increase densities if we are to respond to housing pressures. Was that taken into consideration in the planning inquiry to which the hon. Gentleman refers?
    Mr. Lidington: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that that is a perfectly legitimate line of argument. The answer to his question is yes. The Government's new guidelines about density in brownfield areas were available during the course of the public inquiry and they will be considered by the inspector, no doubt when he comes to draw his conclusions. My point is that these contrary arguments should be resolved through the proper planning process. The action of the Ministry of Defence is subverting, in what I can only describe as an underhand manner, the planning process in which local people had put their trust and to which they had submitted their arguments in good faith.
    I believe that the Ministry of Defence would be well advised to withdraw the application that is before the council and accept that the right way forward is to await the inspector's conclusions and then, in the light of his findings, submit whatever planning application may be appropriate for the whole of Aylesbury Vale district. The Ministry of Defence should take into account the inspector's analysis of what a dense development of the site would mean not simply for housing provision but in terms of the impact on other local services such as education and primary health care.
    754
    The third and final subject that I want to bring before the House is the Central Railway project. That, as many hon. Members know, is a private sector scheme to construct a freight line from Liverpool to Lille. Part of its alignment would run along the former Great Central Railway route. As regards my constituency, Central Railway would propose to take over the line operated by Chiltern Railways. The project would adversely affect my constituents in Saunderton, Bradenham, Princes Risborough, Longwick and Ilmer.
    Ever since the scheme was mooted, I have been clear that the proposal would be detrimental to the quality of life of the people in my constituency whose homes were near the track. The railway would pass through the middle of the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty and would have an impact on National Trust property near Bradenham and West Wycombe.
    When the scheme was first proposed, I thought that it might be a case where I would have to try to balance the competing interests of my constituents anxious about noise and development, and the national interest, which is to encourage rail freight. However, as I came to study the detail, I found the case for the project less and less persuasive. I have never been able to understand Central Railway's assertion that it could somehow raise the £4 billion or more that would be needed to finance the development, yet recoup that money at a reasonable rate of return for its investors, while still keeping charges to hauliers low enough to attract freight off the road and on to its railway line. I do not see how its figures add up.
    I have also been influenced greatly by the consistent and clear statement from Chiltern Railways, the passenger operator in my constituency, that Central Railway's proposals as published are incompatible with its current, let alone any improved, level of passenger services. That is why I voted against the Central Railway Bill when it was introduced in 1996.
    Central Railway later came back for a second shot. First, it sought an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992, then in January 2001 it asked the Government to support a hybrid Bill to authorise its scheme. For my constituents, the hybrid Bill procedure would have the considerable disadvantage of limiting the right of local people and organisations to argue their case in full before an inspector at a public inquiry.
    Where do the Government stand? A recent written answer from the Minister for Transport states that he is not yet persuaded of the case for a hybrid Bill to authorise the scheme, but that he nevertheless wishes to go ahead with a further six months' study, led by the Strategic Rail Authority, to analyse further evidence as to whether the scheme is workable.
    My constituents, particularly those whose properties are being blighted by the proposal, are becoming increasingly impatient. The request for a hybrid Bill was made by Central Railway to the Government at the end of January 2001. The Government later asked the Strategic Rail Authority to provide them with an analysis. The SRA commissioned expert consultants to look into the detail. The SRA reported to the Government at the end of last summer. It has taken the Government the months until now to come up with a decision, which turns out not to be a final decision. We cannot even examine the arguments that the SRA and the Government have considered, because both the SRA and the Department for

    755
    Transport, Local Government and the Regions have so far refused to make public the SRA's report to Ministers or the consultants' report on which the SRA based its recommendations.
    There has been a recent, very important change. A couple of weeks ago, the Government finally announced their welcome decision to renew for 20 years the franchise for Chiltern Railways—an operator which none other than the Secretary of State described to me in the House as a company offering a premium service. Chiltern Railways, as I said earlier, has consistently taken the view that there is insufficient capacity on the existing line to accommodate both Central Railway's proposed freight service and the current level of passenger services. It says that Central's objectives could be achieved only by building two separate dedicated freight tracks alongside the present Chilterns line, which is not what Central Railway is proposing.
    Central Railway has always asserted the contrary. It has said that plenty of capacity exists, and it has adduced a study that it commissioned from the consultants Halcrow in support of its case. However, a letter that I received earlier this week from the managing director of Chiltern Railways sets out his case in trenchant terms. He states that, in particular, Central Railway suggests that
    "a frequent freight service could operate with only modest changes to the infrastructure. I attach a briefing note which sets out why this is not true."
    The managing director summarises his case. He states, first, that the train timetables produced by Central Railway in support of its argument
    "include a high proportion of freight trains which could not actually be fitted in."
    He continues:
    "The notion of a frequent long-distance international freight service between Lille and Liverpool operating to the level of accuracy required to get anyway near their proposed frequency is not realistic."
    The managing director argues that the expansion of passenger services committed to the Government by Chiltern Railways in the new franchise—it envisages a 50 per cent. growth in passenger numbers in the first 10 years alone—
    "further erodes the limited scope for the sort of frequency proposed by Central Railway."
    He goes on:
    "Central Railway state that the only extra tracks required would be loops at a few locations. However, the wide gauge of the Central Railway trains would require every station platform on the Chiltern Line to be rebuilt and new tracks installed through every station—a major undertaking, with implications for land-take, disruption to services during construction, and loss of space for station parking."
    It would be ironic if, in order to support what I consider at present a misguided freight project, and in order to support the laudable objective of getting more freight on to the railways, the Government gave support to a scheme which severely damaged probably the most successful passenger operator in the country, and drove thousands of people into their cars because that efficient, frequent passenger rail service from Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire to London and the west midlands was no longer available to them.
    Why is there the need for a further six-month review? Surely the studies of capacity that were carried out in the 16 months while the Government were considering the
    756
    Chiltern franchise renewal provide all the evidence that Ministers need. Finally, if the Minister wants us to have confidence in the good faith of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, I ask him please to publish the Strategic Rail Authority's report and the consultants' review on which its recommendations are based. I do not see the difficulty for the Government in letting Members of Parliament and, more importantly, our constituents understand the detail of the arguments that Ministers must now consider. Greater openness will breed greater trust and better decisions.
    3.59 pm
    Mr. Graham Allen: I sometimes wonder why we are all here, but then I remember that we fought a civil war and a revolution centuries ago so that Parliament could keep its eye on the legislature and, above all, on public spending. After all, that is why we had our civil war. Essentially, that is the heart of the relationship between the Executive and the legislature.
    As I recall, we won that conflict and that is why you are in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and why Parliament should, nominally at least, be supreme in the politics of our nation. However, although the principle then was that not a penny should be spent without parliamentary approval, it seems to have slipped somewhat. The Executive have begun to entrench their power. Let us be honest: they have taken over most of the functions that should fall to this House.
    What would have happened more than 100 years ago, in a typical day in the House for looking at expenditure? Let us consider 10 May 1966, when Mr. Gladstone was—[HON. MEMBERS: "1866!"] Forgive me—if only.
    In 1866, Mr. Gladstone was being held to account about pay for rectors and missionaries in the Canadian colonies. The estimate was £2,513, which is equivalent to about £118,000 today. He had to defend the estimates. During the rest of the day, he had to defend the amount of money for the Indian Department, the governorship of the Cape of Good Hope and the amount going to the Pitcairn islands. One of the greatest political figures ever to grace this House was called to account by Parliament to justify his Government's spending.
    Today, the principle of control of supply is only a principle. It has died in practice and is preserved only in the rituals of this House. The Government spend £418 billion on behalf of ourselves and the electors and yet scrutiny of that spending is purely ceremonial in this place. We have all sat here for Consolidated Funds, spring and winter estimates, estimate and Supply days. There is little holding the Government—of any complexion—to account.
    In the last Parliament, we spent more time discussing the contents of the millennium dome than the Government's spending plans over the four years. The very terms "Supply day"—at the heart of the conflict in the civil war—or "estimates day" have become something of a misnomer. They are simply an excuse for general debate. They are part of the arcane theatre of Parliament.
    Just before Christmas on an estimates day, we nominally nodded through £1 billion in expenditure for culture, media and sport, but the debate was in fact on the world athletics championships. That should not have happened, important though those championships are. On the next day, almost £1 billion was nodded through for

    757
    the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, with an excuse for a debate on waste disposal. Important though that matter is, it is not the heart and soul of the relationship between the Executive and the legislature.
    That is not the scrutiny that makes our role here important and legitimate. There is a place for that role in many other legislatures. This place is the odd one out among western democracies. The classic example is the United States, which took the lessons of our struggles in the 17th century far more to heart than we did and, unlike us, has not forgotten them.
    The United States created a system based on the separation of powers that made the legislature an equal partner in creating the federal budget. Indeed, many might argue that it is an over-mighty partner, but would that that were the criticism in this House. That is why some presidents have sought the line-item veto to strike out individual items of spending proposed by the legislature, Congress, without wrecking the entire budget. That is a significant contrast to the situation here. In one great democracy, the Executive think that they have too little control over public expenditure and in another, they deny the legislature any real control at all.
    There is another significant contrast. The Americans constantly debate their system of democratic control over spending and we do not. As in so many ways, Parliament has acquiesced in a complete take-over of the functions of the state by an over-mighty Executive, controlled by whichever party happens to be in power. There is a long, almost mystifying, list of things that this House cannot do as regards public expenditure and scrutiny. It would amaze our constituents—if they were bothered to take any interest in the matter, or we allowed them access to some of the arcane procedures by which we disguise the process.
    First, we cannot ask for money to be added to a Department's budget. We still maintain half of the 17th century formula that the Crown proposes expenditure, even though the second half—that the Commons grants the money needed—has become obsolete. Secondly, we cannot suggest that a Department's budget be reduced without it ending with the farce of a vote of confidence. We cannot suggest that any particular programme or spending on a policy area might be transferred from one Department to another that seems more appropriate. For example, we cannot suggest that the Department of Health should become the lead Department for spending on food policy, or that constitutional and electoral matters should be reassigned to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
    Within the estimates for each Department, we cannot suggest that money be switched from one programme or policy objective to another. In the Home Office, for example, we cannot suggest a different mix of spending between policing, crime prevention, community development and victim support, thereby expressing not only a policy view but getting to the heart of how it becomes live by changing the balance in public expenditure. We cannot suggest such a change or, unlike many other legislatures, negotiate a change in partnership with the Executive.
    Before making such suggestions, we would need to know how money is assigned to different objectives. In spite of improvements in the presentation of our public accounts, that is still a difficult task not only for us but even for Ministers who are nominally in charge of public spending in particular areas.
    758
    For example, could my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health tell me with any certainty how much his Department spends in a year on preventive medicine compared with hospital care? Without effective scrutiny, can Ministers, let alone Members of Parliament, identify the main beneficiaries—our electors—of public expenditure by their Department? Could my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions tell me how much of his budget serves the needs of different classes of transport user? How much does he spend helping car drivers compared with public transport passengers? How much of his spending benefits inner cities, compared with the suburbs or rural areas? Those questions are barely thought about. The departmental Select Committee thinks about them, but this House, as a Chamber and an institution to hold the Government to account for policy and spending, rarely touches their surface.
    Who gets what is the issue at the heart of our democracy, but Ministers, let alone this House, cannot get to grips with it. We spend money or we give it away almost with no idea of where it ends up and that applies to parties of all political persuasions.
    Mr. John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman has a long pedigree in these matters and a great interest in them. Indeed, he has written about the subject. I have a three-part question. First, has he explored these matters through written questions to Ministers? Secondly, in his analysis he seems to ignore the role of Select Committees, especially the Treasury Committee, on the departmental matters he raised. Thirdly, I am surprised that he has not mentioned the Public Accounts Committee, which is particular to our Parliament—there are parallels in other democracies, but our Committee is a good model. How does he view the role of those Committees in bringing the Executive to account in the way that he recommends?
    Mr. Allen: The hon. Gentleman has followed my logic so impeccably that he anticipates the very points that I am about to make.
    As a former member of the Public Accounts Committee, I believe that it was the doyen of all our parliamentary Committees. I felt uneasy that it was jealous of the 900 accountants who worked for it in the National Audit Office. I have even suggested to its Chairman, the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), that that incredible asset should be shared with other Select Committees without being diluted. It is for the Liaison Committee to discuss how the change might be made. Perhaps it could involve commissioning with the authority of the Public Accounts Committee one, two, three or four reports a year to be debated by individual Select Committees.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: My Committee has already availed itself of the sterling efforts of the National Audit Office. I not only strongly support such an approach, but believe that there is a case for widening the remit and moving closer to arrangements such as those in America in relation to the General Accounting Office.
    Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend is very experienced in these matters and has attempted to move the agenda along in the Liaison Committee, as have other colleagues in the

    759
    Modernisation Committee. Good work is being done, but, perhaps at her expense, I must say that unless Opposition parties above all realise the weakness of this House in the face of the Executive, there is not much hope for the rest of us. It is very important that Oppositions of all parties come together to discuss and agree where they wish to go if they reach power. Many Labour Members discussed for long and barren years how we would make progress on greater and more effective parliamentary scrutiny of finance. It is all well and good for Opposition Members to chide particular Ministers, but the long-term answer must be that commitments and promises of a read-my-lips nature should be made by parties of all descriptions inside and outside the House, so they are committed wholly and irrevocably in opposition to do things when they get into power, as were Norman St. John-Stevas and the Conservative Opposition before 1979. When colleagues become members of the Executive, they seem to lose that radical edge on needing to keep the Executive under control, with the implication that it is okay providing that they are pulling the levers. It is not okay, and I hope that Opposition Members will add to that radicalism and ensure that their promises are very clear.
    Mr. Tyler: I apologise for intervening on the hon. Gentleman during his speech, which I have followed with great interest. Will he comment on another extraordinary anomaly? After a general election, or at the time of a reshuffle, the Prime Minister can completely alter the geography and architecture of the administration of Whitehall. He can give different responsibilities to different Ministers, perhaps making continuity in policy and allocation of resources even more difficult, without any reference to the House of Commons or any opportunity for Parliament to hold the decision to account.
    Mr. Allen: The great loss of potential in our democracy is that Executives of all parties fail to see Parliament as a possible partner. Parliament is always an institution that can undermine or deflect Government from their given course. Those in government are increasingly beginning to realise that they cannot do everything, and need partners. The work of hon. Members on Select Committees makes it clear that they can assist the Government in achieving policy objectives, providing better value for money and chasing policy initiatives to fruition.
    If the Government could only give of themselves by becoming a partner and listening to both Chambers, and make that approach clear to the Governments of the nations of our country and to local government, we could achieve a lot more. We could certainly achieve a great deal more in getting value for the tax pounds that we all pay in public expenditure and which nominally go through this House—the issue to which I should like to return. The House has some fundamental weaknesses in scrutinising expenditure. It is still largely backward looking. We consider money as it is being spent or wasted, or afterwards, rather than before, and we still do so against narrow criteria. We ask whether money was correctly accounted for and supervised rather than whether it was spent productively. We do not ask whether it was spent in the best way, or even whether it was sensible in terms of achieving the declared object.
    760
    Involving the House in considering how we might better spend public money would not merely be a political investment but a sound financial investment on the part of the Government. Although the Executive sometimes appear not to believe it, there is immense talent in the House and great specialist expertise that should be put to work on the nation's behalf. Our system still militates against creative spending by Ministers. Departmental spending is still locked into particular programmes or departmental functions.
    Ministers are penalised for having a new idea about what to do in their Departments. They are faced with a choice between begging the Chancellor and then the House for a supplementary estimate, or, far more likely, carrying through their brilliant new idea at the expense of equally valuable existing projects. We all have experience of the results in our constituencies, especially in health and education. Many ideas and initiatives have been proposed that could deliver genuine improvements in their respective services, but when they are rolled out locally, they are often achieved only by squeezing existing initiatives in health, education and other sectors.
    An allied problem is that public expenditure proposals and their scrutiny are still locked into an annual cycle. Despite a great deal that was said early in the current Administration's term of office, many of those accounting regimes persist in government, even though it is clear that many policy objectives need sustained investment rather than what is provided when there is a need to bid again every year. The House has almost no opportunity to examine the progress of public investments over a longer cycle, and still less ability to call for new objectives of sustained public spending and investment. The consequences of annual budgeting are felt locally and will be familiar to every hon. Member. Important local programmes live from hand to mouth and are never certain whether the central funding that sustains them will be maintained from one year to another.
    There are a couple of examples in my constituency. The Bulwell toy library involves one person who provides a service in the local community by getting toys to kids from poorer areas, but who did not know until a week ago—just a couple of weeks before the end of the financial year—whether she would be employed from 1 April. What nonsense. It is a waste of time and effort for a dedicated person to have to bid for their job and not know whether it will continue. The result is that we lose good, public-spirited, community service-oriented people who decide that they cannot tolerate it any longer and seek more stable positions elsewhere. I found out about another local example by talking to my chief constable, who laid off 100 people connected with our burglary reduction initiative. As a serious manager who was uncertain whether the initiative would be renewed at the end of the year, he had to decide whether to keep on the employees until the end of that period, when there might be no funding, or to make a rational managerial decision and lay them off.
    We must do better in spending public money and sustaining such projects. What about the answers? I shall leave them to my hon. Friend the Minister. He seems to have many answers to many issues, and I am confident that he can come up with a few in this context. We have talked about the Liaison Committee, the Modernisation Committee, a wider role for the Public Accounts Committee and the Select Committees themselves.

    761
    I propose a more general answer to my own question by urging Governments of whatever political colour to view parliamentary scrutiny of public spending not as a threat or an insult, but as something that will benefit government and Government programmes. No Minister should feel affronted by the House having different ideas on how to spend their Department's money or suggesting that they could spend it in a different way. The House should be a valued partner in matching spending to policy—not a lapdog, a scold or an enemy.
    I hope that my hon. Friend will consider these matters seriously, as he did those that I raised in the Christmas Adjournment debate, and I look forward to his comments. This is a long-term question for all hon. Members and for all parties. We must decide whether to give our Parliament a real role as we enter a new century or to continue to play at discussing policy issues without getting to the heart of policy implementation, which is finance. If this place does not scrutinise finance and get involved in the detail and authorisation of public expenditure, it is nothing.
    4.21 pm
    Mr. David Heath: It is a genuine pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). I agree with much of what he said, and if he had included Crown prerogative in his discussion of the role of enhanced scrutiny, I would be able to agree with all of it. He has done the House a great service.
    I always become concerned on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary at this stage because it seems that he needs such an encyclopaedic knowledge of the workings of government that it will be almost impossible for him to respond to all the points that hon. Members have raised. To assist his economy of thought, I will touch on elements that have already been discussed by the hon. Members for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) and for South Swindon (Ms Drown).
    My subject concerns almost the fundamental point of why we are here—to represent our constituencies in matters of taxation. The taxation that I have in mind is not nationally derived income tax, but the council tax, demands for which are currently landing on everybody's doorsteps. Our constituents would expect us to have an opportunity to discuss that before we adjourn for Easter.
    As the hon. Member for West Derbyshire said, this year's council tax increases are unsustainable and unfair to individuals—as they were last year and the previous year, and have been for a considerable time. Those increases have the greatest impact on people with fixed incomes, limited incomes, or both—especially pensioners who find that whatever minimal increase they receive in their pensions is more than wiped out by their council tax demands.
    The Government have two traditional responses when the size of council tax increases is discussed. First, they announce to an inquiring world that some completely mythical figure will be the average council tax increase across the country. This year they suggested that it would be about 5 or 6 per cent. Yet we have only to look at district and county council tax increases across all our shire counties to realise that that is a myth. The vast majority are having to impose an increase that is greater than the suggested average, and many are hugely in excess of that.
    762
    The second defence is that those councils are uniquely incompetent or profligate. It is often suggested that that depends on local political control, and that a party in one part of the country has simply decided to impose massive increases on council tax payers in that area. That will not wash any more. It is not true, and the public increasingly understand that because newspapers are getting their heads around local government finance and are not prepared to accept Government announcements at face value. That applies to successive Governments, not only the current Administration.
    The Daily Express announced an increase in council tax of 15 per cent. in a banner headline. The Times considered the reasons for the changes in council tax and the shift from national to local taxation. In my area, the Western Daily Press reports that all councils in the south-west face the same problems. It does not matter whether councils are controlled by Liberal Democrats, the Conservative party or the Labour party because they have the same problems. No council wishes to increase the council tax any more than it has to; every council finds that it has to do that, not to improve services or to add value to them but because the system functions in that way.
    People in Somerset are upset by the increases there, but that also applies to our neighbours in Dorset. For example, the newly elected Conservative district council in Christchurch—elected on a manifesto commitment to cut council tax—has increased the council tax by more than 30 per cent. It did that because it had no choice; taxation has been transferred from national to local level. That applies to many councils.
    Shire counties that are increasing their council tax by more than 20 per cent. include district councils in East Sussex, Hampshire, Kent, Lancashire, Northamptonshire, Cambridgeshire, Surrey, Worcestershire and Staffordshire. Such increases are universal.
    Mr. Eric Forth: To help our deliberations, let me give the example of Bromley borough council, where a Liberal Democrat-Labour coalition managed to increase the council tax by 35 per cent. in the past three years. The Conservatives regained control last summer and announced an increase of 4.5 per cent. for this year, as well as the ridiculous Assembly surcharge. How has it managed to do that?
    Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman shows what a lottery the council tax is. One Conservative council increases it by more than 30 per cent. and others decrease it. For example, Islington and Liverpool, which are urban, Liberal Democrat councils, have cut the council tax this year, unlike the Conservative council in Bromley. A system whereby decisions are taken nationally and based on a clearly defective formula is nonsensical.
    I am making the same argument as the hon. Member for West Derbyshire when he objected to the impact on Derbyshire. The formula is currently dysfunctional. Local thrift and good management are not rewarded, and many councils face impossible decisions about providing services that people want. That is wrong. I shall not go into detail about Somerset because that would overtire hon. Members. There has also been an Adjournment debate on the subject.
    The Government are in denial about social services expenditure and the effect of delayed discharges and closures of elderly persons' homes. They do not appear to

    763
    understand the impact of what is happening, especially in the south-west and the south-east, on social services departments. It is no good saying that much more money has been spent and that the problem is therefore solved. It is not; the extra money was given with one hand and taken away with the other.
    Flooding is another example of such denial. Everyone is aware of the effects of flooding over the last few years, and of the need to invest more in flood defences, yet the Government are not providing the cash for that. That is a matter of great concern.
    Another small, but important illustration of this phenomenon was provided when I visited the Cary environmental site in my constituency last week. It is a marvellous area, and I put on my wellies and trudged through the bulrushes in the marshes, which have been created from a waste disposal site. The site has been restored, recovered and put to good environmental use—an excellent concept, brilliantly executed—in providing real environmental advantage and educational opportunities for children.
    I was in the company of the chairman of the trust that runs the site, and he told me about his tee-shirt, which says on it, "Somerset Levels Mountain Rescue Team". For those who do not know the Somerset levels, the concept of a mountain there is a rather strange one. This was a joke. There is, however, a mountain of fridges—of all things—developing next door on the Dimmer waste disposal site, about which I have had my doubts for all sorts of reasons associated with its situation, rather than its management.
    It is ludicrous that local authorities have to pay for the storage of mountains of fridges. It is estimated that it is going to cost this country £75 million this year to store them. Why? Because a Minister and our civil service could not, apparently, read the piece of paper that was put in front of them to sign by the European Union, and because they did not understand the consequences for the country of signing it. This will have an impact on local council tax payers, and on the environment, which could have been avoided but was not, because it was not foreseen, and because the Government have been slow to come forward with solutions.
    Other Members wish to speak, so I shall draw my remarks to a close. I would, however, like to make just one more point. I have spoken at length about the aggregates levy in the past, because I represent the Mendip area and the limestone aggregate quarried from there supplies the products from which a great deal of the infrastructure of the south-east is probably built. The three counties of Somerset, Leicestershire and Derbyshire between them provide the majority of the stone that is quarried in this country.
    I have my quarrels with the way in which the aggregates levy has been imposed, and is to be administered. I am greatly disturbed at the moment by the so-called sustainability fund, which was supposed to be the reason behind the levy. The argument was that people who lived near quarries suffered unacceptable detriment to their environment and amenities, and that the levy would be recycled to provide a solution to some of those problems. Apparently, however, the Government now intend to siphon off all the money into national funds for
    764
    national purposes—all very worthy ones, I am sure, but it will not be used to make a jot of difference to the people who live cheek-by-jowl with the quarrying industry in the three counties that bear the brunt of its activities.
    That cannot be right in principle, because that was not the basis on which the aggregates levy was sold to us. It cannot be right in detail, because the levy is due to come into effect in a couple of weeks' time and we still do not know how the sustainability fund will operate, which again shows extraordinary incompetence on the part of the Government. Furthermore, it cannot be right because, even if Somerset, Leicestershire and Derbyshire were to take up the offer on the table from the Government to have a certain amount of money top-sliced from the sustainability fund, that would still be less than half of what the Government had proposed, and less than half of the additional cost to those counties of the operations of their local authorities in terms of the effect of the aggregates levy on building in the counties.
    This so-called environmental tax is, therefore, not going to have the desired effect at quarry level, for the reasons that we have debated at length. It will not even have the effect of environmental betterment on localities, because of the way in which the Government propose to operate the funds. I ask the Government to reconsider this issue as a matter of urgency, and I hope that this message will be delivered to the Treasury and to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I also hope that we will develop a system for funding local government that is transparent and fair, and that does not include the absurd addition of the area cost adjustment, which so distorts the funding systems in this country at the moment.
    Mr. Don Foster: My hon. Friend has rightly raised concerns about the council tax and the lack of transparency of the funding mechanism—the mechanism by which central Government badly fund local government. Does he share my view that a necessary part of the package is to get rid of council tax, to introduce a much fairer system of local income tax, based on people's ability to pay, and to combine that with a system in which a greater proportion of the money that is spent locally is raised locally, with a corresponding reduction in national income tax? Under such a system, people would know who to blame when things went wrong, and, of course, who to praise when they get things right.
    Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend is right. A great criticism of the council tax is that it is so sparingly progressive in its effect, and that it impacts horribly on people who can least afford it, in a way that is inappropriate. It is transparently unfair—if such a concept exists—in the way in which it operates. I think that the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) made the point earlier that the difficulty with such a system is that councillors in local government simply get the blame for everything and the credit for nothing because they can take no decisions—or only those that would have a marginal effect—that allow people to connect their actions with the amount of tax being paid. That devalues the whole process of local government.
    Local government today is not the local government that I entered back in 1985. When I was running a county council, I had the capacity to change the way in which Somerset operated. The decisions that my colleagues and I took then made a difference to the way in which local

    765
    authority services were provided. There was a cost to local people of our taking those decisions, and we had to persuade them that we were justified. That is the way local government should work. A system that makes that relationship impossible to discern devalues the whole process of local government, and allows central Government to hide behind the mask of local government when taking decisions centrally in Whitehall.
    If we can replace council tax and the uniform business rate—about which I could speak at equal length, because it is an iniquitous tax that disconnects local businesses from the services provided—with a fairer system that would re-establish those connections, we might start to see local government doing the job that we want it to do, taking local decisions for local people in the local interest. That is what it is all about.
    It is wrong that the overlaying effects of the standard spending assessment make a child in a Somerset school worth £1,500 a year less—in the Government's terms—than a child in an outer-London suburb. It is also wrong to have systems that unfairly penalise the whole of the west country, the north country and the midlands in favour of the home counties. It is time to introduce the new system that the Government have promised us for so long. It must be in place next year, and it must correct these evils if we are to see proper connections being made and people voting at local government level on proper facts relating to the performance of their local councillors and councils, rather than a myth, which is all that they have to go on at the moment.
    4.39 pm
    Mr. Andrew Love: I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for not being in my place at the start of this debate. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) but I wish that he had shared with the House the fact that Liverpool city council, in setting a budget, not only cut social services expenditure substantially this year, but will do so in the coming year. Of course, there is a distinction between that and the comments made by Liberal Democrat Members in relation to Government expenditure.
    I want to raise briefly an important issue for my constituents, which, I suspect, is reflected in constituencies across the country. I know that it has been raised in the House on many occasions. That issue is the scandal of energy mis-selling, which has not been dealt with adequately up to now. It was brought home to me a year or two ago by a retired aunt of mine in Scotland, who is relatively frail and quite elderly. She was doorstepped by a salesman, and the pressurised sales tactics that he undertook meant that she signed a form almost without knowing what she was doing. She did, however, contact me almost immediately. Because of that contact, I was able to take the necessary steps to undo the damage that she had suffered. She would not have spoken to anyone else about it—she came to me because she is a relative. Many people who suffer from these tactics do not come forward, but I have noticed a significant increase in this sort of abuse in my constituency. Let me give a couple of recent examples.
    A constituent of mine, Mrs. Brimmicombe-Wood, unexpectedly received a letter from Virgin Energy recently. She was surprised and shocked to read that her husband had authorised a switch from her previous
    766
    company to Virgin Energy. The reason that she was shocked and surprised was that her husband had died 18 months previously. His signature, which she requested to see, must therefore have been a forgery. Her reaction was:
    "I am absolutely disgusted, it is a scandal that should never happen. It was very upsetting."
    Mrs. Brimmicombe-Wood then wrote three times to Virgin Energy to try to get things changed. It was only because of my intervention as her Member of Parliament that she received an apology. Indeed, she was able to transfer her account back to the company of which she was previously a customer. Virgin Energy wrote to her:
    "It is clear that the signature does not match that provided by yourself. Clearly it was not your intention to transfer your supplies to Virgin Energy. The sales agent concerned will be interviewed and please be assured that the appropriate action will be taken—this may result in dismissal".
    I understand that it did result in dismissal. Although I have no sympathy for the salesman concerned, I would sympathise if he were to say that the problem relates to the pressure of commission selling in the industry, which has caused such abuses.
    Let us consider a second case of someone who does not want to be named—I shall call her Mrs. X. Mrs. X was, to her great surprise, transferred to Scottish Power. She was particularly surprised because, when the salesman came to her door, her partner was with her continuously throughout the interview, and both of them totally contradict what Scottish Power has said. They signed nothing, and I have requested on her behalf a copy of that signature. We await with interest—this is a very recent case—the company's response to Mrs. X's claims.
    Some would argue that we should go back to the old days of the electricity boards and British Gas, when the supply of utilities was a simple matter. I do not accept that. I believe that deregulation of the energy industry has been good for consumers in general. We must also recognise, however, that many companies are falling over each other to win the custom of consumers. Although it has delivered consumer benefit and greater choice, it has also created enormous pressure for all the companies that have come into the market to sign up customers. That is for a simple reason—there is a fixed number of customers. This is a zero sum game. If a company wants new customers, it must take them from one or other of its competitors. What has happened is that consumers have become somewhat confused by the choices available to them. As can be shown, there is a worrying trend of mis-selling in the marketplace. That issue has been raised on numerous occasions in the House, and I want to quote a recent response by the Minister for Industry and Energy:
    "I have recently written to all gas and electricity suppliers to express my concern about the distress caused by incidences of sales malpractice and demand that suppliers improve their performances."—[Official Report, 16 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 918W.]
    I would be interested to know what progress the Minister has made in seeking reassurances from the industry.
    There are many advantages to having competition in energy markets. There is evidence to suggest that it keeps prices down, and there is some evidence—although less—that it provides a better service for the customer. That type of market requires regulation, which was why Ofgem was originally set up. I shall consider whether Ofgem is responding to the real concerns about the way in which

    767
    the market operates. I also want to commend the work being done by Energywatch, which is an independent consumer watchdog that tries to represent the consumer in a relationship with some of those companies.
    Many investigations are taking place—hon. Members have referred to the work being done by the Public Accounts Committee. I am also a former member of the Public Accounts Committee, and it does a tremendous job. It highlighted not only some of the advantages that have come from deregulation but the disadvantages in the marketplace. It made three recommendations in relation to those. First, it recommended that Ofgem should provide a standardised approved form—and a simplified form—for all the companies that want to change customers over. That will ensure that every consumer knows exactly what they are signing up to before they do so. Secondly, it recommended that Ofgem should focus on some of the measures that it needs to take to curb high-pressure sales tactics and some of the misleading information that has gone out to consumers. Consumer information is critically important. Thirdly, it recommended that Ofgem should make use of the powers that are available but that it is not currently using. For example, it can fine companies that are found guilty of such activities.
    Energywatch has also recognised some of these concerns and its recent "Stop Now" campaign tries to make it clear to consumers that such sales tactics are unacceptable and must be dealt with. It also encourages consumers to complain to the energy companies. Consumers did not complain much in the past, but I hope that they will do so in future. Some developments, however, are heartening. The statistics show that, from January to October 2001, Energywatch received 2,205 complaints about the gas market and 3,442 complaints about the electricity market. There has been success in encouraging people to bring their complaints forward, and recent statistics show that the number is increasing. We have yet to see whether that is because more people are coming forward or because abuse is increasing.
    Echoing some of the comments in the Public Account Committee's report, Energy watch has also made recommendations that it hopes that my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy will take up. I shall mention one or two of those recommendations. Energywatch believes that Ofgem must strengthen the rules with which energy companies have to comply. That is important, because we need compliance to ensure that abuse does not continue.
    Energywatch says that Ofgem must use the full range of its powers, because it does not use all those that it has to make the energy companies comply with the rules. Ofgem must investigate ways to tighten the controls that currently exist, so that it ensures that the companies are doing everything necessary to create an adequate market. Finally, Ofgem must ensure that proper compensation is paid when someone suffers distress and inconvenience. Because Ofgem believes that the current market operates solely to the benefit of the consumer, it often does not recognise the distress that certain practices cause, particularly to the elderly.
    My hon. Friend the Minister will valiantly have to answer for every Department on every issue raised, but I ask him to raise these issues with my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy, who I know shares my
    768
    concerns and is somewhat frustrated that Ofgem does not use all its available powers. In recent months, I and many other hon. Members have expressed concerns about the activities that I have described, and action needs to he taken. Ofgem has the powers, and it is for Ministers to put pressure on Ofgem so that consumers do not suffer in future.
    4.52 pm
    Mr. Andrew Rosindell: Before I raise my main subject, may I reiterate the concerns about the Post Office expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) and for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington)? The Post Office will be a difficult problem for the Government to tackle and I hope that careful thought is being given to how we can best preserve the role of local community post offices, many of which, including those in urban areas, are likely to close.
    I represent a constituency that is mostly urban, and I know from my experience that the Post Office is the centrepiece of a community. Elderly people, for example, require such a facility to collect their pensions and to meet their friends. They use the post office as an everyday facility that benefits the community. I hope that there will not be mass closures of post offices across the country. Rural areas are likely to be particularly affected, but I hope that consideration will be given to the consequences in urban areas such as my constituency of Romford.
    Two years ago, I led a local campaign to save the post office in Rise Park. We succeeded, and I was amazed by the response that we received from the entire community. It thought that it would lose its post office and that elderly people would have to travel long distances simply to claim their weekly pension entitlements. I hope that such issues will be given careful thought in the months ahead.
    The main issue that I wish to raise is this Government's and all Governments' attitudes in recent years towards British people who do not live on these islands. I refer to the people who live in the British overseas territories and, in particular, to the loyal British subjects who live on the rock of Gibraltar. They have been treated appallingly by the present Government.
    Only last week, we saw on our television screens thousands of people demonstrating not for better hospitals, better schools, wage increases or better working conditions, but simply for democracy—for the right to remain British subjects. How can it be right that anyone should have to demonstrate in such numbers, simply to defend their right to remain British? How many Members of this House would tolerate their constituents being treated in the same way as this Government appear to be treating the good people of Gibraltar?
    Yesterday, a delegation of the Gibraltar Women's Association visited Buckingham palace—in fact, it is still in London—to present a 16,000-strong petition to Her Majesty the Queen, asking for the issue of Gibraltar to be given the prominence that it deserves, and for Gibraltarians' rights and freedoms to be defended. Last week's demonstration and yesterday's petition are two examples of how betrayed the people of that territory feel by the way the Government are treating them. They are indeed loyal British people, and they deserve better. They deserve to be treated in the same way as we expect our own constituents to be treated. No Member of this House

    769
    would tolerate such attacks on their own constituents, so why do we tolerate them in respect of the people of Gibraltar? It is time that we gave them an equal, democratic say in the things that affect their everyday lives.
    The kingdom of Spain is a democracy, a NATO ally and a so-called partner in the European Union, but it bullies the people of Gibraltar. How can that be right? At the moment, at least, Spain is not behaving as an ally or a friend. Indeed, given its treatment of British people, I consider it a fair-weather friend, and I have recent first-hand experience of that.
    Just over a month ago, I flew from London to Gibraltar, accompanied by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith), my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), and my hon. Friends the Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride). The weather was atrocious, making it too dangerous to land on the Rock of Gibraltar. However, our flight was not diverted to Malaga—in the kingdom of Spain, our ally—as one would expect; instead, we were told that Spain would not allow the plane to land because it was a Gibraltarian flight. We were diverted to Tangiers, in Morocco, where we had to wait some considerable time for the flight to be re-designated as a Tangier-Malaga flight. On arriving at Malaga several hours later, we then had to travel to Gibraltar.
    The most appalling aspect of that incident was not the fact that five Members of the British House of Commons were delayed on their trip to Gibraltar, but that on board the flight was the coffin of a young Gibraltarian, who had died in tragic circumstances. His parents were waiting at Gibraltar airport for the coffin to arrive, and the funeral was due to take place that same day. The Spanish authorities would not allow the coffin to be transported from Malaga to Gibraltar, so his poor family—distressed and distraught at the death of their son—were made to wait, only to discover that the funeral could not take place. The coffin then had to be flown to London, and was flown back again some days later. How can that be right? How can we stand by and watch British people be treated in such an appalling and unfair manner?
    Although I am a Conservative Member and I speak for almost every other Conservative Member in respect of this issue, I should point out to the Minister that many dozens of Labour Members also feel very strongly about it. I should like to quote the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), for whom I have the utmost respect because of his principled stance on this issue. In a recent letter to a newspaper, he said:
    "Unwilling to take Spain to the European Court for her behaviour, the British Government has resorted to appeasement and bribery, waving the promise of sovereignty of Gibraltar in return for more telephone lines. Is it any surprise that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar refuses to attend talks based on such a premise?"
    If Labour Members have such views and feel the same as many Conservative Members, surely it is time for the Government to address this issue.
    I want to develop my remarks to take in not only Gibraltar but the overseas territories in general. I am very proud to speak as secretary of both the Gibraltar all-party group and the Falkland Islands all-party group. The way in which Britain has administered her remaining overseas territories is a national disgrace. Uniquely among
    770
    European countries such as France, the Netherlands and Spain, Britain's attitude towards her remaining colonial possessions has resulted in her pushing them further away, offering them a baffling array of constitutional arrangements and forms of citizenship that never fully equal those on the British mainland.
    Although I welcome the move to award full British citizenship to all inhabitants of the overseas territories, we must go further. It is time that we stopped regarding them as mere colonial relics and offered their citizens equal status with everybody else in the United Kingdom, including representation here in the British Parliament.
    Dr. Rudi Vis: The hon. Gentleman implied that the Netherlands treats its overseas territories rather better. What overseas territories does the Netherlands have?
    Mr. Rosindell: The Dutch Antilles.
    Dr. Vis: No.
    Mr. Rosindell: Okay.
    The people of the overseas territories, who are British, as we are, do not have a democratic vote for this Parliament, which is their Parliament too. The people of Gibraltar should have their own elected Member of Parliament. It was recently announced that the Western Isles is to retain its MP. I believe that its electoral population is about 20,000. I believe that Gibraltar has slightly more voters, so there is no reason, in numerical terms, why Gibraltar should not also have an MP to represent it in this Chamber.
    Furthermore, in the reform of the House of Lords we have a great opportunity to give all British people in the overseas territories the right to send representatives to the British Parliament. Some Members may recall that I spoke in a debate a few weeks ago in which I proposed that we reform the House at least partly on a territorial basis, which would give all overseas territories at least one representative in the newly formed, democratically elected House of Lords. Why should not the overseas territories have a voice in this Parliament, which is their Parliament too?
    Most of the overseas territories would welcome with open arms integration and representation of that type. Their current Governments could remain in place as devolved authorities. As we see in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the principle has now been established that it is possible to have a devolved Assembly or Parliament and still have representation in the House of Commons. There would be no inconsistency in Gibraltar retaining its House of Assembly and having representatives here.
    Opinion polls held in Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, St. Helena, Montserrat and the Pitcairn Islands consistently show that for their inhabitants integration is the preferred form of constitutional settlement. It has worked well for their French and Spanish equivalents. Uninhabited territories, such as South Georgia, could be integrated immediately.
    Some territories, such as Gibraltar, enjoy a special tax status, and the argument put to me by the Foreign Secretary during a recent debate on Gibraltar was that that status would be lost by integration. However, that is not

    771
    necessarily the case; it is not a barrier to integration, as experience in other European Union member states proves. For example, Spain secured the duty-free status of its integrated territories in North Africa—Ceuta and Melilla—despite their being inside the EU. Similarly, the Netherlands secured special tax status for the Dutch Antilles.
    I want to devote the rest of my comments to Gibraltar, given the profound constitutional uncertainty that the Government have chosen to engineer there. The Government's policy on Gibraltar is obsequious and wrong. Rather than force Madrid by all available means to abandon its unfounded claim, the Government have put the future of the territory up for negotiation—believing it to be, as the Minister for Europe claimed, an anachronism.
    Madrid's stance betrays the many occasions on which Gibraltar has aided Spain. When British forces liberated Spain from Napoleon, they came through Gibraltar. During the anti-fascist campaign against Franco, Gibraltar gave Spanish refugees food and shelter. Franco never forgave the territory for giving succour to his enemies. For all its democratic reforms, modern Spain, sadly, maintains Franco's line.
    The Government try to justify their negotiations by claiming, in effect, "Short of gunboats, what else can we do?" The answer is that Gibraltarians must be given the same status as mainland British citizens, with their own Member of Parliament. An opinion poll commissioned by the Gibraltar Broadcasting Corporation found that a plurality of Gibraltarians support integration, while a lesser number support other options, including free association with the United Kingdom and independence. A much smaller number want shared sovereignty or Spanish control.
    Integrating Gibraltar in that way would end Madrid's perception of a half-open door against which she can continue to push. Spain herself provides a model for that policy, having integrated most of her overseas territories—with the result that they are now celebrated and constitutionally stable, and not subject to repeated referendums on their future.
    Last year, in evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Europe claimed that integrating Gibraltar would contravene the treaty of Utrecht. The treaty is, however, no obstacle to the integration of the territory. Under the treaty, Gibraltar is forfeit to Spain only should Britain "alienate" the territory. Integration scarcely constitutes alienation. The right hon. Gentleman also commented that integration of that sort is not compatible with the modern era—whatever he means by that. Does he think that our European partners, including France and Spain, are living in the past?
    Meanwhile, Madrid clings to her dictatorial claim that the Gibraltarians' views are irrelevant. The Spanish Foreign Minister claims that by holding talks the UK and Spain are "building a house". Gibraltarians, he adds,
    "may be allowed to choose the colour of the rooms".
    Unfortunately, under the treaty of Utrecht, he actually has a point. Under the treaty, Gibraltar must be in either British or Spanish hands, without regard for its inhabitants' opinions.
    Times and opinions change. The treaty of Utrecht was written in the age when monarchs signed over territories with little regard for their inhabitants. I hope that the
    772
    Prime Minister is not hoping to emulate an ancient monarch. When Gibraltar had little civilian population, of course there was no need to give those people the right to decide, but nothing could be further from the truth today.
    The legal and political standards of the 21st century leave the treaty of Utrecht in tatters. The many ways in which the treaty has been broken include the existence of Jewish and Moorish populations on the Rock. Spain's many sieges of the territory also breached the treaty. As well as being broken, the treaty has been superseded by the treaty of Rome in 1957 and the United Nations declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples in 1960.
    It is time that all sides acknowledged that the treaty of Utrecht—broken, superseded and incongruent with the democratic age as it is today—is not worth the parchment that it is written on. It is the treaty that is an anachronism, not Gibraltar.
    We must end the crude and illegal pressure placed on Gibraltar by the kingdom of Spain, but negotiation is not the way to do so. Spain is in direct breach of international law and lacks any support in Gibraltar, yet for years London has squandered opportunities to force the matter—failing, for example, to block Spain's accession to the European Union or, more recently, to NATO until it dropped its claim. Rewarding Spain for its intransigence would be a betrayal of the loyal Gibraltarian people and of their right of self-determination.
    We should be proud that the Gibraltarians wish to remain British, and not treat them as a colonial anachronism. It is time that we gave the people of Gibraltar and all British subjects, wherever they may live in the world, the same democratic rights, the same liberty and the same freedoms that we would demand for our constituents.
    5.12 pm
    Dr. Rudi Vis: My comments will be brief and will address only one local issue—the Finchley Memorial hospital, which I have visited many times.
    On Saturday, I attended the 45th annual general meeting of the friends of the Finchley Memorial hospital. They are a seriously good group of friends, extremely ably led by Mrs. Marion Randall, who chaired the meeting. The friends have just secured a new ultrasound scanner, after a funding campaign this year that collected £25,000. Local residents therefore do not have to wait for weeks, as the scanner is on the premises.
    Equally impressive is the fact that this small community hospital treated some 24,000 local people in the past year, and all within a few minutes of their arrival. I know that the national health service is under tremendous pressure, but there are many success stories that seem to go unnoticed about health in this country. The latest report of Finchley Memorial indicates that the level of appreciation and satisfaction with treatment there is close to 100 per cent., and that certainly is due to high staff morale, excellent doctors, nurses and other staff and the friendly atmosphere that exists in that community hospital.
    Vice-chair Peter Packer has also been a stalwart for many decades and I have enjoyed rattling the collection box with the treasurer of the friends, Jim McLauchlan,

    773
    on several occasions. The shop Homebase has been particularly helpful in allowing that to happen on its premises.
    As in many other hospitals, the friends are getting older by the day, and it would be good to attract some younger constituents to assist them. That point was put in a characteristically endearing way by Miss Valerie Chapman, the honorary membership secretary.
    Of course, I realise that there are differences between a community hospital with only a minor casualty department run by excellent local general practitioners and larger hospitals that perform the whole range of NHS work. I also accept the need for economies of scale and specialisation. However, it is good to have community hospitals, particularly as their out-patients tend to have to make only short journeys.
    A vote of thanks to the officers and committee members of the friends was given by Mrs. Jenny Chung, who looks after the day hospital and sometimes does night duty on the wards.
    The senior person with overall responsibility for the hospital is Mr. Anil Sohun, and the friends have an excellent relationship with him. He was also mainly responsible for setting up the mental health ward and the mental health team to look after those patients.
    I also much enjoyed the excellent talk given at the AGM by local resident Professor John Hartley, who is professor of cancer studies at University college, London. He is a foremost cancer research expert and the title of his lecture was "An Exciting Time for Cancer Research". I had met Professor Hartley only socially before, so I was much looking forward to his address, and we were not disappointed—he was able to capture his audience about cancer, which is, after all, a frightening disease. In conclusion, he talked about his new love of bringing science and arts together with local artists, and I am looking forward to the exhibition, which will take place soon.
    I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to convey to the Secretary of State for Health the fact that he will be very welcome to visit Finchley Memorial hospital any day.
    5.17 pm
    Mr. David Amess: I wish to raise several issues before the House adjourns for the Easter recess. First, it is clear that the Government are not in good order. Indeed, they are in complete disarray. Although it might be an illusion at the moment, if the Government Benches were packed we would see a seething mass of discontent. The reason for that is clear: after Labour were elected in 1997, they said, "Yes, we are having some difficulties, but it is all the fault of 18 years of Conservative government." That line used to wear well on the doorstep, but Labour Members find that it no longer does so, as the Government enter their second term in office. The general public are sick to death of the blame culture that comes from Labour Members.
    The present situation is dire. Whether in education, law and order, the health service, transport or defence, the Government are in crisis. The Leader of the House may shake his head. [Interruption.] Well, he has a certain way with him. I thought that he was shaking his head. My constituents feel that the Government have made a complete and absolute mess of things.
    774
    Let me start with law and order. The Prime Minister made his name with the cry, "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime." That has become a sick joke. Just a few weeks ago, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis addressed a conference at which he told everyone that the criminal justice system does not work. What sort of signal does that send to my constituents? The leading police officer made a speech, which he knew would be widely broadcast, telling everyone that the criminal justice system is in disarray.
    Some may have thought that the Commissioner's relationship with the Home Secretary was such that that speech would not be made. Of course, we then find out that a conference was hastily arranged at 10 Downing street. After the conference, the same gentleman came out and said, "Yippee! It's the greatest conference we've ever had. We've been listened to and everything will be fixed."
    Of course, two weeks ago hon. Members were lobbied by serving police officers. They lined up peacefully outside the Palace of Westminster to express their concerns to Members of Parliament about pay and conditions. It did not seem to me that all was well. The officers were unhappy about how the Government were treating them. In addition, it was announced that people in prison who have committed certain crimes will be released early. If that is the Prime Minister's idea of joined-up Government, God help us. He has been shot out of the ground on law and order issues.
    Police launches in Essex are a major concern for my constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) has also been lobbied on the issue. Leigh-on-Sea town council wrote to me recently to say that there is a proposal to reduce the number of police launches in Essex from two to one. The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) lives in Southend, West so he, too, may have been lobbied on that 50 per cent. reduction.
    The town council wrote to the chief constable and was not reassured by the reply. It thinks that reducing the number of launches will, in turn, reduce the valuable service provided by the police marine section at a time when criminal damage on and to boats is increasing. In a letter to me, it states:
    "It makes working and recreational boats in Leigh-on-Sea and other areas more vulnerable, and when the reduction becomes public knowledge may well encourage more criminality in the estuary if criminals think that there is a reduction in the chance of them being caught."
    The line is that there is no reduction, just a reorganisation that has nothing to do with money. However, that claim has been blown out of the water. Essex yacht club wrote to the police and received the following response:
    "Following several cost-cutting reviews, the Essex Police Marine Unit is being reduced in size both in manpower and equipment, with one launch being disposed of, with four officers being redeployed to core policing roles."
    There was no mention of safety: nothing about looking after our constituents or preventing children from getting into difficulty when they play near the estuary. The reduction is the result of a cost-cutting review. I am disgusted, as are my constituents.
    My hon. Friends mentioned the Post Office. I listened carefully to yesterday's announcement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. She mentioned the difficulties that Consignia is in. In spite of the huge job

    775
    losses, she explained that the changes were necessary. Time after time, the Government accuse the Conservative party of forgetting what it did when it was in government. However, Labour Members forget how they reacted to job losses when in opposition. Every time a job loss was announced, the Labour Opposition did not say that it was because of the prevailing market or because we had to keep up with technology. Instead, they made the straightforward political hit that it was all the fault of the Conservative Government. The Labour Government have to defend job losses all the time, and it is a bit rich for them to say that such losses are fine because they are in government and they always look after working-class people. As far as I am concerned, the Labour party is out of touch with working-class people, and they have abandoned them the length and breadth of the country.
    I am concerned to learn that Southend might lose Parcelforce. I continually receive complaints, not about the postwomen and men, who are wonderful, but about the service overall—the mail arrives late, there is only one delivery a day, and there are all sorts of other problems. Losing Parcelforce would be a huge blow to Southend and my constituents.
    I raised the issue of Southend airport at Christmas and I shall do so again today. The Civil Aviation Authority has visited the airport, which has existed for many years, to say that a change must be made to the runway. It suggests that as part of that change St. Laurence and All Saints church, which is 1,000 years old, should be moved. For obvious reasons, the proposal has not gone down well with parishioners, not least because the church is consecrated ground. Although whether one is a Christian is a private matter, the church is dear to local residents, who are extremely upset about the proposal.
    The issues surrounding the airport have now grown. The airport has and always has had a licence to operate, but for various reasons the number of commercial flights from the airport has been declining for some time. Now, we learn that there is a body of people who are greatly concerned about the airport itself—in fact, one might think that some of that group were suggesting that the airport should close.
    The way in which the issues have become muddied is most unfortunate. A large number of people depend for their livelihood on the jobs that the airport provides, and I hope that the issues triggered by the CAA's requirements for change will be carefully considered. I appeal to the Leader of the House to have a word with the appropriate Minister to see whether the CAA can provide more help.
    I commend to the House early-day motion 1021, tabled by the hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths), who has done the House a service by drawing to its attention the fact that the network card is to be withdrawn. As hon. Members know, that card encourages off-peak travel and makes short journeys far more attractive to non-commuters.
    The Association of Train Operating Companies has acted quickly and sent most hon. Members a letter. Some might not yet have had time to read it, but I hope that those who do will not be seduced by it, because a careful reading reveals that it in no way means that what the companies are offering is a substitute for the network
    776
    card. As far as I can see, they definitely plan to get rid of the card altogether and they will offer no discount on short trips in future. Our constituents will be extremely upset about that.
    On education, the Government know only too well that it is extremely difficult to recruit and retain teachers. Several local teachers who do supply teaching or who teach for as little as one day a week have brought to my attention the registration fee charged by the General Teaching Council. Hon. Members might think that £23 is not a lot, but I can assure them that some teachers have strong feelings about the fact that they are asked to pay the full fee, rather than a scaled down sum.
    I shall not bore the House by going through all the correspondence. The Minister for School Standards, who has been most helpful, has offered to examine the issue. A payment to teachers of £33 is suggested, but it will not be built into the teachers' pay award. In a letter I have here, the GTC admits that it has been overwhelmed by teachers' protests about the fee and says that
    "The possibility of a scaled fee structure in the future will be kepi under review by the Council."
    It would be helpful if a Minister got onto the General Teaching Council and said, "Look, we've got a problem, but it can easily be fixed."
    Finally, on animal welfare, a few weeks ago I had the privilege of introducing a ten-minute Bill which would increase the prison sentence that could be imposed for illegally importing endangered species from two to five years; at the moment, that is not an arrestable offence. I know that not everyone is interested in animal welfare, but all Members were interested in foot and mouth. A number of zoologists and scientists have told me about the dangers that illegally imported exotic animals may pose. For instance, exotic Newcastle disease is a viral disease that affects all species of birds and is probably one of the most infectious diseases among poultry. There are a number of examples across the world where disease spread by an illegally imported bird has led to all the stock over a wide area being culled. When my Bill comes up for Second Reading on 16 April, it would be terribly helpful if there were no shouts of "Object".
    In conclusion, I am involved in a charity walk, and am walking down every road, cul-de-sac, footpath and byway in my Southend, West constituency, where there was an election last year. I am doing so to raise money for Fairhaven hospice, the local branch of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the mayor's charity. If our legs are in good order, it is a good thing to walk. Young people are seduced too easily into thinking that it is all right to get into their car with a mobile phone under their chin; in my constituency, walkers are overwhelmingly elderly people. I hope that Members will reflect on that.
    Bob Spink: I congratulate my hon. Friend on recently achieving a ripe old age, and hope that he has a wonderful birthday celebration this evening. If I sponsor him for his charity walk, will he sponsor me for my charity run in the London marathon?
    Mr. Amess: I know that the House is quietly groaning, but yes, I will. I shall go on my charity walk, and wish all hon. Members and the staff who work here a happy and joyful Easter recess.
    5.33 pm
    Mr. Edward O'Hara: I wish to discuss a local issue—a dispute with my local community health trust—which I regret having to raise in the House. For over three years, I have pursued all formal means of following up my concerns, but have been left with no option but to take this means of making them public.
    At stake is the important democratic principle of whether Members of Parliament should be allowed to represent the interests of their constituents and whether they should be allowed to hold bodies such as NHS trusts to account. The original issue was simple: a constituent of mine was summarily dismissed from her staff post on what I have demonstrated was a trumped-up charge of professional misconduct. She appealed, and her post was filled while her appeal was pending. She won her appeal—there is no evidence from the records of the appeal to suggest anything other than thatmbut management treated her as if she had lost. She was redeployed to another post on a salary £8,000 lower than her original salary.
    Over the past three years this has become a very complicated matter, and my file on it is now very thick. Each attempt I have made to question the actions of management, which I believe amount to maladministration, has been met by the same sort of response. The responses are characterised by a determined attempt to block me. They have used evasion, selection of facts and distortion of the history of events, and have generally imposed layer upon layer of obfuscation.
    There have been dirty tricks, too. There have been insulting references to me. I can wear that: I am a Member of Parliament. But there have been allegations, totally unfounded and untrue, that I pursued the matter only in return for sexual favours from the member of staff concerned. I have met her only once, in the boardroom of the community health trust. Another health service employee has received warnings not to pursue a relationship with her if he values his career in the NHS, and I believe there have been many attempts to block her opportunities of obtaining other posts. It has been very, very dirty.
    The management have protested that, according to their solicitors, nothing wrong has been done—that the North West regional executive has examined the situation, and can find nothing wrong. That is naturally true: the case was presented to it by the very people whom I wish to call to account.
    For three years I offered repeatedly to present my case directly to the board, and for three years I was steadfastly ignored. I therefore went to the board's December meeting and intervened, directly requesting my own meeting with the board to present my case in person. That request, too, was ignored. I wrote to the chairman in January in order to put my request in writing. He eventually refused it, on the specious ground that it concerned a confidential matter that the board could not discuss with me—specious, because it avoids two issues.
    The member of staff strongly wishes me to present confidential matters affecting her to the board. There is nothing to stop the board from listening to what I have to say, and then going into private session to discuss it along with, perhaps, other confidential matters. I wrote to the non-executive directors pointing out that they too were being deprived of an opportunity to listen to what I had
    778
    to say and to exercise their own judgment. They requisitioned a meeting of the board so that they could indeed hear what I had to say. Last week one of them contacted me to ask why I had not attended the meeting. It was then that I discovered that, a month earlier, they had received copies of a letter addressed to me inviting me to a meeting. Strangely, I had not received the letter.
    Given my bitter experience of dealing with the chief executive and chairman of this trust over three years, I do not believe that the letter went astray in the post. I do not believe that it was ever sent. Yesterday the chairman offered to conduct an internal investigation. I told him not to bother.
    Yesterday I attended the final meeting of the trust, which, because of the reorganisation, is going out of existence at the end of this week, and voiced my objections once again. The chairman insisted even then that he would not allow me to present my case, but said that I could meet the non-executive directors informally after the end of the final meeting—the winding-up meeting—of the board. That was the only option left to me, and the only option after that was to take the matter public, in the press or in the House. I chose the House.
    I met the non-executive directors informally at the end of their meeting and was interested in their response. They had had a very interesting closed session before meeting me. When I presented my case, they were happy to accept that it fitted a pattern of malpractice that they had identified in other, more serious, areas which they had been discussing in a fraught closed session and which had been referred to the district auditor and up to the Secretary of State for Health for investigation. I feel vindicated—I am not the only person to believe that there was malpractice in the trust.
    I ask the Leader of the House to refer my complaints also to the Secretary of State. The former non-executive directors will agree with me. I hope that the Secretary of State will make it clear to all NHS trusts that he will not tolerate attempts to prevent local MPs from holding them democratically to account for their actions.
    5.42 pm
    Richard Younger-Ross: This is the first such Adjournment debate that I have sat through, and I have found the subjects discussed both enlightening and educational.
    I have two local issues to draw to the attention of the House. The first is infrastructure planning—or, rather, the lack of infrastructure planning. Lack of long-term planning is a hindrance to the United Kingdom. It is a hindrance to the economy and local businesses and a pain to individuals. There is not even a joined-up system. The planning process can be painfully drawn out over a number of years, or it can be extremely quick. Things can be built overnight before local residents realise that there was any intention to construct anything.
    I know that the Kingskerswell bypass has been mentioned in the House on numerous occasions, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) in recent times. The village of Kingskerswell has the third greatest amount of traffic in Devon. It is beaten only by the traffic flow at the end of the M5 near Exeter and by the traffic crossing the Marsh Mills flyover in Plymouth. However, I am talking about an ordinary road, with sets of traffic lights and houses on either side.

    779
    During the summer, the traffic bottleneck delays tourist and business traffic trying to get to and from Torquay. During the winter, there is less of a bottleneck, but the road is still gridlocked at many times of the day. Traffic is forced to use country lanes as a rat run to avoid the slow crawl between Torquay and Newton Abbot.
    Lack of planning is a major concern. The road was planned for many years. In the 1970s a length of dual carriageway was built from the end of the M5 as far as Newton Abbot; then it stopped. It is clear from the road layout that it was designed to go on towards Torquay. It is clear from the estate layout and the roads on Buckland, where new estates were built at the time, that they were designed to have feeder roads coming across towards Newton Abbot, so that there was no bottleneck and not just one roundabout to cope with all the traffic.
    The local authority in its infinite wisdom allowed a supermarket to be constructed right at the roundabout. That severely restricted the options available to the county council, or the Highways Agency before that, for the design and construction of a road. If it were a major trunk road, there would be a compulsory purchase order and the supermarket would be knocked down; but sadly, that is not in the gift of the county council, which has been left with responsibility for the road, after the Conservative Government removed its trunk road status and said that it was no longer the Government's responsibility. It may be the third busiest road in Devon, but it is now the responsibility of the county council. It was a sad day when the Tories reneged on promises to construct the bypass.
    There has been a total lack of planning. A proposal is to be made by the county council, which will have to look for private funding. The process is so long and drawn out, despite the demonstrable need and the desire of local people for the road. There will have to be a consultation process, then planning, and we will end up with a public inquiry. After the funding has been put in place, construction might begin in 2007 or 2008. For the people who live on the road, use the road and suffer the existing road, that is not an acceptable way of planning highway needs. It is also immensely damaging to the economy, particularly of Torquay and to some extent of my constituency.
    In addition to infrastructure planning, we must consider road design and the quality of the end product. With the move towards private sector funding for roads, I am worried that we will end up with a result similar to the worst of 1960s housebuilding or motorway design, where everything was done on the cheap.
    Recently, I was fortunate enough to drive to Brussels. I shall not comment on the roads in Belgium, but on the roads in France the design of the lay-bys, service stations and toilets is of strikingly high quality. The standard and quality of the design of the bridges, too, is striking. That is the case in other parts of Europe as well.
    We tend to end up with cheap, mundane design, which is damaging to the environment and to those who live near the roads or use them every day. We ought to think more clearly about the fact that what we construct will be there for a long time. It is said that doctors bury their mistakes. Architects and civil engineers can only grow ivy in front of theirs, and hope that they disappear one day.
    780
    Public transport services are also characterised by a lack of thought and infrastructure planning. I shall not deal with the local bus problems and the lack of rural buses, as that has been dealt with on other occasions. However, I must comment in passing that it is sad when a rural bus service from somewhere in the middle of Dartmoor—Moretonhampstead, say—which takes people to work in Newton Abbot by 9 am has to be withdrawn because of lack of funding, and the earliest that people can get into Newton Abbot now is 10 or 10.30 am. That does not strike me as joined-up thinking about transport systems.
    I must also mention rail transport and the use of the rail network—not the big scheme of things, but local services. We need to put in extra local stations. People in Kingskerswell have been campaigning for a new station for a long time.
    People in the Bovey Tracey/Heathfield area of my constituency have also been campaigning for some time. A parish council that I met the other night mentioned the matter to me. The rail link to Heathfield, where there is a large housing estate and an industrial estate, could be reopened to passenger transport. The county council has been asked about that, but says that it does not have the resources for an impact study to consider the viability of the options. Again, it all comes down to a lack of planning. I cannot say whether a rail link to Heathfield is a viable option, but if the local community regards it as important, it ought to be considered.
    I referred to the problems with the Kingskerswell bypass and the road from the Buckland estate toward Newton Abbott. Not long ago, I asked the county engineer what detailed planning he could undertake on traffic flows east to west across Newton Abbott, which tends to be bottlenecked for most of the summer months, in particular on market days. He said that he did not have the funding to look into that. It is vital that all those areas be considered before viable options are ruled out. The supermarket that was built in Newton Abbott has caused immense problems for the building of the Kingskerswell bypass.
    I mentioned the problem that some processes are painfully drawn out, but some are painfully quick. Just after the war, a number of authorities were granted in legislation, for good reason, the right to construct and build without having to refer to or get the consent of local authorities or any other authority. The railways have some such rights, but I am thinking in particular of the docks.
    Teignmouth is a viable local port and I wish it every success. I cannot but worry, however, that the port authority has the right to build storage sheds along the entire length of its quay, completely obscuring the views from, and putting a wall of steel in front of, the houses in Alexander terrace and the other streets up the hill behind it—although I realise that there is no right to a view. It cannot be right that no one can question the port authority's right to do that. It goes against all that I understood to be local democracy that that should be allowed to happen. I am saying not that the authority should not be allowed to do it, but that the proposal must be questioned and local residents must have the right to their local authority questioning the proposal. I am told that a port authority could build a silo 100 or 200 ft high without having to get any consent, which would have a severe environmental impact on the area.

    781
    On another subject, in a social care debate in January I raised the lack of funding for social services in the south-west. I drew the attention of the Minister present to a report by the 15 authorities in the area, which said that they were having to divert funding for elderly people to cope with child protection requirements. I have been told since that the funding available to many local authorities will only just cover the bare legal minimum without all the other requirements that they must meet to ensure that children are not abused and have a fair and reasonable start in life.
    The Minister responded that what had been described was clearly unacceptable and promised that she would investigate the matter. To date, I have heard not a word from her. I raised the matter three weeks ago with the Leader of the House, who promised that he would raise it with the Secretary of State. Again, I have heard nothing, so I hope that this will be third time lucky, and that we will get a response on this important issue.
    5.55 pm
    Peter Bottomley: I apologise to the House for not being present to hear earlier speeches. I am glad that many hon. Members will have had the opportunity to contribute.
    I should like to echo the words of some of my hon. Friends who have spoken about the state of post offices. Worthing has the highest proportion of retired people in the country. The future of rural post offices is a matter of interest, but urban post offices are often of greatest interest. None the less, I know that many of my villages will feel very miserable if their post offices are withdrawn because of Government mismanagement of Post Office issues.
    I should have liked to speak at some length about overseas British pensioners, as half of them live in countries where they get upratings in the state retirement pension, while the other half do not. The issue may soon come before the courts, but because I want to raise another pressing matter, I hope that those pensioners will forgive me if I do not deal with the issue at the same length as I have done previously and hope to do in future.
    I want to turn the attention of the House to the situation not of a Louise Woodward, who was young, female and white, but of Krishna Maharaj, who, at 63, is just about a pensioner, male and black. He has an Asian background; he was born in Trinidad, and born British. For those who are concerned about the proprieties of the House, let me say that I am not going to speak about the hearing that is under way in Miami, Florida about whether Krishna Maharaj should go back on to death row. I want to raise a question that is excluded from that hearing: whether he is guilty.
    In the years since 1986, when Krishna Maharaj was convicted, the question whether he is guilty has not come forward, but it matters. I am part of a group that believes that he deserves his life and liberty, and justice. I am aware of the growing help from Foreign and Commonwealth Office consular staff. It is the convention that we do not name civil servants, and I shall not break it, but I am pleased that the help being made available is growing. It is a shame that the Florida prosecution authorities did not notify the British consul when Krishna Maharaj was arrested. They broke their international obligation. Some may regard that as a technicality, but I
    782
    think that it might turn out to be more. I believe that if Krishna Maharaj had had effective representation from the beginning, he would not have been convicted of the murders for which he was sentenced.
    I shall turn in a moment to some of the particular issues in Krishna Maharaj's case, many of which are listed on the Krishna Maharaj website at www.krishnamaharaj.org, where the Florida supreme court knocks down a number of the arguments that in this country and most others—and probably in many other US states—would have gained an order for retrial. Before going into detail, I want to point out that more than 300 people are on death row in Florida. Krishna Maharaj has not been on death row in a technical sense since the evidentiary hearing in 1997 in Miami, which I attended. He came off death row because the second judge in his case had asked the prosecution for a draft death sentence before the jury reached its conclusion. It is a convention of the courts that judges maintain an open mind until a jury has reached a conclusion, and asking for a draft death sentence does not necessarily support it.
    In respect of the past 20 or 30 years, I have received information on 24 people who have had death sentence murder convictions either quashed or listed for rehearings. I will not talk at length about people who were almost certainly innocent but were executed, and this speech is not about the death penalty as such. I am grateful to the organisation Reprieve and to Andy Lamb, who helped to provide some of the information. Some of the details may not be precisely accurate because of the short time that has been available to bring the information together.
    The first case that I want to discuss is that of James Richardson, who was convicted in 1968 and released in 1989—a period of 21 years. Krishna Maharaj has been in jail for 16 years. James Richardson was convicted and sentenced to death for poisoning one of his children. The prosecution argued that he had committed the crime to obtain the insurance money, but in fact no such policy existed. The primary witnesses against James Richardson were two jailhouse snitches, as they might be described, to whom he is said to have confessed. Post-conviction investigations found that the neighbour who was caring for Richardson's children had a prior homicide conviction, and the defence provided affidavits from people to whom he—probably the real killer—had confessed.
    James Richardson's conviction was overturned after further investigation by the then Dade county state attorney-general, Janet Reno, which resulted in a new hearing. Hon. Members will recall that she has since been United States Attorney-General and may be the Democratic challenger to Governor Jeb Bush at the forthcoming Governor's election. I will not give a view on whether she or Governor Bush would be the better choice—that is for the people of Florida to decide—but I hope that both the present Governor and his possible challenger will consider whether there has been an injustice in this case in Dade county and give their backing to law, order and justice by asking for a review so that the Florida courts can decide whether the conviction is safe. If, having been given a list of some of the issues involved, the prosecution still thinks that it can secure a conviction, it should not object to a retrial, and if it fears that it would not obtain a conviction, it should jolly well join people like me to argue for a retrial.

    783
    I should advise the House that I have notified the registrar that on my visit to see Krishna Maharaj in jail at the Raiford Union correctional institution 11 days ago, two legs of my flight were arranged by the Krishna Maharaj support group and the other two legs and other expenses were paid for by myself.
    Another example involves Wilbert Lee and Freddie Pitts, who were convicted in 1963 and released in 1975. They had 12 years in jail. Although no physical evidence linked them to the deaths of two men, their guilty pleas, the testimony of an alleged eye-witness and an incompetent defence counsel led to their convictions. The men were sentenced to death but maintained their innocence. After their convictions, someone else confessed to the crime, the eye-witness recanted her accusations and the state attorney-general admitted that the state had unlawfully suppressed evidence. The men were granted a new trial and were again convicted and sentenced to death. They were released in 1975, when they received a full pardon from the then Governor Askew, who stated that he was
    "sufficiently convinced that they were innocent."
    I suggest to Governor Jeb Bush's advisers that they should ask an independent person to review all the points that have been put together, some of which I shall list and others of which are available, to decide whether Krishna Maharaj should benefit from a similar declaration and executive action by the governor.
    I could go on to discuss the case of Joseph Green Brown, in which charges were dropped after the prosecution had knowingly allowed false testimony to be introduced at the trial. That came within 13 hours of the execution, when a new trial was ordered. Brown was released a year later when the state decided not to retry the case.
    The following elements exist in the Krishna Maharaj case. He was arrested on the day the two men were killed. The detective did not take a paraffin test on his hand to see whether gunpowder was there. For anything other than a professional contract killing, that paraffin test is always introduced. Another factor in the detective work is that the detective concerned took 21 witness statements, 20 of which were notarised, typed, signed by the witness and recorded. The sole exception was the interview with the suspect, Krishna Maharaj. I would suggest, putting it gently, that that allows room for dispute or error in what Krishna Maharaj actually said in answer to questions. This is not one of the cases in which it is suggested that the accused was tortured, bullied or coerced into making a false confession. In this case, Krishna Maharaj always denied the charge.
    Furthermore, it is acknowledged—it is possible to check this—that an assistant state prosecutor, Myra Trinchett, went to Mr. Maharaj's cell before the trial and said words to the effect of, "Why don't you take me or somebody else on as your defence attorney for $50,000?" Krishna Maharaj says that she told him everyone knew he was innocent, and that he would be treated leniently. That visit is acknowledged.
    What has not yet been acknowledged—although the prison records ought to demonstrate it—is whether a man called Harvey Swinkle went to Krishna Maharaj's cell before Myra Trinchett and asked for $75,000. The reason that the price dropped from $75,000 to $50,000 is that
    784
    Krishna Maharaj had passed a lie-detector test in the meantime, and his innocence was rather better established. The prison ought to have a record—it has not yet disclosed it—of whether that visit by Harvey Swinkle was made.
    A further piece of factual information that the Governor's advisers should ask for is whether either of those visits to Krishna Maharaj was recorded under the FBI's Operation Court Broom, in which the bureau secretly taped a number of discussions between prisoners and people claiming to be there on behalf of judges. If so, can the tapes and transcripts be released? Is it true that, of the 13 judges in office in Dade county at the time of Krishna Maharaj's trial, five were subsequently sent to jail for irregularities? Is it also true that a detective involved in his case was taken off murder cases for misusing witnesses' testimony?
    There are a whole series of issues surrounding the pre-trial procedure that are worth checking. I will not go on at any length about the fact that, three days into Krishna Maharaj's trial, the trial judge was taken away in shackles, accused of accepting bribes in a different case. I acknowledge that Krishna Maharaj and his lawyer, who is new to capital charges, decided not to ask for the case to be re-started, so it continued for another week and a half. Krishna Maharaj's assets put him just above legal aid level, but do not allow him to employ his lawyer for very long. I have mentioned the mistake by the second judge in asking for the death sentence in draft before the jury came back with the verdict, and I shall not make anything of the fact that the first appeal judge was later taken off the case because he had been in the state prosecutor's office at the time of the prosecution.
    There are a number of similar issues, which are technical, but, taken together, they begin to draw a picture that at least introduces an element of severe doubt—in fact, a whole series of doubts—about whether Krishna Maharaj could have committed the crime. There is no doubt that he had been in the room at the time and, as the excellent Channel 4 film, "Murder in Room 1215", made by Roger Bolton and his associates about seven years ago showed, there are a number of other elements involved.
    I shall conclude by focusing on the key prosecution witness, Mr. Neville Butler. He is known to have lied. At the trial, it was accepted by the court that Krishna Maharaj had booked the room in which the murder took place, because Neville Butler said that he had done so. Am I right in saying that, after the trial, the FBI discovered that Krishna Maharaj could not have done so, because Neville Butler had booked the room himself? Is the key so-called eye-witness therefore implicated in booking the room in which the murders took place?
    These issues matter a lot, because Krishna Maharaj might have been convicted of crimes that he did not commit and, because he is British, it is our responsibility—and the responsibility of our Government—to try to help the Americans to get things right. I am not making broad accusations against the Miami police, the Dade county judges, or the supreme court in Florida. I am saying that they should be as concerned as we are in this country about discovering whether justice has been seen to be done.
    I could raise a number of other issues, but I shall finish by saying that, in Illinois, immunity has been taken away from state prosecutors. In that state, because of various scandals, any prosecutor who knowingly uses perjured

    785
    evidence is exposed to investigation and prosecution. That is not the case in Florida. Although I was not given a rough time yesterday, I was shut up quite often by the judge when I was giving evidence, as the state prosecutor objected to most of the things that I wanted to say. If it turns out that any state prosecutor in any of the cases or hearings in which Krishna Maharaj has been involved knew that evidence had been given that was not true—or it turns out that they knew of evidence that ought to have been made available to the defence and to the court—I hope that Florida will consider what action ought to be taken. To take one relatively small example, the murder victims in the case, the Moo Youngs, were said to have been innocent business men. In their case, the prosecution knew in advance of the trial that they had been setting up drugs accounts around the Caribbean and had been involved with some pretty suspicious characters. That makes it possible that they suffered contract killings, which is far more likely given the circumstances.
    I hope that, in time, the Foreign Secretary will be able to come to the House and announce that Krishna Maharaj has been set free and allowed a new trial. When I saw him, his words to me were, "I don't just want to be released from jail. I want a new trial so that I can be found innocent, not just discharged with a cloud over my head."
    6.11 pm
    Dr. Julian Lewis: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your permission to join this debate at such a late stage. I want to speak about three issues, which might be called the three Ps: Post Office, planning and police. They are all national issues, but they all have a direct bearing on my constituency.
    First, if we reach the stage, as appeared to be prefigured by the news yesterday, at which there will be a mass closure of sub-post offices the length and breadth of this country, I predict that there will be enormous dissatisfaction, upset and complaint from every conscientious constituency MP, irrespective of the party to which they adhere. The reality is that, in five years in the House, I have never seen such anger among Back-Bench MPs as I saw when similar moves were being carried out by the large banks, and when Barclays bank came to make a presentation, not to consult with MPs about what it proposed to do, but to try to explain the mass closure of local branches. The result of that was a scale of protest that eventually led the banks to agree a sensible policy among themselves: where there was only a single branch of one of the big four banks left in a given locality, that branch would not close. I do not know how the Post Office will he able to deal with the analogous uproar that I anticipate, but deal with it it will have to. I say to the Government in the nicest possible way that they are vulnerable on this issue. As the Opposition are now full of concern for the vulnerable, I wish to advise the Government that they should not neglect the people who will be sorely hit if many sub-post offices go to the wall.
    The second issue is planning. I am deeply suspicious of the Green Paper on proposals to change the planning regime. Even as I speak, a major public inquiry is under way about a proposal to build a huge container port at Dibden bay in my constituency. I am confident that, day by day, as the inquiry proceeds, the weakness of the case for carrying out this massive project will steadily become apparent. At the end of the inquiry, I expect to see a detailed and dispassionate report on the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments deployed. Let us suppose
    786
    that the inquiry concludes that there is no overriding national need for a container port in New Forest, East, given the more suitable alternative sites at Shell Haven, Felixstowe and Harwich among others. It will then he up to the politicians to decide whether to override the inquiry result and insist on allowing Dibden bay to be built regardless. In the Green Paper, however, it is intended that Parliament should take a "decision in principle". Can one honestly believe that even the more salient arguments in favour of or against a project such as the Dibden bay container port development would receive an impartial or dispassionate hearing in the Chamber or a Committee room that was divided along party lines?
    At present, the Labour party enjoys a huge parliamentary majority. The Labour-dominated city of Southampton, which is next door to my constituency, wants Dibden bay to be built and it would have every reason to believe that such a Parliament as we have today would be heavily biased in its favour on purely political grounds. The idea that Parliament should take a decision in principle first, with the detailed inquiry coming later is plainly to put the cart before the horse.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have listened to my hon. Friend's remarks with great care, because it is a subject in which I am also interested, not least because of my chairmanship of the Procedure Committee. It will very shortly begin an inquiry into the way in which the Government's proposals impinge upon Parliament and its procedures. The Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions is similarly considering this dramatic change from the normal planning process. I hope that my hon. Friend will be somewhat reassured that Parliament as a whole is apprised of the problems.
    Dr. Lewis: I can think of no one in whom I would have more confidence than my hon. Friend in trying to protect the interests not only of Parliament but of the population as a whole when such an amazing reversal of priorities is being proposed by the Government.
    If that reversal of priorities took place, the result would be prejudiced in advance and the task of objectors would be turned into a far greater uphill struggle than that which they already face. In short, what is proposed would, if implemented, destroy local democratic control of the planning process. Any Government with a large parliamentary majority may be tempted to try to bury local democracy in that way. Sooner or later, however, the boot will be on the other foot and it will be a Labour Opposition's turn to complain about a prejudicial arrangement such as is now being sought. I hope that it never comes to pass.
    Finally, I shall talk about the police. On 2 November 2001, I was fortunate enough to secure an Adjournment debate on community policy in Hampshire. I was fairly tough in my criticisms of the way in which local policing was being centralised and about the invisibility of policing in the town of Totton and the villages on the waterside and in the New Forest that are in my constituency. I am pleased that, since then, there have been very clear steps in the right direction.
    The new head of the police force for the New Forest, Superintendent Paul Colley, is a proponent of the proactive policing that I referred to in that debate. That

    787
    means going out, looking for trouble and nipping it in the bud before it can develop. It contrasts with the centralised and reactive way in which so much policing is carried out today. Superintendent Colley has set up a proactive unit that will operate precisely as I have described, and I look forward to seeing how it works in the not-too-distant future.
    Having put last November the case for the prosecution against the police, I now feel obliged to redress the balance as I promised to do to the chairman of the Hampshire Police Federation, Mr. Alan Gordon. He organised an excellent open forum on 18 January, which was attended by several Hampshire Members of Parliament. The forum was the result of the growing protest about the reforms, particularly of pay and conditions, that the Government are proposing. I promised at the time that I would do my best to air in Parliament some of the police's concerns, and that is what I hope to do in the few remaining minutes.
    Members of Hampshire constabulary who have complained to local MPs range from those at the top of the tree to those in the front line. At the top of the tree is the chief constable himself, Paul Kernaghan. His letter addresses in particular the point that
    "the Police Reform Bill contains provisions enabling the Home Secretary to effectively sack Chief Constables at will."
    He says that he has some concerns about those provisions, and he is quite willing to say exactly why:
    "Chief constables have no right of appeal against the Home Secretary under the proposed legislation and the body to which they are immediately accountable, namely the police authority cannot retain their services if the Home Secretary wants them to go.
    I respectfully suggest that the lack of safeguards and the effective bypassing of police authorities will result in a cadre of Chief Constables obsessed with pleasing the Home Office, regardless of their own professional judgement. Chief Constables cannot be above account but the current proposals will result in increased central control at the expense of local representatives."
    A vast range of concerns has been expressed from the front line. On 15 December, I wrote to the Home Secretary, setting out, in their own words, the specific concerns of about half a dozen police officers who had written to me. I received a reply exactly three months later, on 15 March, but I have to say that it was a very general one. I am sure that it was a standard letter, and if that was all that we were going to get it could easily have been sent out much sooner. As the specific complaints were not addressed in that reply—a letter signed by someone on behalf of a junior Minister, who was writing on behalf of the Home Secretary—I shall pick out a couple of examples that give a flavour of what is so upsetting to today's front-line police officer.
    One officer wrote to me as follows:
    "There was a time when the five operational stations within the New Forest Division were staffed with 5 detective sergeants and up to 20 detective constables, now it is 2 detective sergeants and 11 constables, the pressures on the officers within the New Forest and Hampshire as a whole are immense yet we are still meeting or heading towards the increased performance indicators set for us, though God only knows, we must remember that quantity does not mean quality. We are reaching breaking point and offering a sub-standard service to the public."
    Another officer wrote:
    "If these proposals were to be implemented in their current state I have no doubt we would suffer the biggest reduction in numbers ever known…in fact I wouldn't be surprised to see as many as a quarter of the strength up and leave."
    788
    A woman police constable said the following:
    "I feel that I am the owner of two distinctly undesirable labels. I'm a Police Officer…I am also a 'single mother'…I make suitable arrangements for my son when I am required to work on short notice, work late, and when I am on unpaid call-out…and now the government want me to work an extra 2.5 hours a week for absolutely nothing at all whilst I pay my childminder at triple time…I have what I consider to be a good sickness record. Since April 1989 I have been sick on a total of 28 days. However, my sickness record shows that I have had 118 days off sick. This is because my Maternity Leave of 90 days is included in the total."
    Finally, I should like to quote the following extract from the letters that I originally received:
    "As my local MP, I would be grateful if you will try and convince the Home Secretary not to underestimate the strength of feeling that his Reform proposals have drawn from virtually every officer I have spoken too. Morale is at its lowest that I ever recall in almost 25 years service, it will fall lower."
    The key to the problem was summed up in a letter handed to me during the mass rally by the police when they lobbied Parliament a couple of weeks ago. Constable Andrew McDonnell, a police traffic motorcyclist, who said that I could name him and quote him in the House if I had the opportunity, gave me a letter in which he said:
    "The Government has very deceitfully handled the current situation, which should deal with two very different issues, Police Reform and Pay and Conditions.
    In February, there was a vote by the police federated ranks in response to the proposals for pay and conditions. I am sure you are aware of the unprecedented rejection, a 75 per cent. turn out of voters with 91 per cent. rejecting the Home Office's offer."
    The constable believes that the rejection of the Government's proposals on pay and conditions is being misrepresented as a rejection of necessary reforms to which the police do not object at all.
    The letter concludes:
    "I cannot emphasise enough how let down the vast majority of Officers feel by The Government. We have an unenviable job by most, constant verbal and sometimes physical abuse and we are restrained in carrying out the most simple tasks by red tape."
    The final twist in the argument is that even when, against all the odds, the police succeed in making an arrest and bringing someone before the court, time and again, red tape and bureaucracy, the inefficiency of court proceedings and a tendency by magistrates to bend over backwards in favour of the defendant frustrates their best efforts.
    If we are, from time to time, critical of the police, we must also, from time to time, realise why they are fighting with one hand behind their backs. I hope that the Government will not lock themselves into a corner on police reform but realise that they have made an honest mistake, back track and recognise the debt that we owe to those people who maintain law and order on our behalf and on behalf of our families.
    6.28 pm
    Mr. Eric Forth: By my calculation, we have had five hours of very wide-ranging debate, in which we heard 18 speeches that lasted about 17 minutes each. That leaves the Minister and me less than one minute per speech to make some sort of response, so I hope that the House will forgive me and even the Minister if our responses are not as full as they might be.
    The Father of the House, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), in his typical way, focused very precisely on the question that he wanted to raise with the

    789
    Government. On the face of it, that was a proper and simple question, as is characteristic of the hon. Gentleman, and one to which I am sure he deserves a straightforward answer. As I understood his main question, it concerned the fact that key evidence on the prosecution side in the Lockerbie case has disappeared. He would like to know, as would I, on whose authority such evidence has disappeared and where it is. I hope that the Minister, if he cannot give a precise answer to that simple and direct question today, will ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets an answer because he directed his question at Ministers in Westminster and specifically asked that it should not be passed sideways to Edinburgh.
    The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) raised a number of issues, not least of which was that apparently the Food Standards Agency—of all people—has given advice that, on the face of it, seems rather odd to most of us: we no longer need to wash fruit and vegetables before we eat them. The hon. Gentleman made a rather serious allegation when he suggested that the Government's advisers might be unduly influenced by commercial interests. That is a grave accusation and it should be taken seriously by the Government.
    If we cannot obtain reassurance today, I hope that the allegation will be looked into closely. If the agency set up to protect our food is somehow under the improper influence of commercial interests, we certainly want to know about it. Something should be done about it very quickly indeed.
    The hon. Gentleman also raised the problem of VAT on church repairs. I would not be so uncharitable as to tell him that that is one of the many benefits flowing from our membership of the European Union. I should not be as crude as that—[Interruption.] In any case, he denies it. However, I sympathise with him: the problem appears to be intractable. Like him, I hope that the Government are hard at work on it.
    The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), in a thoughtful speech, posed a question that occurs to all of us: why has the turnout in local elections fallen over the years? He suggested that it results from the demise of municipal enterprise and the reduction in the number of direct employees of local authorities.
    I am not sure that that provides all, or even much, of the answer. If one considers the varying turnouts—at parish, district, county, Assembly, Westminster and European elections—one realises that it is difficult to find a direct relationship between turnout rates and the influence of different levels of government on their voters or through their employees. Nor can one relate—as should be possible—the directness of contact through, say, parishes, districts and small wards, to the turnout in elections. The problem remains intriguing and intractable. We are all obliged to consider it seriously; politics—our livelihood—is most affected.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) spoke about telecommunication masts. She made the valid point that it appears that sufficient research has not been undertaken into their health effects, and referred to what we might be able to learn from other countries.
    As my hon. Friend is aware, we are keen to learn from other countries nowadays—it is one of the new Conservative new approaches that, as we know, has such appeal to the electorate. Perhaps my hon. Friend can
    790
    persuade Conservative central office to fund an extensive tour of other countries so that she can look at telecommunication masts. Failing that, she makes a fair point. Surely it cannot be beyond the wit of Government, with all the resources available to them, to investigate what is done in other countries and why those countries seem to achieve such a superior result.
    The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), in a most succinct and pungent speech—as ever—questioned why the Government appeared to be saying that lack of time prevented the House from fully considering Select Committee reports, despite the fact that we are about to go into what I can only describe as "premature recess", when we shall be away from this place for a two full weeks. Meanwhile, the other place will be sitting for a further two days and will return earlier than us. That mystifies me as much as it does the hon. Lady. Perhaps the Minister, with his legendary ingenuity, will be able to tell us why we are bunking off for a long recess, when the Government tell us that we do not have enough time to debate Select Committee reports.
    My hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), in a comprehensive and all-embracing contribution, covered several important points. His final point—on the crisis in care homes—was the most telling. We are all becoming more and more aware that that is a major problem in all our constituencies. The Government bear almost the entire responsibility for the problem and it will give them serious difficulties. However, that is not the issue.
    The important issue is the welfare of the people who are supposed to be looked after in those institutions. I hope that a solution can be found quickly; otherwise, the problem will have a severe effect not only on the well-being of the folk who want to stay in care homes, but consequentially on the health service through bed blocking. The problem must be closely considered.
    The hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) will be glad to hear that I shall not dwell on breasts on this occasion, because she would not want to hear what I had to say on that subject anyway, but I take issue with her analysis of the time for which the House sits.
    I do not regard this place as a legislative factory—I do not believe that the House of Commons exists to churn out more and more Bills. Therefore, I take issue with the Government's approach of ever more routine, systematic and vicious timetabling. However, I do not believe that it will be to the benefit of the House and its workings if we regard ourselves as a sort of office block where we work from 9 to 5. Apart from anything else—this is what I find so curious about the hon. Lady's argument—I fail to see how, unless one has one's family within easy travelling distance of the House of Commons, working from 9 to 5 adds in some way to family values or contributes to the family.
    Most hon. Members, especially the hon. Lady's colleagues, have their families some distance away from London, in their constituency, so I wonder what the families think when they believe that Members of Parliament, instead of being tucked up securely in the Palace of Westminster until 10 o'clock every night, are out roaming London promptly after 7. I will leave that to the hon. Lady to explain; I certainly will not try.

    791
    My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) made some important local points. If he will forgive me, I shall deal with only one—Central Railway and Chiltern Railways. My hon. Friend asked, very reasonably, why the matter could not be resolved more quickly. In particular, he reasonably asked why we cannot obtain more public information about the analysis performed by the Strategic Rail Authority and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. Why is the matter being dealt with so secretively?
    That issue pervaded some of the other speeches, not least that of the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara). One of the keys to the fascinating but horrifying tale of his constituent seemed to be the secretiveness with which the matter was dealt with, and the plea for far greater openness. All hon. Members know that our individual constituents all too often get into confrontation with powerful bodies and institutions, and that those disputes must be resolved one way or another, but it is unforgivable that the powerful use secretiveness and failure to divulge information as one of their main weapons. Without judging which side of the argument is right in each case, surely the key must be that people must be given all the relevant information on which a proper judgment can be made, and that applies to the case that the hon. Gentleman raised as much as to any other.
    The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) was very critical of local government funding—aren't we all? I was involved peripherally in that process in my years in the foothills of government, and I simply tell the hon. Gentleman that whenever one tackles this problem, one runs into what is known in the trade as winners and losers. No one has yet devised a system in which everyone wins. One ends up redistributing both the goodies and the burdens across local authorities, and between local authorities and central Government, in a way that usually makes a few happy and a large number unhappy. I caution the hon. Gentleman about this; there is no easy answer.
    Mr. McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Forth: I cannot possibly give way. I promised the Minister that I would sit down in two minutes' time, and that is what I intend to do.
    The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) made an excellent speech and some very positive suggestions. He identified a problem and, unusually on these occasions, provided some solutions. I congratulate him on that. He said that he believed that a standard form for changing energy suppliers would be a good thing, which it surely must be. He also believed that Ofgem should make more use of fines, which would be a perfectly proper solution. I thought, although I doubt that he made that connection, that the money from the fines could go towards compensation, where appropriate, for those who had suffered damage. I congratulate him on his speech. I hope that the Government listened to it and will pick it up and follow it through.
    I shall finish soon. I ask some of my hon. Friends to forgive me—I cannot now possibly do justice to all of them—but I shall take my life in my hands by saying something, in the friendliest way possible, to my hon.
    792
    Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley). I listened carefully to what he said. As it happens, I am going to Florida on Friday, but not for the purpose that he was there recently. Let us consider the sort of cases that he cited—for example, the recent tragic case in Georgia, where the death penalty was applied. I am not convinced that well-meaning intervention in a country's judicial process by people from outside necessarily always bears the desired fruit.
    I say that particularly of the United States, which, with all its faults, prides itself on having a proper, democratic judicial system in which—whether we like it or not—judges and attorneys are elected at county and state level. One should be very cautious in seeking, even with the best motivation, to intervene in the judicial process of the United States. I suspect that that is why such action is not as successful as my hon. Friend and others would wish. Having said that, I wish him well in his endeavours, and I hope that Florida's judicial system will come out of this latest case with as much credit as possible in the circumstances.
    I have over-run my time, so I ask the Minister to forgive me for taking a minute of the time that I promised him. I also ask for the forgiveness of those of my hon. Friends whose speeches I have not been able to mention.
    6.41 pm
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Stephen Twigg): Like the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I apologise if I fail to respond to all the points made during the 17 Back-Bench and two Front-Bench speeches. At least 50 issues have been raised during a five-hour debate—matters ranging from mountain rescue in Somerset to the best way to wash carrots. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) reminded us of the origins of the control of supply and the English civil war. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) even referred to the spectre of the Prime Minister getting on his bike in search of a post office close to Chequers.
    I have been impressed by the Conservative party's new-found concern to learn lessons from other European Union countries. It even has a new-found concern for the vulnerable, although I felt that perhaps the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) could not quite keep a straight face as he expressed that concern at the beginning of his remarks.
    Let me address the issue that has been raised most often during the debate—the Post Office's future. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the fact that we need to ensure that the Post Office is successful and that it gives our constituents the service they deserve. I do not believe that that would be a party political issue in an ideal world, but it has been raised as such during the debate, so it is worth reminding ourselves of the Conservative party's record of post office closures. Post office closures did not start with this Government; there were very many such closures previously. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) laughs, but during his time as a Minister the Conservative party seriously contemplated the full privatisation of the Post Office. Those proposals were defeated only because of a very sustained and popular campaign, which had some support from Conservative Members.

    793
    My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), the Father of the House, referred to Lockerbie, as he has done on several occasions in the House, and sought careful reflection from the Government. I certainly take note of his concerns and his long-standing involvement in seeking to get to the truth of that dreadful episode. He will not be surprised to hear that the only response I am able to give him today is to say that he has had the opportunity to ventilate that issue. He will be aware that most of the issues that he mentioned are devolved; they are matters for the Scottish Executive. I will ensure that the Lord Advocate is made aware of the points that my hon. Friend has made and seek an answer from him.
    The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) referred to the Krishna Maharaj case, and I am aware, from media coverage of his involvement in that case, of the work, commitment and dedication that he has shown in seeking justice in that case. He will be aware that I am not able to comment on the detail of what he said today, but I am grateful to him for his kind remarks about the support that he has received from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. On the broader issue, I look forward to the day when no country has the death penalty. Many of the miscarriages of justice in different corners of the earth are greatly compounded by its existence.
    The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) raised a number of issues about organophosphates and VAT on church repairs and conservation. Although the advice issued by the Food Standards Agency states that washing or peeling fruit and vegetables is not required as a protection against pesticide residues, it also says that it is sensible to wash fruit and vegetables before eating for reasons of general food hygiene. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I am glad that the House is enlightened. I was not aware of that until I was briefed for my closing remarks. It is still considered sensible to wash fruit and vegetables before eating them for reasons of general food hygiene. I am also advised that the FSA's nutritional advice is that consumers should eat at least five portions of fruit and vegetables each day as part of a healthy, balanced diet. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would concur on that.
    The hon. Gentleman also mentioned listed places of worship and mentioned the scheme launched by the Treasury on 4 December last year. He acknowledged that the Treasury is trying to address the problem, but raised concerns about the bureaucracy surrounding the new scheme. The European Commission has said that it will consider the United Kingdom's proposal to introduce a reduced VAT rate for church repairs when the reduced rate provisions are reviewed in 2003, so that matter clearly needs to be pursued in the European Union.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) addressed the issue of the decline in turnout and, in particular, the decline in the status of local government. I have much sympathy for his remarks, which could form the basis for a full debate in the House in their own right. I concur with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst: the issues that relate to turnout are complex. Although the problems that surround the decline in local government powers are real, there has been a general fall in turnout, not simply in local government elections. We need to address that in a full and comprehensive way, and certainly not in the short amount of time that I have left.
    794
    The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) spoke from the Back Bench today, having spoken from the Front Bench in the two other pre-recess Adjournment debates since the general election. She was concerned about mobile phone masts, a problem that has been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. That issue is raised with all Members of Parliament. Indeed, I have several such cases in my constituency. I nodded vigorously when the hon. Lady described people having to move home. A family in my constituency was about to move into a new home when they discovered that a mobile phone mast was to be put directly outside the house, which was opposite a church with two nurseries. They pulled out of that sale and made an alternative purchase only to discover that another mobile phone company wanted to erect a mast close to the home that they had moved into. We are still fighting that case.
    On the specific issue that the hon. Lady raised, the North and East Devon health authority is aware of the concerns that have been raised and is collecting further information. I will chase up the Department of Health to ensure that she gets the replies she deserves. I am afraid that I do not have time to deal with the other issues that she raised.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) dealt with transport. She mentioned the tube and aviation, and I can tell the House that announcements have been made today. She sought to emphasise that it is important for us to have the opportunity to debate such matters. I am well aware of her concerns and it is important that we provide such opportunities whenever possible. That is one reason why the debate on the modernisation of the House of Commons is so important.
    The hon. Member for West Derbyshire was concerned about the Post Office. He also mentioned council tax. I am sure all hon. Members agree that council tax has a particular effect on those who live on fixed incomes, especially retired people. As his colleague the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, local taxation has troubled Governments of both main parties for decades. We had rates, which everyone wanted to see the back of, then the poll tax, which still retains one or two advocates and champions in the House but which did not prove overly popular with the wider general public, and now we have the council tax, which was introduced by a Conservative Government.
    The current Government do not have a policy of reducing grant to local authorities to shift the balance towards local sources of income, but we are aware that council tax increases have been considerably above the rate of inflation in recent years. In the recent local government White Paper, the Government made it clear that we would separately consider the balance of funding, but it is too early to say what the outcome of that review will be.
    The hon. Member for West Derbyshire spoke about sixth forms. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will be aware of the concern felt by schools with sixth forms that they should not be worse off as a result of new arrangements of funding via learning and skills councils. All local education authorities were told last month in a letter from the Department for Education and Skills that the Government do not consider it reasonable of an authority to do what the hon. Gentleman described as

    795
    having been done in his constituency—make adjustments to other elements of funding for a school with a sixth form that have the effect of cancelling out 100 per cent. of the potential gain that it stood to receive from the learning and skills council.
    We have changed—the hon. Gentleman looks impressed, but much as I would like to say otherwise, I assure him that it is not as a consequence of today's debate—the financing of maintained schools regulations for the coming financial year to require that a school sixth form must gain at least one third of the potential increase that the LSC allocation would have given it above its real-terms guarantee level.
    The hon. Gentleman raised the important issue of social care and residential care, before speaking about the case of Stephen Downing. I am pleased to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's hard work on behalf of his constituent. As he said, Derbyshire's chief constable has announced the opening of the reinvestigation. I am advised that it will begin next month, in April 2002, and will we hope be brought to a conclusion by autumn.
    My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) raised a large number of issues, to some of which I shall respond. I shall pass on to colleagues her positive comments on the Export Control Bill and the aid budget. On Iraq, I am pleased to repeat the assurances given by the Foreign Secretary on Sunday, that any proposal for action in that instance will of course be subject to international law and our international obligations. However, as my hon. Friend said, it is Iraq and Saddam Hussein's regime that are in contravention of their international obligations today, and we seek to bring them to book for that.
    In respect of public services in Swindon, I am advised that it has been announced today—perhaps not as a consequence of my hon. Friend's speech, but if she wants to take the credit, that is a matter for her—that Swindon has received £57 million in private finance initiative credits, which will enable, among other things, the building of two new secondary schools and a new primary school in Swindon, in the constituency of the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, our hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills).
    I share my hon. Friend's view on breastfeeding and hope that the matter will progress as she said it should. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is perhaps not quite as much of a moderniser as his party's leader. No one to my knowledge has proposed that the Commons should become a 9-to-5 Chamber. Anyone who enters the Commons is aware that being a Member of Parliament is a hard job, and rightly so. We should all work hard at that job, but we do want to consider changing the hours to ensure that we more effectively scrutinise legislation and hold the Government to account, and become a Parliament that is genuinely representative of all the people.
    Parliament remains 80 per cent. male and has very few ethnic minority Members. I know that the Conservative party is now tackling that issue—albeit apparently not with the support of the shadow Leader of the House. I look forward to the day when the House of Commons truly reflects the diversity of modern, 21st-century Britain.
    796
    My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon also raised issues that may be mentioned in the Queen's Speech. On the specific and important question of sexual offences, I am pleased to be able to assure her that the Government are committed to introducing new sex offence laws and intend to legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows. She will understand that at this stage I can go no further.
    The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) set out in detail a number of specific concerns relating to his own constituency. I undertake to draw them to the attention of my colleagues and seek a reply for him. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North, in a characteristically thoughtful speech, set out concerns about scrutiny of the Executive in relation to public expenditure and the democratic control of supply. He demonstrated once again that he is a serious reformer; I am sure that his suggestions will be considered as debate on the modernisation and reform of Parliament progresses.
    The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who may have wondered whether I would reach him in my list of speeches to which to respond, raised the issue of the fridge mountain. I am advised that both the Local Government Association and the Environment Agency have not reported a significant increase in the fly tipping of fridges, but I am aware that there are a number of cases such as those to which he referred. Local authorities have a statutory obligation to accept and collect all household fridges and freezers; significant extra funds have been provided through government to meet that obligation. Clearly, the issue needs to be closely monitored.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), who is also my neighbour, raised important issues about energy mis-selling, which I shall draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy.
    The hon. Member for Rumford (Mr. Rosindell) has taken a close interest in the British overseas territories since entering the House last year. As he said, he is an officer of the all-party groups on Gibraltar and on the Falkland Islands. He will be aware that the Government's position on Gibraltar is clear: no proposal affecting its sovereignty will be implemented unless its people agree. On the broader issues of the British overseas territories, he will be aware that the British Overseas Territories Bill is now an Act, having received Royal Assent, and represents an important advance in citizens rights for the people of the British overseas territories.
    I apologise for not being in the Chamber while my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) was speaking, but I watched his speech on television while eating my cheese sandwich. He talked about a recent meeting of the friends of the Finchley Memorial hospital. I certainly concur with him about the high quality of service at the hospital; my grandmother was there two years ago, and I visited her. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for raising a number of issues and shall convey to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health his invitation to visit the Finchley Memorial hospital.

    797
    The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) made a characteristically robust speech, as is his wont during these debates. Again, I apologise for missing most of it because I was still eating my cheese sandwich, but I shall ensure that he gets a response to the specific issues that he raised. He mentioned the network card. The Strategic Rail Authority's review of fares policy will report late next year, and I suggest that he makes a submission to ensure that his concerns are properly reflected in that review.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), in a disturbing contribution, made a number of serious points, putting them on the record in Parliament. I undertake to ensure that he gets a response from the relevant Ministers and that the lessons to which the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst referred are learned. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) raised many issues of concern to his constituents. I am well aware that there are anxieties about the funding of social services on both sides of the House which reflect concerns in all parts of the country. Social services funding is currently being reviewed by the Government as part of the comprehensive spending review.
    Finally, the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) discussed the three Ps—the Post Office, planning and the police—and aired a number of issues to which responses will be forthcoming.
    However, as the minutes tick away, I should just like to thank everyone who has taken part in our debate. Pre-recess Adjournment debates provide a good opportunity for the House to air issues of concern, whether local, national or international. Members on both sides of the House have done so, and I join the hon.
    798
    Member for Southend, West in wishing people a happy Easter and a good recess; I also wish our Jewish constituents a happy Passover.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Ordered,
    That this House, at its rising on Tuesday 26th March, do adjourn until Tuesday 9th April.

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
    Ordered,

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION

      DELEGATED LEGISLATION
      That the Local Government (Best Value) Performance Plans and Reviews Amendment and Specified Dates Order 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 305), dated 13th February 2002, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th February, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
      That the Local Government (Best Value) Performance Plans and Reviews Amendment and Specified Dates Order 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 305), dated 13th February 2002, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th February, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
      That the Social Security Amendment (Residential Care and Nursing Homes) Regulations 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 398), dated 21st February 2002, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th February, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Angela Smith.]

    ADJOURNMENT
    Resolved,
    That this House do now adjourn.—[Angela Smith.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Seven o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost of the Saville Inquiry to his Department has been to date; and what his current estimate is of the final cost of the whole inquiry. [46024]

  Mr. Browne
  The cost of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry to the Northern Ireland Office, as at 22 March 2002, is £56.8 million. The current estimated cost of the Inquiry to the Northern Ireland Office is £120 million.

  The £20 million increase as compared with the figure given on 17 December 2001, Official Report, column 40W, is accounted for by two factors. First, an estimated £15 million of net additional costs arises from the transfer of the hearings to London this September. Secondly, the Senior Costs Judge's judgment of 21 March implies additional expenditure of, on best current estimates, around £5 million on solicitors for the families; expenditure on costs arising from this case is expected to run into several hundreds of thousands of pounds.

  If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's challenge to the Senior Costs Judge's ruling on payments to counsel for the families is unsuccessful, that will add an estimated sum of at least £6 million to the estimated £120 million cost.

  These figures do not include costs to other Departments such as the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects Lord Saville to report his findings. [46023]

  Mr. Browne
  Publication of the report is a matter for the independent Tribunal. Based on my current understanding of the Inquiry's future timetable, I do not expect the Tribunal to publish its report before 2004.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland further to his answer of 26 February 2002,Official Report, column 757W, on the Saville Inquiry, how much public funding has been provided to the legal representatives of other parties represented at the Saville Inquiry, broken down by each (a) barrister and (b) firm of solicitors involved. [41239]

  Mr. Browne
  The answer of 26 February set out the amount of public funding that has been provided to the legal representatives of the families and the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA). The majority of the other parties represented at the Inquiry have their legal costs met through the Ministry of 788W
  Defence. The public funding made available to these parties is therefore a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

  The Tribunal has allowed certain persons limited legal representation during the course of the hearings. The costs of this representation are paid by the Inquiry. In addition a large number of witnesses have received legal assistance at the statement-taking stage and have had the costs of this met by the Inquiry. The cost of this assistance and representation therefore falls to my Department.

  Much of the assistance to witnesses has been provided by solicitors to the families: insofar as it has been, the costs are included in the payments to the solicitors concerned shown in the parliamentary answer of 26 February 2002, Official Report, column 757W. However, a large number of other lawyers from across the United Kingdom and beyond have also been involved in providing assistance to individual witnesses or representing those additional persons referred to above. Given the numbers of lawyers involved it is taking a little time to compute the amounts paid to the individual teams. I will undertake to write to my hon. Friend with this information as soon as possible. A copy of the letter will be placed in the House Library.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Arthur Andersen
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total cost to her Department has been of services provided by(a) Andersen and (b) Accenture, Andersen Consulting for (i) accountancy services, (ii) consultancy work and (iii) other work in each year since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [32107]

  Ms Hewitt
  The total costs of contracts awarded by year are set out below.

  Company

  Service

  Year

  £

  Andersen Consulting (later Accenture)

  Consultancy

  1999

  10,000

  Arthur Andersen

  Consultancy

  2000

  594,000

  Consultancy

  2001

  213,000

  Accountancy

  2001

  4,100,000

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much work from her Department has been given to Andersen Consulting formally known as Arthur Andersen in each year since 1992. [46221]

  Ms Hewitt
  Contracts agreed with Andersen Consulting were listed in my reply to my Friend the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 11 February 2002,Official Report, column 61W. Information on contracts for the five years prior to May 1997 is not centrally available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Events
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the(a) conferences, (b) seminars, (c) workshops, (d) exhibitions and

  789W
  (e) press conferences which have been sponsored by her Department and which took place on non-departmental premises in each of the last four years giving the title, purpose, date and cost of each. [34300]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department uses the mechanisms that are the most appropriate and effective in communicating with specific audiences, including all those listed in the question. Some of these events are held on Departmental premises and others at different venues. But no central records are kept that would enable the information requested to be supplied, and it could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Publicity Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the total real terms expenditure of her Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies on publicity in each of the years(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–01 and (e) 2001–02 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole of the present year; and if she will break these figures down to indicate expenditure on (A) advertising and (B) press and public relations. [36157]

  Ms Hewitt
  This information is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many warning letters were issued as a result of investigations by the Insolvency Service in each year since 1997. [42071]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The number of warning letters issued were as follows:

  1 January 1997 to 31 December 1997: 582

  1 January 1998 to 31 December 1998: 549

  1 January 1999 to 31 December 1999: 385

  1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000: 287

  1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001: 228.

  The numbers reflect better policy guidance provided to Official Receivers in 1997–98, who have focused investigatory resources on the more serious offences and director disqualification, both of which lead to court hearings and convictions rather than resulting in warning letters.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what checks are in place to ensure an agreed high standard of correspondence is achieved when the Insolvency Service communicates with customers. [42068]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Insolvency Service's target for replying to correspondence is published in the Annual Report and in leaflets that are available from the Insolvency Service and can also be found on the website, www.insolvency.gsi.gov.uk.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures are used by her Department to review the(a) performance and (b) efficiency of the Insolvency Service. [42084]
  790W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A number of targets are set annually to measure the performance and efficiency of the Insolvency Service. They are published in the Annual Report, a copy of which is available in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many rogue directors have been reported on the Insolvency Service hotline since its inception; and how many of these(a) in total and (b) as a percentage of total calls have resulted in successful prosecutions. [42076]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  By 28 February 2002, 2,978 calls had been received which generated 1,167 substantive complaints. The remaining complainants failed to provide the information requested in support of their complaints.

  By that date, 31 related convictions had been obtained and a further 27 written warnings had been issued. 563 remain under investigation and 450 were not proceeded with due to insufficient evidence.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff have been employed by her Department in each of the last 10 years. [42461]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 19 March 2002,Official Report, column 295W, by my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office.

  Internet/e-Government
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of(a) internet and (b) e-Government access in rural areas; and what measures she it taking to broaden access. [41917]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: The 2001 UK online annual report: http:// www.eennovy.gov.uk/ukonline/champions/anrep—menu.htm detailed progress towards our internet and e-Government targets.

  A copy has also been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Correspondence
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 11 March 2002,Official Report, column 678W, on correspondence, for what reason 21 letters sent to her Department were awaiting a reply; and for how many of the 21 an acknowledgement of their correspondence has been sent to the letter-writer. [43689]

  Ms Hewitt
  There are several reasons why a letter may not receive an answer within my Department's target of 10 days. On this occasion I am unable to give specific reasons as I am unable to identify which letters were outstanding at the time, but all outstanding correspondence will be dealt with as quickly as possible and my Department will continue to endeavour to respond to letters within 10 days.
  791W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [44939]

  Ms Hewitt
  The agreed target time for my Department to reply to hon. Members is 10 working days for the year 2002–03.

  The target for letters received directly from members of the public for the year 2002–03 is 15 working days.

  Aerospace Industry
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many jobs she estimates are dependent on the aerospace industry in the United Kingdom. [43919]

  Mr. Wilson
  The latest figures I have are for 2000. DTI working with the Society of British Aerospace Companies estimates that the UK aerospace industry employed 150,000 and indirectly supported a further 200,000 jobs in the supply chain.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer of 14 February 2002,Official Report, column 529W, on Sellafield, if she will place in the Library the review of the B30 nuclear waste storage facility performed by BNFL. [44286]

  Mr. Wilson
  I understand no such document exists.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer of 14 February 2002,Official Report, column 529W, on Sellafield, what remedial work has been carried out on the B30 nuclear waste storage facility. [44287]

  Mr. Wilson
  Management of the B30 facility is an operational matter for BNFL subject to regulations by the Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (HSE's NII). The effective management of the facility and the historic legacy wastes it contains is a high priority for both the Government and BNFL. BNFL is taking forward a range of work programmes at B30. These are aimed at improving the way the building itself is cared for as well as characterising the contents of the building and retrieving these and converting them into a more stable form.

  Legal Costs
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much her Department has paid to lawyers dealing with chronic bronchitis and emphysema, broken down by firm. [44378]

  Mr. Wilson
  There are 471 firms of solicitors/organisations who are processing claims in relation to respiratory disease. The following list details the costs for the 10 solicitors/organisations who represent the largest numbers of claims in ascending order based on total claims intimated.
  792W

  No.

  Solicitor

  Costs paid (£ million)

  1

  Thompsons

  10.8

  2

  Hugh James Ford Simey

  8.0

  3

  Union of Democratic Mineworkers

  3.0

  4

  Raleys

  4.5

  5

  Mark Gilbert Morse

  0.7

  6

  Browell Smith & Co

  3.5

  7

  Graysons

  2.1

  8

  Watson Burton

  1.5

  9

  Irwin Mitchells

  2.3

  10

  Randell Saunders

  0.5

  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much her Department has paid to lawyers dealing with vibration white finger/carpal tunnel syndrome, broken down by firm. [44379]

  Mr. Wilson
  There are 460 firms of solicitors/organisations who are processing claims in relation to vibration white finger. The following list details the costs for the 10 solicitors/organisations who represent the largest numbers of claims in ascending order, based on total claims intimated.

  No.

  Solicitor

  Costs paid (£ million)

  1

  Thompsons

  6.0

  2

  Browell Smith & Co

  4.3

  3

  Union of Democratic Mineworkers

  3.7

  4

  Raleys

  3.1

  5

  Hugh James Ford Simey

  3.1

  6

  Graysons

  2.1

  7

  Moss

  1.5

  8

  Watson Burton

  2.0

  9

  AMS Law

  1.1

  10

  Towells

  1.4

  Textile Industry
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many firms in the textile industry that received grants from the Department have subsequently ceased production in Britain and utilised grants in overseas locations in each of the last five years. [44559]

  Mr. Alexander
  Offers of grant from the Department are subject to a finite period of monitoring.

  The Department's selective assistance database shows that in the last five financial years to 31 March 2001, 242 offers of Regional Selective Assistance or Enterprise Grant were made in England to firms in the textile sector. Of those which received payments of grant and were subject to conditions of the grant offer letter, 10 firms ceased trading. Eight of these firms went into liquidation. In the other two cases, one closed without notice after receiving £8,000 grant. The second, involving grant of £825,000 was subject to a Management Buy Out and remains active in the UK.

  Electricity
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions her Department had with representatives of(a) Powergen, (b) East Midlands Electricity and (c) the US Department of Commerce in 1997 and 1998. [44666]
  793W
  Mr. Wilson
  The Department has discussions on a wide range of issues from time to time with UK Electricity Companies and with the Departments of other Governments.

  Nuclear Reactors
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what evaluation her Department has made of emerging pebble-bed nuclear reactor design and operation in other countries; and if she will make a statement. [44809]

  Mr. Wilson
  None. BNFL has a minority investment in the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) project, the feasibility of which is currently being studied. I look forward to seeing the results in due course.

  CISWO
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many partnerships CISWO has with Sport England, regional development agencies and the private sector; and how many jobs have these created in the last three years. [45095]

  Mr. Wilson
  CISWO collaborates with Sport England in many areas in preparing bids for National Lottery money for projects that will develop or enhance local sporting facilities. Such activity is not formalised as a partnership and does not have job creation as an objective although extra employment opportunities may be created. CISWO is associated with seven RDA projects and, as before, although job creation is not a central feature, there has been, for example, an education project in Yorkshire has created five jobs and a similar number at a project in the West Midlands.

  CISWO's involvement with the private sector is a matter for CISWO.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what Government funding has been received by CISWO in each of the last five years. [45096]

  Mr. Wilson
  CISWO has not received any Government funding in any of the last five years. CISWO was given a cash endowment from the Bristol Coal Corporation upon the Corporation's privatisation in 1994 and, in addition, between 1994 and 1999 received under covenant £1 million per annum from the successor mining companies to the Corporation.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what requests for Government funding have been made by CISWO this year. [45094]

  Mr. Wilson
  In October of last year the Chair of the Trustees of CISWO wrote to me seeking a meeting to discuss funding. In January of this year I attended a presentation given by the Chief Executive and a number of the organisation's trustees and at that presentation I undertook to give careful consideration to CISWO's concerns over their future funding requirements.

  Post Office
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the operating profits were for the Post Office/Consignia in each of the last 20 years. [44776]
  794W
  Ms Hewitt
  The operating profits figures for the Post Office/Consignia are set out in the company's Annual Report and Accounts. Since 1982 these have been:

  Year

  £ Million

  1981–82

  90

  1982–83

  151

  1983–84

  131

  1984–85

  142

  1985–86

  141

  1986–87

  130

  1987–88

  171

  1988–89

  116

  1989–90

  78

  1990–91

  106

  1991–92

  250

  1992–93

  264

  1993–94

  300

  1994–95

  1461

  1995–96

  387

  1996–97

  481

  1997–98

  528

  1998–99

  394

  1999–2000

  381

  2000–01

  122

  1 As restated.

  Note:

  Profit figures do not include tax, interest, exceptional items or (after 1990–91) sale of assets.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions have taken place about the possible sale of Consignia Holdings plc or its component parts; and if she will make a statement. [44769]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 21 March 2002]: There are no proposals to sell Consignia Holdings, its mail business, Parcelforce or the network of post offices.

  Consignia was given commercial freedom by this Government in response to demands from the company and unions. It is therefore entirely logical that Consignia considers it commercial strategy, including relationships or ventures with other operators.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of first class letters reached their destination the day after posting in each of the last 20 years. [44788]

  Ms Hewitt
  This matter falls to the day to day responsibility of Consignia and I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total level of inward investment was from(a) the EU, (b) the USA, (c) the G7 countries and (d) Japan into the UK in each of the last 20 years. [44782]
  795W
  Ms Hewitt
  The information is in the following table:

  Level of foreign direct investment in the UK 1981–2000

  Stock level at year end

  £ million, current prices

  EU15

  USA

  G7 total

  Japan

  1981

  3,225

  9,559

  12,049

  324

  1984

  12,203

  19,576

  24,237

  806

  1987

  16,363

  25,838

  35,359

  2,039

  1988

  23,593

  28,257

  41,441

  3,082

  1989

  28,711

  37,093

  55,307

  3,965

  1990

  33,707

  43,784

  65,799

  5,648

  1991

  38,036

  44,434

  68,453

  5,346

  1992

  39,546

  46,001

  70,216

  4,929

  1993

  40,266

  49,537

  73,741

  5,427

  1994

  39,998

  49,829

  73,683

  5,105

  1995

  43,493

  55,129

  81,689

  5,542

  1996

  43,774

  55,956

  85,004

  5,888

  1997

  44,927

  70,270

  105,743

  6,562

  1998

  69,248

  93,419

  134,140

  7,387

  1999

  107,429

  93,469

  162,300

  4,174

  2000

  137,468

  100,526

  195,465

  7,770

  Notes:

  G7 comprises of UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Canada and USA.

  Prior to 1987, data were only collected every three years.

  Source:

  National Statistics.

  Consumer Protection
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to amend the Consumer Protection (Cancellation of Contracts Concluded away from Business Premises) Regulations 1987. [45364]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have no plans at present to amend the Regulations.

  Nuclear Power Stations (Scotland)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects to make a decision on her responsibility for planning permission in relation to recent legislation on nuclear power stations in Scotland. [45305]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have no such responsibility.

  National Physical Laboratory
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the progress of the PFI project at the National Physical Laboratory, Teddington; what the extent is of(a) delays from the original timetable and (b) cost overruns; and to what extent liability for failure to meet deadlines falls on the (i) Government and (ii) contractor. [45704]

  Ms Hewitt
  The new accommodation for the National Physical Laboratory is being handed over, as planned, in phases. Nine of 16 modules have been handed over.

  The original date for completion of construction of the final module was 22 January 2001. The PFI Contractor's reported date for construction completion is now 12 November 2002.

  Since this is a PFI project, construction cost overruns are a matter for the PFI Contractor and liability for failure to meet deadlines does not fall to Government.

  Asteroid 2002 EM7
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what monitoring her Department has undertaken of the asteroid 2002 EM7 and its orbit. [46007]

  Ms Hewitt
  Asteroid 2002 EM7 was first observed on 12 March 2002, four days after it had passed within 500,000 km of the Earth, a distance greater than that between the Earth and the Moon. The object had not been detected previously because its approach had been from the direction of the Sun. Observations have determined that the object takes 323 days to orbit the Sun, and that its next close approach to the Earth will occur on 1 July 2011, at a minimum distance more than eight times greater than that of 8 March 2002. The size of 2002 EM7 is estimated to he between 50 and 100 m.

  The Government's approach to Near Earth Objects (NEOs) is to work with its international partners to develop a complementary and co-ordinated response to what is, by its nature, a global issue. A National NEO Information Centre has been established at the National Space Science Centre in Leicester to provide objective information on NEOs to the public and media.

  Website Security
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information posted on the departmental website, or websites of non departmental public bodies reporting to her Department, has been(a) modified or (b) removed as a consequence of the events of 11 September 2001. [46198]

  Ms Hewitt
  No information has been modified or removed from the core pages of the DTI website as a result of the events of 11 September. Information on changes to other DTI-related websites is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Coal Mineshafts
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to compensate home owners whose properties(a) have suffered a substantial fall in value and (b) are unsaleable because of abandoned mineshafts nearby. [46300]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Coal Authority or relevant coal mine operator will repair any physical damage caused to a property by an abandoned mineshaft. That being the case, I have no plans to introduce any scheme of compensation in respect of properties the value and saleability of which are allegedly affected by the presence of a mineshaft. Nevertheless, my Department is examining with other interested parties how the difficulties experienced by the owners of property with mineshafts nearby might be addressed.

  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will announce her conclusions on the Heriot-Watt University study on the impact of coal mineshafts; and if she will make a statement. [46262]
  797W
  Mr. Wilson
  The Heriot-Watt University study provided valuable information on the effect of former mineshafts on property values, in particular in Stoke-on-Trent. Subsequent to the study's publication the Department has established a Working Group to examine what steps might be taken to address this issue. The Working Group, which includes representatives from the Coal Authority, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Association of British Insurers, the Law Society and the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, met for the first time last month. Good progress has already been made in identifying measures which the various parties might take to improve the situation.

  Postcomm
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to ensure Postcomm consults all local authorities on its proposals to increase competition in postal services; and if she will make a statement. [45953]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer my hon. Friend to answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine L Smith) on 26 March 2002 PQ No. 46321.

  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of Postcomm proposals for Consignia and the introduction of competition into postal markets ahead of European proposals. [46230]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: The Government's priority is to ensure the universal postal service and this is Postcomm's primary statutory duty. In exercising its functions Postcomm must act in accordance with its primary and other statutory duties including compliance with EU obligations.

  Currently EU legislation allows member states to reserve certain mail services to universal service providers but only to the extent necessary to maintain the universal service. There are maximum limits to the services that may be reserved; but there is no minimum and some EU countries have determined either that they no longer need to reserve services or that the level of service they need to reserve is lower than the maximum limits.

  Discussions are in progress to amend the current European Postal Directive with regard to the further opening to competition of Community postal services and when the new Directive is adopted the Government will consider with interested parties what action is necessary for its transposition in the United Kingdom.

  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what previous experience Postcomm commissioners have regarding postal services in the United Kingdom. [46251]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: Postcomm was the first body to have a collegiate approach to regulation in the UK. This approach aims to de-personalise regulation and bring a greater range of expertise to bear on regulatory decisions. The experience of the Commissioners was outlined in a press release by this Department on 6 November 2000, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House.
  798W
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how the appointments for Postcomm commissioners were advertised; how many applications were received; who appointed the Postcomm commissioners; and what criteria were used for the appointments. [46252]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: The advertising, recruitment and appointments process was conducted by this Department in accordance with the Commissioner for Public Appointments' Code of Practice. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made the appointments.

  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) which district councils and unitary authorities Postcomm have consulted regarding their proposals affecting Consignia; [46229]

  (2) if Postcomm has consulted (a) the Steve King Orchestra, (b) Victoria's Jewellers, (c) Lancashire County Council, (d) Lancaster City Council and (e) hon. Members regarding their current proposals affecting Consignia; [46231]

  (3) if Postcomm is consulting with selected local authorities on their proposals for Consignia. [46250]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answers 25 March 2002]: This is a matter for Postcomm. Interested parties who have concerns about the process or substance contained in the document Postcomm issued on Thursday 31 January should communicate these to Postcomm.

  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if Postcomm has indicated to Consignia during the last 18 months that it would not allow an increase in the price of postage. [46249]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: On 10 April 2001 Postcomm received a request from the Royal Mail for increases in a wide range of postal rates including a penny on first and second class post. This request was made under provisions of the Consignia license. Consignia suspended that request on 19 June 2001.

  Aggregates Levy
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions her Department has had with the Treasury on a delay to the aggregates levy. [46475]

  Mr. Wilson
  Government Departments continue to have detailed discussions on the implementation of the aggregates levy.

  Broadband
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to increase broadband coverage in Monmouthshire. [45866]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government broadband strategy can be found in the second annual UK Online Report and sets out a number of measures to stimulate broadband supply in areas without coverage.
  799W
  Last year we announced a £30 million fund to encourage broadband rollout in each region of the country and last week I set out how that money would be spent in each region.

  Wales will receive £2.67 million which will be used to: further develop the all-Wales broadband Lifelong Learning Network which will link up all educational facilities, libraries and adult learning centres within Wales with broadband services to allow the public to access broadband services; and develop a wireless broadband project that will utilise wireless technology to enable online communities to use and create digital content.

  Coal Health Compensation Scheme
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications have been made under the coal health compensation scheme for(a) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (b) vibration white finger from residents of (i) Leigh constituency, (ii) Wigan constituency, (iii) Makerfield constituency and (iv) Wigan borough; and how many of these applications have been (A) settled and (B) received interim payments. [45265]

  Mr. Wilson
  The information is in the following tables:

  Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

  Applications1

  Full and final offers made2

  Interims made

  Leigh

  1,467

  187

  351

  Wigan

  799

  89

  202

  Makerfield

  975

  116

  266

  Vibration white finger

  Applications1

  Full and final offers made2

  Interims made

  Leigh

  598

  185

  196

  Wigan

  296

  76

  107

  Makerfield

  545

  140

  201

  1 Statistics are compiled by IRISC, the Department's claims handlers, on a parliamentary constituency basis rather than according to local government boundaries. The above figures represent the bulk of applicants from the Wigan Borough area, but will understate the position to the extent that applications from the constituencies of West Lancashire, Bolton West and Chorley are also from persons resident in the Wigan Borough area.

  2 IRISC are not able to produce individual constituency figures for applications settled. They do provide figures for those claims on which a full and final offer has been made.

  Secondments
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many BP employees are on secondment to her Department; for what purposes; on what terms; and how many BP employees have been on secondment to her Department since January 2000. [45889]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: From records held centrally, we currently have two BP employees on secondment into the Department. One is on secondment to the Chemicals and Biotechnology
  800W
  Directorate, based in the USA as a US Chemical Advisor. The other is seconded to Trade Partners UK (BTI) as an Export Promoter for East and West Europe. The secondments are covered by standard contractual arrangements setting out terms and conditions.

  In addition, there have been a further two BP employees on secondment to the Department since January 2000, both of whom have now finished their attachments.

  Companies House
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets she has set the Department's executive agency, Companies House for 2002–03. [47422]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have set Companies House the following targets for the 2002–03 year.

  Operational Targets
  To process 99 per cent. of statutory documents within five days of receipt at Companies House;
  to achieve, on average, a monthly compliance rate for accounts submitted of 95 per cent.;
  to ensure that 96 per cent. of all forms submitted to Companies House are captured error-free; and
  to ensure that 98 per cent. of all images placed on the Companies House image system are error-free.

  Questions delegated to the Chief Executive
  The Chief Executive to reply within 10 days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to her for reply.

  Customer Service and Complaints Handling
  To ensure that products and services on Companies House Direct are available for 98 per cent. of the time between the supported hours of 7 am and 8 pm, Monday to Friday;
  to ensure that products and services on the Companies House website are available for 98 per cent. of the time between the supported hours of 7 am and 8 pm, Monday to Friday;
  to achieve a score of more than 80 per cent. in each quarterly Companies House Customer Satisfaction Survey;
  to clear up 90 per cent. of complaints within five days.

  Financial Targets
  To maintain a unit cost reduction of 3 per cent. in real terms on document registration;
  to achieve, taking one year with another, a 6 per cent. average rate of return based on the operating surplus expressed as a percentage of average net assets;
  to pay all bills due within 30 days, or on other agreed credit terms, on receipt of goods or services or a valid invoice, whichever is later.

  Universal Bank
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the proposed Universal Bank Account will be available to those who have existing banking facilities. [41932]
  801W
  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: Our operational assumption is that around three million benefit and tax credit recipients will open a POCA, but there will not be a cap on numbers or eligibility criteria for a POCA. The emphasis will be upon ensuring that each customer gets the best account for his or her circumstances. Conventional and basic bank accounts offer more services and do not have the limitations of the POCA and so are likely to be the best option for the vast majority of people.

  Astra Windows Ltd.
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what date Companies House was informed that Astra Windows Ltd. had gone into voluntary liquidation. [45926]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Companies House received notice of the appointment of a liquidator and an extraordinary resolution to wind up the company on 19 January 2001.

  A400M
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when manufacture of the A400M will start in the UK; and how many jobs the programme is expected to(a) generate and (b) safeguard in the North West. [46206]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: Once the A400M contract is activated, I would anticipate that production of the aircraft would begin shortly thereafter.

  Airbus UK has estimated that the A400M programme will directly create up to 2,500 high quality jobs—notably in design and advance manufacture. They have calculated that indirect employment could bring that figure to over 8,000. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister commented on 6 March 2002, Official Report, column 343W, "Airbus Military is free to select its own suppliers on grounds of performance and cost". It is therefore impossible to estimate how many jobs might be generated in the North West.

  European Directives
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the cost to business of the European Directive on Parental Leave. [45320]

  Alan Johnson
  The costs to business of the implementation of the Directive were assessed in a Regulatory Impact Assessment published in 1999 when the Maternity and Parental leave etc. Regulations 1999 were introduced in the UK. At this time, the total costs to business were estimated to be £42 million per year. A further Regulatory Impact Assessment was made when the parental leave regulations were extended in January 2002 to include parents of children aged under five on 15 December 1999. The costs to business of this extension were estimated to be between £7 million and £41 million. Copies of both Regulatory Impact Assessments were placed in the Libraries of the House on publication.
  802W
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the cost to business of the European Directive on Working Time. [45318]

  Alan Johnson
  When the Working Time Directive was implemented in October 1998 the broad immediate cost to business was estimated at £1.9 billion. This was increased by £0.4 billion when the paid annual leave entitlement rose from three to four weeks in 1999, and by £30 million with the removal of the 13 week paid annual leave qualifying period in October 2001. The reduction in the record keeping requirements resulting from the 199 amendments to the Working Time Regulations reduced these costs by £13 million.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the cost to business of the European Directive on Pregnant Workers. [45322]

  Alan Johnson
  The Pregnant Workers Directive was adopted in October 1992, and included measures to encourage improvements in the health and safety at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or who are breastfeeding. It included, in particular, provisions entitling workers to minimum periods of maternity leave and setting minimum standards for pay or allowances during maternity leave.

  The UK already had in place various statutory provisions for maternity leave and pay prior to the Directive. Some changes were subsequently made as a result of the Directive, and other changes have been made, for unrelated reasons, in the intervening years. The Government has therefore made no recent assessment of the costs of the Directive on its own.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the cost to business of the European Directive on Part Time Workers. [45321]

  Alan Johnson
  An assessment of the costs of implementing this Directive was made in the Regulatory Impact Assessment which the Government published alongside the Part Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. A copy was placed in the Libraries of the House on publication, and is available on the DTI website at www.dti.gov.uk/er/review.htm. The RIA estimated that direct costs to employers would he around £27.4 million a year.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the cost to business of the European Directive on European Works Councils. [45319]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department commissioned an independent report into the costs associated with introducing the European Works Council Directive based on a survey of companies with experience of operating such Councils. The results of this study were incorporated into a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA), a copy of which is available in the Library and on the DTI website. The RIA identified a range of potential benefits from European Works Councils for employers, employees and the economy as a whole. The benefits in terms of improving industrial relations, boosting
  803W
  productivity and facilitating change would be felt in the longer term and could not be separately quantified. The costs to individual firms of organising European Works Council meetings were expected to range from £47,000 per year to £175,000 depending on the size of the undertaking. This represents a very small proportion of their turnover, and a valuable investment in improved employer-employee relations.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the cost to business of the European Directive on Young Workers. [45323]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department for Trade and Industry implemented the rest periods and health assessment provisions of the European Directive on Young Workers in respect of those aged from minimum school leaving age to 18th birthday, through the Working Time Regulations 1998. Around 18,000 young workers were estimated to be affected by the implementation of health assessments for adolescent night workers; the costs are estimated to be minimal.

  Implementation of the European Directive on Young Workers below minimum school leaving age is the responsibility of the Department of Health.

  Radiocommunications Agency
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets she has set her Department's Radiocommunications Agency for 2002–03. [47159]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have set the Radiocommunications Agency the following quality of service targets for 2002–03 in respect of its licensing and enforcement activities, and correspondence. These are in addition to achieving an overall efficiency improvement of 3 per cent. over 2002–02.

  Licensing Targets

  Category A
  Licences that involve no frequency assignment, site clearance or international co-ordination: 100 per cent. of applications for new or varied services to be awarded or rejected (with explanation) within five working days.

  Category B
  Licences that involve frequency assignment but no site clearance or international co-ordination: 90 per cent. of applications for new or varied services to be awarded or rejected (with explanation) within 15 working days; the remainder to be awarded or rejected within 25 working days or an explanation of the delay to be given.

  Category C
  Licences that require frequency assignment and site clearance and/or international co-ordination: 90 per cent. of applications for new or varied services to be awarded or rejected (with explanation) within 40 working days; the remainder to be awarded or rejected within 60 working days or an explanation of the delay to be given.

  Enforcement
  100 per cent. of safety of life services reports of interference to be investigated within 24 hours.
  98 per cent. of business customers reports of interference to be investigated within five working days; the remainder within a further five days.
  98 per cent. of domestic customers reports of interference to be investigated within one month; the remainder within a further month.
  804W
  90 per cent. of complaints to be sent a formal case update within 10 working days after the start of an investigation, the remainder within a further 10 days.

  Correspondence
  I also expect all correspondence from hon. Members delegated to the Chief Executive by Ministers or otherwise for reply, and all written complaints addressed to him about Agency service, to be answered within 10 working days of receipt; the Agency's enquiry point to respond to 95 per cent. of calls within 30 second; and 100 per cent. of valid invoices to be paid within 30 days of receipt (or as agreed with the supplier).

  Articles of Association
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will give her consent as holder of the special share to changes in the Articles of Association of BAe Systems plc and Rolls-Royce plc. [47160]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have reviewed the provisions in place for BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce and have decided to agree to the following changes. In the case of BAE Systems, we have agreed to remove the provision allowing the appointment of a Government Director; to change the current requirements that all Executive Directors are British to a requirement that a simple majority of the Board, including the Chief Executive and any Executive Chairman, are British; and to remove the aggregate foreign shareholding limit. In the case of Rolls-Royce, we have agreed to change the current requirement that 75 per cent. of the Board are British to a requirement that a simple majority, including the Chief Executive and any Executive Chairman, are British; to allow the appointment of a non-British non-Executive Chairman; and to remove the aggregate foreign shareholding limit. There will be no change in the requirements that no individual foreign shareholder, or group of foreign shareholders acting in concert, can hold more than 15 per cent. of the shares in either company. These provisions ensure that neither company can fall under foreign control.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Advertising
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the expenditure was per campaign for the five most expensive media advertising campaigns his Department undertook in the past five parliamentary Sessions including the current parliamentary Session in(a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland; and for the last two parliamentary Sessions and the current Session, when each advertising campaign (i) began and (ii) ended in (A) Scotland, (B) England, (C) Wales and (D) Northern Ireland. [37395]

  Mr. MacShane
  There has only been one media advertising campaign in the last five years in the UK.

  Between March-May 1998, the FCO carried out a £1 million television and information campaign for British nationals travelling to France for the World Cup.

  The campaign was run in Scotland and England, as they were the only two home teams to qualify.
  805W
  Information on when elements of the advertising campaign began and ended in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Civil Servants (Relocation)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many civil servants in his Department have used the services of Cendent or its subsidiaries(a) to relocate in London and (b) to be housed in London since May 1997; what the name was of the company employed in each case; and what the dates were on each occasion; [42362]

  (2) which relocation companies his Department has used when relocating civil servants since May 1997; which relocation companies hold contracts with his Department for the relocation of civil servants; when the contracts were last renewed; where the contracts were advertised; and what the (a) length and (b) value of each contract is. [42363]

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

  Energy Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on energy costs incurred by his Department in each of the last 10 years. [42450]

  Mr. Macshane
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 19 March 2002,Official Report, column 268W.

  Israel
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Israel about overflights by the Israeli airforce in Lebanon. [43483]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Embassy officials in Tel Aviv regularly raise overflights with the Israeli authorities, most recently on 26 February 2002. I did so when I visited Israel in July 2001. We remain concerned about continuing tension on the Israeli/Lebanese border. All breaches of the UN delineated "Blue Line", whether by land, sea or air are unacceptable.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [44952]

  Mr. Macshane
  The FCO target in 2001–02 for ministers to reply to letters from hon. Members is to respond to 89 per cent of correspondence within 20 working days. The target for 2002–03 will be agreed shortly. The FCO target in 2001–02 for replies to letters received directly from members of the public is to 806W
  respond to 90 per cent. of correspondence within 20 working days. The target for 2002–03 will also be agreed shortly.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which public service agreement targets scheduled to be met in 2002 will not be achieved by the due date. [44819]

  Mr. MacShane
  Information about progress on PSA targets will be published in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's 2002 Departmental Report.

  Anti-personnel Mines
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what legal advice he has been given regarding the transit across UK territory of anti-personnel mines by non-states parties to the Ottawa Convention. [45193]

  Mr. MacShane
  Such transit would be contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under the Ottawa Convention.

  Brahimi Report
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent steps have been taken by the Government to encourage the UN to implement the Brahimi report. [44747]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK Government support and work towards the implementation of the Secretary General's Report on Peace Operations (Brahimi Report). Many of its recommendations have now been implemented, including those designed to strengthen the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO), improve pre-deployment inspection and training of contingents and enhance mechanisms for consultation with troop contributors.

  Global Crossing
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library(a) the contingency plans that his Department has prepared for the contingency that Global Crossing fails, (b) the monitoring reports that his Department's posts in New York and Washington have drawn up of the financial performance of Global Crossing; and if he will make a statement. [44930]

  Mr. MacShane
  Contingency arrangements are contained in the FCO's contract with Global Crossing, which bars disclosure on the grounds of commercial confidentiality (Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice, on Access Government Information refers). The FCO has kept in touch with posts in Washington and New York, who have monitored local press and market reports on Global Crossing.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans have been made for the feasibility study into demining the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement. [45192]
  807W
  Mr. MacShane
  In October 2001 a Memorandum of Understanding with the Argentines was concluded to enable a British-led feasibility study funded by the Argentines into demining the Falkland Islands to be carried out. The first Joint Working Party (JWP) meeting on the feasibility study was held in Buenos Aires on 3 and 4 December 2001.

  South Africa
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of South Africa on the murder of farmers in that country; and if he will make a statement. [45497]

  Mr. MacShane
  Like the South African Government, we are concerned by the level of crime generally in the country, of which farm attacks are a worrying element. The South African government is working closely with rural communities to tackle the problem.

  Macedonia
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the issue of the official name of the FYR of Macedonia. [45245]

  Mr. MacShane
  We have had no recent formal discussions with EU partners on this subject. We continue to encourage the Greek and Macedonian Governments to agree a solution under UN mediation.

  Secondments
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [45886]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: None.

  Botswana
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what have been the results of Government representations to the Government of Botswana to keep its assurances to maintain basic services for the Kalahari Bushmen and not forcibly remove the Bushmen from the Kalahari reserve; if the planned visit to the reserve by the High Commissioner has taken place; and if he will make a statement. [45882]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government of Botswana stopped providing water and other essential supplies to those Bushmen remaining in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve (CKGR) at the end of February despite representations from HMG and others. The Government of Botswana has since said that those Bushmen who remain in the CKGR, estimated at around 60, can remain there if they wish to do so.

  Our High Commission in Gaborone will visit the CKGR within the next three weeks to assess the latest situation.

  Australia
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last had discussions with the Australian Government regarding Aboriginal affairs. [45972]

  Mr. MacShane
  In general, Aboriginal affairs are the sole responsibility of the Government of Australia and we do not therefore raise them. But we are in touch with the Australians about the repatriation of Aboriginal remains; my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed this with the right hon. John Howard, the Australian Prime Minister on 4 July 2000 and we have established a working group under the Chairmanship of Professor Norman Palmer to consider the matter. My noble friend Baroness Blackstone, has had further discussions this year with the Australian Minister for Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.

  I myself attended the Aboriginal Yeperenyne Centenary Federation Festival in Alice Springs, Australia, in September 2001.

  Thailand
  Albert Owen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representation the British Government have made to the Government of Thailand to(a) ascertain the fate of Peter Lionel Sinnott who disappeared in Pattaya on 4 January and (b) encourage the Thai Government to urge the Thai Police to treat the matter with urgency. [45387]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding reply of 25 March]: On 14 February our Ambassador in Bangkok alerted the Director General for Europe at the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the disappearance of Peter Sinnott.

  Since Mr Sinnott's disappearance our Embassy has pressed the Thai police on a number of occasions for information on their progress in locating Peter. In addition, on 18 January and 13 February our consular agent in Pattaya checked with local police stations, hospitals and morgues for information about Mr. Sinnott. On 28 January our Embassy wrote to the Commander of the Tourist Police in Pattaya to register Mr. Sinnott as a missing person. They wrote again on 15 March to express our interest in the investigation into Mr. Sinnott's disappearance and to ask for a report on the action taken by the police to locate him. We will continue to press for this information.

  St. Helena
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who will be representing the Government at the 500th anniversary celebrations of the Island of St. Helena. [46189]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 20 March 2002,Official Report, column 389W.

  United States
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his United States counterpart in respect of the
  809W
  implications for the future effectiveness of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty of the United States Nuclear Posture Review 2002. [46195]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have discussed the broad findings of the Nuclear Posture Review with the US Administration. We have also had several discussions with the US Administration on issues related to nuclear non-proliferation, including various meetings in view of the forthcoming First Preparatory Committee in the current cycle of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review process. The US continues to confirm the importance it attaches to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is the cornerstone of non-proliferation.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many persons are employed by his Department to accompany visitors from abroad; and if he will list(a) their names and (b) their salary scales. [46225]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Conference and Visits Group of FCO Services draws from 46 fee-paid liaison officers who accompany official visitors and guests of Government.

  Liaison Officers are remunerated on a daily basis in accordance with their duties for each visitor in accordance with good employer practice, and under Exemptions 8a and 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information it is not appropriate to release a list of such freelance employees into the public domain.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list his overseas visits since 7 June 2001. [46223]

  Mr. MacShane
  Since 1997 the Government have published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. Details of travel undertaken since 1 April 2001 will be published as soon as possible after the end of the 2001–02 financial year. Copies of previous lists are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Camp X-ray
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received on the situation relating to the British Taliban and al-Qaeda suspects held at Camp X-ray in Guantanamo Bay. [45808]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We remain in touch with the US authorities about the position of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, in particular that of the live UK detainees there. For details of the British detainees welfare, I refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 4 March to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. John Robertson),Official Report, columns 69–70W.

  We welcome the publication of the Procedure for Trials by Military Commission of Certain Non-United States Citizens in the War against Terrorism by the US Government on 21 March.

  Gujarat
  Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in the Gujarat state of India. [46021]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We share the deep concern of Britain's Muslim and Hindu communities over the current religious tensions and violence in Gujarat. We welcome the efforts of the Indian Government in raising the security presence in these areas to restore law and order. We are also concerned by reports that the Gujarat police failed to take adequate steps to reduce the conflict once it became clear that the violence was escalating. Our High Commission in New Delhi will continue to monitor the situation closely.

  India is a secular country in which the right to freedom of religion is enshrined in the constitution. However, we continue to raise our concerns over incidents of religious intolerance in India, including attacks against Muslims, Hindus and Christians. We will continue to urge the Indian authorities to ensure the right of freedom of religion is upheld, and that those responsible for attacks on religious minorities are brought to justice.

  Vietnam
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of Vietnam regarding the persecution of Christians.[46307]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) of 26 February,Official Report, column 1159W. Since then the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has raised our concerns about religious freedom with the Vietnamese Ambassador, and the EU Human Rights Working Group in Hanoi has raised our concerns with the Vietnamese government about their treatment of the Mennonite leader Pastor Quang.

  Ministerial Visits (Yugoslavia)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited Yugoslavia; and what plans he has to visit in the future. [45244]

  Mr. MacShane
  Although the Secretary of State has had a number of contacts with Yugoslav leaders, he has not visited the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia since taking up his duties in June 2001. There are no immediate plans for such a visit.

  As the Minister responsible for relations with the FRY I have visited Belgrade twice, from 18–19 July 2001, and from 6–7 February 2002 as well as other visits to the former Yugoslavia.

  Burma
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations she is making to the Burmese Government with regard to their treatment of internally
  811W
  displaced Karen people and other minorities; and what resources are being provided to support the Karen refugees leaving Burma for Thailand. [45453]

  Mr Bradshaw
  The UK has been at the forefront of the international community's effort to press for national reconciliation, respect for human rights and democracy in Burma. The ethnic minority areas of Burma, including those of the Karen, suffer disproportionately as a result of the regime's rule. The EU has adopted a Common Position including an arms embargo, bans on high level visits, items which may be used for torture, non-humanitarian aid, and a visa ban and asset freeze on members of the regime. We are also active in the United Nations, annually co-sponsoring resolutions at the UN General Assembly and UN Commission on Human Rights.

  In financial year 2001–02 we have increased funding for the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Burmese Border Consortium and the United Nations High Commission for Refugee's work with Burmese refugees and those internally displaced within Burma.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent meetings he has had with representatives from Burma; and what was discussed. [45483]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Ministerial contact with the Burmese authorities is limited by the EU Common Position. However an FCO official visited Rangoon from 27 February—1 March where he met both Aung San Suu Kyi and members of the Burmese government. The Burmese government is aware of our views about the urgent need for national reconciliation, respect for human rights and the restitution of democracy in Burma.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the human rights situation in Burma and steps taken by the Government to help the Karen people. [45482]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The overall human rights situation in Burma remains poor and a cause of grave concern. The ethnic minority areas, including those of the Karen, suffer disproportionately under the regime's rule. We are currently working with EU colleagues to prepare a resolution to be submitted at the UN Commission on Human Rights that will express our concerns and call upon the Burmese regime to take urgent action to improve the situation.

  In 2001–02 we have increased funding for the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Burmese Border Consortium and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees' work with Burmese refugees and those internally displaced within Burma. Both these groups include large numbers of Karen.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plan he has to bring investment sanctions against Burma(a) unilaterally and (b) with the (i) UN, (ii) EU and (iii) Commonwealth. [45484]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The EU has adopted a Common position including an arms embargo, bans on high level visits, items which may be used for torture, non-humanitarian aid, and a visa ban and asset freeze on 812W
  members of the regime. The EC has also suspended Burma trading privileges in response to the use of forced labour in Burma. In addition, the UK does not encourage trade, investment or tourism with Burma. We do not offer assistance to any British company wishing to trade with Burma. There is hardly any new investment into the country.

  There is no consensus at this point to implement a formal ban in any of the international forums listed. Against this background and in consideration of the evolving political situation in Burma, including the gradual release of political prisoners and the lessening of the pressure on opposition parties, there are no plans to pursue formal investment bans at this point. We will follow events closely and will respond proportionately to further developments, positive or negative.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Defence Grants
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will publish the(a) aggregate amount of civil defence grants to be made for the financial year 2002–03, (b) amount of grant to be paid in to each local authority and (c) criteria used to determine the allocation between authorities; and if he will make a statement. [46856]

  Mr. Leslie
  The aggregate amount is £18,968,850 of which £100,000 will be retained as discretionary grant for special projects and special events deemed of benefit to the wider emergency planning community in England and Wales.

  The remaining £18,868,850 will be allocated to individual authorities as set out in the table below.

  The following formula has been adopted to determine these allocations. First, each authority receives £53,000. Second, each county council receives £12,000 in respect of each shire district within the authority's boundaries. These flat-rate payments account for some 65 per cent. of the aggregate grant in recognition of the fact that every authority, regardless of size and population, must incur similar unavoidable costs in conducting the basic emergency planning function. The remainder of the total grant (approximately 35 per cent.) is then distributed according to the Bellwin threshold in recognition of the fact that population size provides a rough proxy for the scale of the emergency planning that authorities need to undertake.

  A simple application of the formula would result in some authorities facing a significant decrease on the grant they had received during the current financial year, whilst others would receive a significant increase. Mindful of the importance of keeping such year-on-year changes within reasonable bounds, a damping has been added to the formula so that no authority loses more than 10 per cent. or gains more than 20 per cent. compared with the current year.

  Before reaching decisions on this allocation method, consultations were held with Local Authority representatives on the basis of a draft formula. As a result of the representations made, that original formula was amended to give greater weight to the flat rate

  813W
  element and lesser weight to the element distributed by reference to the Bellwin threshold. The damping was also changed to reduce the floor level for losses.

  Local Authority

  Grant allocation for 2002–03 (£)

  Barking & Dagenham

  75,583

  Barnet

  80,268

  Barnsley

  75,690

  Bath and N.E. Somerset

  89,625

  Bedfordshire

  136,125

  Bexley

  78,372

  Birmingham

  186,994

  Blackburn with Darwen

  70,272

  Blackpool

  66,276

  Blaenau Gwent

  62,697

  Bolton

  82,288

  Bournemouth

  69,736

  Bracknell Forest

  63,513

  Bradford

  125,370

  Brent

  86,206

  Bridgend

  67,937

  Brighton & Hove

  80,786

  Bristol

  98,100

  Bromley

  84,594

  Buckinghamshire

  200,171

  Bury

  70,809

  Caerphilly

  72,702

  Calderdale

  74,188

  Cambridgeshire

  162,671

  Camden

  83,789

  Cardiff

  86,936

  Carmarthenshire

  73,472

  Ceredigion

  63,757

  Cheshire

  189,583

  City of London

  59,759

  Conwy

  64,425

  Cornwall

  188,893

  Coventry

  77,390

  Croydon

  90,280

  Cumbria

  215,730

  Darlington

  63,513

  Denbighshire

  71,048

  Derby

  76,117

  Derbyshire

  220,073

  Devon

  216,908

  Doncaster

  85,130

  Dorset

  175,500

  Dudley

  82,522

  Durham

  213,215

  Ealing

  89,958

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  71,880

  East Sussex

  207,902

  Enfield

  87,812

  Essex

  314,726

  Flintshire

  77,355

  Gateshead

  78,754

  Gloucestershire

  189,574

  Greater Manchester EP

  63,674

  Greenwich

  86,096

  Gwynedd

  67,312

  Hackney

  87,759

  Halton

  67,751

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  76,333

  Hampshire

  298,610

  Haringey

  85,238

  Harrow

  65,340

  Hartlepool

  64,264

  Havering

  77,299

  Herefordshire

  69,843

  Hertfordshire

  310,500

  Hillingdon

  81,000

  Hounslow

  80,356

  Hull (Kingston upon Hull)

  71,879

  814W

  Local Authority

  Grant allocation for 2002–03 (£)

  Isle of Anglesey

  60,956

  Isle of Wight

  71,844

  Isles of Scilly

  53,322

  Islington

  83,038

  Kensington and Chelsea

  74,402

  Kent

  339,200

  Kingston upon Thames

  67,268

  Kirklees

  95,045

  Knowsley

  73,973

  Lambeth

  87,403

  Lancashire

  314,847

  Leeds

  172,601

  Leicester City

  88,510

  Leicestershire

  192,571

  Lewisham

  83,592

  Lincolnshire

  212,407

  Liverpool

  97,262

  London FEPA

  151,439

  Luton

  59,508

  Manchester

  147,281

  Medway

  81,161

  Merseyside

  72,946

  Merthyr Tydfil

  60,612

  Merton

  71,667

  Middlesbrough

  70,969

  Milton Keynes

  81,018

  Monmouthshire

  61,768

  Neath Port Talbot

  69,873

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  102,437

  Newham

  87,840

  Newport

  68,230

  Norfolk

  276,427

  North East Lincolnshire

  71,238

  North Lincolnshire

  69,146

  North Somerset

  70,862

  North Tyneside

  73,705

  North Yorkshire

  244,137

  Northamptonshire

  238,874

  Northumberland

  187,736

  Nottingham City

  85,935

  Nottinghamshire

  210,541

  Oldham

  78,908

  Oxfordshire

  202,073

  Pembrokeshire

  66,349

  Peterborough

  71,828

  Plymouth

  81,322

  Poole

  66,249

  Portsmouth

  74,081

  Powys

  85,500

  Reading

  67,000

  Redbridge

  82,180

  Redcar and Cleveland

  69,307

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  81,933

  Richmond upon Thames

  69,038

  Rochdale

  76,924

  Rotherham

  81,268

  Rutland

  56,057

  Salford

  72,000

  Sandwell

  88,027

  Sefton

  83,629

  Sheffield

  96,000

  Shropshire

  153,448

  Slough Borough

  68,180

  Solihull

  73,330

  Somerset

  163,973

  South Tyneside

  71,130

  South Yorkshire EP

  83,970

  Southampton

  77,084

  Southend

  71,580

  Southwark

  76,957

  St Helens

  72,947

  Staffordshire

  226,456

  South Gloucestershire

  75,797

  815W

  Local Authority

  Grant allocation for 2002–03 (£)

  Stockport

  79,606

  Stockton-on-Tees

  73,491

  Stoke-on-Trent

  74,027

  Suffolk

  221,400

  Sunderland

  100,721

  Surrey

  297,002

  Sutton

  72,740

  Swansea

  78,547

  Swindon

  70,969

  Tameside

  76,924

  Telford and Wrekin

  71,999

  Thurrock

  68,280

  Torbay

  67,054

  Torfaen

  64,490

  Tower Hamlets

  93,123

  Trafford

  75,368

  Tyne & Wear

  34,506

  Vale of Glamorgan

  71,999

  Wakefield

  86,281

  Walsall

  83,253

  Waltham Forest

  83,146

  Wandsworth

  78,769

  Warrington

  72,418

  Warwickshire

  181,336

  West Berkshire

  67,429

  West Midlands EP

  60,000

  West Sussex

  225,000

  West Yorkshire EP

  61,207

  Westminster

  86,418

  Wigan

  84,111

  Wiltshire

  194,400

  Windsor & Maidenhead

  66,410

  Wirral

  89,475

  Wokingham

  66,142

  Wolverhampton

  81,644

  Worcestershire

  186,449

  Wrexham

  72,540

  York, City of

  71,834

  Public Appointments (Women)
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which Government departments are expected to reach the target of equal representation for women in public appointments by 2005. [46501]

  Mr. Leslie
  Public Bodies: Opening up Public Appointments 2002–05, was published on 14 February. This publication provides the latest targets set by individual departments for increasing diversity on the boards of non-departmental public bodies and other public bodies, and describes the action that departments will take to achieve them. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total cost to his Department was of the use of external consultants in each of the last four years. [35018]

  Mr Leslie
  The total cost to the Cabinet Office and the Central Office of Information for the use of consultants in each of the last four complete financial years is as follows:

  1997–98 £5,531,000

  1998–99 £8,098,000

  1999–2000 £10,812,000

  2000–01 £10,927,000.

  816W
  The period 1997–98 included £501,049 on e-government IT consultants commissioned by the Central IT Unit (CITU). Expenditure on this topic was £3,138,437 in 1998–99, £5,046,618 in 1999–2000 and £3,543,147 in 2000–01. Expenditure in 1998–99 and 1999–2000 increased to include Y2K work and in 2000–01 a decrease in expenditure in those areas was offset by work on UK Online following an expansion of e-Government work in the 2000 Spending Review. Other Cabinet Office consultancy spend is on research and IT developments.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total cost was of management consultants across all Government departments in the last available year. [43630]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information for all Government Departments is not held centrally, and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. Individual departments are responsible for their own consultancy arrangements.

  For the information relating to my Department, I refer the hon. Member to the answer have given today to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total external spending by his Department was on public private partnership consultants in each of the last four years; how many full-time equivalent consultants were employed over this period; how many billed consultancy days there were per year; what the implied average cost of each PPP consultant was; how many consultancy firms were used by his Department over this period; and if he will make a statement. [43193]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 6 February 2002,Official Report, column 944W.

  Permanent Secretaries
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what(a) number and (b) percentage of permanent secretaries attended (i) Oxford and Cambridge, (ii) independent schools and (iii) both; if he will provide these figures for each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [43858]

  Mr. Leslie
  For current holders of Permanent Secretary posts in the Home Civil Service, the figures are:20 studied for their first degree at Oxford or Cambridge University (59 per cent.);
  14 attended independent schools (41 per cent.); and
  13 attended both (38 per cent.).

  Historic data on the educational backgrounds of Permanent Secretary postholders are not held centrally and could only be collected at disproportionate cost.

  Press Office
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many staff in his Department's press office have
  817W
  (a) termination and (b) redundancy payments in each of the last four years. [41075]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  None.

  Advertising
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much the Government have spent on advertising in each year since 1993 in(a) English, (b) Welsh and (c) Welsh and English. [39518]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Twickenham on 12 December 2001,Official Report, column 939W.

  Per cent.

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02 to date2

  Arthur Andersen

  0

  0

  0

  0.51

  22.09

  Ernst & Young

  1.55

  10.45

  2.05

  0.04

  20

  PricewaterhouseCoopers1

  10.35

  2.19

  2.16

  5.15

  24.40

  Notes:

  1 1997–98 figure for Price Waterhouse and Coopers & Lybrand.

  2 2001–02 figures for year to end January and subject to audit.

  Car and Despatch Agency
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many vehicles in the Government's Car and Despatch Agency are run on(a) petrol, (b) diesel, (c) liquefied petroleum gas, (d) compressed natural gas and (e) other alternative fuels. [45945]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  Responsibility for the Government Car Service and the InterDespatch Service has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Government Car Despatch Agency. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. Nick Matheson, to write to the hon. Gentleman.

  I have placed copies of the letter in the Library of the House.

  Confidential Information
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he has taken to co-ordinate a system across Departments by which members of the public can give confidential information. [38198]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Cabinet Office co-ordinates no such system across Departments.

  External Contracts
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) which non-accounting and non-information technology external organisations have won new contracts with(a) his Department and (b) executive agencies in each of the past five years; [38762]

  (2) which non-accounting and non-information technology external organisations which previously held contracts with his Department (a) won new contracts at
  818W
  Figures for the financial year 1992–93 to 1994–95 are not held centrally, and could only be provide at disproportionate cost.

  The only advertising undertaken by the COI is for recruitment. All recruitment advertising is in English.

  Consultancy Services
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, what proportion of work commissioned by Government Departments has been undertaken by(a) Arthur Andersen, (b) Ernst & Young, (c) PricewaterhouseCoopers in each year since 1978. [32808]

  Mr. Leslie
  Pursuant to my reply of 14 February, columns 562–64, I regret that the information provided was incorrect. The table should have read:

  the culmination of the existing contracts and (b) won new contracts after a period of inactivity with his Department in each of the past five years. [38763]

  Mr. Leslie
  The specific information requested is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. However for information on the top 10 largest suppliers to the Cabinet Office for the years since 1997, I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave earlier today (PQ 38764).

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, if he will list the 30 largest contracts awarded by his Department from(a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999, (c) May 1999 to April 2000, (d) May 2000 to April 2001 and (e) May 2001 to the latest date, indicating in each case the values of the contracts and the companies with which the contracts were placed. [38764]

  Mr. Leslie
  Listed below are the 10 largest suppliers to the Cabinet Office for each financial year since 1997–98.

  1997–98

  Paymaster (1836)

  The Stationery Office

  Digital Equipment Company

  Sutcliffe Catering (UK)

  Chessington Computer Services

  Haymills Contractors

  Glasgows

  Serco

  E C Harris

  Logica UK

  819W

  1998–99

  Paymaster (1836)

  Compaq Computer

  Sutcliffe Catering (UK)

  The Stationery Office

  Drivers Jonas

  Chessington Computer Services

  Serco

  Glasgows

  Computacenter

  Claybrook Computing

  1999–2000

  Holloway White Allom

  Paymaster (1836)

  Serco

  Compaq Computer

  Balfour Beatty Refurbishment

  Claybrook Computing

  Sutcliffe Catering (UK)

  Drivers Jonas

  The Stationery Office

  Computacenter

  2000–01

  Computacenter

  Compaq Computer

  Syntegra

  Paymaster (1836)

  Cable & Wireless Communication

  Holloway White Allom

  Serco

  Berwin Leighton

  Drivers Jonas

  Sema Group UK

  2001–02 to date

  Balfour Beatty Refurbishment

  Sema Group UK

  Cable & Wireless Communication

  Paymaster (1836)

  Compaq Computer

  Computacenter

  PA Consulting Group

  Capita Business Services

  Serco

  British Telecoms.

  Further information of the sort requested is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the number and expected cost to his Department of special advisers in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [43276]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State:
  At 21 March, there are two full time and two part time Special Advisers in my office.
  820W
  On cost, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 20 March 2002, Official Report, Hansard, column 324W.

  Departmental Contracts
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister 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. [43673]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I have given today to the hon. Member for North Tayside, (Pete Wishart).

  PFI/PPPs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the(a) private finance initiative and (b) public private partnership projects which have been delayed. [44878]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Sunningdale Park Property Project is this Department's only PFI project. It was originally envisaged that the contract would be awarded in 1999. Various complications mean that we are now working towards a start date next month.

  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 the five largest PFI contracts let by his Department in each of the last four years; and if he will make a statement. [45594]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Sunningdale Park Project is this Department's only current PFI project and has not yet reached final contract stage. My Department has had no other PFI projects in the last four years.

  Crèche Facilities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what crèche facilities are provided by his Department; and at what cost. [44864]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Cabinet Office provides crèche facilities for staff at the Civil Service College in Sunningdale, which is run in partnership with the Edith Rose Day Nursery. This service is also available to parents on residential courses at the college.

  Staff in London have access to the Westminster Holiday Playscheme, which is available during the school holidays.

  Eligible staff in all locations are able to apply for childcare vouchers. These support parents to make their own choices about where and what type of childcare they want for their child. Vouchers are payable over 48 weeks per annum and are for £21 a week for staff who work full time and either have a partner who works full

  821W
  time or are single parents; or pro-rata for staff who work or who have partners who work part-time. Staff using a subsidised nursery place at Sunningdale are not eligible for childcare vouchers.

  The Department is conducting a review of childcare and will be taking account of the recommendations in due course.

  cabinet office

  Type of childcare provision

  Number of parents using childcare

  Cost to the department

  Cost per head

  Nursery

  8

  £9,732.97

  £134 per week.

  Subsidy of £41.50 per week for people earning less £19,000 and £26 per week for people earning less than £24,001

  Westminster Holiday Playscheme

  49

  £4,291.59

  £17.67 a day up until 30 September 2001. £26 a day from 1 October 2001. Subsidy of 50%.

  Childcare Vouchers

  85

  £63,384.02

  £21 a week for full-time, pro-rata for part-time.

  Central office of Information

  Westminster Holiday Playscheme

  4

  £237

  £17.67 a day up until 30 September 2001. £26 a day from 1 October 2001 Subsidy of 50%.

  Unpaid Advisers
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Deputy 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. [43374]

  Mr. Leslie
  No unpaid advisers have been appointed by the Deputy Prime Minister under the terms of paragraph 51 of the Ministerial Code.

  For details of unpaid appointments made by this Department to task forces, review groups and other ad hoc advisory groups, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda on 16 November 2001, Official Report, column 958W.

  Access to Information
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the administrative manuals and internal guidance which his Department has made public as required by Part 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information; and which of these were first made available after May 1997. [45338]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  The Cabinet Office's internet website contains numerous examples of guidance that have been made public. However, no central record is maintained of what has been made public by the Cabinet Office under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Open Government
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what requests have been received by the Cabinet Secretary for the release of documents assessing progress on the release of historic official files under the Open Government Initiative. [46200]
  822W
  The Regional Co-ordination Unit and the Government Offices for the Regions have not been included as the information is not held centrally, and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  A table showing the type of childcare provision in my department; the number of parents who used it; the cost to the department; and the cost per head is below:

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  No requests have been received personally by the Cabinet Secretary for the release of documents assessing progress on the release of historic files under the Open Government Initiative. There have, however, been a number of requests since 1997 to the Cabinet Office openness contact.

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what costs have been incurred since 28 January by his Department in connection with the Saville Inquiry; and what his estimate is of the final cost to his Department. [46026]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  Cabinet Office does not employ staff full-time on Bloody Sunday Inquiry work. Since 28 January a few staff have spent a small amount of time dealing with issues relating to the Inquiry, but they absorb this task into their normal duties, so staff time costs are not separately calculated. It is not possible to forecast the final cost to the Cabinet Office because of the uncertainties.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many publications were issued by her Department between 8 June and 26 October. [11837]

  Mr. Morley
  Our records show that we issued 130 publications, excluded are any reprints of previously published items, posters, official forms and stationery. We have also recorded 33 consultation documents as posted on the DEFRA Website during the period. Publication activity, not centrally managed has not been included, as recovery of this information would be at a disproportionate cost.

  Newspaper Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what has been the expenditure of her(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies on newspaper advertising by title for each year sine 1997. [26993]

  Mr. Morley
  Please find a list of the titles used for advertising DEFRA campaigns in national and regional printed media by DEFRA Communications Directorate as from 8 June 2001. The target audience and the information to be conveyed influences the choice of media used. The information for the period prior to 8 June 2001 for the merged bodies within DEFRA, as with the expenditure for the agencies and non-departmental public bodies is not held centrally and could only be supplied at disproportionate cost.

  DEFRA press spend from 8 June 2001 to 15 January 2002 by publication

  Prepared: 14 January 2002

  Publication

  Spend (£)

  Daily Express

  3,226.00

  Daily Mail

  8,885.00

  Guardian

  9,677.00

  Times

  6,241.00

  The Scotsman

  7,136.00

  Birmingham Post

  1,866.00

  Yorkshire Post

  1,484.00

  Manchester Evening News

  20,595.00

  Newcastle Journal

  9,045.00

  Birmingham Evening Mail

  5,308.00

  Bradford Telegraph & Argus

  7,869.00

  Brighton Evening News

  1,469.00

  Bristol Evening Post

  8,335.00

  Bristol Western Daily Press

  6,185.00

  Darlington Northern Echo

  4,336.00

  Eastern Daily Press

  3,901.00

  Hull Daily Mail

  1,471.00

  Lanes Evening Telegraph

  5,273.00

  Leeds Yorkshire Evening Post

  20,019.00

  Leicester Mercury

  9,332.00

  Liverpool Daily Post

  5,865.00

  Nottingham Evening Post

  10,979.00

  Oxford Mail

  1,048.00

  Western Morning News

  912.00

  Sheffield Star

  11,167.00

  Stoke-on-Trent Evening Sentinel

  7,107.00

  London Standard

  4,790.00

  Western Mail

  8,199.00

  Wolverhampton Express & Star

  22,892.00

  Carlisle Evening News & Star

  679.00

  Birmingham Evening Mail

  10,616.00

  Southern Daily Echo

  1,122.00

  Chester Mail

  634.00

  Craven Herald & Pioneer

  414.00

  Harrogate Advertiser Series

  2,315.00

  Kent Messenger

  1,546.00

  Farmers Weekly

  22,508.00

  Farmers News

  17,790.00

  New Scientist

  6,613.00

  Farmers Guardian

  5,040.00

  Scottish Farmer

  475.00

  Commercial Motor

  3,240.00

  Motor Transport

  3,881.00

  Freight Magazine

  1,066.00

  Angling Times

  1,449.00

  Anglers Mail

  1,882.00

  Beef Farmer

  1,987.00

  South West Farmer

  1,890.00

  Total

  299,759.00

  Departmental Expenditure (Publications)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of the expenditure of her Department on newspaper, magazines and periodicals in each of the last four years. [30091]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA was created on 8 June 2001, the estimated centralised DEFRA expenditure for newspapers, magazines and periodicals via the libraries supporting the Department is £140,000 for the current financial year. Expenditure incurred outside the management of the libraries for this type of expenditure cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Communications
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the process used by her Department to issue circulars to farmers and growers; how often mailing lists are updated; and what system is in place to ensure that circulars are issued to farmers and growers in an enterprise-specific manner. [33376]

  Mr. Morley
  The print production, distribution and mailing of circulars to farmers and growers is provided by commercial firms appointed by DEFRA Communication Directorate. The Directorate is provided with mailing lists by relevant policy divisions. It is the responsibility of these divisions to establish and amend the material on such lists.

  Fraud
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to prevent fraudulent claims for agricultural subsidies; and if she will make a statement. [38823]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) takes rigorous action to prevent fraudulent claims by having in place stringent controls for each of the schemes that it administers. Control plans are set up using risk analysis techniques and are regularly reviewed. RPA Inspectorate carries out pre and post payments checks in accordance with the relevant Community regulations.

  RPA Counter Fraud and Compliance Unit carries out an annual programme of scrutiny control audits in accordance with EC Regulation 4045/89 using a systematic approach in order to prevent and detect irregularities and fraud. The Unit's Investigation and Intelligence section makes enquiries into all referred allegations of suspected fraud and conducts a full investigation where appropriate.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her Department's policy is towards age discrimination. [42567]

  Mr. Morley
  Age has been integrated into the Department's equal opportunities policy, including a commitment that there should be no unfair
  825W
  discrimination on the basis of age. Departmental Diversity policies also make clear that all staff should be respected and valued.

  Staff in administrative and support grades may continue working up to 65 (subject to continued efficiency) and short service concessions are available to those in other grades with less than 20 years' service at normal retirement age.

  In line with the recommendation in the Policy and Innovation Unit report, "Winning the Generation Game", the Department is actively considering the case for allowing other staff the option of retirement at up to age 65.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she intends to reply to the letter to her dated 25 January from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Cait Cawley. [42797]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 12 March 2002]: I am sorry for the delay in replying. A response to my hon. Friend's letter was sent on 28 February 2002.

  Pollution
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her reply of 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 220W, on pollution control; if she will list the key stakeholders referred to; how her Department uses the comments received from key stakeholders, since when these reports have been published, and if she will place in the Library copies of unpublished reports; if she will provide details of the process by which the reports are considered; if she will list the decisions made on what steps should be taken since these reports were first published; and what steps have been taken to reinforce to local authorities the importance of adopting such practice. [43481]

  Mr. Meacher
  The key Local Air Pollution Control stakeholders are the members of the Industrial Pollution Liaison Committee and the Industry Forum, which meet twice a year. The Committee and Forum comprise respectively, organisations representing local enforcing authority regulators and trade bodies representing regulated industries. A copy of the statistical report is also now sent to the Environmental Industries Commission, who I recently met to discuss Local Air pollution Control among other matters. Any comments made by these stakeholders are carefully considered.

  Statistics have been produced from the annual LAPC statistical survey since it was first undertaken for the year 1991–92 and have from the outset been provided to members of the Committee and (from its establishment) the Forum. A copy of the statistics covering the period 1991–00 is being placed in the Library. The reports for 2000–01 is on the Department's website. In addition, "Local Air Pollution Control in England and Wales; Five Year Report 1991–96" was published in December 1996 and contained a statistical review. The reports are considered by officials and the key findings are reported to Ministers. The statistics have helped inform policy on LAPC throughout the lifetime of the regime.
  826W
  Officials raised the importance of local authorities adopting cost accounting in discussion with the Local Government Association and, when the opportunity arose, in discussion with individual local authorities. The issue was discussed at the Industrial Pollution Liaison Committee.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 219W, on local air pollution control, what guidance has been given to local authorities in each case; and if she will (a) provide a definition of low inspection record, (b) state on what date all local authorities were written to, provide details of to whom within each local authority these letters were addressed and place a copy of the standard letter in the Library, (c) provide details of responses to these letters and (d) state what outcomes she expects from the letter to chief executives. [43534]

  Mr. Meacher
  Guidance on inspection under the Local Air Pollution Control (LAPC) system was issued by the Department of the Environment in 1995 in additional guidance note reference (AQ4(95)). In 2000 local authorities were publicly listed which undertook an average of less than 0.5 inspections per process in a year. In 2001 the threshold was raised to one inspection. Letters were sent on 8 November 2001 to the chief environmental health officer of most of the relevant local authorities; a further four authorities were written to on 28 February 2002. I am placing a copy in the Library of the House. All except two of the local authorities written to on 8 November have responded with improvements they intend to make to their inspection performance. My Department is in contact with the remaining two authorities over their responses. I expect the letter to local authority chief executives to focus the minds of local authorities on the importance of carrying out sufficient process inspection in undertaking their LAPC regulatory functions.

  Beef
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from the Scottish Executive concerning the French ban on UK beef since the Barcelona Summit. [45818]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: None. However, the Scottish Executive wrote to the Secretary of State on 13 March about remarks made by the new French Minister of Agriculture. The Secretary of State wrote to the French Minister and to the Commission on 15 March. The Commission wrote to the French Government on 20 March seeking observations on France's failure to comply with the ruling of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). This is the first state in a process which may lead to a further ECJ case against France.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she is taking to promote the export of beef and beef products. [43035]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 14 March 2002]: The promotion of exports of beef and beef products is primarily the responsibility of the Meat and Livestock

  827W
  Commission (MLC), a non-Departmental Public Body sponsored by DEFRA. DEFRA's International Relations and Export Promotion division liaises closely with the MLC concerning the promotion of exports of British meat, livestock and genetics and the MLC is participating in a number of DEFRA's overseas trade fair stands, missions and other events this year. DEFRA chairs a Beef Exports Liaison Group which includes exporters and the MLC and which will be meeting on 16 April to discuss the best way of promoting beef exports once the trade resumes.

  Bio-security
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of(a) food imports and (b) livestock imports were impounded or refused entry to the UK on the grounds of bio-security in each of the last five years. [43565]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: The information below relates to consignments of products of animal origin correctly presented at border inspection posts from non-EU countries but rejected because they did not fully meet import requirements. The reason for rejection is not recorded. Information on other imported food and products of animal origin from other EU member States is not held centrally.

  Year

  Percentage of imported food of animal origin rejected

  1997

  1.7% (790 rejected out of 45,842)

  1998

  2.0% (994 rejected out of 49,152)

  1999

  2.3% (1,004 rejected out of 42,900)

  2000

  2.8% (1,274 rejected out of 44,616)

  January to November 2001

  3.9% (1,690 rejected out of 43,597)

  In addition, since April 2001, we have been advised of 1,183 seizures of illegally imported products of animal origin. We do not hold figures for the last five years.

  The information below relates to imports of livestock into the UK from all EU and non-EU countries which were rejected or detained because they did not fully comply with the import requirements. The information includes birds and poultry but excludes fish and bees since statistics can only be obtained at disproportionate cost. The reason for rejection or detention is not recorded.

  Year

  Percentage of imported livestock rejected or detained

  1997

  0.02% (852 rejected/detained out of 4,289,874)

  1998

  0.002% (301 rejected/detained out of 15,340,000)

  1999

  0.0005% (234 rejected/detained out of 40,450,000)

  2000

  0.007% (534 rejected/detained out of 7,796,332)

  2001

  0.005% (374 rejected/detained out of 8,391,686)

  All figures are provisional and subject to change.

  Transitional Derogations
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 12 February 2002,Official Report,
  828W
  column 276W, on Poland, if she will list the transitional derogations relating to agriculture and fisheries upon which Malta and Poland are negotiating with the European Union. [44100]

  Mr. Morley
  In the fisheries and agriculture negotiations Malta and Poland have put forward a range of requests relating to issues such as access to their waters by other EU vessels, marketing specifications for agricultural products, and to food processing establishments. These are set out in negotiating documents submitted to the Intergovernmental Conference on enlargement. Detailed disclosure is at the discretion of the candidate country.

  Negotiations on agriculture are continuing, but fisheries negotiations with all candidates except Malta and Poland have been provisionally concluded. Details of the requests provisionally agreed are available on the Commission's website: http://www.europa.eu.int/ comm/enlargement/negotiations/chapters/index.htm.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her Department has made of(a) the average effect on SAP ratings, (b) the average reduction in fuel bills and (c) the energy saving resulting from the measures taken to date of properties subject to the home energy efficiency scheme. [43571]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: Information from the scheme managers indicates that:

  (a) average improvements in SAP ratings for properties receiving grants under the Scheme range from 12–18 points;

  (b) information is not collected on actual reductions in fuel bills. The maximum potential saving is estimated to be in excess of £200 with estimated actual savings, taking account that some of the benefit will be taken in the form of increased thermal comfort, ranging between £110–155;

  (c) the estimated CO2 reduction per property is estimated to be between 1.47–1.89 tonnes/pa.

  Hemswell Cliff
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total tonnage is that can be stored in the Hemswell Cliff Cold Stores; and what alternative storage facilities there are in the UK. [44625]

  Mr. Morley
  The refrigerated storage capacity of Hemswell Cliff Cold Store is 10,000 tonnes spread equally over two sheds. A Government owned cold storage facility at Locharbriggs near Dumfries, capable of holding 5,000 tonnes is also available to the Rural Payments Agency and further commercial storage can be acquired to supplement these facilities as necessary.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the annual cost is of providing the refrigerated storage at the Intervention Board facility at Hemswell Cliff. [44627]

  Mr. Morley
  Hemswell Cliff is one of two Government owned cold stores which are in the process of being sold. The store is currently in care and maintenance mode with average monthly costs of £2,400.
  829W
  Annual running costs before decommissioning of the refrigeration plant would have been in the order of £260,000. If product was being stored there would also be receipt, handling and discharge fees payable which would vary according to commodity being stored.

  Recycling
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how the 2005–06 waste-recycling targets for local waste collection authorities set out in her Department's waste consultation document were arrived at. [44349]

  Mr. Meacher
  Waste Strategy 200 sets out a commitment to recycle or compost at least 25 per cent. of household waste by 2005. Under the national Public Service Agreement we committed to targets of 17 per cent. household waste recycling/composting by 2003–04 and 25 per cent. by 2005–06.

  Taking a baseline of 1998–99 performances, targets for 2003–04 and 2005–06 were calculated for each waste collection and disposal authority in England. 2005–06 targets were calculated as follows:
  authorities with 1998–99 rates of under 6 per cent. should achieve at least 18 per cent. by 2005–06;
  those with 1998–99 rates of between 6 per cent. and 12 per cent. should at least treble their recycling/composting rate by 2005–06;
  the remainder should recycle or compost at least 40 per cent. of household waste by 2005–06.

  These standards were proposed in the consultation document "Best Value and Audit Commission Performance Indicators for 2001–02" and were implemented in the Best Value Order 2001. Performance standards for individual authorities are detailed in the "Guidance on Municipal Waste Management Strategies" published in March 2001.

  Flood Relief
  Mr Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many and what type of waterborne craft were available to the Environment Agency for flood relief purposes in(a) 1998 and (b) 2000; and if she will make a statement. [44705]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested is not held centrally by the Environment Agency and cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate costs. However, I understand the total number, by region, of waterborne craft currently operated by the Agency available for deployment in an emergency situation is as follows:

  Number

  North East

  70

  Midlands

  54

  Southern

  17

  Thames

  119

  North West

  22

  Anglian

  18

  South West

  49

  EA Wales

  50

  Total

  399

  830W
  Additional craft are made available for use in an emergency by bodies such as the RNLI and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which public service agreement targets that are scheduled to be met in 2002 will not be achieved by the due date. [44837]

  Mr. Morley
  Information about progress on PSA targets will be published in the Department's 2002 Departmental Report.

  Registered Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many registered fishing vessels there were in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years. [45211]

  Mr. Morley
  The available information is set out below:

  The Registered UK Fishing Fleet: 1996 to 2009—United Kingdom (including Channel Islands and Isle of Man)

  Number

  GT *

  Power (k W)

  1996

  8,667

  271,875

  1,054,927

  1997

  8,458

  269,726

  1,026,542

  1998

  8,271

  268,803

  1,006,071

  1999

  8,039

  262,777

  978,644

  2000

  7,818

  260,333

  980,636

  Source:

  RSS and UK Fisheries Department

  GT * represents a measure of fleet tonnage, based on International Tonnage Convention 1969, to which the Community fishing fleet is being progressively remeasured. The process should be completed by end 2003. The series gives figures on a consistent basis over the period shown.

  Livestock
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans the Government have to remove the 20 day restriction on the movement of cattle. [45445]

  Mr. Morley
  The interim rules for livestock movements, which we announced on 5 February, allow greater flexibility for farmers to move their animals. The 20 day standstill rule has been waived for some types of movement, subject to conditions and we will continue to keep these arrangements under review. However, veterinary advice is that the 20 day standstill needs to remain in place for the time being as a disease control measure. A copy of a document explaining the Veterinary basis for the Interim movement rules has been placed in the Library of the House and is available on the DEFRA website.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to review the import regulations pertaining to livestock; and if she will make a statement. [45839]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: Movements of farmed livestock within the European Community are subject to harmonised animal health rules which are implemented into national legislation.

  831W
  These rules set down the animal health conditions that must be met before such animals can be certified for export and they provide for checks to be made on the animals at their premises of destination. The Commission's Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health keeps the rules under constant review and introduces safeguard measures as necessary to address animal health problems across the Community. Imports into Great Britain of animals susceptible to foot and mouth disease resumed in November 2001 and since then we have been carrying out 100 per cent. post import checks on all such consignments.

  Imports of livestock from non-EU countries are also covered by EU rules. Imports are prohibited from countries where there is a known animal health risk. Imports from approved countries must enter the Community via an approved border inspection post where the consignments are subjected to physical, identity and documentary checks.

  Parrett Catchment Project
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what salary is paid to the Chairman of the Parrett catchment project; and what his total package is. [45275]

  Mr. Morley
  I understand that the Steering Group for the Parrett Catchment Project agreed that the Chairman should receive payment up to £3,000 per annum from project funds. The major contributors are Somerset County Council and the Environment Agency.

  Hunting with Dogs
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy to consult Lord Burns over interpretation of his report on hunting with dogs before drafting legislation on the subject, with particular reference to the issues of cruelty and utility. [46360]

  Alun Michael
  I have emphasised the importance of the Burns Report and met Lord Burns to discuss his report after taking up my present responsibilities. I shall welcome comments from all those who have constructive comments to make following my statement on 21 March.

  Farm Tenancies
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the availability of farm tenancies for young farmers; and what plans she has to facilitate more opportunities for new entrants to farming. [45314]

  Mr. Morley
  A policy evaluation review of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 is currently being carried out by the University of Plymouth. This includes an assessment of the impact the Act has had on the availability of tenancies to new entrants. The Policy Commission on Food and Farming has also made a number of recommendations which are intended to make farming more attractive and accessible to new entrants.
  832W
  The University of Plymouth review is nearing completion and the final report is expected shortly. We will be considering the recommendations made by the research team in detail over the coming months and at the same time will consider the Policy Commission recommendations on tenancy and new entrant issues.

  Incineration
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with reference to the Government's Waste Strategy 2000 documents, how many tonnes of incineration capacity he estimates will be needed by(a) 2005–06, (b) 2010 and (c) 2015; and on what assumptions these figures are based. [44307]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government's strategy, as set out in Waste Strategy 2000, is based on minimising the production of waste and maximising the levels of re-use, recycling and composting of the waste that is produced.

  The Regulatory Impact Assessment in Annex C of Part 2 of Waste Strategy 2000 (Cm 4693–2) outlines a wide variety of different waste management scenarios. Variables include different mixes of waste management facilities, different levels of participation in kerbside recycling schemes, and different projections for the increase in municipal waste arisings. There are therefore no single estimates for the level of incineration in these years.

  UN Millennium Declaration
  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 meet the commitments of the United Nations Millennium Declaration. [44351]

  Clare Short
  I have been asked to reply. The Millennium Declaration endorsed the Millennium Development Goals, a set of 2015 targets for poverty reduction. We worked hard to get UN agreement to these goals and all of the work of my Department is aimed at reaching these Goals. The Millennium Declaration also called on industrialised countries to reduce trade barriers for least developed countries, debt relief for heavily indebted poor countries, and increased development assistance, particularly for countries with large numbers of people in poverty and effective pro-poor policies.

  My Department has also worked hard with others in the Government to achieve agreement at Doha to a trade round which creates significant opportunities for developing countries and poor people. The Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative has led to over $50 billion in debt relief being granted to qualifying countries. This Government has increased UK Official Development Assistance by a third in real terms since 1997. We are committed to making substantial further progress towards the UN 0.7 per cent. target in the next spending round. At the UN conference on Financing for Development in Mexico last week, the European Union announced a commitment to increase average Official Development Assistance as a proportion of gross national income to 0.39 per cent. by 2006, an increase of $7 billion.
  833W
  My Department will continue to focus its efforts on achieving the Goals set out in the Millennium Declaration. Details of how we have contributed during 2001–02 to achieving the Millennium Development Goals will be published next month in our Departmental Report.

  Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how she intends to distribute the waste minimisation and recycling fund. [47162]

  Mr. Meacher
  Following the recent consultation, we shall very shortly announce how we intend to distribute the Fund. Guidance will be sent to all local authorities and will be available on the DEFRA website. Copies of the guidance and results of the consultation will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Scientific and Regulatory Agencies
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to conduct a review of her Department's scientific and regulatory agencies. [47164]

  Margaret Beckett
  I am today announcing a Review of the three science laboratories; the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA), the Central Science Laboratory (CSL) and the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Research (CEFAS); and the two regulatory agencies, the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) and the Veterinary Medicines Agency (VMD).

  The Review will be conducted by a team attached to DEFRA's Corporate and Service Delivery Directorate General, working in consultation with other Government Departments with an interest. The Review Team will be advised by a Steering Group of a majority of non-Departmental members.

  The terms of reference for the Review are:
  "To evaluate the effectiveness of the operation of DEFRA agencies, with regard to the Departmental aim and objectives and their relationship with the Department and the sectors they serve."

  The Review is to be conducted in two parallel processes:
  for those Executive Agencies due for quinquennial review in 2002 (VLA, CSL, CEFAS): to conduct an evaluation of their performance since the date of the last review and to examine their relationship with core-DEFRA, other Government Departments (OGDs) and the Devolved Administrations (DAs);
  for the regulatory Executive Agencies (PSD and VMD): to take into account the conclusions of, and developments since the completion of their Quinquennial Reviews.

  In so doing, the Review will:
  analyse the requirements of Government, industry and society for core science facilities and key skills for the provision of R&D. scientific support services, surveillance, policy and regulatory functions, advice and emergency response capability;
  834W
  analyse and identify the work required to support the core requirements;
  examine the likely trend of DEFRA and other public funders' requirements, including developments in horizon scanning and contingency planning;
  consider the possible options and evaluate the best models for delivery of the services and the organisation of the functions required, including policy advice and associated work;
  assess the implications for DEFRA, OGDs, the DAs and the Agencies about the choice of those models;
  assess the implications for non-core activities; and
  assess the implications for commercial activity.

  The Review Team will consult customers, stakeholders, scientific opinion and other interests and will take into account relevant reviews and studies, in particular the SR2002 Science and Research crosscutting review and DEFRA's prioritisation of science programmes exercise; the work on the development of science in DEFRA, including a new Science and Innovation Strategy; and the Cabinet Office Review of Agency Policy.

  In light of the findings of the consultation exercise, the Review will examine the most appropriate freedoms, controls, financial regimes, governance arrangements and performance management to ensure the optimum delivery of a high quality service, providing good value for money.

  The Review Team will report with recommendations to Ministers through the Management Board by the end of October 2002.

  Interested parties are invited to submit their views to the Review Team by 30 May 2002. Details of how to contact them are contained in DEFRA's news release, issued today.

  Air Pollution Control
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the 2002–03 charging schemes for local air pollution control under Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and Local Authority Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999. [47165]

  Mr. Meacher
  Charges to cover the costs of local enforcing authorities in regulating processes which are subject to Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 were introduced in April 1991. Interim charges for processes which are subject to the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 were introduced in August 2000.

  With the approval of the Treasury, and following consultation with local authority associations and industry, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made revised schemes for England in respect of Environmental Protection Act and England and Wales in respect of the Pollution Prevention and Control Act. The schemes specify the scale of fees and charges to take effect from 1 April 2002.
  835W
  The fees and charges in both schemes have been increased by 1.8 per cent., broadly in line with inflation. However, my Department is writing to local authorities to advise them that if there is not much more widespread adoption of cost accounting practices for LAPC over the next six months this increase may be rescinded at the next review of the charging schemes later this year.

  The schemes will be laid before both Houses and copies placed in the Libraries.

  Policy Commission Report
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Government will respond to the Policy Commission's report. [47166]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs today held a seminar with leaders of the farming and food sectors and others with an interest in the environment and the rural economy and identified early actions to drive forward the Commission's report. A new strategy for sustainable farming and food, incorporating a definitive response to the Policy Commission's report will be published in the autumn. Actions to develop and deliver the strategy have been announced, including the publication today of Sustainable Food and Farming—Working Together: a document intended to focus discussion on key issues.

  Copies of the document are available from the Libraries of the House. Details of the announcement and the document are also available in electronic form from the DEFRA website, www.defra.gov.uk.

  Dangerous Substance Rules
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason the dangerous substance rules were not updated by June 2001; and when she plans to update them. [40648]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  Implementation in Great Britain of Commission Directive 2000/21/EC was through amendments to two existing regulations [Notification of New Substances Regs, and Chemicals (Hazards and Information Packaging for Supply Regs.]. The total package of amendments was completed by the implementation date of 13 April 2001.

  A similar approach was taken in Northern Ireland where the package of amendments to regulations came into operation on 16 January 2002.

  Rural Affairs
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total cost is of the "Your countryside, You're welcome"(a) launch and (b) campaign. [43082]

  Alun Micheal
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 March 2002, c. 380]: In my reply to hon. Member on 20 March, I said that the cost of the PR activity to support "Your
  836W
  countryside, Your welcome" was £209,000. I have now received information about other public funds which supported the campaign.

  In addition to the £209,000 spent directly by DEFRA referred to in my previous answer, the Countryside Agency has paid £371,000 for regional advertising, and £10,000 towards the development of www.yourcountryside.info—the website for "Your countryside, You're welcome" campaign. The English Tourism Council also spent £8,500 on consumer research and £18,000 on a special publication of "Hidden England". These figures do not include in-house staff costs, nor do they include any expenditure by the over 100 non-governmental organisations involved in the campaign. I am sorry that my original answer referred only to direct expenditure by DEFRA itself.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Census (1901)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many transactions per second the Internet service provider responsible for the 1901 Census on-line service could provide at the time the service was suspended; and how many transactions per second it will be possible to provide once the programme of enhancements has been completed. [38538]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  QinetiQ Ltd, who are responsible for the delivery of the system and service, designed and supplied a system which was to support 18,912,000 static page impressions and 4,800,000 dynamic page impressions for a peak of 1.2 million users per day. This equates to an average of approximately 274 page impressions per second. When the system is again available it is intended that it will be able to provide at least these levels of performance and be considerably more robust. Testing of the updated design and configuration is still continuing to confirm this, before the service is resumed.

  Correspondence
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what targets his Department and the agencies it sponsors have for responding to correspondence(a) from hon. Members and (b) from members of the public; and what his Department's performance against such targets has been for each of the last 36 months in both categories. [31006]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Ministers at the Lord Chancellor's Department aim to respond to correspondence from hon. Members within 20 working days. Chief Executives of the Public Record Office and the Land Registry also aim to reply to hon. Members within 20 working days, whilst the Chief Executives of the Public Guardianship Office and the Court Service aim to do so within 15 working days. Statistics for correspondence with hon. Members for the Department and each agency for each of the last 36 months is not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost, but statistics for each of the last three years are as follows:
  837W

  Percentage of correspondence from MPs answered within target

  Per cent

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  1 April 2001 to 31 December 2001

  LCD Headquarters

  88

  76

  73

  75

  Land Registry1

  100

  91

  93

  79

  Public Trust Office2

  99

  83

  78

  —

  Public Guardianship Office2

  —

  —

  —

  52

  Public Record Office

  100

  100

  96

  100

  Court Service HQ

  99

  93

  94

  94

  1 Figures for the land registry are for the calendar years 1998, 1999 and 2000.

  Percentage of correspondence from members of the public answered within target

  Per cent

  Target

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001 to 31 December 2001

  Public Record Office

  10

  99

  99

  100

  99

  Public Trust Office

  1—

  96

  92

  89

  —

  Public Guardianship Office

  2—

  —

  —

  —

  (c) 91.9

  (d) 94.8

  1 The standard for dealing with correspondence in the Public Trust Office was to respond to all letters within 10 working days, or to acknowledge letters within three working days and respond fully within 20 working days.

  2 The standard for dealing with correspondence in the Public Guardianship Office is to: (a) respond to 85 per cent. of letters, faxes and e-mails within 15 working days of receipt; and (b) to respond to 95 per cent. of letters, faxes and e-mails within 20 working days of receipt.

  Judiciary (Solicitors)
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) how many acting members of the judiciary have been, the subject of complaints for their work as solicitors in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement; [44606]

  (2) what powers he has to investigate the conduct of members of the judiciary when they are practising as solicitors. [44425]

  Mr. Wills
  As Head of the Judiciary, the Lord Chancellor investigates complaints about the personal conduct of both full-time and part-time judicial office holders. He does not, however, investigate complaints against solicitors who are part-time Judges when the complaints relate to their work as solicitors, as this is a matter for the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors and ultimately for the Law Society. The Lord Chancellor has no disciplinary powers in relation to solicitors. If a solicitor who is a part-time judicial office holder is subject to such a complaint, he or she is required to inform the Lord Chancellor's Department of the outcome. The Department is aware of four such complaints in the past 12 months.

  Data Protection Act
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if his Department plans to amend the Data Protection Act 1998; and if he will make a statement. [45216]

  Mr. Wills
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave to a similar Question from him on 19 March.
  838W
  2 The Public Guardianship Office was created on 1 April 2001 when the Public Trust Office ceased to exist.

  fbatistics for correspondence with members of the public for the Department and its agencies for each of the last 36 months is not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost, but figures are available for each of the last three financial years, and I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary at the Cabinet Office (column 453W) on 19 July 2001 for figures relating to Lord Chancellor's Department Headquarters, Court Service Headquarters and the Land Registry. Figures for the Public Trust Office, and since 1 April 2001 its successor the Public Guardianship Office, and the Public Record Office are set out in the following table.nb

  Child Abuse Cases
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) how many cases of child abuse by parents or guardians allowed unsupervised access by the Family Law Court there have been in each of the last five years; what guidelines are in place for judges to deal with such cases; and if he will make a statement; [45434]

  (2) what plans there are to review the guidelines given to the Family Law Court in dealing with access cases for children deemed to be at risk of abuse; and if he will make a statement. [45435]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information about the number of children abused by parents or guardians during court ordered contact is not available. The Ministerial Group on Domestic Violence is considering how to improve the inter-face between the family and criminal jurisdictions to track and record such instances. However, many instances of abuse may go unreported. The "Guidelines on Good Practice in Parental Contact in cases where there has been Domestic Violence", produced by the Children Act Sub-Committee of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Board on Family Law, apply throughout the Family Justice System. The Guidelines, endorsed by the Government in March 2001, are being monitored and are also subject to research on the outcome of court orders for families.

  An analysis of the first survey of the use and effectiveness of the Children Act Sub-Committee "Guidelines for Good Practice on Parental Contact in cases where there has been Domestic Violence" was, in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Enfield

  839W
  North, placed in the Libraries of both Houses on 13 March 2002. A further survey on the operation of the Guidelines will be carried out this May.

  Child Killings
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many children have been killed after the Family Law Court granted unsupervised access to the parent or guardian in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [46437]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information about the number of child deaths during contact visits, where an application for contact or residence is outstanding, or where a residence or contact order is in force, is not available. The Ministerial Group on Domestic Violence is considering how to improve the inter-face between the family and criminal jurisdictions to track and record such instances. I have given an undertaking to the Women's Aid Federation of England to investigate cases in which they allege a child has been harmed during court ordered contact.

  Key Performance Indicators and Targets 2002–03

  Indicator

  Target 2002–03

  Speed

  Percentage of office copies and official search applications to be processed within two working days

  98

  Percentage of registrations to be processed within 20 working days

  75

  Accuracy

  Percentage of registrations processed free of any error

  98.5

  Overall Satisfaction

  Percentage of customers who, overall, are very satisfied/satisfied with the full range of services provided by the Land Registry

  Better than 94

  Financial

  Percentage return on average capital employed

  6

  Efficiency1

  Cost per unit in cash terms2 (real terms3)

  £29.53 (£23.10)

  Strategic

  Percentage electronic delivery capability of the Land Registry's key services

  60

  Percentage take up of electronic services

  50

  Critical Action Points

  Draft Rules under the Land Registration Act 2002 ready for consultation

  By July 2002

  Carry out a major public consultation on the possible system for e-conveyancing and prepare a final report for ministers

  By February 2003

  1 This is a milestone towards the HM Treasury-agreed cost per unit target for 2004–05 of £28.78 in cash terms (£21.43 in real terms).

  2 Based on GDP deflator issued by HM Treasury on 20 December 2001 (base year 1992–93).

  3 The real term unit cost in the base year of 1992–93 was £30.65.

  Further details of HM Land Registry's targets are published in its Business Plan.

  Public Record Office
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what key performance targets have been set for the Public Record Office executive agency for 2002–03. [47157]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The following list sets out the key performance targets that have been set for the Public Record Office for 2002–03.

  Public Record Office

  Key Performance Indicators 2002–031

  CAFCASS
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many senior responsible owners there have been in charge of the CAFCASS Support Infrastructure Project since the preparation of the Project Initiation Document; who had this responsibility between July 2001 and January 2002; and if he will make a statement. [46010]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Support Infrastructure Project had three Senior Responsible Officers until the project was put on hold in July 2001.

  CAFCASS is currently reviewing its IT strategy to assess its immediate and longer term needs.

  Land Registry
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what key performance targets have been set for Her Majesty's Land Registry executive agency for 2002–03. [46793]

  Mr. Wills
  The following table sets out the key performance targets set by the Lord Chancellor for Her Majesty's Land Registry for 2002–03.

  Efficiency

  KPI 1—Unit Costs of Key Activities

  KPI 1A—Selecting and preserving the public records per metre: To ensure that the unit cost does not rise above £107.00.

  KPI 1B—Giving Access Onsite: To ensure that the unit cost per information transaction with customers onsite does not exceed £8.80.

  KPI 1C—Giving Access Online: To ensure that the unit cost per information transaction with customers online does not exceed £0.15.

  KPI 2—Backlog of records in departments reported as being over 30 years old and awaiting review: To reduce the backlog, assessed in January 2002 as 1987 metres, by 115 metres.
  841W
  Quality of service

  KPI 3—The achievement of Charter Standards as follows:

  A (i) to make newly opened records and their catalogues available to users in accordance with specified time targets.

  (ii) To answer 98.5 per cent. of written correspondence within 10 working days.

  (iii) To deliver records to users for consultation in the reading rooms in accordance with specified time targets.

  (iv) To supply 98.5 per cent. of copy orders in accordance with the specified targets and standards.

  (v) To answer 80 per cent. of telephone calls within 20 seconds.

  (vi) To keep 98.5 per cent. of appointments which visitors have made with us within 10 minutes.

  B To carry out four onsite satisfaction surveys and to achieve assessments of "good" or "excellent" from 90 per cent. of those expressing a view; to carry out two online satisfaction surveys and to achieve assessments of "good" or "excellent" from 80 per cent. of those expressing a view.

  Income generation

  KPI 4—To increase revenue generated by commercial activity to £850,000.

  Modernising Government

  KPI 5—Electronic Records Management:
  To support other government departments in achieving the government target for electronic records management by 2004 by:

  (i) monitoring progress in departments against milestones and reporting to the Lord Chancellor, the e-Government subgroup and departments every six months and to others as appropriate to the level of action required;

  (ii) targeting under-achieving departments and developing action plans to accelerate progress;

  (iii) delivering a programme of workshops to support the action plans.

  KPI 6—Electronic Service Delivery:
  To develop digital access to popular records so that 20,000 digital record images are delivered to customers.

  KPI 7—To raise an awareness of the PRO's holdings among under-represented groups in our user profile by means of a rigorous social inclusion programme, the chief components of which are:

  (i) To make available 90,000 images online as part of the "Moving Here" project.

  (ii) To conduct an evaluation exercise with users (remote, at Kew and at the FRC) of the usability of PROCAT, DORIS and PRO Online.

  (iii) To organise an event as part of Black History month and to produce one other targeted event.

  (iv) To organise an educational focus event as part of the London String of Pearls Golden Jubilee programme.

  1 More information on these and other key targets is published in the Corporate and Business Plans.

  Law Commission
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Law Commission intends to publish its 36th annual report. [46794]

  Mr. Wills
  The Law Commission has today published its thirty-sixth Annual Report, and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Personal Injury Awards
  Chris McCafferty
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when his 842W
  Department will publish the impact analysis of the discount rate change for personal injury awards from 3 per cent. and 2.5 per cent. [47158]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor has today placed in the Libraries of both Houses the analysis of the impact of the discount rate change.

  Parliamentary Boundary Reviews
  David Wright
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many parliamentary boundary reviews have been undertaken in Shropshire since 1972. [45134]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  Three reviews have been undertaken by the Boundary Commission for England since 1972.

  The third periodic review of all constituencies in England commenced in February 1976 and was completed in February 1983.

  An interim review, commenced in December 1986 and completed April 1987 considered the boundaries of Ludlow County Constituency, Shrewsbury and Atcham County Constituency, and The Wrekin Borough Constituency.

  The fourth review of all constituencies in England commenced in February 1991 and was completed in April 1995.

DEFENCE

  Army Base Repair Organisations
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Army Base Repair Organisation. [46925]

  Mr. Ingram
  Following approval by this House and the enactment of the requisite Statutory Instrument, ABRO will become a Trading Fund from 1 April 2002.

  This marks a significant stage in the development of ABRO as a flexible organisation able to respond rapidly to the demands placed upon it and equipped to shape its own future in both the defence community and the commercial arenas.

  Operating as a Trading Fund gives the Chief Executive additional financial and management freedoms to manage ABRO along commercial lines.

  The current Chief Executive, Mr. Michael Hayle, will continue to fill that position after conversion.

  Chemical Protection Programme
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the information submitted to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons about the UK's chemical protection programme. [46936]

  Mr. Ingram
  Under the terms of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) we are required to provide information annually to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons on the UK's chemical protection programme. The programme is
  843W
  designed to protect against the use of chemical weapons and is permitted by the CWC, with which the UK is fully compliant. In accordance with the Government's commitment to openness, I am placing in the Library of the House a copy of the summary that has been provided to the Organisation outlining the UK's chemical protection programme for 2002.

  Analytical Services Agency
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Defence Analytical Services Agency for 2002–03.[46937]

  Mr. Ingram
  Key Targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the Defence Analytical Services Agency for Financial Year 2002–03. The targets build on the progress already made by the Agency since it formed in 1992 and are as follows:

  Delivery of customer service:

  Key Target 1. To meet at least 95 per cent. of the timeliness and quality targets in customer Service Level and Project Agreements, and for National Statistics releases.

  Key Target 2. To have at least 90 per cent. of customers saying, in the annual Customer Satisfaction Survey, that they are satisfied with the overall service they receive from DASA.

  Quality

  Key Target 3. To implement the presentational developments identified in the 2001–02 review of United Kingdom Defence Statistics, and to develop a longer-term strategy for the publication of United Kingdom defence statistics.

  Key Target 4. To comply with the National Statistics Protocol on Release Practices by 31 March 2003.

  Key Target 5. To conduct a National Statistics quality review of DASA's financial and economic statistics, and recommend improvements in their quality and scope.

  People

  Key Target 6. To be accredited as achieving the DTI-sponsored Work-Life Balance Standard.

  Efficiency

  Key Target 7. To make efficiency gains of 3 per cent.

  Environmental Sustainability
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to publish his Department's approach to environmental sustainability. [46938]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence is constantly striving to meet and maintain the highest standards, both for the environment and the wider challenges of sustainable development. To this end we are launching an "Appraisal Handbook for Sustainability and the Environment" on 26 March 2002. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  The handbook is an easy-to-follow guide on how to conduct an effective environmental and sustainability screening exercise in applying the Government's policy of sustainable development. It will help MOD planners identify the potential environmental, social and economic impact of proposed programmes, plans or projects.

  Investment Approvals Board
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the role of his Department's Investment Approvals Board. [46939]
  844W
  Mr. Hoon
  The Investment Approvals Board (IAB) will have a broadly similar role to that of the Equipment Approvals Committee (EAC), which it will replace on 2 April. Its membership will consist of the Chief Scientific Advisor (Chair), the Vice Chief of Defence Staff, the Second Permanent Under Secretary of State, the Chief of Defence Procurement and the Chief of Defence Logistics. The IAB, like the EAC, will advise Ministers on major equipment and other investment projects. It will also have responsibility for the scrutiny and approvals processes for investment decisions on all non-equipment investment projects as well as equipment projects, including those considered by delegated approving authorities. It will be a major part of the IAB's task to ensure that proposals for Defence investment are soundly based and deliverable through robust project management and Smart Acquisition processes. There are no changes to the existing arrangements under which Ministers take and announce decisions on major projects.

  Missile Defence Systems
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what financial provision has been made in(a) each of the last five years and (b) future years for investigating the possibility of deploying missile defence systems. [38953]

  Mr. Hoon
  It remains the case that we believe it is as yet premature to decide on acquiring ballistic missile defences to deploy either for defence of the UK or of deployed forces. But we have carried out a range of studies focused on assessing the threat and the feasibility of the technology available to counter it, and continue to do so. A Pre-Feasibility Study was completed in June 1996, and an extension to it was carried out during 1997 and 1998 at a cost of £300K. The Technology Readiness and Risk Assessment Programme (TRRAP) was carried out between 1998 and 2001 at a total cost of £12.5 million. A further programme of work beyond TRRAP to look further at the main technical risk areas it identified, and at the feasibility of defending against more complex and longer range threats, is underway. Studies are also assessing the significance of any capability gap in defence against theatre ballistic missiles, including the role that active theatre missile defence systems might play. The total cost of the current work in this financial year is £3.6 million. This work is due to continue until March 2003 with a similar level of financial provision.

  Energy Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on energy costs incurred by his Department in each of the last 10 years. [42443]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence units report their energy consumption, not the cost of their energy usage. Therefore, the information requested is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made towards
  845W
  implementing the 13 point programme agreed upon at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in 2000; and if he will make a statement. [44651]

  Mr. Hoon
  The United Kingdom regards the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as the cornerstone of the non-proliferation regime. We remain firmly committed to the Treaty and also to the Final Document agreed at the Non Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in 2000. We are recognised as the most forward-leaning of the Nuclear Weapon States.

  This Government has taken a large number of actions to promote nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. Since 1997, we have reduced our operationally available stockpile to fewer than 200 warheads. We have reduced the readiness of our nuclear forces with only a single Trident submarine on deterrent patrol, carrying 48 warheads against a previously planned ceiling of 96 warheads per submarine. We have signed and ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and continue to promote its entry into force, and we are still pressing for negotiations to begin at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty.

  In addition to the measures set out above, we have signed and ratified the relevant protocols to both the Treaty of Raratonga (South Pacific Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone) and the treaty of Pelindaba (African Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone). We have placed fissile material no longer required for defence purposes under international safeguards, have been more transparent about nuclear and fissile material stockpiles and begun a national accounting for fissile material produced. We have also begun a programme to develop UK expertise in verifying the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons internationally.

  Human Rights Act
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [45065]

  Mr. Ingram
  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 we consider may be of particular significance to this Department. We have recorded five cases to date.

  We do not collect separate information centrally about the cost to public funds, legal fees or compensation payments in case which include a human rights issue. In most cases it will be difficult to single out associated costs relating to the human rights element.

  PFI/PPPs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list (1) the(a) private finance initiative and (b) public private partnership projects which have been delayed; [44873]
  846W
  (2) 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. [45604]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what companies are involved in PFI housing projects; how much funding these companies have given so far to his Department's housing projects; who manages PFI housing; how much funding has been given by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [45092]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Housing Executive (DHE) has contracted with six companies to provide new housing, under public private partnership arrangements. They are:

  Covesea

  Western Challenge Housing Association

  Riverside Housing Association

  Bannockburn Homes

  Roselead Ltd

  TRICOMM Housing Ltd.

  Expenditure by the companies concerned is a matter for them. The Ministry of Defence pays them a unitary charge when the housing service contracted for is available. In total payments of £23 million have been made to the end of February 2002. The contractor is responsible for house design, construction, maintenance and life cycle upgrading. DHE is responsible for allocation and occupation management.

  Apache
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the need for air manoeuvre training for the WAH-64 Longbow Apache programme; and if he will make a statement. [44961]

  Dr. Moonie
  The requirement for Attack Helicopter units to train within an air manoeuvre environment was identified at an early stage in the Apache programme and a contract to purchase a Collective Training System was placed in late 2000.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are being taken to deal with the capability gaps in the air manoeuvre of the WAH-64 Longbow Apache programme; and if he will make a statement. [44962]

  Dr. Moonie
  The WAH-64 Longbow Apache programme is a fundamental element of the evolving air manoeuvre capability. It represents a quantum leap in capability, in range of equipment and complexity of the weapon systems. To ensure that Apache contributes fully to air manoeuvre, the capability of this formidable weapon is kept under continuous review. Changes to the programme are recommended should any capability gaps be identified.

  Computer Hackers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what steps are being taken to prevent computer hackers gaining access to the Defence System through the shared working environment used with Future Offensive Air System staff; and if he will make a statement; [44965]

  (2) what assessment has been made of the shortcomings of using the shared working environment for Future Offensive Air System staff; and if he will make a statement. [44966]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Future Offensive Air System Shared Working Environment enables the Ministry of Defence and industry to work more effectively together in line with the principles of Smart Acquisition. The system incorporates proven security technology that has been extensively tested, and has the necessary security accreditation for the data held. This accreditation included an assessment of the risks from computer hackers. Although the system connects MOD and industry users, security mechanisms prevent unauthorised access from the Shared Working Environment to other defence information systems.

  MoD Housing
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been spent on(a) building new MoD housing, (b) demolishing MoD housing, (c) rebuilding MoD housing and (d) PFI housing projects year by year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [44969]

  Dr. Moonie
  The following tables give details of the amount spent by the Defence Housing Executive by project type and year:

  Building new Ministry of Defence housing (adding to the existing stock)

  Financial year

  £ million

  1996–97

  Nil

  1997–98

  8.285

  1998–99

  6.398

  1999–2000

  4.123

  2000–01

  0.239

  2001–02

  0.540

  Demolishing MoD housing (clearing sites and reducing stock)

  Financial year

  £ million

  1996–97

  Nil

  1997–98

  1.509

  1998–99

  Nil

  1999–2000

  Nil

  2000–01

  0.017

  2001–02

  0.081

  Rebuilding MoD housing (demolition/rebuild)

  Financial year

  £ million

  1996–97

  2.244

  1997–98

  1.271

  1998–99

  1.369

  1999–2000

  11.960

  2000–01

  19.146

  2001–02

  24.166

  848W
  Insufficient information is available to separate demolition costs from upgrade costs on demolition/rebuild projects.

  Public private partnership housing projects

  Financial year

  £ million

  1996–97

  Nil

  1997–98

  Nil

  1998–99

  Nil

  1999–2000

  2.7

  2000–01

  9.7

  2001–02

  10.6

  (to end Feb.2002)

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel and their families were housed in private sector accommodation in each year between 1992 and 1997; and if he will make a statement. [45440]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information is not available. Prior to 1997 Service personnel who were required to live in private sector accommodation made their own arrangements and were paid an Excess Rent Allowance (ERA). No records are held of the numbers of Service personnel who were in receipt of ERA.

  Shoeburyness
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the complaints relating to alleged damage as a result of the activities at the Shoeburyness ranges have been substantiated. [45115]

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

  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total cost of the payments made in each of the five years to householders in the Tendring Peninsula relating to alleged damage to their properties as a result of the activities at the Shoeburyness ranges. [45114]

  Dr. Moonie
  The total cost of payments made to householders in the Tendering peninsula area in each of the last five years is listed in the following table. The figure for 2001 includes payments up to September 2001, the latest period for which information is currently available. When I have information for the remainder of 2001 I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Year

  Amount £

  2001 (to September)

  1,870.00

  2000

  2,930.08

  1999

  2,881.32

  1998

  12,290.73

  1997

  3,338.00

  Munitions Exports
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of whether the export of munitions from the USA to the United Kingdom will be subject to the 2001 Security Assistance Act going through the US Congress. [45102]
  849W
  Dr. Moonie
  The contents of United States legislation are of course a matter for the United States Government. However, I understand that the primary purpose of the draft legislation is not the control of exports; in that respect it does not, in its current form, change the contents or the scope of the US Munitions List, though it does refer to it. It includes some policy recommendations relating to the administration of the United States' export control process but is more concerned with the funding of the United State security assistance programmes with various countries, including non-proliferation work.

  FYR Macedonia
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what military aid is being given by the UK Government to the FYR Macedonia; and what plans his Department has to give military aid to the FYR Macedonia in the next six months. [45243]

  Mr. Ingram
  A small number of British military strategic planners are providing advice to the Macedonian Ministry of Defence. These planners are led by a United Kingdom Defence Adviser to the Macedonian government, whose role is to advise on Macedonia's NATO Membership Action Plan and on improvements in the Macedonian government's ability to carry out defence planning. The UK provides similar Defence Advisors to the Ministry of Defences of other NATO aspirant nations.

  We have a well-established outreach programme of bilateral defence assistance with Macedonia, designed to help establish democratically accountable, cost-effective armed forces that are capable of contributing to national, regional and international security. The programme includes English language training in the UK and at the Military Academy in Skopje; multinational seminars and courses; arms control training; and assistance with personnel and budgeting matters.

  Recently a British Military Advisory and Training Team provided advice on how to conduct low-level counter-insurgency training for the Macedonian Rapid Reaction Brigade, so as to meet Western standards for such training. We expect this programme to continue over the next months and will investigate what military assistance we can best provide for the Macedonian for the longer term.

  During 2001 the UK donated a range of non-lethal military equipment to the Macedonian Government. The equipment gifted was body armour, mine detectors, global positioning system devices, a remote control bomb disposal vehicle, and parachute flares.

  RAF Lyneham
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when contracts will be issued for the construction of(a) the new gym and (b) the community centre on the NAAFI site at RAF Lyneham. [45458]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: The construction of the Physical Training and Recreation Centre and the Community Centre has been postponed pending the outcome of the Strategic Review. The study will report in the summer and I will be in a position to answer this more fully at that time.
  850W
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what infrastructure improvements are(a) in hand and (b) pending at RAF Lyneham. [45459]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: All of the planned infrastructure improvements at RAF Lyneham have been completed for this Financial Year, and only emergency maintenance is currently being undertaken. The number of emergency improvements changes on a daily basis but on 20 March 2002, we estimate that there were some 60 such works being undertaken at the Station. The number of infrastructure improvements runs into many thousands over the year sine they are often very small-scale tasks. If there are specific improvements in which the hon. Member is interested, I will provide details of those.

  Harrier Aircraft
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much the upgrade of the RAF's GR7s and Royal Navy's FA2 Sea Harriers to type GR9 Harriers will cost; and if he will make a statement. [46031]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer to the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 13 March 2002,Official Report, columns 1166–1167W.

  The Royal Navy's Sea Harrier fleet will be withdrawn from service by 2006 and are not part of the Harrier GR9 upgrade programme.

  Sexism
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the measures introduced to combat sexism in the armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [46028]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Armed Forces strive to provide an environment in which every individual is respected and valued and given the opportunity to realise their potential without fear of harassment or unlawful discrimination. All three Services have in place complaints procedures, issue guidance on behaviour, undertake training, and appoint Equal Opportunities advisers in every unit. They monitor results through attitude surveys, focus groups, and longer-term studies. Although the number of complaints of sexual harassment and discrimination are small the Services see no room for complacency and aim to confront unacceptable behaviour at every opportunity.

  Helicopter Crash (South Armagh)
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on(a) the casualties injured in the RAF Puma helicopter crash in South Armagh on 17 March and (b) the probable causes of the crash. [46369]

  Mr. Ingram
  Out of the three RAF crew and six passengers on board, seven were taken to hospital for treatment following the crash, four of whom were detained. As of Monday 25 March one of the casualties remains listed as seriously ill. Our thoughts are with all of the inured.
  851W
  A Royal Air Force Board of Inquiry has been convened to determine the cause of the accident. However, in the interim, I can confirm that it was not terrorist related.

  MoD Police
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the sites from which MoD police have been withdrawn from security duties since 1997, stating in each case the(a) reason for withdrawal, (b) company who have replaced MoD police duties, (c) terms of the contract for such companies, including cost to the MoD per year, (d) expected savings to his Department and (e) the contingency for armed cover; and if he will make a statement. [44721]

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

  Chinook Crash
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what legal advice he has recently requested in relation to his Department's review of the handling of the investigation into the crash of the ZD 576 Chinook helicopter in June 1994; and if he will make a statement. [45861]

  Mr. Ingram
  The House of Lords Select Committee expressed the opinion that the applicable standard of proof of absolutely no doubt whatsoever was not met by the Board of Inquiry finding. In the light of these comments, I have asked for further opinion in order to satisfy myself as to whether or not the legal approach adopted at the time was fully justified.

  Deployments
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the armed forces are deployed in Northern Ireland, broken down by service; and what the equivalent figures were a year ago. [46306]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of Armed Force personnel, broken down by service, under the command of the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland (GOC NI) and stationed in Northern Ireland at the 28 February 2001 and 2002 is set out in the following table.

  As at 28 February

  Army

  RAF

  Navy

  2001

  12,271

  1,084

  176

  2002

  12,477

  1,046

  176

  852W
  The level of Armed Force personnel in Northern Ireland fluctuates throughout the year depending on the security situation. The GOC NI also has under his command troops that are rear based in Great Britain that can be called forward to the Province as and when required. In addition other troops can be made available to the GOC NI from Land Command if required for example during the marching season.

  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the strength of the armed forces deployed in(a) the Balkans, (b) Macedonia, (c) Kosovo and (d) Bosnia (i) is and (ii) was a year ago. [46304]

  Mr. Ingram
  Some 4,900 UK Armed Forces personnel are currently deployed to the Balkans region. Of these 3,000 are deployed for KFOR operations, and 1,900 are deployed for SFOR operations. These numbers are approximate only. Around a dozen Armed Forces personnel are deployed to Macedonia.

  One year ago, some 4,800 UK Armed Forces personnel were deployed to the Balkans region. Of these 3,100 were deployed for KFOR operations and 1,700 were deployed for SFOR operations. These numbers are approximate only. In addition, a Defence Attache, a Defence Adviser and two staff assistants were deployed to Macedonia.

TREASURY

  Reserve Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a breakdown for each financial year since April 1992 of(a) the proportion and (b) the amount in real terms spent from the reserves. [34141]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The level of the Reserve within the overall control limit on departmental spending (Departmental Expenditure Limits since 1998–99, Control Totals previous to that) is set out at the beginning of each financial year in the Financial Statement and Budget Report. Outturn against departments' individual control limits, including any additions made from the Reserve, is given each summer in the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper.

  Tax Credits (Fraud)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 31 January 2002,Official Report, column 515W, how many of the 28 persons prosecuted for working families tax credit fraud were women; and how many of the eight persons receiving a custodial sentence were women. [35257]
  853W
  Dawn Primarolo
  Twenty two of the 28 people prosecuted for WFTC fraud are women. Seven people have received a custodial sentence, of whom five are women. Proportionally, these figures for women are lower in both cases than the proportion of tax credit claimants who are women.

  PPP Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total external spending by his Department was on public-private partnership consultants in each of the last four years; how many full-time equivalent consultants were employed over this period; how many billed consultancy days there were per year; what the implied average cost of each PPP consultant was; how many consultancy firms were used by the Department over this period; and if he will make a statement. [43195]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 702W.

  G-CAT/C-CAT
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the public bodies which have used(a) G-CAT and (b) C-CAT in the last two years; and if he will make a statement. [45444]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  In the period of the last two years usage of the G-CAT and S-CAT has been as follows:333 public sector organisations used the original G-Cat contract, which expired on 30 September 2001;
  1,921 public sector organisations have used the new G-Cat contracts, which became live on 1 October 2001;
  108 public sector organisations have used the S-CAT contracts.

  A list of the organisations using each scheme is being placed in the Library of the House.

  Inland Revenue
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Minister has responsibility for dealing with complaints about the observation of the rules laid down by the Civil Service Code and Civil Service Management Code by the staff of the Board of the Inland Revenue. [46492]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 12 March,Official Report, column 964W.

  Valuation Office Agency
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what targets for the Valuation Office Agency will be set for the year 2002–03. [46857]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have set the following key performance indicators for the Valuation Office Agency:

  Valuation Accuracy

  Contain reductions in 2,000 local Rating Lists to less than 7.5 per cent. in respect of compiled list appeals settled in 2002–03, and to a maximum of 4.7 per cent. of the total compiled list rateable value over the entire life of the 2000 Rating Lists.
  854W
  Programming

  Make draft programmes available by the 30 July each year, publish final programmes by 1 October each year; and to adhere to the start date in 95 per cent. of cases.

  Other major tasks

  As a step on the path to more public acceptance of valuations in Revaluation 2005, implement by April 2003 the recommendations coming out of the evaluation of the local ratepayer panels pilots.

  Customer satisfaction

  Improve customer satisfaction, as indicated by annual customer surveys, year on year. In 2002–03, the target will be 85 per cent. satisfaction.

  Value for money

  Improve value for money by achieving annual productivity gains of at least 2.5 per cent. per year.

  Land Services

  Bring in fee income to cover its share of VOA costs and to increase income by 10 per cent. year on year. For 2002–03 the income target will be £14.8 million.

  People satisfaction

  Improve annual satisfaction ratings given by staff for working with VOA. In 2002–03 we will undertake a survey which will act as the baseline against which future performance will be assessed.

  Financial "break even"

  Recover full resource costs, including a return on capital of 6 per cent., from fees and charges.

  Further details are contained in the Valuation Office Agency's Forward Plan, copies of which will be placed in the Library of the House on publication.

  National Savings and Investments
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action is being taken to reduce delays in repayments by National Savings and Investments. [45813]

  Ruth Kelly
  National Savings and Investments have experienced a higher volume of work across the board, which has caused Savings Certificates repayments to be slightly outside the timescale they aim to achieve. No other products are affected. They are taking this very seriously and have allocated additional staff to processing these payments to bring the back within normal timescales.

  Seafarers (Income Tax)
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the case for extending seafarer income tax concessions. [46356]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government keeps all taxes under review and any changes will be made as part of the normal Budget process.

  Share Incentive Schemes
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was spent in(a) January, (b) February and (c) March on (i) national newspaper, (ii) regional newspaper and (iii) local newspaper advertisements to promote the use of share incentive schemes. [46366]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The press advertising campaign for the Share Incentive Plan (SIP) started on 2 March 2002 and is due to run until 4 April 2002. Hence no money was spent on press advertising in January and February.
  855W
  The breakdown for the March/April expenditure is as follows:

  Cost £

  VAT £

  Total £

  National Press

  783,668.33

  137,141.98

  920,810.31

  Regional Press

  10,765.15

  1,883.90

  12,649.05

  Specialist Press

  29,494.27

  5,161.50

  34,655.77

  National Press Production

  18,667.45

  952.25

  21,933.94

  Specialist Press Production

  5,441.45

  3,266.76

  6,393.71

  EU Budget
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which countries will be(a) gross and (b) net contributors to the European Union budget in 2002; how much they will each contribute in net terms; what the gross amount contributed to the European Union budget by each member state will be; and if he will make a statement. [46135]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government's latest estimate of the United Kingdom's net contribution to the European Union budget in the financial year 2002–03 can be found in footnote two, table B13 (page 182) of the Pre-Budget Report (Cm5318). The Government does not forecast the contribution to the EU budget of other Member States. However, estimates of gross contributions by all Member States to the 2002 EU budget can be found at Table 7 (page 134) of the Official Journal (L29) of the European Communities (ISSN 0378–6978).

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the pledged UK contribution to the HIPC Trust Fund has been paid. [45187]

  Clare Short
  I have been asked to reply. The UK's pledge to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Debt Initiative Trust Fund is US$221 million; in addition, our share of the EC contribution is a further US$85 million. So far, we have paid half of our contribution (US$110 million) into the Trust Fund to help the Regional Development Banks meet their share of HIPC costs. The UK contribution is paid on an as-needed basis, on request by the International Development Association (IDA), which is administering the Fund. As more countries complete the HIPC process in the coming year, we would expect to see further disbursement of our funds.

  Customs (Newhaven)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) on how many occasions since 1 January 2001 brigading teams have been sent to Newhaven; how many person-shifts were undertaken there by officers based elsewhere; and if he will make a statement;[45878]

  (2) what percentage of ships arriving in Newhaven since 1 January 2001 have been subject to customs checks; and of those occasions, what percentage resulted in the discovery of (a) illicit tobacco, (b) illicit alcohol, (c) class A drugs, (d) wildlife products contrary to the terms of CITES and (e) illicit meat; and what has been the value of produce seized in each category; [45877]
  856W
  (3) what plans there are to alter shift patterns amongst customs officers at Newhaven; and what the financial consequences of these changes will be; [45875]

  (4) how many operational customs officers, excluding those undertaking purely office-based functions, are based at Newhaven. [45879]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answers 25 March 2002]: It is not Customs law enforcement policy to disclose information on operational deployments of staff or the level or nature of checks at specific locations. However, the deployment, activities and working patterns of Customs staff at Newhaven and other locations are kept under constant review to ensure the most effective and efficient targeting of resources. Since January 2001, Customs officers operating at Newhaven have seized smuggled tobacco products with a total revenue value of around £215,500. Full details of Customs' seizures are published on a routine basis in their Departmental annual reports.

  Aggregates Levy
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the European Commission has given state aids approval for the proposed phasing in of the Aggregates Levy in Northern Ireland. [46311]

  Mr. Boateng
  We are confident of getting state aid approval from the European Commission shortly for the phasing-in of the levy for aggregates used in processed products in Northern Ireland. The relief will be backdated to 1 April to ensure that no levy is paid on aggregate used to make these products in 2002–03.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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 his Department in each of the last four years; and if he will make a statement. [45595]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: The difference between the price offered in reaching preferred bidder stage, and the final contract price for PFI contracts let in the last four years is £11 million per annum. The difference is primarily attributable to the Department's changing requirements between preferred bidder announcement and final contract award.

  Money Laundering
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will assess the benefits of restricting the use of cash for payment for goods and services in excess of a determined figure as a means of tackling money laundering; and if he will make a statement. [46202]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: HMT will shortly consult on proposals for revision of the 1993 Money Laundering Regulations, implementing the Second EC Money Laundering Directive and taking into account changes made in the Proceeds of Crime Bill. In this context we will be considering all options to tackle money laundering, in consultation with law enforcement agencies, industry stakeholders and consumers.

  Public-Private Partnerships
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [45610]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: The Department has not let any PPP contracts over the last four years.

  Road Pricing (Lorries)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to make a statement on road pricing for lorries. [45300]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government published a consultation document "Modernising the Taxation of Haulage" alongside Pre-Budget Report 2001. The consultation closed on 8 February. The Government is now considering all responses. Any changes to taxation policy would be a matter for the Budget.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he(a) has taken and (b) plans to take to ensure that sustainable development concerns are integrated into the comprehensive spending review process; and if he will make a statement. [28296]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  As part of their submission to the Spending Review, departments with a Public Service Agreement have been requested to produce a Sustainable Development Report identifying the sustainable development impacts of their policy priorities. Specific guidance on this aspect of the Spending Review has been circulated to departments and made publicly available. Departmental Sustainable Development Reports are one element of the Spending Review submissions that Ministers will consider and will contribute towards the wider evidence-base of the Spending Review.

  Manufacturing Work Force
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each constituency in England the percentage of the work force engaged in manufacturing in(a) 1990, (b) 1997 and (c) at the most recent date for which figures are available. [46205]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 25 March 2002:

  Len Cook
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the percentage of the workforce engaged in manufacturing from 1990.

  The available figures are for employee jobs and cover the years 1991, 1997 and 2000. I am placing an extraction from the Nomis database in the House of Commons Library. The Nomis database is available to Members and is accessible by Library staff.

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) of 31 January 2002,Official Report, column 450W, on electoral registers, what guidance he has given to financial institutions needing to obtain electoral registers to carry out their obligations under the Money Laundering Regulations; and if he will make a statement. [46451]

  Ruth Kelly
  Guidance notes advising financial institutions how to fulfil their obligations under money laundering legislation are produced by industry associations such as the Joint Money Laundering Steering Group, rather than by the Government. HM Treasury is working closely with DTLR, which has lead responsibility for electoral matters, to ensure that institutions are able to meet their legal requirements under any new regulations on sale of the electoral register.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the hon. member for Truro and St. Austell's question of 15 January concerning sustainable development and the 2002 spending review; and if he will make a statement. [46574]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have done so today and I have also written to the hon. Gentleman concerning his earlier question.

SCOTLAND

  Correspondence
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the average response time was for responding to departmental correspondence; what percentage of letters took longer than one month for a response; and what percentage took longer than three months for a response in each of the last five years. [37450]

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

  The information is collected in such a format where calculating the average response time could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. However, information relating to our own 15 working day response target is as follows:

  in 1999, out of 409 cases, 81.42 per cent. were replied to within the 15 day target;

  in 2000, out of 616 cases, 75.49 per cent. were replied to within the 15 day target;

  in 2001, out of 408 cases, 74.26 per cent. were replied to within the 15 day target.

  in 1999, 0.73 per cent. of cases took longer than one month for a response; in 2000, no cases took longer than one month for a response; and in 2001 4.41 per cent. took longer than one month for a response.

  in no cases has the department taken longer than three months to respond.

  Capita
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many contracts the Department has with Capita; and how much they are worth. [38371]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department has no contracts with Capita Group.

  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the contracts that have been awarded to the Capita Group by the Department. [39336]

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

  Since that date, no contracts have been awarded to the Capita Group by my Department.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when she plans to meet Railtrack; and how many times she has met them since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [39898]

  (2) when she plans to meet the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council; and how many times she has met it since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [40346]

  (3) when she plans to meet Comunn Nu Gaidhlig; and how many times she has met it since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [39886]

  (4) when she plans to meet the management of BBC Scotland; and how many times she has met it since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [40347]

  (5) when she plans to meet the Scottish CBI; and how many times she has met it since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [39877]

  (6) when she plans to meet the National Air Traffic Services; and how many times she has met it since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [39879]

  (7) when she plans to meet the Scottish Environment Protection Agency; and how many times she has met it since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [39880]

  (8) when she plans to meet Highlands and Islands Enterprise; and how many times she has met it since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [40350]

  (9) when she plans to meet The Wise Group; and how many times she has met it since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [39878]

  (10) when she plans to meet Scottish National Heritage; and how many times she has met it since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland: [40345]

  (11) when she plans to meet the British Council in Scotland; and how many times she has met them since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [39885]

  (12) when she plans to meet Scottish Business in the Community; and how many times she has met them since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [39887]

  (13) when she plans to meet the Law Society of Scotland; and how many times she has met them since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [39888]
  860W
  (14) when she plans to meet the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee; and how many times she has met it since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [40348]

  (15) when she plans to meet Scotrail; and how many times she has met it since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [39890]

  (16) when she plans to meet the Scottish Police Federation; and how many times she has met it since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [39899]

  (17) when she plans to meet Forest Enterprise; and how many times she has met it since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [39881]

  (18) when she plans to meet Scottish Enterprise; and how many times she has met it since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [39883]

  (19) when she plans to meet the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation; and how many times she has met it since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [39884]

  (20) when she plans to meet British Energy plc; and how many times she has met it since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [39895]

  (21) when she plans to meet The Planning Exchange; and how many times she has met it since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [39882]

  (22) when she plans to meet the Institute of Directors in Scotland; and how many times she has met it since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [39876]

  (23) when she plans to meet COSLA; and how many times she has met it since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [39889]

  (24) when she plans to meet British Telecom in Scotland; and how many times she has met it since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [40344]

  (25) when she plans to meet Scottish Engineering; and how many times she has met it since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [40349]

  (26) when she plans to meet the Scottish Chambers of Commerce; and how many times she has met it since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland. [39875]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 25 March.

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps she is taking to maximise the take-up of the winter-fuel allowance in Scotland. [45341]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Most people who are eligible for the Winter Fuel Payment do not have to claim. For those people who do need to claim, or who have other queries about the Payments, the Department for Work and Pensions have set up a Winter Fuel Payment help-line; the number is 08459 15 15 15. The DWP have also placed advertisements in the press, issued leaflets and posters and placed information on the internet.

  Euro 2008
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what support has been offered by her Department to the Scottish Executive in respect of its bid to host the Euro 2008 football championships. [45405]

  Mr. Foulkes
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State and I have regular contact with the Scottish Executive on a wide range of issues. The Scotland Office supports the decision to pursue a joint bid with the Republic of Ireland. Hosting Euro 2008 would be a tremendous boost for Scotland and the UK, and the Scotland Office will provide appropriate assistance and support.

  Election Expenses
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will publish the returns of election expenses for the 1999 elections to the Scottish Parliament. [45294]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have no plans to publish these returns. As required under the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc) Order 1999, the returns of election expenses for the elections to the Scottish Parliament in 1999 were made available for inspection for two years following their receipt. Notices giving details of the times and places at which returns could be inspected were also published as required.

  Consultants
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much her Department has spent on external consultants in each of the past five years. [46036]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Buckingham on 7 March,Official Report, column 511W.

  Asbestos-related Diseases
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations she has received from the Iron Trades Management Services concerning the non-payment of insurance claims to victims of asbestos-related diseases; and what the planned time scale is for future progress on resolving the issue. [45965]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I made a full statement of the action I have taken to date on all aspects of this matter at the Westminster Hall adjournment debate on 19 March, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland.

  Policing
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what discussions she has had with the Scottish Police Federation concerning the pay and conditions proposed to police officers by the Home Secretary; [45960]

  (2) what discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive concerning the pay and conditions proposed to police officers by the Home Secretary. [45961]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Police pay and conditions in Scotland are a matter for the Scottish Executive. I have had no discussions with either the Executive or the Scottish Police Federation.

  Rail Links
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations she has made to the(a) Strategic Rail Authority and (b) Scottish Executive on developing rail links at (i) Glasgow and (ii) Edinburgh International Airports. [45964]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular discussions with Scottish Executive Ministers on a wide range of issues.

  In their recent strategic plan, the SRA highlighted as a medium term priority an investigation of the development of rail links to both Glasgow and Edinburgh Airports.

  The Scottish Executive with others, including the Strategic Rail Authority and DTLR, have commissioned an economic and engineering study into rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports. The final phase of the report is expected to be completed in the Autumn.

  Scottish Airports
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive concerning the number of flights from Scottish airports to those in the UK, Europe and North America. [45962]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular discussions with Scottish Executive Ministers on a wide range of issues. I also held a "summit" last December with airlines and other interested parties to discuss the prospect of further direct flights from Scottish airports.

  As part of a wider consultation on the future development of UK air services, the Government and the Scottish Executive will shortly issue a joint consultation document on air services in Scotland. The document will present the key information to allow an informed and structured debate about future air service and airport development in Scotland.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Gender Pay Gap
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council what assessment he has made of the extent of the gender pay gap amongst staff in his Department. [40994]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  My department uses the pay system operated by the Cabinet Office. Accordingly, I refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office on 12 March 2001,Official Report, column 956W.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council (1) 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; [44923]
  863W
  (2) 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 jobseeker's allowance or other benefits. [44904]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  My department has employed one person under the New Deal for Over 50's; who is now a permanent member of staff. This was at no additional cost to my Department. My Department has not yet employed a member of staff under the New Deal for Young People or the New Deal for Lone Parents.

  School Visits
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals to provide financial assistance to facilitate visits to Parliament by school and youth groups from constituencies located long distances from Westminster. [46274]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I have no such proposals, nor could I realistically hold out hope that such substantial expenditure could be found within the present House vote.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Correspondence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council what his target time will be in 2002–03(a) to reply to letters from hon. Members and (b) for the officials in his office to reply to letters received directly from members of the public. [44953]

  Robin Cook
  I have no plans to change my Department's 15-day target in replying to Members' correspondence, and 20-day target for public correspondence.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the Government have done since 1997 to assist countries with AIDS and HIV to gain access to care and treatment; what antiretroviral drugs have been provided to Third World countries; and if she will make a statement. [46168]

  Clare Short
  My Department has committed significant resources to support a range of HIV/AIDS programmes, including support for national strategic HIV programmes particularly in Africa and Asia. We are also supporting the development of health systems to effectively deliver care, including home-based and palliative care. In parallel, we are supporting work to build a solid evidence base to inform effective and responsible provision of ART in developing countries. Where functioning health systems do exist we are seeking to help governments to consider the issues surrounding the introduction of ART in the most cost effective and equitable way.
  864W
  We have also pledged $200 million to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria (GFATM). The aim of the fund is to support the purchase of essential commodities for tackling HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria.

  Our Working Group on Access to Medicines is bringing together Government, industry and others to find ways of getting medicines for HIV/AIDS and other diseases to the world's poorest at affordable prices. Better health systems are of course vital for getting drugs to the poor. We have committed over £1 billion to health systems strengthening in developing countries since 1997.

  Burma
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the Government are doing(a) to help relocate Burmese people who have been internally displaced and (b) to restore democracy in Burma. [45075]

  Clare Short
  The UK contributes to the costs of providing safe refuge and assistance both for refugees and those internally displaced within Burma. In 2001–02 my Department increased funding to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (£805,000), the Burmese Border Consortium (£350,000) and the International Commission of the Red Cross (£800,000) to support their work with refugees on the Thai/Burma border and those internally displaced.

  The UK has long been at the forefront of the international community's efforts to bring about national reconciliation, respect for human rights and democracy in Burma. With EU partners we have adopted a Common Position which includes an arms embargo, a ban on high level visits, on items that might be used for torture, and on non-humanitarian assistance, a visa ban and an asset freeze on members of the regime. The EC has also suspended Burma's trading privileges in response to the use of forced labour in Burma. We are also active in the United Nations, co-sponsoring resolutions at UNGA and UNHCR and actively supporting the UN Secretary General's Special Envoy to Burma's effort to facilitate political progress. An EU Troika visited Burma 19–22 March to gauge the latest political developments and press for progress to be made.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department's latest estimate is of access to humanitarian food aid in Afghanistan; and if she will make a statement. [45369]

  Clare Short
  Since October 2001, the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) has delivered 370,000 metric tonnes of emergency food aid to the region; over 300,000 metric tonnes of which has been distributed within Afghanistan. WFP assistance is now successfully reaching 6.6 million people in Afghanistan. Needs have been met in most areas, but there remain pockets of unmet needs in places difficult to access due to poor weather and insecurity.

  In response to this, WFP is deploying six helicopter-borne rapid assessment teams for assessment and delivery of emergency aid to remote areas in

  865W
  Afghanistan. The teams are tasked with streamlining food aid operations, assessing health conditions, investigating non-food emergency needs, monitoring food distribution and verifying reports by nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) on earlier food deliveries. If necessary, the helicopters will also allow WFP to airlift a limited amount of food aid on an emergency basis.

  We have contributed £6 million towards WFP's operations inside Afghanistan—for both direct procurement and transportation of food, and for logistical support to help speed up the movement of food aid into the country. We have also supported a number of agencies—the UN, Red Cross and non-governmental organisations (NGOs)—for supplementary feeding and secondary distribution of food inside Afghanistan.

  Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial aid the Government plans to give the FYR Macedonia in the next six months. [45239]

  Clare Short
  We are providing £3 million to the Government of Macedonia for bilateral balance of payments support. The EC has allocated euros 68 million financial aid of which the UK share is £7.93 million.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what economic aid has been given to the Government of FYR Macedonia by the UK Government in each of the last three years; [45246]

  (2) what development aid has been given by the British Government to the FYR Macedonia in each of the last two years. [45240]

  Clare Short
  During the period 1998 to 2001 DFID has provided £15.041 million of aid of which £12.345 million was humanitarian support. During the same period the EC has provided £139.8 million of assistance of which the UK share is £26.72 million.

  International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will affiliate the United Kingdom to the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. [46295]

  Clare Short
  My Department is currently discussing with the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance the possibility of working together on specific topics. We are not at this stage considering affiliation.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she expects the public-private partnership of the Commonwealth Development Corporation to be completed. [44756]

  Clare Short
  The Government's objectives for CDC is to mobilise increased private investment in developing countries. This is a long-term project which will take many years to complete.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development 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. [44909]

  Clare Short
  The information is as follows:

  1999

  2000

  2001

  New Deal for Young People

  Nil

  2

  2

  New Deal for the Over 50s

  Nil

  2

  Nil

  New Deal for Lone Parents

  Nil

  1

  Nil

  The cost to public funds, excluding salary costs, was £1,950 in the over 50s category, and £1,080 in the young people category, all incurred in the year 2000.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development 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. [45087]

  Clare Short
  The information is as follows:

  (a) None in 1998 or 1999, one in 2000 and two in 2001;

  (b) none in any of the last four years.

  Commodity Dependence
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what help her Department is providing to people dependent on the sale of commodities in the developing world. [43667]

  Clare Short
  The production and sale of commodities is very important to the livelihoods of people in developing countries. For a significant number of the least developed countries commodities account for more than 50 per cent. of merchandise exports. Price volatility is a characteristic of many commodity markets (such as cocoa, coffee and tea) and reflects changing patterns of consumption and production.

  DFID believes that better livelihoods for poor people must be at the centre of any strategy for poverty reduction. DFID is currently supporting a significant number of livelihood programmes and projects throughout the developing world. These seek to provide direct benefits to poor people, including those whose livelihoods are linked to commodities. The range of commodities involved is extensive and includes fish, cut flowers, horticultural products, cereals, beverages, oilseeds, as well as roots and tubers.

  Improving developing country access to international and regional markets is very important to encourage more processing of commodities and more value added. DFID is working with developing countries to strengthen their capacity in trade. We are also working to tackle tariff and non-tariff barriers to developing country exports, especially those that exist in the

  867W
  European Union. DFID provides support to initiatives that provide more timely market information, contributes to improvements in essential infrastructure (including energy and transport) and works to ensure appropriate legal and regulatory frameworks exist to promote investment.

  Human Rights Act
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development 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. [45058]

  Clare Short
  There have been no such cases.

  Aid Funding
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid funding was made available by her Department to countries during 2001. [43941]

  Clare Short
  In 2000–01, the last complete financial year, my Department spent £1.4 billion on bilateral development assistance in 167 countries and £1.3 billion through our donations to multilateral development agencies. In 2001–02 bilateral spending is estimated to rise to £1.65 billion in a similar number of countries while our contribution to multilateral development agencies is projected to increase to £1.4 billion.

  Prison Labour
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the countries with which her Department had discussions in 1998 with regard to the use of prison labour for making goods imported into the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement. [43925]

  Clare Short
  My Department has had no such discussions, in 1998 or since.

  Third World
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action the Government are taking to alleviate illiteracy in the Third World. [43931]

  Clare Short
  Helping developing countries achieve the millennium development goal of universal primary education by 2015 is DFID's major focus for tackling illiteracy. Increasing access to good quality primary education and ensuring that children are literate when they leave school is essential for development and poverty reduction. Since 1997 the Government has committed over £650 million to support sustainable education systems in developing countries able to provide high quality primary education for all children. We will do more.

  We will also give increasing attention to helping developing countries tackle adult illiteracy and poverty reduction. Improving literacy practice for adults continues to be an integral part of many different sectoral programmes supported by DFID, such as
  868W
  transport, water, health, small business development, environment, livelihoods and governance. Our new Background Briefing paper, "Improving livelihoods for the poor: the role of literacy", examines the way in which literacy features in such programmes and the key issues that have emerged as different parts of DFID have considered the ways in which literacy and poverty interrelate. It highlights principles of good practice (drawing on recent experience), examines potential entry points and identifies challenges for DFID in giving greater priority to literacy in our commitment to poverty reduction.

  Zimbabwe
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her development programme in Zimbabwe following the election results. [44754]

  Clare Short
  The election outcome is likely to accelerate poverty and hunger in Zimbabwe. The UK is continuing to work with others to urge policy changes on the part of the Zimbabwe Government to halt the catastrophic decline in agriculture, the economy, and social services. In parallel, we are providing humanitarian assistance through the UN and non-governmental channels, and helping to address the HIV/AIDS epidemic that affects 1 in 3 adults.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money her Department has pledged to the World Food Programme to help deal with food shortages in Zimbabwe; and how much has been spent. [44894]

  Clare Short
  We have pledged £6 million to the UN Humanitarian Assistance Programme, of which £3.5 million is for food. Of the contribution for food £2.5 million has been spent. We have also contributed £86,000 toward the cost of the UN's Relief and Recovery Unit in Harare which is helping to appraise emergency needs, plan, negotiate and monitor emergency assistance on behalf of the UN and donors.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what difficulties her Department is facing in the delivery of humanitarian aid to Zimbabwe; and what action is being taken to overcome such difficulties. [46275]

  Clare Short
  DFID has provided £4 million to partner NGOs to feed 400,000 children and vulnerable adults for the past six months. The main difficulty has been in obtaining adequate supplies of maize. With growing national shortages suppliers have been unable to fulfil their contracts. However, the NGOs, working collectively, are generally managing to make alternative arrangements to import food directly.

  DFID has worked closely with the UN's Humanitarian Assistance and Recovery Programme, providing £6 million for both food and medical supplies. The impact of this has been hampered by the lateness of the Zimbabwe Government appeal, the time taken to assemble the UN team, and the sparseness of donor responses.
  869W
  As a wider national food emergency looms, DFID is keeping the situation under review, though what can be done will be greatly affected by the extent to which the Government of Zimbabwe allows a conducive policy environment.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether humanitarian aid provided to Zimbabwe has been seized by Government militia in the last 12 months. [46276]

  Clare Short
  We have had no reports of humanitarian aid being seized. There have been isolated incidents where militias have attempted to include themselves on the list of beneficiaries, though in all cases the non-governmental organisations implementing programmes have managed to have them removed peacefully.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what conclusions she has drawn from the recent elections in Zimbabwe in respect of the New Partnership for African Development.[44199]

  Clare Short
  The situation in Zimbabwe highlights the damage caused by abusive economic and political governance to economic development in Africa. The decision to suspend Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth demonstrates that the leaders involved in developing NEPAD understand the damage the Mugabe regime has done to the people of Zimbabwe and to African development.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what changes she will make to her development policy to countries in southern Africa following the election in Zimbabwe. [44755]

  Clare Short
  None at present. Our co-operation with southern African countries will continue to be based on our understanding of their needs and policies. We will continue to provide humanitarian and HIV/AIDS related assistance in Zimbabwe. A further decline in the Zimbabwe economy, and the food shortages there which are likely to persist into next year, will have an impact on the economies of its neighbours which all development agencies will take into account.

  India
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what assessment she has made of the impact of the Vision 2020 project in Andhra Pradesh in India on the local population as regards(a) displacement of population, (b) loss of homes and (c) loss of employment; [46280]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the environmental impact of the Vision 2020 project in Andhra Pradesh in India as regards (a) GM crops and (b) use of pesticides; [46279]

  (3) if she will make a statement on the sustainability of the Vision 2020 project in Andhra Pradesh, India. [46281]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to Ms Joan Ruddock on the subject of Andhra Pradesh and Vision 2020,Official Report, column 477W, 20 July 2001. Vision 2020 is not a project, and it is not possible for an assessment to be made of its impact on the issues identified in the questions.

  Monterrey Conference
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the United Kingdom's contribution to the Monterrey United Nations Conference on Financing for Development on 18 March. [46294]

  Clare Short
  The United Kingdom played a leading role in the preparatory process leading up to the Monterrey Conference in helping to formulate the EU position for the Conference. The EU worked hard during the negotiations of the text of the outcomes document: the "Monterrey Consensus". This is a good document, in which developing countries commit to set in place the pro-poor economic policies and good governance that is required to attract foreign direct investment and mobilise domestic resources; and donor countries commit to provide enhanced support to developing countries through providing more and better quality oda, through opening up markets to trade access in the context of the Doha process, and through ensuring that the HIPC process provides sustainable debt relief. The UK also played a leading role in developing the package of commitments announced by the EU at Monterrey, which includes a commitment to increase EU aid volume from an average of 0.33 per cent. to an average of 0.39 per cent. by 2006—which represents an additional 7 billion dollars per annum. Baroness Amos and I represented the UK at the Conference itself. I chaired a round table on financing sustainable development and participated in a round table on partnerships. Baroness Amos held a press conference to publicise the DFID/HTM paper on the case for aid and participated in a round table on coherence.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's policy in respect of sustainable development, with specific reference to the United Kingdom's participation in the Monterrey Conference on 18 March. [46293]

  Clare Short
  In the "Monterrey Consensus" document which was agreed at the Financing for Development Conference, the nations of the world agreed that developing countries need to set in place pro-poor economic policies and good governance in order to attract foreign direct investment and mobilise domestic resources. Donor countries need to provide more and better oda; provide better market access for developing country products through the Doha negotiations; ensure that the HIPC process provides heavily indebted poor countries with a sustainable exit from debt, and take concrete steps to give developing countries a stronger voice in the international financial architecture. The UK Government, throughout the Financing for Development process, has promoted the view that development assistance should be untied and should be targeted on poor countries with large numbers of poor people and good policies; and that donors should harmonise their procedures to reduce the burden on developing country governments; should move away from stand-alone projects towards direct support through government budgets where possible; should strengthen government accounting and audit capacity
  871W
  so as to enable a greater use of budget support by donors; and should provide aid in support of country-owned poverty reduction strategies.

  The Government believes that the Monterrey Consensus, alongside the WTO Doha Declaration, provides an excellent basis for a new global partnership to tackle poverty eradication and manage globalisation so that it works for all the world's people, including the poorest. We hope that the World Summit on Sustainable Development, at Johannesburg in September, will build on these outcomes, and help to identify means of implementation.

  A full outline of how my department is contributing to the delivery of the Government's commitment to global sustainable development will be published in our Departmental Report next month. Priorities are set out in the two White Papers on International Development (which can be found on www.dfid.gov.uk or obtained from the DFID Public Enquiry Point). In addition, my department has considered the full sustainable development implications of its bid for resources as part of the Spending Review.

  EU-funded Projects (Middle East)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which EU-funded projects in the(a) West Bank and (b) Gaza Strip have recently been damaged by Israeli retaliatory attacks; what the damage incurred was; and what the value of the damage sustained was. [46308]

  Clare Short
  The European Commission is currently assessing the damage caused to EU-funded projects by Israeli attacks. To date approximately 22 projects have been destroyed or seriously damaged, including basic infrastructure projects (schools, labs, tarmac, water supply). The most notable example is the destruction of the runway and buildings of Gaza airport. The latest estimate of damage is about €19 million.

  I will write with details of the damaged or destroyed projects and place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Lakshmi Mittal
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) how many loan applications her Department has received from(a) Mr. Lakshmi Mittal and (b) LNM Holdings, and referred to (i) the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and (ii) the Department for Trade and Industry; [43764]

  (2) how many loan applications her Department has rejected from (a) Mr. Lakshmi Mittal and (b) LNM Holdings. [43763]

  Clare Short
  To the best of my knowledge, my Department has not received any direct applications for loans from(a) Mr. Lakshmi Mittal or (b) LNM Holdings.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) if she will support at the World Bank Mr. Lakshmi Mittal's expected application for a loan to make further payments to the Romanian Government for the SIDEX steel plant; [43768]
  872W
  (2) what instructions she has received from the Office of the Prime Minister on support for Lakshmi Mittal's expected application for a loan from the World Bank to make further payments to the Romanian Government for the SIDEX steel plant. [43769]

  Hilary Benn
  To the best of my knowledge no such application has been made. If one is received Departmental officials will consider its merits in the usual way.

  SIDEX
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what investigations into the conduct and financial stability of LNM/Ispat projects overseas were initiated by her Department before it decided to support the proposed loan by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to assist the purchase of SIDEX in Romania. [44577]

  Clare Short
  Adherence to sound banking is one of EBRD's three core principles. The Bank routinely prepares rigorous financial analysis and integrity due diligence for all investments. We do not duplicate EBRD procedures.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what conditions were attached to each of the loans given by the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development to LNM/Ispat for the acquisition of steel works with particular reference to those attached to the subsequent closure or sale of the steel works in question. [44482]

  Clare Short
  The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development has not made any loans to LNM/Ispat for the acquisition of steel works.

  The International Finance Corporation made loans to Caribbean Ispat Ltd in Trinidad and Tobago in 1995 and to Ispat Karmet in Kazakhstan in 1997 for projects relating to steel works. The IFC negotiates appropriate financial and other conditions with individual clients.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department is providing to Yugoslavia to help that country deal with its refugee problem. [46267]

  Clare Short
  Humanitarian assistance in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, including assistance for refugees, is co-ordinated by the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, and the European Commission Humanitarian Affairs Office (ECHO). The UK provides funds for these agencies, including 19.7 per cent. of the ECHO budget.

  We have already agreed with the FRY authorities that our bilateral programme will focus on providing technical assistance for institution and capacity building, and for economic and social reform, as described in our Country Strategy Paper. Within this strategy we are developing a £3.2 million social policy reform programme that will improve the delivery of social welfare, health, employment and education services. This programme pays particular attention to refugees and internally displaced persons. We are also

  873W
  working closely with the World Bank in the design of a credit package aimed at improving social welfare, education and health services.

  Zambia
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she last visited Zambia; what assistance her Department is providing to Zambia; and if she will make a statement on her Department's assistance for Mechanics for Africa. [45833]

  Clare Short
  I last visited Zambia in November 2000.

  In the current financial year we estimate that we will spend around £41 million in Zambia. We concentrate on four key areas: good governance and human rights, sustainable livelihoods, health and education, and HIV/AIDS. We are working closely with the World Bank on plans to mitigate the effects of Anglo-American's withdrawal from mining operations in Zambia.

  My Department is not currently providing assistance to Mechanics for Africa, although we are aware of their work in Zambia. They have been given advice on applying to the British High Commission's Small Grants Scheme.

  Disability
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance she

  UK assistance to Commonwealth countries

  £ thousands

  Country

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Botswana

  4,246

  4,171

  3,275

  3,045

  2,469

  Cameroon

  2,205

  2,140

  3,589

  7,005

  5,629

  Gambia, The

  1,862

  1,311

  979

  1,370

  1,742

  Ghana

  28,475

  30,428

  62,907

  52,032

  75,200

  Kenya

  26,439

  30,025

  42,163

  32,927

  62,609

  Lesotho

  3,911

  4,985

  4,167

  2,974

  2,274

  Malawi

  44,876

  30,651

  52,629

  49,377

  56,942

  Mauritius

  1,273

  1,704

  1,195

  570

  1,656

  Mozambique

  26,610

  48,311

  28,902

  70,630

  43,304

  Namibia

  5,670

  4,482

  3,861

  3,571

  2,712

  Nigeria

  7,867

  9,346

  11,216

  14,597

  16,182

  St. Helena & Dep

  7,990

  8,765

  8,805

  9,363

  10,116

  Seychelles

  406

  328

  216

  300

  30

  Sierra Leone

  10,841

  3,293

  9,153

  30,044

  35,142

  South Africa, Republic of

  23,214

  28,372

  35,110

  47,838

  36,755

  Swaziland

  9,598

  3,448

  3,981

  3,533

  2,636

  Tanzania

  56,415

  51,437

  78,085

  75,099

  110,598

  Uganda

  49,207

  59,325

  64,261

  90,286

  93,111

  Zambia

  40,529

  46,742

  33,511

  46,677

  93,296

  Zimbabwe

  21,007

  13,715

  29,394

  17,363

  14,716

  Anguilla

  1,367

  2,520

  1,977

  2,058

  2,232

  Antigua & Barbuda

  235

  900

  629

  1,650

  1,332

  Bahamas

  99

  5

  -1

  35

  15

  Barbados

  323

  250

  533

  1,049

  197

  Belize

  7,360

  2,331

  9,357

  14,876

  8,132

  Bermuda

  57

  30

  0

  13

  4

  British Virgin Islands

  1,095

  604

  677

  5,188

  3,618

  Cayman Islands

  26

  13

  23

  49

  20

  Dominica

  5,011

  14,711

  2,531

  2,481

  1,174

  Falkland Islands and Deps

  4

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Grenada

  635

  2,118

  1,141

  923

  615

  Guyana

  7,041

  92,487

  22,962

  16,233

  31,069

  Jamaica

  9,687

  3,165

  10,142

  9,041

  8,426

  Montserrat

  14,441

  37,867

  31,096

  22,640

  20,811

  St. Kitts-Nevis

  628

  805

  609

  99

  1

  874W
  offers to developing countries in dealing with disability issues. [46268]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development is currently supporting nearly 40 projects and programmes around the world with a focus on the rights and needs of people with disabilities. In the past year we have approved in excess of £154 million of new funding for work in this area (£136 million for the polio eradication programme). The global drive to reduce poverty will also bring many benefits, in reducing some of the key causes of disability and improving the quality of life and opportunities for people with disabilities.

  DFID's strategy on disability is set out in an issues paper published in February 2000, called "Disability, poverty and development". We work closely with Governments, the voluntary and private sectors, and the bilateral and multilateral donor communities, to ensure that disability is addressed in the context of the fight against poverty and the realisation of human rights for all.

  Commonwealth Aid
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the total financial value was of aid and assistance give by the United Kingdom to each member country of the Commonwealth in each of the last five years. [45675]

  Clare Short
  The information requested is set out in the following table.
  875W

  UK assistance to Commonwealth countries

  £ thousands

  Country

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  St. Lucia

  441

  10,355

  442

  886

  1,006

  St. Vincent and Grenadines

  587

  1,736

  681

  311

  215

  Trinidad and Tobago

  278

  284

  258

  254

  214

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  3,198

  2,569

  3,808

  4,044

  2,848

  Bangladesh

  44,330

  39,078

  67,361

  71,794

  76,921

  Brunei

  18

  10

  6

  6

  5

  India

  111,789

  114,022

  110,374

  107,283

  128,817

  Malaysia

  -1,307

  -1,259

  960

  1,086

  591

  Maldives

  348

  292

  310

  292

  286

  Pakistan

  59,365

  32,704

  27,654

  23,477

  16,342

  Singapore

  210

  153

  133

  139

  150

  Sri Lanka

  19,891

  11,552

  7,864

  7,827

  10,453

  Cyprus

  287

  310

  380

  188

  144

  Gibraltar

  163

  192

  103

  23

  27

  Malta

  120

  1,934

  146

  99

  122

  DFID has a regional programme in the Pacific; figures on countries in the region that are members of the Commonwealth are not available separately.

  Angola
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department is providing to the peace process in Angola following the death of Jonas Savimbi. [44892]

  Clare Short
  Since the death of Jonas Savimbi we have made a contribution of £200,000 to help expand the services of Radio Ecclesia beyond Luanda to the Angolan provinces. Radio Ecclesia is the only fully independent radio broadcaster in Angola able to operate nationwide. It is well known as a key source of objective news reporting and political analysis within Angola, essential to the building of a lasting peace settlement. I plan to visit Angola next week to discuss with the Government the opportunities to achieve peace in Angola and the wider region. I had a very useful preliminary meeting with the Angolan Foreign Minister on these issues last week.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department is providing to the peace process in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; and if she will make a statement on the talks taking place in South Africa. [44891]

  Clare Short
  To date DFID has provided £525,000 in support of the direct costs of the Inter-Congolese Dialogue. This is supplemented by a contribution of £650,000 to the Radio Okapi project which is disseminating information on the peace process to the Congolese people, and £160,000 to assist peace and reconciliation in the Kivus. We continue to press all signatories to the Lusaka Peace Agreement to honour their commitments and work constructively towards a full peace settlement in the region. It is paramount that the delegates currently engaged in the Sun City talks avoid further prevarication and commit themselves to the critical task of reaching agreement on arrangements for a transitional government and timetable for free 876W
  elections. Much time has already been lost in the Dialogue and it is crucial that real progress is now seen, for the sake of all of the people of the region.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much aid the Government have sent to Rwanda from 1997 to 2001; and what plans the Government have to send aid in the future. [45112]

  Clare Short
  Between 1997 to 2001 the UK provided £89 million in development assistance to Rwanda. In 1999 the UK made a 10-year commitment with the Government of Rwanda to help their post-conflict recovery and enable them to meet the International Development Targets. We have provided around £30 million in development assistance this financial year and expect our support to continue at least at this level over the next few years.

  Gaza Strip
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the results of the midwifery training project funded by her Department to improve standards of midwifery in the Gaza Strip; and how many midwives it has trained. [43872]

  Clare Short
  The Gaza Midwifery project was established in 1999 to improve safe motherhood by developing the capacity of the midwifery profession in Gaza. The project will have trained 27 midwives by June 2002, and plans to train a total of 89 by June 2004. The current crisis has adversely affected the implementation of training, but enrolment and graduate numbers remain over 80 per cent. of that originally envisaged.

  Turkey
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry regarding Amec's application to the Export Credits Guarantee Department to cover its work in Turkey. [44200]
  877W
  Clare Short
  I have not had any involvement in this case. My department worked closely with ECGD to agree a new set of business principles, including the incorporation of sustainable development criteria. My department is involved in the productive expenditure screening process for applications relating to those countries receiving International Development Association (IDA) funding. We do not get involved in individual export credit applications in non-IDA countries such as Turkey.

  Occupied Territories
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the results have been of her Department's funded water and sanitation projects in(a) Jabalia and (b) Anabta in improving water supplies to the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. [43875]

  Clare Short
  The project in Jabalia has led to improvements in both the quality and quantity of water for household consumption. Sanitary standards have also increased as the majority of households are now connected to a new sewage network. To ensure these gains are sustained a programme of hygiene and sanitary education is being implemented.

  The quality of the water network in Anabta has improved by 90 per cent. At least 75 per cent. of households are connected to the new sewage network. However, the current crisis is affecting the implementation of the project with equipment embargoed by the Israeli Port Authorities, and access for project staff becoming increasingly difficult.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what effect the aid given to the Palestinian Authority's Minister for Education by her Department has had on her Department's capacity to manage(a) planning of teacher training, (b) school development and (c) the teaching of English in that region. [43874]

  Clare Short
  The Palestinian Authority is responsible for planning teacher training, school development and teaching English. Between 1995–2000 we have provided technical assistance in these areas. Nearly all schools in the Palestinian Authority have benefited in some way from this.

  (a) all primary school head teachers, and most secondary school heads, have participated in a School Review and Development Planning programme, and over 12,000 teachers have received support for their personal development;

  (b) we piloted in a limited number of schools the development of management expertise focused on the preparation of guidelines and operating procedures. The final assessment of the project found that institutional capacity within the targeted schools had greatly increased;

  (c) English language training was not a component of this assistance.

  The work of United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) includes an education programme for Palestinian refugees. The UK supports UNRWA's work, providing £25 million in 2001.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to address unemployment in the occupied territories. [43873]
  878W
  Clare Short
  We are supporting the World Bank's Employment Generation and NGO Capacity Building Programmes, both of which are designed to tackle rising unemployment in the Palestinian Territories. We have also contributed to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency's (UNRWA) Emergency Appeal, which includes employment creation schemes for Palestinian refugees.

  Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will amend poverty reduction strategy papers—PRSPs—so that at decision point there is scope for greater financial flexibility to take into account changing factors and amendments to the plan can be made before completion point. [45191]

  Clare Short
  Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) are country-owned documents produced by Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC), setting out how they intend to use the resources available to them—including from debt relief—to tackle poverty more effectively. We place great importance on this process, which involves consultation with civil society and the international donor community.

  Under the HIPC Debt Initiative, countries receive interim debt relief once they reach Decision Point, at which stage they are required to produce an interim PRSP—a road map setting out what action needs to be taken to produce a full PRSP by Completion Point. Clearly, their circumstances may have changed by the time they reach Completion Point when the relief becomes irrevocable. The UK has worked to encourage agreement that the debt sustainability of countries will be reviewed at Completion Point, and that additional relief will be provided, in exceptional cases, where there has been fundamental changes in a country's circumstances due to external adverse factors.

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action she is taking to address the difference between the growth rate built into Malawi's PRSP and its actual growth rate. [45190]

  Clare Short
  We and other donors are advising the Malawi Government on the necessary conditions for higher growth. Prerequisites are restoration of macroeconomic stability, and improved economic and financial management. The Government has recently declared its intention to proceed with key reform measures. If successful, these should lead to higher private sector led growth.

  Conflict Resolution
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support her Department is giving to non-governmental organisations(a) in the UK and (b) elsewhere to enable them to undertake peacemaking, peacebuilding and conflict resolution activities. [44731]

  Clare Short
  My Department provides support to both UK-based and overseas non-governmental organisations through a number of sources, including through the Civil Society Challenge Fund and through our geographical programmes. We also have Partnership Programme Agreements (PPAs) with 11 UK-based
  879W
  NGOs and PPAs with a further four NGOs are under discussion. Expenditure under these PPAs in the 2002–03 financial year is expected to total £56,300,000. A substantial proportion of these agencies are working in localities which are either in conflict or have recently experienced conflict: peacemaking, peacebuilding and conflict resolution activities are therefore a key part of the challenge of promoting sustainable development and reducing violent conflict.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to develop her Department's work in the field of conflict and humanitarian affairs. [44733]

  Clare Short
  Violent conflict remains one of the most important obstacles to reducing poverty. My Department is developing its work in the field of conflict prevention and peacebuilding both directly through our work in developing countries and with two conflict prevention pools jointly managed by DFID, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  More than 20 countries in sub-Saharan Africa are currently devastated by or are recovering from violent conflict and 20 per cent. of the continent's population live in countries affected by armed conflicts. Through the Africa Pool, an inter-Departmental strategy has been developed for conflict prevention and peacekeeping in Africa, which focuses on geographic and thematic priorities. The Strategy involves working with international partners to support African Governments and institutions to prevent and resolve conflict at country and regional level.

  We have focused particular attention on securing peace and stability in Sierra Leone and contributing to the establishment of durable and lasting solutions to the conflicts in the Great Lakes and Sudan. More broadly, my Department will continue to work on building inclusive and accountable governance structures, including security sector reform, strengthening state institutions and improving people's livelihoods, all of which contribute directly to conflict prevention and peacebuilding in Africa. With regard to Security Sector Reform, working with other donors and with international organisations and institutions, my Department has been active in developing policy as well as in implementing practical reform measures.

  We also continue to address the issues raised by the Report of the Panel on UN Peace Operations, better known as the Brahimi Report, to help improve the ability of the UN to deal with complex peace operations. Activities have to date focussed on developing the resources for information gathering and analysis in and around the United Nations, and we are now discussing further activities with the UN Department of Peace Keeping Operations to further strengthen their operational capabilities.

  Under the Global Conflict Prevention Pool, my Department, in close co-operation with FCO and MOD, is implementing a £19.5 million programme that seeks to reduce the uncontrolled proliferation of small arms and light weapons. We will continue to clarify and address the relationship between the uncontrolled proliferation of small arms and light weapons, insecurity and underdevelopment.
  880W
  We have also developed a methodology to help development agencies assess possible development interventions in countries at risk of violent conflict. This methodology has been endorsed and picked up by other donor agencies in their conflict prevention work.

  DFID is also active in its support of conflict prevention work at regional and international levels and through contributions to multilateral agencies, including the United Nations and the EU. We provide core support for the strengthening of the key humanitarian agencies—UNHCR, OCHA, WFP and the Red Cross family, as well as UNDP, UNICEF and the OHCHR—in addition to contributing to specific appeals during emergencies. We continue to be heavily involved with humanitarian mine action, primarily through the UN Mine Action Service. This includes mine clearance, developing indigenous capacity and the development, testing and trailing of suitable technologies.

  My Department will continue to focus on improving and strengthening the disaster response mechanism that exists under the co-ordination of the United Nations at both local and global level to respond to disasters around the world. Following a disaster, most lives are saved in the first few hours by immediate local effort. We are therefore working to build local, national and regional capacities for effective response.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what contribution her Department is making to the training of UN personnel engaged in peacemaking, peacebuilding and conflict resolution. [44730]

  Clare Short
  In the Report of the Panel on UN Peace Operations published in August 2000 (better known as the Brahimi Report), emphasis was placed on the importance of equipping UN personnel with the necessary skills in peacebuilding and conflict prevention.

  We have been supporting a number of training initiatives for UN personnel (and others), notably, the UN Staff College training course in Early Warning and Preventive Measures, which provides UN field and Headquarters staff with basic skills in conflict analysis, as well as a comprehensive guide to the UN prevention process through the use of case studies. We have been supporting this course since its development in 1998 and over 720 UN staff have been trained to date.

  In addition to this, we support the Fellowship Programme in Peacemaking and Preventive Diplomacy at the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). This training in conflict analysis, with a particular focus on negotiation and mediation, is designed for mid-level UN officials and National Government Civil Servants.

  My Department also provides capacity building support to the Office of Emergency Programmes in UNICEF and the Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery in UNDP.

  This supports a range of institutional development activities, from policy development to monitoring and evaluation. It also supports in-house training activities with a particular focus on conflict and other

  881W
  humanitarian emergencies. The training programmes not only benefit the staff in these specialised units, but also other Headquarters staff, and of course, field staff.

  In conjunction with the Canadian government we have sponsored the development, production and implementation of gender training materials for personnel involved in peace support operations. They emphasise women's role in conflict-reduction and peacebuilding activities.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much has been spent by her Department on conflict resolution activities in the 2001–02 financial year. [44748]

  Clare Short
  During the financial year 2001–02 my Department expects to spend £4,500,000 on activities whose primary purpose was conflict prevention. We are also jointly responsible for expenditure on conflict prevention initiatives under the Africa Conflict Prevention Pool and the Global Conflict Prevention Pool, together with the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Excluding peacekeeping costs, expenditure under the Africa Conflict Prevention Pool this financial year is expected to total £12,220,000 and expenditure for conflict prevention programmes under the Global Conflict Prevention Pool is expected to total £26,100,000.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support her Department is giving to courses furnishing civilians with the necessary skills to participate in peacemaking, peacebuilding and conflict resolution. [44732]

  Clare Short
  My Department supports a number of organisations providing formal and informal training opportunities to civilians in peacemaking, peacebuilding and conflict resolution activities. Civil society in developing countries has a key role to play in preventing and resolving conflicts, and organisations such as religious groups, the media, business and nongovernmental organisations are often effective in promoting dialogue and reconciliation, as part of wider efforts to address the sources of tension and grievance which give rise to conflict.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development 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. [44941]

  Clare Short
  The target time for reply to all correspondence received by DFID from Members of parliament and the public remains unchanged at 15 working days; in line with the target time prescribed by the Cabinet Office. In 2001, DFID replied to 87 per cent. of MPs letters and 90 per cent. of letters/e-mails sent direct to our Public Enquiry Point, within the 15 day target. The correspondence figures for all Government departments are published annually by the Cabinet Office.

  Crèche Facilities.
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what crèche facilities are provided by her Department; and at what cost. [44856]

  Clare Short
  There are no crèche facilities provided by my Department. We do provide holiday playschemes at both our Headquarters sites.

  Our site in East Kilbride operates under a three-way partnership made up of DFID, Inland Revenue and Scottish Nuclear. Our site in London is part of the Whitehall Holiday Playscheme, run by the Cabinet Office at three sites in central London and open to a large proportion of Government Departments.

  Secondments
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many members of staff were employed by her Department on secondment from non-governmental organisations in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001. [45232]

  Clare Short
  The information is as follows:

  1999: 2

  2000: 4

  2001: 4

  Access to Information
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the administrative manuals and internal guidance which her Department has made public as required by Part 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information; and which of these were first made available after May 1997. [45401]

  Clare Short
  Since November 2001, the Department for International Development has made available the following administrative manuals and internal guidance under its Freedom of Information Pilot Publication Scheme: Office Instructions; Evaluation Guidelines and Records Management Guidance.

  Such guidance was not made available proactively under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Public Service Agreement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which public service agreement targets scheduled to be met in 2002 will not be achieved by the due date. [44810]

  Clare Short
  The information on Public Service Agreement targets set by my Department between April 1999 and April 2002 will appear in DFID's Departmental Report which will be published in April.

  PFI/PPPs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the(a) private finance initiative and (b) public private partnership projects which have been delayed. [44884]
  883W
  Clare Short
  DFID have no Private Finance Initiatives or Public Private Partnerships which have been delayed.

  Criminal Damage
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the cost has been of criminal damage to her Department's buildings in each of the last four years. [44836]

  Clare Short
  There have been no costs attributable to criminal damage to my department's buildings over the specified period.

  Celebrations
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development 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. [42295]

  Clare Short
  No arrangements have been made to celebrate any of these dates.

PRIME MINISTER

  Public Bodies (Chairmen)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the 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. [33896]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend, the Deputy Prime Minister, on Monday 25 March,Official Report, columns 586 9W.

  Lord Birt
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he was informed of Lord Birt's financial connections when he appointed him to his present transport role; and if he will make a statement. [34144]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 7 February 2002]: Lord Birt was appointed in accordance with the rules set out in paragraph 51 of the Ministerial Code. I am satisfied that there is no conflict of interest.

  Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what the total cost to his Office was of the use of external consultants in each of the last four years. [35017]

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

  Publicity Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the publicity and advertising campaigns run by his 884W
  Office 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. [39100]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on Monday 25 March,Official Report, column 589W.

  Press Office
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister how many staff in his press office have received(a) termination and (b) redundancy payments in each of the last four years. [40944]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Peers (Salaried Appointments)
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those peers appointed since May 1997 who have been given salaried posts by Government Departments, indicating the salary involved in each case. [40870]

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. In respect of my office, I have appointed Baroness Morgan as a special adviser. In accordance with Exemption 12 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, details of individual salaries are not disclosed in order to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned.

  Information on the membership of the boards of public bodies, and their remuneration, is set out in the annual publication Public Bodies. Similar information in respect of membership of Task Forces, Ad Hoc Advisory Groups and reviews is set out in the annual report on Task Forces, Ad hoc Advisory Groups and Reviews. Ministerial appointments are set out in the List of Ministerial Responsibilities. All three documents are published and copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Human Rights Act
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister how many cases have been brought against his Office under the Human Rights Act 1998; and what has been the cost in(a) legal fees to defend cases and (b) compensation payments. [45066]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on Monday 25 March,Official Report, column 585W.

  LNM Holdings
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) of 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 690W, whether he assesses the allegations made relating to (a) Mr. Mittal and (b) representatives of LNM to be unsubstantiated and unjustified; and if he will make a statement. [46447]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations he has had further to his welcome on 5 July 2000 for Rehabilitation International's Charter for the Third Millennium, with particular reference to developments in relation to the Charter's call for a UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled People; and what reply has been sent. [45829]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer I gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), on 25 March 2002,Official Report, column 620 1W.

  Petition (Isle of Wight)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister what his response is to the petition of residents of the Isle of Wight delivered to No. 10 Downing Street on 19 March. [46309]

  The Prime Minister
  I have asked my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to reply on my behalf.

  Gavin Martin Taylor
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to respond to the letter from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight concerning the death of Gavin Martin Taylor. [46310]

  The Prime Minister
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health will be replying to the letter this week.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many overseas visits she has made since 7 June 2001. [46172]

  The Solicitor-General
  Since 7 June 2001, I have made one visit overseas to the Pontignano conference in Italy from 21–23 September 2001.

  Counsel (Ethnic Monitoring)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Solicitor-General what ethnic monitoring she has initiated concerning use of counsel by her Department. [46170]

  The Solicitor-General
  As to civil work, since the introduction of a competitive appointments system in 1998 all applicants to be included in panels of junior counsel maintained by the Attorney General and as standing counsel have been asked to complete an equal opportunities monitoring form which asks them to indicate their ethnic origin. Completion of the form is voluntary. The method of selection for the panels and the operation of the panel system is being reviewed.

  As to criminal work apart from the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office, a panel of junior counsel conducting cases on behalf of HM Customs and Excise, the Inland Revenue, the Department of Work and Pensions/Health, the
  886W
  Department of Trade and Industry, DEFRA, the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency is being set up.

  All applicants to be considered for the panel and, in the recently concluded appointments exercise for the Customs and Excise and the Department of Trade and Industry, as standing counsel, have been invited to complete an equal opportunities monitoring form, completion of which is voluntary.

  As to the Crown Prosecution Service, all applicants to be considered for lists of junior counsel maintained by the CPS are invited to complete an ethnic monitoring form on a voluntary basis. The CPS maintains a national database with details of the ethnicity and gender of all counsel on its lists. Since July 2001 the CPS has been monitoring its distribution of work to counsel by ethnicity and gender. A computer program has been developed to facilitate data collection which will be made available in all CPS areas within the next few months. The information currently being gathered is shared with the Bar and the distribution of work is discussed at regular liaison meetings, which take place on all circuits.

  The Serious Fraud Office is in the process of establishing a new counsel "pool" containing the names of counsel considered suitable for SFO work, who have been referred by their Heads of Chambers. When accepted by the Director for inclusion in the SFO "pool", counsel are invited to complete an individual ethnic monitoring form on a voluntary basis. When the new pool has been in operation for a year, the results of this monitoring will be reviewed.

  The Law Officers are committed to promoting diversity and equal opportunity. Advertisements for all recruitment exercises state that members of ethnic minorities are particularly encouraged to apply.

  Auld Report
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Solicitor-General what representations she has received concerning the Auld Report; and if she will make a statement. [46232]

  The Solicitor-General
  I have discussed issues raised by Sir Robin Auld's Report of his Review of the criminal courts with many individuals, including Crown Prosecutors, defence practitioners and hon. Members, and I have also taken part in three of the Ministerial "roadshows", in Newcastle, Birmingham and Cambridge, where the Report was discussed with a wide range of interested parties.

  Formal representations on the Report, of which there have been over 400, have been received on behalf of the Government by the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Solicitor-General what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations made by his Honour John Gower QC and Sir Anthony Hammond KCB QC in their report on prosecutions conducted by the Solicitor's Office of HM Customs and Excise. [46855]
  887W
  The Solicitor-General
  In the Parliamentary Answer given by the then Attorney General on 12 March 2001,Official Report, column WA68, he announced that the Government had accepted all the recommendations in principle, but had opted for a phased approach to implementation.

  Since that announcement, the Prosecutions Group of the Solicitor's Office has forged ahead with a rapid programme of change, to enable it to deliver legal services of a high quality in a responsive and flexible way. New managers and staff have been recruited, the organisation has been restructured, and working practices are being reformed.

  The Parliamentary Answer also referred to accountability for the prosecutions function moving from the Commissioners to the Attorney General on 1 April 2002.

  Final agreement has not yet been reached on the implementation of Recommendation 4 of the Gower/ Hammond Recommendations, which recommended that in relation to the prosecution function the Solicitor for the Customs and Excise should not be funded by the Commissioners, but should have his own ring fenced budget and be accountable for his own expenditure.

  This Recommendation is accepted in principle by the Government, but there are technical issues relating to the establishment of a separate vote which require further time to resolve. The Government is committed to the full implementation of Recommendation 4 no later than 1 April 2003, but in the meantime the Prosecutions Group budget will remain as part of the Customs and Excise vote, though it will be separately identified and managed by the Solicitor for the Customs and Excise, and financial Accounts/Reports will be produced as if that budget has been established as a separate vote.

  As a consequence of these revised arrangements, the Attorney General will not assume full accountability for the prosecutions function from 1 April. Instead, from that date the following arrangements will apply:

  (1) The Commissioners (and Treasury Ministers) will be responsible for, and accountable to Parliament for:
  anything done in the course of an investigation;
  enforcement policy, including the resources to be deployed;
  prosecution policy ie the seriousness with which offences should in general be treated and wider issues of Departmental policy such as the disclosure of informants;
  decisions on alternatives to prosecution such as compounding, civil evasion action etc.

  (2) The Law Officers will be responsible for, and accountable to Parliament for:
  the quality of legal advice given by Investigation Legal Advisers;
  the quality of the Prosecutions Group casework decision making in relation to cases referred to that Group for prosecution;
  the application (the Prosecutions Group having consulted with Customs Administrators, as appropriate) of prosecutions policy and public interest factors to individual defendants in cases referred to the Prosecutions Group for prosecution.
  888W
  Inspection of the Prosecutions Group by the CPS Inspectorate will commence on 1 April 2002, and the Prosecution Group will proceed with the trials referred to in the previous Parliamentary Answer.

  The Government is satisfied that the arrangements that will apply from 1 April strengthen the involvement of the Attorney General with the difficult and complex criminal casework conducted by the Solicitor's Office, maintain the momentum of change that has been established and preserve an appropriate position on Parliamentary accountability.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to replace the application forms for foreign nationals wishing to apply for leave to remain in the United Kingdom. [46682]

  Angela Eagle
  The current application forms are valid for use only until 14 April 2002. Revised forms will be prescribed before then. They will be available shortly. From the time they are issued until 14 April 2002, applications may be made on either the new forms or the present versions. Only the new forms may be used for applications made on or after 15 April 2002. Copies will be placed in the Library when they are available.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the reasons are for the delay in forwarding immigration status letters in Case Ref. No. Z1010863/4; and if he will make a statement. [43084]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 14 March 2002]I wrote to my hon. Friend about this case on 25 March 2002.

  Police Performance Indicators
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will announce the(a) ministerial priorities and (b) Best Value performance indicators for the police for 2002–03. [46683]

  Mr. Denham
  I am pleased to announce that the statutory instruments have now been laid before the House. The Ministerial Priorities, which will come into effect on 1 April 2002, are:to help create safe communities by reducing crime, anti-social behaviour and disorder through effective partnership working, including reducing the availability and use of Class A drugs;
  to reduce the fear of crime in all sections of the community and in particular to increase the trust and confidence in policing amongst minority ethnic communities; and
  to increase the number of offences for which offenders, and particularly persistent offenders, are caught and brought to justice, in partnership with other criminal justice agencies.

  Subject to the approval of both Houses, the Best Value Performance Indicators will also come into effect on 1 April 2002. My right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, has honoured his undertaking to the police that he would make a significant reduction to the number of indicators to focus police effort where it is most needed. The full list will be placed in the Library in the next few days.
  889W
  The Home Secretary will, by the summer, introduce a performance indicator on tackling persistent offenders. Persistent offenders must be caught and dealt with to protect the public from their activities. An indicator to measure police success in driving up performance will be introduced as soon as data collection systems are in place.

  Office Accommodation
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on his plans for new office accommodation for the Home Office and Her Majesty's Prison Service staff working in Central London. [46684]

  Mr. Blunkett
  A contract has been awarded to Annes Gate Property plc, for a new development on the site of the former Department of Environment offices at Marsham Street. The contract is for a period of 29 years and involves the construction of new office accommodation, its long-term maintenance, and provision of facility management and business support services. The net present cost of the contract is around £311 million at current prices. The demolition of the existing building at Marsham Street will start as soon as possible. On current plans, completion of the new development is expected to be Spring 2005. Westminster City Council have already given planning consent for the re-development of the site which includes mixed office, residential and commercial development. The Department plans to vacate five of its existing office buildings in central London after the move to Marsham Street.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what written representations have been made to him in the last three months concerning staffing levels and staff training at Yarl's Wood; and if he will place copies to the Library. [38669]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: Oral representations were made to my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary during his visit to Yarl's Wood removal centre on 18 March 2002. The issues of staff levels and staff training at Yarl's Wood will naturally be amongst those covered by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate inquiry into the incident.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if the Asylum Seeker Accommodation Centre proposed for Hemswell Cliff will require a staff of between 200 and 300; from where they will be recruited; and what training they will receive; [44648]

  (2) what training employees of accommodation centres will receive and at what estimated annual cost; [44645]

  (3) what assessment has been made of the need for additional public transport if the Hemswell Cliff development proceeds; [44647]

  (4) what consultation with the local health authorities takes place before an accommodation centre is established; [44646]
  890W
  (5) what the estimated annual running cost of the proposed Asylum Seekers Accommodation Centre at Hemswell Cliff is; [44649]

  (6) what steps he is taking to ensure that all member states of the European Union meet the provisions of the Geneva Convention relating to asylum seekers; [44599]

  (7) if additional funding will be given to Lincolnshire Police if an Accommodation Centre for Asylum Seekers is built at Hemswell Cliff; [44644]

  (8) what the annual budget of the National Asylum Support Service in the last financial year was; and the estimated budget for the current financial year; [44641]

  (9) what consultations have taken place to ensure that no further strains will be put on the provision of dental services in Lincolnshire if an asylum seekers' accommodation centre is built at Hemswell Cliff. [44598]

  Angela Eagle
  It is estimated that an accommodation centre with around 750 residents would require between 200 and 300 staff. These are likely to include a mixture of locally recruited staff, together with some who transfer from elsewhere in the country. Staff training, and its cost, will be a matter for the contractors selected to run the sites.

  Transport implications will form a part of the planning process for the trial Accommodation Centres. We will provide for transport for residents where necessary.

  We will consult local service providers as part of the planning process. Department of Health officials will act as the initial conduit between the Home Office and the National Health Service (NHS) in respect of accommodation centres once the sites have been selected.

  This is a matter for contractors who will run the centres. Bids to operate Accommodation Centres have not yet been invited.

  I am satisfied that in most respects our European partners are already meeting the quite broadly defined provision of the Geneva Convention. However, it is true that there are differences in the way the Geneva Convention is interpreted and there are variations in asylum practice among Member States. This is why the United Kingdom (UK) government has committed itself to helping establish a common European asylum system, which can respond effectively to the challenge that global movements of people present and help limit unwarranted secondary movement of asylum seekers between European Union (EU) states.

  The Government has opted in to all the European asylum proposals to date and in doing so continues to exert maximum influence during negotiations. Of particular significance in reaching consensus on a common application of the Geneva Convention is the proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards for the qualification and status of refugees, presented by the European Commission in November 2001. One of the key aims of this draft directive is to establish a common interpretation of Article 1A of the Geneva Convention, the grounds for refugee status. The definition of prosecution adopted by the Commission reflects the current UK position.
  891W
  Hemswell Cliff is just one of a number of places that are being considered as a possible suitable site for an Accommodation Centre for Asylum Seekers. A final decision has not yet been taken. We have no plans to vary police grant in areas where asylum facilities may be located.

  The budget for National Asylum Support Services (NASS) in 2000–01 was £38* million. This figure includes grants totalling £22 million* to the voluntary sector for the provision of services to asylum seekers and refugees.

  Total spending on asylum support in the year 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001 was £751 million*. This includes grant payments of £580 million* to local authorities and the Scottish Executive for provision of accommodation and support for asylum seeking adults and families under the Interim Regulations and for unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASC). A further £12 million* was paid to local authorities and the Scottish Executive directly by NASS under contracts to provide accommodation and related services for dispersed asylum seekers.

  £46 million* was paid directly by NASS to private sector accommodation providers for the provision of accommodation and related services to dispersed asylum seekers.

  The budget for the current financial year, 2001–02, is £36 million*. This figure includes grants totalling £18.1 million* to the voluntary sector for the provision of services to asylum seekers and refugees.

  The budget for asylum support for 2001–02 is £1,094 million*.

  No consultations have taken place on the provision of dental services in Lincolnshire in relation to the potential site at Hemswell Cliff. Health care will be provided at Accommodation Centres and we will consider how best dental services can be provided in consultation with the Department of Health.
  * All figures rounded to nearest £ million.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what guidelines he has issued on the establishment of centres housing asylum seekers in remote rural areas; [45163]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the security criteria for centres housing asylum seekers in remote rural areas. [45166]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: No guidelines have been issued. Home Office officials are currently looking at a number of potential sites, but no decisions have yet been taken. A wide range of factors, including transport, environmental, and health and safety issues, will be taken into account before the final site selection is made.

  In making final decisions on preferred sites, we will take all the relevant factors into account including security, to which the hon. Member refers. These assessments have not yet been made.

  Leave to Remain
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications to remain in 892W
  this country have been (a) granted and (b) refused under the domestic violence concession; and if he will make a statement. [44441]

  Angela Eagle
  Up to the end of 2000, the latest available data from case records, show that 93 applications were made under the terms of the concession, of which 63 have been granted settlement and 30 have been refused.

  Public Appointments
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many appointments to public bodies have been made through his Department(a) from April 2000 to March 2001 and (b) since 31 March 2001; and how many of these were (i) men and (ii) women. [42164]

  Angela Eagle
  The number of men and women appointed, or re-appointed, by Ministers in this Department to bodies sponsored by this Department during the periods in question is as follows:

  period

  Men appointed

  Women appointed

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  296

  176

  1 April 2001 to 28 February 2002

  204

  142

  Summary information contained in 'Public Bodies 2001', which was published on 14 February 2002, shows that as at 31 March 2001, women held 34 per cent. of appointments made to the boards of public bodies, and people from ethnic minority backgrounds held 4.8 per cent. of appointments. This is an increase of I per cent. and 0.4 per cent. respectively on the previous year. The position in the Home Office was better than the average: on 31 March 2001 women held 40 per cent. of all appointments to Home Office sponsored NDPBs, and people from ethnic minority backgrounds held 9.1 per cent.

  The Home Office has included the following in its objectives to be achieved by March 2005:
  1. "To increase the number of women applicants for appointments to public bodies so as to achieve an interim target of 45 per cent. women appointees by 31 March 2005."
  2. "To ensure that women, people from ethnic minority backgrounds and disabled people are each represented in line with these targets on the different types of bodies, and in responsibility, including the Chair and Vice-Chair."

  To achieve these objectives the Department will, amongst other measures:
  1. Employ targeted advertising to encourage underrepresented groups to apply.
  2. Seek possible candidates using candidate lists held by other government departments.
  3. Continue to monitor the composition of the different types of bodies sponsored by the Home Office and the proportion of women. people from ethnic minority backgrounds and disabled people in positions of Chair and Vice-Chair.

  Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many times the United
  893W
  Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator held meetings with members and officials of the United States Government between 18 February 2000 and 3 August 2001; when and where each of these meetings took place; and which (a) United States Government departments and (b) members and officials of the United States Government were involved in each meeting; [43447]

  (2) how many times the United Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator has held meetings with members and officials of the United States Government since 3 August 2001; when and where each of these meetings took place; and which (a) United States Government departments and (b) members and officials of the United States Government were involved in each meeting. [43446]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Between 18 February 2000 and 3 August 2001 the former United Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator held meetings in his office with members and officials of the United States (US) Government on three occasions as follows:

  On 18 February 2000 he met Wendy Chamberlain, Principal Deputy Assistant for International Narcotics Law Enforcement Affairs in the US together with Mike McManamon, Drugs Enforcement Agency (DEA) Attachè and George Dragnich, Counsellor for Labor and Social Affairs from the US Embassy in London;
  on 23 August 2000 he met Congressman John Mica, together with Mike McManamon and Sharon Pinkerton, Mr Mica's assistant;
  on 6 March 2001 he met George Dragnich and Su Zann Lamb, Justice and Home Affairs Liaison Officer at the US Embassy London.

  Following the election last year, responsibility for delivering the National Drugs Strategy transferred to the Home Secretary. Since 3 August 2001, my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary has met with John Ashcroft, United States (US) Attorney General (11–12 December 2001) and James Sensenbrenner, Chair of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee (17–18 January 2002). Both meetings took place in London.

  Keith Hellawell, who is now employed part time as the Home Secretary's expert adviser on drugs, has met only one official from the United States Government since 3 August 2001. The official was Keith Eddins who is employed as the US First Secretary covering Justice and Home Affairs issues at the US Embassy in the Czech Republic. The meeting took place at the British Embassy in Prague on Wednesday 20 February 2002.

  Court Attendance
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many days are lost annually by professional health staff required to attend court to give evidence of injury incurred by pensioners who have been subjected to physical assault; and what the estimated cost of this is to the public service in each of the last three years. [38768]

  Mr. Hutton
  I have been asked to reply. The information requested is not collected centrally.

WALES

  Human Rights Act
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [45073]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  None.

  Creche Facilities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what creche facilities are provided by his Department; and at what cost. [44863]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  None.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Publicity Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the total real terms expenditure of her Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies on publicity in each of the years(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99,(c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–01 and (e) 2001–02, (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole of the present year; and if she will break these figures down to indicate expenditure on (A) advertising and (B) press and public relations. [36159]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Expenditure from the Department's central advertising and publicity budget is as follows (in real terms):

  £ million

  1997–98

  11.9

  1998–99

  14.3

  1999–2000

  10.3

  2000–01

  15.0

  2001–02 (to end January)

  6.0

  2001–02 (estimated)

  11.7

  In addition to expenditure from this central budget, expenditure from budgets allocated to individual programmes will also include spend on publicity related activity. It is not possible, except at disproportionate cost, to separately identify all such publicity related expenditure. It is possible to identify expenditure on advertising and on public relations drawn from all budgets and this is as follows (in real terms):

  Advertising (£m)

  Public relations (£m)

  1997–98

  11.0

  0

  1998–99

  16.8

  0.6

  1999–2000

  12.4

  0.1

  2000–01

  29.7

  0.8

  2001–02 (to end January)

  17.7

  0.6

  2001–02 (estimated)

  17.7

  0.6

  Information on expenditure by agencies and non-departmental public bodies is not held centrally.

  Celebrations
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 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. [42300]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport gave to the hon. Member for Suffolk South on 11 February, Official Report, columns 58–59W.

  The Department has made no specific arrangements to celebrate St. Patrick's Day, St. George's Day, St. Andrew's Day or St. David's Day.

  Examination Results
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many, and what proportion of pupils achieved five or more GCSEs at A* to C grades in each year between 1997 and 2001; [45335]

  (2) how many and what proportion of pupils achieved five or more GCSEs at A* to C grades, where those grades included an A* to C grade in each of English, maths and science, in each year between 1997 and 2001. [45333]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The number and proportion of 15-year-old pupils that achieved five or more GCSEs at A* to C grades, including English, mathematics and science in England are in the table:

  Number

  As percentage of 15-year-old pupils

  1996–97

  194,708

  33.2

  1997–98

  197,179

  34.3

  1998–99

  207,272

  35.7

  1999–2000

  214,181

  36.9

  2000–01

  226,879

  37.6

  The number and proportion of 15-year-old pupils that achieved five or more GCSEs at A* to C grades in England are in the table:

  Number

  As percentage of 15-year-old pupils

  1996–97

  264,892

  45.1

  1997–98

  266,431

  46.3

  1998–99

  278,560

  47.9

  1999–2000

  285,727

  49.2

  2000–01

  301,521

  50.0

  Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will estimate the number of former teachers and headteachers working for firms of consultants providing services for her Department, local education authorities and schools. [45710]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: The Department for Education and Skills does not collect this information. The former occupation of consultants is a matter for individual consultancy companies as employers.

  Connexions
  Phil Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how the Connexions service will be evaluated. [46325]

  Mr Ivan Lewis
  The evaluation of the Connexions Service will build on the experience of the pilot studies using a combination of opinion surveys, impact studies and a programme identifying effective practice.

  Opinion surveys. These will cover the views of young people including non-users of the Connexions Service and the opinions of the key stakeholders involved with each Connexions Partnership. Run annually, using a standard set of questions, these surveys will make it possible to monitor changes in views towards the Service over time as Connexions is rolled out nationally.

  Impact studies. This component of the evaluation strategy will look in detail at Partnership activity to assess how effective the service has been in helping young people. The focus will be on the range of interventions made by a personal adviser and the intention is to track a selected cohort of young people over time to assess outcomes.

  Identifying effective practice. The third component of the strategy is to secure prompt feedback about what works operationally and what constitutes effective practice. A rolling programme of studies will be commissioned covering specific issues relevant to the key delivery areas of the Service.

  Faith Schools
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the faith schools which receive public funding, specifying the amount in each case. [45760]

  Mr. Timms
  There are approximately 5,000 voluntary schools maintained by Local Education Authorities (LEAs) in England with either a religious or church-related character. LEAs' Section 52 budget statements do not identify these schools separately; it is therefore not possible to provide the information requested without incurring disproportionate costs. All LEA maintained schools are funded on a similar basis, via a local formula methodology, which is based predominately on pupil numbers, along with other specific factors which relate to individual schools' needs.

  NVQs (Grants)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what(a) the number of grants paid out and (b) the average grant allocation given to individuals to obtain National Vocational Qualification level II was in each of the last five years. [45626]

  Margaret Hodge
  There is a range of support payments available to eligible students and trainees studying towards National Vocational Qualification Level 2, including: Education Maintenance Allowances paid to young people who stay on at school or college and available on a pilot basis in 30 per cent. of England; Access Funds paid to students in cases of hardship and also used to fund residential support for certain specified courses for which a young person needs to live away from home; Training Allowances for 16–24 year
  897W
  olds in unwaged work based learning; and help with the childcare costs of those in learning. In addition, the Department provides significant funding to cover the tuition costs of the education and training provided to individuals.

  It is not possible, however, to identify either the total number of NVQ Level 2 students helped or the average value of financial assistance received by individuals. Information held by the Department does not differentiate between those individuals studying towards NVQ Level 2 and those aiming for other types and levels of qualification.

  Schools
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her policy is on surplus places in schools; and if she will publish the numbers and percentages of surplus places for each local education authority in England [46933]

  Mr. Timms
  Our policies are focused on raising educational standards. It is wasteful for resources to be locked into maintaining surplus places in schools. Wherever possible these should be freed up and directed towards improving standards. In planning school provision, local education authorities should look for opportunities for removing surplus capacity, with a view to bringing supply and demand for school places into better balance. Their initial focus should be on those schools with 25 per cent. or more of their places unfilled, having particular regard to standards at those schools. The overall aim should be to maximise parental preference and to provide good quality education in the most cost-effective way. The Department's annual survey of surplus places allows us to monitor how local education authorities are meeting this challenge. The Audit Commission has again drawn attention to this issue and, with District Auditors, is promoting good practice.

  surplus places by local authority area at January 2001

  Primary1

  Secondary

  Actual surplus2

  Schools with surplus of 25 per cent. or more3

  Actual surplus

  Schools with surplus of 25 per cent. or more3

  LEA

  Name

  Number of places

  surplus as a percentage of total places

  Number

  per cent.

  Number of places

  surplus as a percentage of total places

  Number

  per cent.

  301

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,260

  7

  2

  4

  467

  4

  0

  0

  302

  Barnet

  768

  3

  0

  0

  639

  3

  0

  0

  370

  Barnsley

  1,754

  8

  8

  9

  1,223

  9

  1

  7

  800

  Bath and NE Somerset

  1,197

  9

  8

  12

  721

  6

  1

  8

  820

  Bedfordshire

  4,161

  15

  28

  19

  4,121

  10

  11

  19

  303

  Bexley

  1,274

  6

  5

  8

  2,195

  11

  0

  0

  330

  Birmingham

  7,531

  7

  31

  10

  4,195

  6

  6

  8

  889

  Blackburn

  780

  5

  3

  5

  610

  6

  1

  11

  890

  Blackpool

  561

  5

  2

  6

  286

  4

  0

  0

  350

  Bolton

  1,816

  7

  7

  7

  487

  3

  0

  0

  837

  Bournemouth

  422

  4

  0

  0

  1,026

  10

  1

  10

  867

  Bracknell Forest

  1,073

  11

  4

  12

  801

  12

  1

  17

  380

  Bradford

  7,419

  15

  36

  23

  2,775

  8

  3

  11

  304

  Brent

  1,600

  8

  4

  7

  1,317

  9

  1

  8

  846

  Brighton and Hove

  1,860

  10

  6

  10

  1,167

  9

  2

  20

  801

  Bristol

  3,370

  11

  15

  13

  1,568

  8

  0

  0

  305

  Bromley

  533

  2

  2

  3

  442

  2

  0

  0

  825

  Buckinghamshire

  6,036

  13

  34

  18

  901

  3

  1

  3

  351

  Bury

  1,155

  7

  4

  6

  220

  2

  1

  7

  381

  Calderdale

  1,757

  9

  8

  9

  789

  5

  0

  0

  873

  Cambridgeshire

  4,287

  9

  20

  10

  1,364

  4

  1

  3

  202

  Camden

  899

  8

  5

  12

  909

  8

  2

  20

  875

  Cheshire

  7,972

  13

  50

  17

  3,149

  7

  4

  9

  908

  Cornwall

  3,974

  9

  27

  11

  200

  1

  0

  0

  898W
  Local education authorities have again made progress in the removal of surplus places. The survey returns indicate that there were 699,770 surplus school places in January 2001, representing 9 per cent. of the total capacity of 7.8 million places. This is an overall reduction of 10,219 places on the 2000 figures. Since 1998 a total of 74,050 surplus places have been removed. This reduction means that more money will be spent raising school standards rather than maintaining empty buildings.

  The following tables are based on the returns made by the local education authorities in respect of all maintained primary and secondary schools in their area. They set out the numbers of surplus places as at January 2001 for each local authority area, listing primary and secondary separately, together with the proportion that these represent of total capacity. They also highlight the numbers of schools which at that date had surplus of 25 per cent. or more, and at least 30 surplus places, together with the proportion that these represent of the total number of schools.

  The number of schools with 25 per cent. or more surplus places has again risen for the second successive year, to 2,441 compared with 2,406 in 2000. As with the 2000 survey, the number of primary schools in this category has risen (2,139 in 2001 which represents 12 per cent. of all primary schools, compared to 2,013 (11 per cent.) in 2000) while the number of secondary schools has declined (302 in 2001, which represents 9 per cent. of all secondary schools, compared with 393 (11 per cent.) in 2000).

  The returns also provide the Department with details of the action authorities propose to take on schools with 25 per cent. or more surplus. The returns indicate that in many cases action is being taken, or is planned. Where planning strategies are unclear in areas with particularly high levels of surplus, the Department will be following up with the authorities concerned.
  899W

  surplus places by local authority area at January 2001

  Primary1

  Secondary

  Actual surplus2

  Schools with surplus of 25 per cent. or more3

  Actual surplus

  Schools with surplus of 25 per cent. or more3

  LEA

  Name

  Number of places

  surplus as a percentage of total places

  Number

  per cent.

  Number of places

  surplus as a percentage of total places

  Number

  per cent.

  201

  Corporation of London

  6

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  331

  Coventry

  2,730

  9

  11

  12

  1,645

  7

  2

  11

  306

  Croydon

  1,533

  5

  3

  3

  1,277

  7

  1

  5

  909

  Cumbria

  5,711

  13

  35

  12

  4,016

  11

  8

  19

  841

  Darlington

  855

  9

  5

  14

  421

  7

  0

  0

  831

  Derby, City of

  1,888

  8

  8

  10

  2,158

  13

  2

  14

  830

  Derbyshire

  6,492

  10

  44

  12

  3,918

  8

  7

  15

  878

  Devon

  5,333

  9

  25

  8

  1,519

  4

  0

  0

  371

  Doncaster

  5,459

  17

  25

  22

  1,205

  5

  1

  6

  835

  Dorset

  2,496

  9

  16

  12

  2,248

  7

  1

  3

  332

  Dudley

  2,831

  10

  8

  10

  724

  4

  1

  5

  840

  Durham

  6,687

  14

  57

  23

  2,916

  8

  3

  8

  307

  Ealing

  2,508

  10

  7

  11

  242

  2

  0

  0

  811

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  3,339

  11

  20

  15

  1,026

  5

  1

  6

  845

  East Sussex

  2,568

  7

  11

  7

  1,036

  4

  0

  0

  308

  Enfield

  825

  3

  3

  5

  2,873

  12

  1

  6

  881

  Essex

  11,414

  9

  49

  10

  6,616

  7

  4

  5

  390

  Gateshead

  1,747

  10

  4

  5

  551

  5

  0

  0

  916

  Gloucestershire

  5,896

  12

  31

  12

  2,043

  5

  2

  5

  203

  Greenwich

  2,569

  12

  10

  15

  1,323

  9

  2

  14

  204

  Hackney

  1,898

  11

  7

  12

  858

  10

  1

  11

  876

  Halton

  2,276

  17

  15

  28

  1,162

  12

  2

  22

  205

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  990

  11

  4

  11

  488

  7

  0

  0

  850

  Hampshire

  10,968

  10

  51

  12

  5,200

  7

  5

  7

  309

  Haringey

  1,103

  6

  3

  4

  1,471

  11

  1

  9

  310

  Harrow

  2,256

  11

  5

  9

  851

  9

  1

  10

  805

  Hartlepool

  882

  9

  2

  7

  709

  10

  1

  17

  311

  Havering

  2,440

  11

  8

  12

  931

  6

  0

  0

  884

  Herefordshire

  2,234

  14

  15

  18

  1,085

  10

  2

  14

  919

  Hertfordshire

  9,153

  9

  41

  10

  9,632

  12

  13

  15

  312

  Hillingdon

  1,442

  7

  3

  4

  1,188

  7

  3

  18

  313

  Hounslow

  1,854

  10

  6

  9

  545

  3

  0

  0

  921

  Isle of Wight

  640

  8

  2

  4

  775

  6

  0

  0

  420

  Isles of Scilly

  102

  42

  2

  50

  36

  23

  0

  0

  206

  Islington

  1,963

  12

  9

  18

  793

  10

  1

  11

  207

  Kensington and Chelsea

  942

  13

  4

  15

  583

  14

  0

  0

  886

  Kent

  6,552

  6

  18

  4

  7,623

  8

  5

  5

  810

  Kingston upon Hull City of

  4,629

  17

  15

  19

  1,915

  11

  2

  13

  314

  Kingston upon Thames

  294

  3

  1

  3

  631

  7

  1

  10

  382

  Kirklees

  3,483

  9

  14

  9

  2,279

  8

  3

  9

  340

  Knowsley

  2,632

  15

  15

  25

  1,395

  12

  1

  9

  208

  Lambeth

  2,228

  11

  6

  9

  1,656

  19

  3

  30

  888

  Lancashire

  12,653

  12

  87

  17

  5,773

  7

  8

  9

  383

  Leeds

  9,478

  14

  41

  17

  3,545

  7

  5

  12

  856

  Leicester City

  3,916

  13

  18

  21

  943

  5

  0

  0

  855

  Leicestershire

  3,603

  7

  16

  7

  3,157

  7

  4

  7

  209

  Lewisham

  1,173

  6

  2

  3

  1,826

  14

  2

  15

  925

  Lincolnshire

  6,025

  10

  37

  13

  4,197

  9

  9

  14

  341

  Liverpool

  6,766

  15

  33

  21

  3,112

  9

  3

  9

  821

  Luton

  2,139

  10

  6

  10

  426

  4

  0

  0

  352

  Manchester

  4,490

  11

  24

  16

  1,943

  8

  3

  13

  887

  Medway Towns

  1,641

  7

  12

  13

  2,928

  13

  1

  5

  315

  Merton

  1,231

  9

  8

  16

  1,312

  15

  2

  18

  806

  Middlesbrough

  2,012

  13

  7

  15

  787

  8

  2

  18

  826

  Milton Keynes

  3,509

  14

  17

  20

  1,728

  13

  3

  27

  391

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,039

  10

  11

  15

  2,004

  10

  5

  24

  316

  Newham

  1,572

  6

  4

  6

  1,323

  7

  0

  0

  926

  Norfolk

  6,876

  10

  38

  10

  3,020

  7

  4

  8

  812

  North East Lincolnshire

  2,256

  14

  13

  22

  838

  7

  1

  8

  813

  North Lincolnshire

  1,575

  10

  1

  1

  1,027

  9

  1

  7

  802

  North Somerset

  872

  6

  2

  3

  691

  5

  0

  0

  392

  North Tyneside

  1,861

  11

  7

  13

  1,770

  12

  3

  15

  815

  North Yorkshire

  6,438

  13

  49

  15

  1,675

  4

  1

  2

  928

  Northamptonshire

  5,605

  10

  25

  9

  3,501

  7

  6

  10

  929

  Northumberland

  3,874

  18

  34

  24

  3,254

  10

  11

  19

  892

  Nottingham City of

  2,544

  10

  14

  14

  3,529

  21

  6

  30

  891

  Nottinghamshire

  6,350

  9

  33

  11

  7,984

  13

  15

  26

  353

  Oldham

  2,222

  10

  8

  8

  1,134

  7

  2

  13

  931

  Oxfordshire

  4,104

  8

  22

  9

  4,749

  11

  3

  7

  874

  Peterborough

  1,825

  11

  6

  10

  1,238

  9

  3

  23

  879

  Plymouth City of

  2,026

  9

  3

  4

  795

  4

  1

  6

  836

  Poole

  569

  5

  1

  3

  676

  8

  1

  11

  851

  Portsmouth

  1,414

  9

  5

  9

  179

  2

  0

  0

  870

  Reading

  525

  5

  1

  3

  1,235

  16

  3

  38

  317

  Redbridge

  926

  4

  0

  0

  649

  3

  0

  0

  807

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1,517

  10

  6

  12

  1,430

  12

  3

  23

  900W 901W

  surplus places by local authority area at January 2001

  Primary1

  Secondary

  Actual surplus2

  Schools with surplus of 25 per cent. or more3

  Actual surplus

  Schools with surplus of 25 per cent. or more3

  LEA

  Name

  Number of places

  surplus as a percentage of total places

  Number

  per cent.

  Number of places

  surplus as a percentage of total places

  Number

  per cent.

  318

  Richmond upon Thames

  438

  4

  1

  3

  569

  7

  1

  13

  354

  Rochdale

  1,786

  8

  8

  11

  1,434

  9

  2

  14

  372

  Rotherham

  2,561

  10

  10

  9

  1,383

  7

  1

  6

  679

  Rutland

  679

  21

  4

  22

  234

  10

  1

  33

  355

  Salford

  3,119

  14

  13

  15

  2,234

  15

  3

  19

  333

  Sandwell

  2,248

  8

  10

  10

  2,551

  12

  3

  15

  343

  Sefton

  3,560

  13

  15

  16

  1,280

  6

  2

  9

  373

  Sheffield

  4,647

  10

  20

  14

  1,102

  4

  0

  0

  893

  Shropshire

  3,099

  12

  24

  17

  588

  3

  1

  5

  871

  Slough

  1,026

  9

  3

  10

  333

  4

  0

  0

  334

  Solihull

  1,533

  8

  6

  9

  277

  2

  0

  0

  933

  Somerset

  3,159

  8

  12

  5

  92,864

  9

  4

  10

  803

  South Gloucestershire

  2,404

  10

  10

  10

  1,285

  7

  1

  7

  393

  South Tyneside

  1,251

  9

  3

  5

  1,161

  10

  1

  9

  852

  Southampton

  2,036

  11

  10

  15

  658

  6

  0

  0

  882

  Southend

  774

  5

  1

  2

  695

  6

  0

  0

  210

  Southwark

  1,806

  8

  4

  6

  1,148

  11

  1

  8

  342

  St. Helens

  1,672

  10

  6

  10

  1,000

  8

  0

  0

  860

  Staffordshire

  7,441

  10

  42

  13

  899

  2

  2

  3

  356

  Stockport

  2,964

  11

  15

  15

  1,171

  7

  0

  0

  808

  Stockton on Tees

  1,633

  9

  3

  5

  668

  5

  0

  0

  861

  Stoke on Trent

  4,835

  19

  21

  24

  934

  6

  1

  6

  935

  Suffolk

  6,114

  12

  32

  13

  4,610

  8

  5

  6

  394

  Sunderland

  4,700

  16

  25

  26

  983

  5

  2

  12

  936

  Surrey

  10,967

  13

  62

  19

  3,737

  7

  4

  8

  319

  Sutton

  902

  6

  2

  5

  670

  5

  1

  7

  866

  Swindon

  2,588

  13

  8

  12

  352

  3

  0

  0

  357

  Tameside

  1,399

  7

  5

  6

  1,064

  7

  2

  11

  894

  Telford and the Wrekin

  1,319

  8

  1

  2

  789

  8

  2

  15

  883

  Thurrock

  2,079

  14

  5

  11

  957

  11

  1

  10

  880

  Torbay

  430

  4

  3

  9

  238

  3

  0

  0

  211

  Tower Hamlets

  2,784

  13

  10

  14

  1,028

  7

  1

  7

  358

  Trafford

  1,557

  8

  9

  12

  1,053

  6

  1

  6

  384

  Wakefield

  3,141

  10

  15

  12

  1,096

  5

  0

  0

  335

  Walsall

  2,243

  9

  6

  6

  1,504

  7

  1

  5

  320

  Waltham Forest

  1,789

  8

  7

  11

  884

  7

  2

  13

  212

  Wandsworth

  1,485

  9

  6

  11

  465

  5

  1

  11

  877

  Warrington

  2,573

  13

  13

  18

  492

  4

  0

  0

  937

  Warwickshire

  4,754

  11

  20

  10

  2,712

  8

  4

  11

  869

  West Berkshire

  1,567

  12

  8

  12

  331

  3

  0

  0

  938

  West Sussex

  6,451

  10

  28

  11

  4,374

  9

  3

  8

  213

  Westminster

  395

  4

  1

  3

  697

  9

  0

  0

  359

  Wigan

  2,590

  9

  13

  12

  1,161

  6

  2

  10

  865

  Wiltshire

  4,928

  12

  34

  16

  2,643

  9

  6

  18

  868

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  382

  5

  3

  7

  314

  3

  0

  0

  344

  Wirral

  3,765

  12

  16

  16

  2,325

  9

  1

  4

  872

  Wokingham

  777

  6

  3

  6

  38

  0

  0

  0

  336

  Wolverhampton

  3,049

  12

  15

  17

  1,171

  7

  1

  6

  885

  Worcestershire

  5,068

  12

  27

  14

  4,285

  10

  9

  15

  816

  York

  1,637

  11

  5

  8

  779

  7

  0

  0

  Total

  449,037

  10

  2,139

  12

  250,733

  7

  302

  9

  1 Primary figures show surplus after taking account of summer entry.

  2 Actual surplus is defined as the difference between capacity and number on roll for all schools where capacity exceeds number on roll.

  3 Schools with less than 30 surplus places are not included.

  Schools Private Finance Initiative Projects
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what new schools private finance initiative projects she will support for signature in 2003–04; and if she will make a statement. [46932]

  John Healey
  Fifty-three Local Education Authorities have recently submitted proposals to the Department, seeking funding support through PFI credits for school based projects aiming to sign in 2003–04. These proposals represent a PFI credit requirement of over £3 billion. Following a rigorous appraisal of the bids by the Department's officials, we are today announcing that 21 projects, representing more than £900 million PFI credits in total, have been 902W
  approved in principle and will be invited to prepare outline business cases for further consideration. Proposals representing around £750 million are expected to sign in 2003–04, and the remainder in 2004–05.

  This is a very substantial package of investment. It will support the Government's drive to improve the learning environments in schools, and will also help to further raise standards for children, the school workforce and the wider community.

  Details of the projects to be supported are being published today in a Departmental Press Notice and I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if the public service agreement target for the transfer of responsibility for underwater archaeology was achieved on time; [46093]

  (2) which public service agreement targets scheduled to be met in 2002 will not be achieved by the due date. [44814]

  Dr. Howells
  The transfer of responsibilities in respect of underwater archaeology to English Heritage is dependent on legislation to extend English Heritage's remit out to the limit of the territorial waters of the UK adjacent to England. Provision for this was included in the Government's Culture and Recreation Bill which fell before the last election, thus preventing us meeting this element of the PSA target. Similar provisions are included in Baroness Anelay's National Heritage Bill which is currently before Parliament and is receiving Government support. We are hopeful that the transfer will take place in the near future.

  Information about progress on PSA targets will be published in the Department's 2002 Departmental Report.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the PSA target that 80 per cent. of public libraries should have Internet connections by 2002 will be met on time. [46095]

  Dr. Howells
  The £100 million lottery funded programme to connect all public libraries to the Internet is proceeding well with 71 per cent. of libraries in England now online and is expected to meet the year end deadline by which time all libraries will be online.

  British Tourist Authority
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the recent activities of the British Tourist Authority in attracting foreign visitors to Scotland. [44794]

  Dr. Howells
  The British Tourist Authority's recent activities to attract visitors to Britain have all featured Scotland prominently, for example, the new Britain's Royal Heritage map features Scottish locations such as Glamis and The Queen's View. The Hidden Britain campaign, launched last year, highlights 14 routes through less well-known parts of Britain, including Blair Atholl and Pitlochry. In addition, the BTA's Bollywood Movie Map identifies locations throughout Britain, including Scone Palace and Brechin, which have been used in over 20 Indian films.

  Items in Lieu of Tax
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the cost was of(a) the storage and (b) the upkeep and maintenance of items accepted in lieu of tax by the Inland Revenue in the last 12 months; and which Department is responsible for these costs. [45219]
  904W
  Dr. Howells
  Items which are accepted in lieu of tax by the Inland Revenue are allocated to nominated institutions which will display them to the public. Therefore any costs for their storage, upkeep and maintenance are borne by these institutions in the same way that they will bear the costs of any other item kept by them.

  Tourism Statistics
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to change the collection of tourism statistics; and if she will publish these statistics on the departmental website. [45218]

  Dr. Howells
  We are currently examining what cost efficient changes to the current system of collection of tourism statistics might be made.

  Tourism statistics are already available on the STAR UK website (www.staruk.org.uk) which was established jointly by the National Tourist Boards and DCMS.

  Odsal Stadium
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions her Department has had with interested parties on the redevelopment of Odsal Stadium, Bradford. [45578]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department has had no such discussions with the interested parties involved in the redevelopment of the Odsal Stadium, but my officials are aware of the proposed scheme. I visited Odsal Stadium on one of my regional visits.

  Pub Opening Hours
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what measures she has taken to allow pubs to open at later hours; [45481]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the impact of pub opening hours on the binge drinking culture; [45479]

  (3) what statutory restrictions there are on pubs opening at late hours; and if she will introduce legislation to allow pubs to open at any time. [45480]

  Dr. Howells
  The White Paper "Time for Reform: Proposals for the Modernisation of Our Licensing Laws (Cm 4696)", published on 10 April 2000, set out our views on the problem of binge drinking and our plans for reforming the alcohol and public entertainment licensing laws in England and Wales, including the hours during which alcohol may be sold or supplied to the public at public houses and other premises. The existing law establishes permitted licensing hours outside of which licensed premises may not sell or serve alcohol without the special permission of licensing justices; and their consent may only be granted in particular circumstances.

  The existing fixed closing times are artificially early. They actively contribute to binge drinking at the end of normal opening time, and result in significant numbers of intoxicated people on our streets simultaneously. This in turn leads to peaks of disorder around closing times. To counter and minimise public disorder resulting from fixed closing times, we intend to introduce flexible opening hours as a condition of the

  905W
  licences of each venue, with the potential for some to operate up to 24 hour opening on each day of the week, subject to consideration of the impact on local residents. These changes require the amendment of primary legislation and we intend to introduce a Bill to that end as soon as Parliamentary time permits.

  Free Television Licences
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many pensioners in Portsmouth have benefited from free television licences; and if she will make a statement. [46441]

  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 14,600 people aged 75 or over in the Portsmouth, North and Portsmouth, South constituencies.

  Educational and Sports Facilities
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement regarding her assessment of the benefits of combining community sports facilities with educational facilities on a single site. [46460]

  Mr. Caborn
  Enhancing facilities is an integral part of the Government's PE and school sport strategy, being delivered jointly by the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The Space for Sport and Arts programme is providing £130 million, and the New Opportunities £541 million within England alone, to ensure schools have the facilities they need to deliver PE and school sport whilst also opening up schools so the wider community can also benefit from the new facilities.

  Gambling Review Body
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she will publish her conclusions on the report of the Gambling Review Body. [46680]

  Tessa Jowell
  We have today laid before both Houses a document setting out the Government's detailed response to the report of the Gambling Review Body. This paper, A Safe Bet for Success, sets out the Government's vision for a modern system of regulation for gambling in Great Britain. We shall bring forward a Bill to give effect to our proposals when Parliamentary time permits.

  Media Ownership Rules
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she will publish the results of the recent consultation on media ownership rules. [46681]

  Tessa Jowell
  I am today publishing a summary of the responses to the Consultation on Media Ownership Rules published by my Department in November 2001. This will be available on the Department's website (www.culture.gov.uk). The summary is intended to help 906W
  all interested parties understand the issues and the arguments that have been put forward on this complex and important area. The Government's decisions on these issues will be announced alongside the draft Communications Bill which we hope to publish around the end of April.

  I am arranging for copies of the summary to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Lottery Grants (Distribution)
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if she will take steps to improve the levels of Lottery grants to(a) Barrow-in-Furness and (b) Wear Valley; [46422]

  (2) what appraisal she has made of Lottery funding levels for (a) Barrow-in-Furness and (b) Wear Valley; [46420]

  (3) if she will discuss with Lottery distributing bodies the level of grants to (a) Barrow-in-Furness and (b) Wear Valley. [46421]

  Mr. Caborn
  According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the national lottery awards database, Lottery funding per capita made to date in the Barrow-in-Furness and Wear Valley local authority areas is £144.03 and £89.77 respectively. This compares to a median value of £91.76 per capita for UK local authorities. The Government is committed to ensuring that all areas in the UK benefit from Lottery funding and is working with distributors to achieve this.

  PFI/PPPs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (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; [45611]

  (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. [45596]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, has had no involvement with Private Finance Initiative contracts in any of the last four years.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she will reply to the letter of 19 December 2001 from the hon. Member for Fareham, concerning his constituent Mrs. Miolk. [45804]

  Dr. Howells
  I replied to the hon. Member on 25 March 2002 and I apologise for the delay in replying.

HEALTH

  MRSA
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the extent of MRSA in NHS hospitals. [43728]

  Yvette Cooper
  Early data on Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus rates for every acute trust in England were published on 8 February 2002 in the Public Health Laboratory Service Communicable Diseases Report. This is the first phase of a comprehensive and mandatory surveillance system for healthcare associated infection.

  Barnsley Primary Care Trust
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to reduce the shortfall in the 2002–03 budget of the Barnsley primary care trust. [43729]

  Ms Blears
  South Yorkshire Strategic Health Authority and the Northern Directorate of Health and Social Care are currently working with the Barnsley health community to tackle the financial situation.

  NHS Beds (North-West)
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what change there has been in the number of NHS beds in hospitals in the north-west since 1997. [43732]

  Jacqui Smith
  There has been a marked increase in the number of acute hospital beds.

  In 1996–97, there were 16,792 acute beds in hospitals in the North West of England (excluding North Cumbria Health Authority) and by 2000–01, this had increased to 17,224. This represents an increase of 432 (2.6 per cent.).

  The figures for total beds, given in the following table, show a more appropriate provision of care outside the hospital environment.

  Staffed beds in wards open overnight—Average daily total for the financial year

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Acute

  16,792

  17,006

  17,082

  17,094

  17,224

  Geriatric

  4,251

  3,748

  3,462

  3,466

  3,565

  Maternity

  5,171

  5,030

  4,748

  4,636

  4,499

  Learning disability

  925

  644

  572

  492

  414

  Mental health

  1,667

  1,616

  1,496

  1,463

  1,399

  Total beds

  28,806

  28,044

  27,360

  27,150

  27,101

  Total general/acute beds

  21,043

  20,751

  20,544

  20,560

  20,790

  Note:

  Excludes North Cumbria HA

  Nursing Home Charges
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the average level of nursing home charges. [43733]

  Jacqui Smith
  The level of nursing home fees will vary from area to area and will reflect local market conditions. According to Laing & Buisson, consultants 908W
  in health and community care, the average weekly nursing home fee in private homes for older people in the United Kingdom in March 2001 was £393 per week.

  Health Service Accountability
  Roger Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to promote public accountability in the health service; and if he will make a statement. [43734]

  Ms Blears
  We are giving members of the public the chance to monitor review and make reports and recommendations on the local health service through Patients' Forums; setting up the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health to ensure everyone gets the opportunity to be involved; and giving locally elected councillors the role of scrutinising local health services.

  Hospital Mergers
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to analyse the impact of hospital mergers on health outcomes for patients. [43735]

  Mr. Hutton
  Achieving good health outcomes for patients must be the most important consideration in any service change.

  New arrangements following the Health and Social Care Act 2001 mean that local authority Overview and Scrutiny Committees (OSCs) will have power to scrutinise local services.

  Where a proposed service change is contested by the OSC, I am establishing an Independent Reconfiguration Panel, to provide independent advice on the suitability of the proposed service changes. Its recommendations will assess proposed changes against clear criteria, including quality of care, community health needs, accessibility and resourcing.

  Cancer Treatment
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to visit Southend Hospital to discuss the provision of cancer treatment for people in South East Essex. [43737]

  Jacqui Smith
  A meeting has been arranged for 28 March by Eastern Regional Office to which local hon. Members, councillors and officials from Essex Strategic Health Authority designate have been invited to allow fuller discussion of the provision of cancer treatment for people in South East Essex.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will announce whether the targets of(a) a maximum one month wait for breast cancer treatment and (b) a maximum one month wait for urgent GP referral to treatment for children's and testicular cancers and acute leukaemia have been met in England. [42498]

  Yvette Cooper
  The standards of a maximum wait of one month from diagnosis to first definitive treatment for breast cancer and one month from urgent general practitioner referral to treatment for children's and testicular cancers and acute leukaemia came into effect
  909W
  at the end of December 2001. Central monitoring began on 1 January 2002 and data will be published on a quarterly basis.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his policy on waiting times for cancer treatment. [43747]

  Yvette Cooper
  The NHS Cancer Plan sets out our strategy to reduce waiting times for cancer patients. The ultimate goal is that no one should wait longer than one month from an urgent referral for suspected cancer to the beginning of treatment except for a good clinical reason or through patient choice. There is a series of staged milestones towards this goal: new targets introduced for 2001 were a maximum one month from diagnosis to treatment for breast cancer and a maximum one month from urgent GP referral to treatment for acute leukaemia and children's and testicular cancer. By 2005 there will be a maximum one month wait from diagnosis to treatment and a maximum two month wait from urgent GP referral to treatment for all cancers. Achievement of these targets will be supported by investment in workforce and equipment, and by service redesign through the Cancer Services Collaborative.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of progress towards the reduction of waiting times for cancer treatment. [43753]

  Yvette Cooper
  The NHS Cancer Plan sets out a series of staged milestones towards the goal that no one should wait longer than one month from an urgent referral for suspected cancer to the beginning of treatment except for a good clinical reason or through patient choice. A two week outpatient waiting time standard was introduced in December 2000 and in the last quarter 95.1 per cent. of urgent referrals for suspected cancer were seen within two weeks. Standards of a maximum wait of one month from diagnosis to first definitive treatment for breast cancer and a maximum one month from urgent GP referral to treatment for children's and testicular cancers and acute leukaemia came into effect at the end of 2001. Central monitoring of these standards began on 1 January 2002 and data will be published on a quarterly basis.

  Health Inequalities
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress to address health inequalities by changes to the funding formulae for health authorities/primary care trusts. [43738]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government have made good progress. An interim health inequalities adjustment of £130 million was introduced for 2001–02 allocations. This has been extended to £148 million for 2002–03, to be shared between 54 Health Authorities. The Government are also reviewing the existing weighted capitation formula used to distribute NHS funding. By 2003 reducing inequalities will be a key criterion for allocating NHS resources to different parts of the country.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average response time was for the attendance of an emergency ambulance over the last 12 months in each English region. [43739]

  Ms Blears
  Latest provisional management information indicates that, at the end of February 2002, 28 out of the 32 ambulance trusts in England were achieving the Government's key target of responding to 75 per cent. of immediately life threatening 999 calls within eight minutes.

  All ambulance trusts are expected to achieve the 75 per cent. target during 2002.

  Booked Hospital Admissions
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress in achieving booked admissions across the NHS. [43740]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Booked Admissions Programme began in 1998. Every acute NHS trust is now booking patients in at least two specialties or high volume procedures. By the end of March 2002 more than five million patients will have benefited from the programme.

  A fourth wave of the programme, "Moving to Mainstream", began in September 2001 and will shift booked admissions to mainstream NHS activity.

  Nurse Recruitment (London)
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the latest figures for nurse recruitment in London were in the last 12 months. [43741]

  Mr. Hutton
  As at September 2001, there were 58,000 qualified nurses, midwives and health visitors working within the London Region—an increase of 3,400 compared to September the previous year. In London over 660 qualified nurses midwives and health visitors have returned to the NHS since April 2001. There are currently a further 124 nurses and midwives undertaking special training, who will return to the NHS shortly.

  School Free Fruit Scheme
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the free fruit scheme in schools. [43742]

  Yvette Cooper
  The National School Fruit Scheme will entitle every four to six year old with a free piece of fruit each school day from 2004. £42 million from the New Opportunities Fund is enabling the rapid expansion of the Scheme across England. This starts in West Midlands next term reaching 250,000 children in over 2,000 schools.

  Dentistry
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the access to NHS dental treatment for the residents of north-west Leicestershire; and if he will make a statement. [43745]
  911W
  Yvette Cooper
  Figures are not collected by constituency but as of 31 January 2002, General Dental Service registration rates for Leicestershire were: adults—45 per cent. (England 43 per cent.); children—63 per cent. (England 60 per cent.).

  NHS dentistry registrations were 463,074—up 3,666 on the previous year. Ninety eight per cent. of the population was within a five mile (urban) or 10 mile (rural) radius of dentists accepting new patients. Everyone was within 15 miles of an NHS dentist.

  The number of GDS dentists in Leicestershire as of 31 December 2001 was 284 compared with 282 the previous year.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assistance he is giving to support NHS dentistry in Dorset. [43752]

  Ms Blears
  In 2000–01, Dorset Health Authority (HA) was awarded £110,000 from the Dental Care Development Fund. In 2001–02, the HA allocation for the Modernisation Fund was £458,900. The HA has also been allocated £37,000 from the Dentistry Action Plan Fund.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of dentists on health authority lists practise full time in the NHS; [44410]

  (2) what percentage of dentists on the Government Dental Council register (a) practise in the General Dental Service full time in the UK and (b) practise in the General Dental Service full time for the NHS in the UK. [44412]

  (3) what percentage of dentists on the General Dental Council who qualified outside the United Kingdom and who have been on the Health Authority General Dental Service lists within the last 10 years are no longer on the Health Authority lists; [44405]

  (4) what percentage of dentists on the General Dental Council Register who qualified outside the United Kingdom and who are on the Health Authority General Dental Service lists have been on these lists for over five years; [44406]

  (5) what the ratio is of new dentists who have qualified from UK dental schools to dentists who are drawing their NHS pension; and if he will list this ratio for each of the previous 20 years; [44408]

  (6) what percentage of dentists on the General Dental Council Register qualified outside the United Kingdom; and of this number, what percentage are on the Health Authority General Dental Service lists; [44407]

  (7) what the ratio was of male to female new dental graduates from UK dental schools (a) last year and (b) for each of the previous 20 years. [44411]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 21 March 2002]: Dentists on health authority lists are self-employed principal dentists. They do not have a standard working week and can vary their working hours.

  The Office of Manpower Economics carried out a survey of principal dentists in Great Britain in March 2000. They reported that 81 per cent. of dentists describe themselves as full-time and 19 per cent. are part-time.
  912W
  Twenty per cent. of all principal dentists are both full-time and also work fully in the NHS. A further 5 per cent. are part-time and work fully in the NHS.

  Dentists who work as assistants and vocational dental practitioners are not covered by this result because Health Authorities are not required to hold lists for them.

  Dentists on health authority lists are self-employed principal dentists. They do not have a standard working week and can vary their working hours.

  In March 2000 the Office of Manpower Economics (OME) carried out a survey into the hours of work and workload of principal dentists taking any part in the General Dental Service (GDS) in Great Britain.

  The survey found that 81 per cent of principals in the GDS considered themselves as carrying out dental work full-time. This would be equivalent to about 16,158 of the 19,948 principals in the GDS in the UK at 31 December 2001. The survey found that one quarter of full-time principals spent 100 per cent. of their time on GDS work. This would be equivalent to 4,040 principals at December 2001.

  Thirty one thousand five hundred and seventy seven dentists were on the General Dental Council (GDC) Register at 1 January 2002. Sixteen thousand one hundred and fifty eight principals estimated to be doing dental work full-time are equivalent to 51 per cent. of the GDC total. The 4,040 principals estimated to be doing dental work full-time and spending 100 per cent. of their time in the GDS are equivalent to 13 per cent. of the GDC total.

  These percentages will exclude dentists working part-time or as assistants or vocational dental practitioners or dentists working in other dental services and dentists not working.

  Forty four per cent. of principal dentists who qualified outside the United Kingdom and have worked in the General Dental Service (GDS) in England within the last 10 years were not on a health authority list at 31 December 2001.

  Dentists who work as assistants and vocational dental practitioners are not covered by this result because health authorities are not required to hold lists for them.

  Ninety one per cent. of principal dentists on a Health Authority list who qualified outside the United Kingdom have worked in the General Dental Service (GDS) in England for more than five years as at 31 December 2001.

  Dentists who work as assistants and vocational dental practitioners are not covered by this result because Health Authorities are not required to hold lists for them.

  The ratio of students obtaining their first registrable dental qualification from UK dental schools to the number of dentists retiring from the General Dental Service for each of the years 1983 to 2000 is shown in the table.

  The retirement information is from Pension Agency records. The date of retirement may be the actual date of retirement or the date a pension was awarded or the last date on the Agency's computer systems. Some

  913W
  retiring dentists may not have held a General Dental Service (GDS) post on retirement e.g. they may have retired from a consultant post.

  Ratio of students obtaining their first registerable dental qualification to the number of retirements from the General Dental Service, 1983 to 2000

  United Kingdom

  Year

  Number of qualifiers1

  Number of retirements

  Ratio of qualifiers to retirements

  1983

  811

  103

  7.9

  1984

  887

  127

  7.0

  1985

  845

  286

  3.0

  1986

  748

  332

  2.3

  1987

  729

  385

  1.9

  1988

  807

  345

  2.3

  1989

  771

  376

  2.1

  1990

  759

  348

  2.2

  1991

  795

  399

  2.0

  1992

  744

  433

  1.7

  1993

  783

  532

  1.5

  1994

  730

  360

  2.0

  1995

  649

  366

  1.8

  1996

  650

  329

  2.0

  1997

  722

  358

  2.0

  1998

  768

  327

  2.3

  1999

  782

  321

  2.4

  2000

  808

  306

  2.6

  Notes:

  1 The number of qualifiers between 1983 and 1989 were recorded on a slightly different basis to later data.

  Sources:

  Higher Education Funding Council for England and Pensions Agency.

  Fifteen per cent. or 4,643 of the 31,577 dentists registered with the General Dental Council (GDC) at 1 January 2002 qualified from dental schools outside the United Kingdom.

  At 31 December 2001 2,094 dentists who had qualified outside the UK were on health authority lists in the General Dental Service (GDS) in England. This represents 45 per cent. of the 4,643 dentists who had qualified outside the UK who were registered with the GDC as of 1 January 2002. Health authority lists cover principal dentists only and exclude assistant dentists and vocational dental practitioners working in the GDS.

  Information on the number of dentists who had qualified outside the UK and are practising in the GDS in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland can be obtained from the relevant devolved administrations.

  The number of male and female students who have obtained their first registrable dental qualification from UK dental schools is shown in the table for each of the academic years 1989–90 to 2000–01. Also shown is the ratio of male to female graduates.

  The information is not available for the years before 1989–90.

  Number and ratio of male and female dental qualifiers, 1989–90 to 2000–01

  United Kingdom

  Number of dental qualifiers

  Ratio of male to female dental qualifiers

  Academic year

  Male

  Female

  1989–90

  429

  330

  1.3

  914W

  Number and ratio of male and female dental qualifiers, 1989–90 to 2000–01

  United Kingdom

  Number of dental qualifiers

  Ratio of male to female dental qualifiers

  Academic year

  Male

  Female

  1990–91

  440

  355

  1.2

  1991–92

  437

  307

  1.4

  1992–93

  437

  346

  1.3

  1993–94

  396

  334

  1.2

  1994–95

  328

  321

  1.0

  1995–96

  348

  302

  1.2

  1996–97

  356

  366

  1.0

  1997–98

  385

  383

  1.0

  1998–99

  394

  388

  1.0

  1999–2000

  364

  444

  0.8

  2000–01

  384

  431

  0.9

  Source:

  Higher Education Funding Council for England

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of dentists registered on the General Dental Council are(a) resident in the UK and (b) registered at an address in the UK. [44413]

  Ms Blears
  [holding 21 March 2002]: No information is available on the place of residence of dentists registered with the General Dental Council (GDC).

  The country of the registered address of dentists on the GDC register at 1 January 2002 is shown in the table.

  Dentists registered with the General Dental Council as of 1 January 2002: Country of registered address

  Country

  Number of dentists

  Percentage of registered dentists

  England1

  24,523

  78

  Scotland

  2,761

  9

  Wales

  1,301

  4

  Northern Ireland

  1,058

  3

  UK total

  29,643

  94

  Overseas

  1,934

  6

  Total

  31,577

  100

  1 England figures include dentists registered at addresses in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands

  European Traditional Medicines Directive
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what categories of products that are currently on sale in the UK will be left outside of the scope of the proposed European directive on traditional medicines; and if he will make a statement. [43746]

  Ms Blears
  There are many categories of products currently on sale in the UK which the European Commission's proposals for a Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products are not intended to cover. However, specifically in relation to products which are currently sold legally as unlicensed herbal remedies under Section 12(2) of the Medicines Act, 1968, there are a number of reasons why a proportion of existing products might not satisfy the terms of the proposed Directive. The most likely reasons might be: failure to meet safety or quality standards, or failure to demonstrate that the remedy or corresponding products (that is, comparable herbal medicines) had traditional use. In many such cases in should be possible for companies to make changes—for example improving
  915W
  quality standards or making adjustments to the ingredients or strength of specific products—in order to comply with the terms of the Directive.

  Subject to a successful outcome to European negotiations, the introduction of a systematic regulatory framework for traditional herbal medicines should result in improved public health protection, enhanced public confidence in herbal medicine and the continuing availability of a very wide range of remedies.

  Perinatal Morality
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to reduce perinatal mortality. [43748]

  Yvette Cooper
  We are continuing to support the work of the Confidential Enquiry into Stillbirths and Deaths in Infancy, to improve understanding of how these deaths can be reduced. The tragedy of perinatal mortality has links with poverty, deprivation and exclusion. We are addressing these underlying causes through the "Sure Start" initiative, including pilot programmes to provide personal co-ordinated support for pregnant teenagers, and parents under the age of 18. We are also investing more in the provision of maternity and neonatal intensive care and seeking to ensure the most effective configuration of these essential services.

  NHS Pensions
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he plans to equalise the calculations for NHS widows' and widowers' pension provision by including women doctors' pension contributions prior to 1988. [43749]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the former Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) on 13 January 1999,Official Report, column 212.

  Rehabilitation Services
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the Government are doing to improve rehabilitation services for people of working age.[43750]

  Jacqui Smith
  We are working with the Department for Work and Pensions and the Health and Safety Executive on job retention and rehabilitation pilots to test different health and employment strategies to help people with long term sickness or disability to remain in their jobs.

  We have commissioned guidance for health and social services on promoting employment opportunities for people with mental health problems to meet the requirement of Standard One of the National Service Framework (NSF) for Mental Health.

  The NSF on Long Term Conditions will have a particular focus on the needs of people with neurological disease, brain and spinal injury, as well as some of the common issues faced by people with a longterm condition such as rehabilitation.

  Primary Care
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of 916W
  the transfer of responsibilities from health authorities to PCTs on community initiatives and preventive care. [43751]

  Mr. Hutton
  As part of the transfer of responsibilities from health authorities to primary care trusts all local communities are required to ensure that community initiatives and preventive care are incorporated into Health Improvement Plans and local strategic development plans.

  Hospital Consultants
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of hospital consultants are contracted(a) full-time and (b) part-time to the NHS. [43754]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows the number of hospital medical consultants by contract in England as at 30 September 2001. The table gives a break down of contract holders on national terms and conditions of service by(a) whole time, (b) maximum part time and (c) part time. The number of honorary contract holders is also provided.

  Hospital medical consultants by nature of contract

  England at 30 September 2001

  Numbers

  All contracts

  Whole time

  Maximum Part-time

  Part-time

  Honorary

  Consultant

  24,400

  13,810 (56.6%)

  5,520 (22.6%)

  3,530 (14.5%)

  1,550 (6.3%)

  Source:

  Department of Health 2001 medical and dental workforce census

  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to nearest 10. Due to rounding figures may not equal the sum of component parts. Percentages were calculated using unrounded figures.

  Hearing Services (High Street Opticians)
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the delivery of digital hearing aids and other hearing services via high street opticians. [43727]

  Jacqui Smith
  My hon. Friend raised this issue in the House on 7 November 2001,Official Report column 131WH and on several occasions since. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) has also raised this issue and I will be meeting her in April.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will allow Stepping Hill Hospital in Stockport to be one of the next group of sites to provide digital hearing aids. [41941]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: We have received expressions of interest from several Health communities not yet involved in the modernising hearing aid services project. Decisions will be made shortly, based on a number of criteria including geographical distribution, preparedness, and the support of the whole local health community.

  Communications Aids
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the use to which the funding announced on 27 March 2001 to provide communications aids to children with hearing difficulties has been put; [42657]

  (2) what guidance has been given to (a) health authorities, (b) primary care groups and (c) social services departments about the provision of communication aids for those who are hard of hearing; and if he will make a statement; [42684]

  (3) if he will publish the guidelines given on 27 March 2001 about the provision of communication aids to those with hearing difficulties. [42683]

  Jacqui Smith
  The "Guide to Integrating Community Equipment Service", published on 27 March 2001, set out the vision for the scope of services that users should expect to receive, and indicated the steps that organisations will need to take to achieve the vision.

  Our intention, as stated in a circular to local authorities and health authorities in March 2001, is that the services should look to use some of the additional funding for community equipment services on communication aids for people with impaired speech. No specific guidance on communication aids for children or adults with hearing difficulties has been issued. It is for local services to determine the equipment they will provide.

  Overseas Treatment
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his policy to include Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust in the pilot scheme to allow NHS patients to be treated abroad. [43736]

  Mr. Hutton
  Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust does not fall within any of the three Health Authority areas involved in the overseas pilot. However, if the Trust needs to have patients treated overseas the pilot sites would be willing and able to assist, using their existing contracts with French and German providers.

  Delayed Hospital Discharges
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he is making in tackling the problem of delayed discharge in the national health service. [43744]

  Jacqui Smith
  The latest published figures for December 2001 of people aged over 75 whose discharge was delayed was 5,117. This represents around a 12 per cent. reduction compared to the same period in 2000.

  Unlicensed Medicines
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of websites based in the UK that are offering for sale(a) licensed, (b) unlicensed and (c) both licensed and unlicensed medicines; if he will list those sites his Department has identified; and if he will make a statement. [38820]
  918W
  Ms Blears
  An accurate figure for the number of websites based in the United Kingdom offering medicines for sale is not known because websites are opened and closed often with very short timespans, which makes quantification extremely difficult. Furthermore sites are often routed through many Internet Service Providers to disguise their origins. Therefore it would be disproportionate to investigate the origin of all sites.

  The Medicines Control Agency takes appropriate action against any website of which it is aware that is operating within the UK in breach of UK law and regulations.

  Ministerial Private Offices
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the running costs were of(a) his Ministers' private offices, separately identifying expenditure on staff and (b) his Department in each year from May 1997 to the nearest date for which the information is available. [40985]

  Ms Blears
  Information is available for the financial years 1997–98 to 2000–01. The running costs for Ministers' private offices and the Department for each of these years is shown in the table.

  (a) Ministers' Private Offices

  £ thousands

  Total

  Staff

  Non staff

  1997–98

  1,849

  1,385

  464

  1998–99

  2,144

  1,564

  580

  1999–2000

  2,653

  1,983

  670

  2000–01

  2,947

  2,323

  624

  (b) Departmental administration expenditure (including agencies)

  £ million

  1997–98

  249

  1998–99

  257

  1999–2000

  273

  2000–01

  300

  Health Service Organisations (Costs)
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the annual costs of(a) the Commission for Health Improvement, (b) the National Care Standards Commission, (c) the National Clinical Assessment Authority, (d) the National Patient Safety Agency and (e) the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will be for 2002–03, and the following three years. [40884]

  Ms Blears
  The central Departmental revenue funding which has been reserved for 2002–03 is set out in the following table:

  Organisation

  Funding for 2002–03 in £ millions

  Commission for Health Improvement

  34.0

  National Care Standards Commission

  88.1

  National Clinical Assessment Authority

  13.3

  National Patient Safety Agency

  15.0

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence

  14.8

  919W
  Decisions on the level of funding for 2003–04 to 2005–06 will be made in the light of the work on the 2002 Spending Review.

  ME
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will(a) collate, (b) evaluate and (c) disseminate best practice found in NHS trusts offering services for ME sufferers. [41816]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Chief Medical Officer commissioned a report from the CFS/ME independent working group, which was published on the 11 January. Copies of the report and its annexes are available at the following website: www.doh.gov.uk/cmo/publications.htm. The report recommended the development of service networks to increase knowledge and understanding of the condition, and this is something we would support.

  Although there are currently no specific plans to collate, evaluate and disseminate best practice in NHS trusts offering services for ME sufferers, we are committed to take other action which will help spread best practice. A referral to the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) to provide guidance on management and treatment is something we will consider.

  We are also ensuring that the External Reference Groups who will be developing the two National Service Frameworks (NSF) for both children's services and adults with long term conditions, consider this report and its recommendations for improving treatment and care.

  Social Workers
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to raise the status of social workers; and if he will make a statement. [42243]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have established the General Social Care Council (GSCC) to raise the standard of social care and increase the protection of the public. The GSCC will do this by promoting high standards in the training of social workers and other social care staff, publishing codes of practice, setting out the standard of conduct expected of social care workers and by registering the workforce, starting with qualified social workers in 2003. In order to maintain registration with the GSCC individuals will be expected to keep their practice and training up to date. We have also announced a change to the social work qualification from a two-year diploma in social work to a three-year degree level qualification.

  The term Social Worker is often used by people working in social care who do not hold a social work qualification. When sufficient numbers of qualified social workers have been registered by the GSCC we shall take steps to protect the use of the title social worker to those who have a social work qualification and who are registered as such with the GSCC. It will be an offence under the Care Standards Act 2000 for anyone to misrepresent his/her self with the intention of deceiving.
  920W
  Last year we started a three year recruitment and retention campaign. One of the objectives of the campaign is to raise awareness of social work and to improve the image of social workers.

  Care Homes
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many care home beds there were, broken down by local authority in England in each year since 1997. [42237]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on the total number of residential care places by Local Authority for the years 1997 to 2001 is shown in Table 1. Information on nursing care beds by Health Authority is shown in Table 2.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many care homes have closed in(a) Shropshire and (b) the West Midlands since 1997. [44677]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 21 March 2002]: The information on the number of residential and nursing care homes in Shropshire and West Midlands is shown in the table at 31 March each year. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the extent to which people are inappropriately placed in(a) residential care homes and (b) nursing homes; and what steps he is taking to ensure appropriate placements. [45627]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Audit Commission's report "The coming of age", published in 1997 and subsequent work by the Department of Health, confirmed that better assessment and the development of preventative and rehabilitative services, could lead to more appropriate and effective permanent placements of state-funded individuals in residential care and nursing homes.

  Since then through the NHS Plan and the National Service Framework for Older People, the Department has introduced a single assessment process to ensure that individual's needs are assessed in the round, and funded the development of a range of preventive and intermediate care services. These developments will help to ensure that older people and other adults, wherever possible, are only admitted to residential accommodation when necessary.

  Strategic Health Authorities
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what ceiling he has put on start up costs for the new strategic health authorities; and whether this is in ratio to the size of the population served. [42172]

  Mr. Hutton
  New Strategic Health Authorities will have a cap on their staffing numbers of 75 staff and £4 million running costs but the exact amount per authority will be determined by their franchise plan. The functions of the strategic health authorities are substantially the same across all 28 irrespective of size of the population they serve.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the costs of establishing the North Yorkshire and Humberside Strategic Health
  921W
  Authority (a) in new purpose-built health premises on the York Science Park and (b) by converting the existing NHS property at Willeby. [42094]

  Jacqui Smith
  The only cost incurred in provisionally locating and establishing the Strategic Health Authority (StHA) HQ for North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire is for the rent of two offices in the York Science Park for February and March 2002. This will be approximately £3,500. This is the Project Office for the Strategic Health Authority pending a discussion about its permanent location.

  On 20 March 2002, the StHA shadow Board discussed the option appraisal and work in progress to produce an outline business case. It was unanimously agreed that appropriate criteria had been used to inform the option appraisal on the location of the StHA and that the decision made by the Chairman and Chief Executive (Designate) to accept the recommendation of the York Science Park was supported. Formal consideration of the outline business case will be part of the first StHA Board Meeting on 18 April 2002.

  All the existing NHS accommodation, including the accommodation currently occupied by the East Riding and Hull Health Authority at Willerby, is proposed for future use in each locality and will largely accommodate primary care trust staff including shared services to support these organisations. For this reason, no estimate was made of the cost of establishing the North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire StHA HQ at Willberby.

  Folic Acid
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to introduce folic acid supplements into flour; [42086]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the costs and benefits of the introduction of folic acid into flour. [42085]

  Yvette Cooper
  A consultation document on whether or not to fortify wheat flour with folic acid was issued in July 2000 jointly by the Department and the Food Standards Agency (FSA). This was based on the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy (2000) conclusion that fortification of wheat flour with folic acid would help reduce the number of births affected by neural tube defects. The consultation responses have been analysed and a summary is posted on the DH website.

  Following the consultation, the Department and FSA undertook or commissioned further work to address concerns raised. This work included a preliminary cost-benefit analyses. However, there are considerable uncertainties on key costs and effectiveness variables. The analyses took account of the increased risk of neuropathy in the elderly as well as the benefits of reduced risks of birth defects.

  The policy options will need to be considered by the FSA Board as well as Health Ministers. The UK Health Departments and the FSA held a stakeholders meeting on 18 March 2002 to discuss the issue and inform policy decisions.

  Breast Cancer
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision is being made to ensure that there are sufficient specialist breast cancer consultants, surgeons and nurses in the North West in the next 10 years. [41939]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: The NHS Plan set out our commitment to increasing the workforce and the NHS Cancer Plan confirmed our commitment to investment in the cancer workforce. Cancer networks (including those in the North West) nationally have recently been completing a number of toolkits which have looked at both clinician and nursing posts. Cancer networks are expected to audit their workforce requirements as part of the national standards for cancer. This is monitored through the peer review appraisal process. This information will continue to be used so that appropriate workforce development programmes are in place, which will help ensure that sufficient numbers of breast cancer consultants, surgeons and nurses are in place for future years.

  Indium III Octreotide Imaging
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS hospital trusts are able to offer Indium III Octreotide imaging tests. [42276]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: The approved name for the radiopharmaceutical Indium III Octreotide is Indium III Pentetreotide. A list of the National Health Service hospital trusts where clinicians hold certificates to administer this product for imaging tests is shown in the list.

  PQ 6103 NHS Trusts in England where clinicians hold certificates for Indium III Pentetreotide

  Addenbrooke's

  Aintree Hospitals

  Airedale

  Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals

  Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals

  Bart's and the London

  Basildon and Thurrock General Hospitals

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital

  Bolton Hospitals

  Bradford Hospitals

  Brighton Health Care

  Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals

  Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare

  Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospital

  Christie Hospital

  City Hospital Birmingham

  City Hospitals Sunderland

  Countess of Chester Hospital

  Dartford and Gravesham

  East Kent Hospitals

  East Somerset

  Eastbourne Hospitals

  Epsom and St. Helier

  Essex Rivers Healthcare

  Frimley Park Hospital

  923W

  Gateshead Health

  Gloucestershire Royal

  Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children

  Guy's and St. Thomas's Hospital

  Hammersmith Hospitals

  Harrogate Health Care

  Hastings and Rother

  Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals

  Kettering General Hospital

  King's College Hospital

  Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells

  Mid Sussex Primary Care

  Morecambe Bay Hospitals

  Norfolk and Norwich Healthcare

  North Bristol

  North Cumbria Acute

  North Cumbria Acute Hospitals

  North Manchester Healthcare

  North Middlesex University Hospital

  North Tees and Hartlepool

  Northampton General Hospital

  Nottingham City Hospital

  Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals

  Peterborough Hospitals

  Plymouth Hospitals

  Poole Hospitals

  Portsmouth Hospitals

  Preston Acute Hospitals

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital

  Rotherham General Hospitals

  Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals

  Royal Brompton and Harefield

  Royal Cornwall Hospitals

  Royal Devon and Exeter Healthcare

  Royal Free Hampstead

  Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals

  Royal Liverpool Children's

  Royal Surrey County Hospital

  Royal United Hospital Bath

  Salford Royal Hospitals

  Scarborough and North East Yorkshire Health Care

  Sheffield Teaching Hospitals

  Sherwood Forest Hospitals

  South Devon Healthcare

  South Manchester University Hospitals

  South West London Community

  Southampton University Hospitals

  Southend Healthcare

  Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospitals

  St. George's Healthcare

  St. Mary's

  Stockport

  Surrey and Sussex Healthcare

  Swindon and Marlborough

  Tameside and Glossop Acute Services

  Taunton and Somerset

  The Dudley Group of Hospitals

  The Ipswich Hospital

  924W

  The Leeds Teaching Hospitals

  The Lewisham Hospital

  The Medway

  The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals

  The Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals

  The Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals

  The Royal Marsden Hospital

  The Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals

  United Bristol Healthcare

  University College London Hospitals

  University Hospital Birmingham

  University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire

  University Hospitals of Leicester

  West Hertfordshire Hospitals

  West London Hospitals

  West Suffolk Hospitals

  Whittington Hospital

  Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh Health Services

  York Health Services

  Diabetes
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether the national standards framework for diabetes delivery strategy will include a commitment to a systematic approach to targeted screening of at risk groups for Type II diabetes; [42711]

  (2) what recent research his Department has commissioned into the numbers of children diagnosed with type II diabetes resulting from obesity; [42722]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the long-term potential financial savings to the NHS to be made from screening for Type II diabetes. [42710]

  Jacqui Smith
  Diabetes is becoming more common, even among children, as the population becomes more overweight and sedentary. We are taking forward a wide range of work across Government to tackle 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 Service Framework standards, published last December.

  We have asked the UK National Screening Committee to assess the benefits and drawbacks of screening for Type II diabetes. The Committee will make recommendations in 2005.

  Mental Health
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the budget of the Mental Health Review Tribunal is; and what plans he has to increase research for the Mental Health Review Tribunal; [42939]

  (2) when he last met the Chairman of the Mental Health Review Tribunal; and if he will make a statement. [42940]
  925W
  Jacqui Smith
  Expenditure on the mental health review tribunal in 2000–01 is likely to be just under £12 million, the cost of running the administrative function is just under £2 million. Figures for actual expenditure will not be available until after the end of the financial year.

  The Department currently has no plans to commission new research for the mental health review tribunal but does, as part of its normal activity, collect and analyse data to support both the judicial and administrative functions of the tribunal.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not had occasion to meet any of the four regional chairmen for the tribunal in England.

  Nursing Staff
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 4 March 2002,Official Report, column 141 W, on nursing staff, what his targets are for

  Partnerships and single-handed partnerships of unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs)1 in England by 2001 Health Authorities, 1997–2001

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Region name

  HA name

  HA code

  All partnerships

  of which which single-handed

  All parnterships

  of which single-handed

  All partnerships

  of which single- handed

  All partnerships

  of which single- handed

  All partnerships

  of which single- handed

  Northern & Yorkshire

  Bradford HA

  QDD

  96

  32

  98

  35

  100

  38

  98

  37

  98

  34

  Calderdale & Kirklees HA

  QDT

  113

  46

  111

  41

  112

  39

  110

  39

  111

  38

  County Durham Health commission

  QDE

  86

  20

  88

  26

  87

  23

  85

  22

  86

  22

  East Riding HA

  QDF

  102

  33

  100

  32

  98

  33

  97

  34

  97

  32

  Gateshead & South Tyneside HA

  QDG

  62

  20

  62

  19

  59

  18

  60

  16

  62

  17

  Leeds Healthcare

  QDH

  125

  28

  124

  27

  126

  29

  125

  26

  125

  29

  Newcastle & North Tyneside HA

  QDJ

  75

  11

  74

  10

  73

  9

  70

  7

  69

  6

  North Cumbria HA

  QDK

  56

  12

  56

  11

  55

  9

  55

  10

  55

  11

  North Yorkshire HA

  QDR

  112

  14

  111

  12

  109

  10

  108

  10

  110

  13

  Northumberland HA

  QDM

  51

  9

  53

  9

  53

  10

  53

  11

  52

  10

  Sunderland HA

  QDN

  52

  15

  54

  18

  54

  17

  55

  18

  54

  15

  Tees HA

  QDP

  84

  19

  88

  24

  84

  18

  81

  15

  81

  12

  Wakefield Health Care

  QDQ

  45

  8

  45

  7

  44

  8

  44

  8

  44

  7

  Trent

  Barnsley HA

  QCG

  43

  15

  41

  12

  41

  14

  43

  16

  43

  16

  Doncaster HA

  QCK

  53

  20

  52

  19

  53

  21

  52

  21

  51

  18

  Leicestershire HA

  QCL

  156

  48

  157

  50

  153

  49

  149

  46

  150

  45

  Lincolnshire HA

  QCM

  105

  20

  104

  21

  108

  23

  106

  23

  106

  23

  North Derbyshire HA

  QCH

  62

  16

  61

  12

  60

  10

  59

  11

  59

  8

  North Nottinghamshire HA

  QCN

  60

  17

  63

  19

  63

  19

  62

  17

  63

  18

  Nottingham HA

  QCP

  116

  32

  117

  33

  119

  35

  119

  32

  118

  30

  Rotherham HA

  QCQ

  41

  17

  41

  17

  41

  18

  40

  15

  40

  15

  Sheffield HA

  QCR

  107

  24

  99

  14

  98

  13

  97

  13

  95

  10

  South Humber HA

  QDL

  64

  28

  62

  26

  61

  26

  58

  25

  58

  25

  Southern Derbyshire HA

  QCJ

  86

  16

  84

  13

  80

  13

  81

  10

  80

  12

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire HA

  QA6

  93

  25

  94

  26

  92

  23

  93

  24

  92

  24

  Cambridgeshire HA

  QER

  106

  10

  105

  9

  103

  10

  109

  15

  110

  18

  Hertfordshire

  QEX

  143

  27

  144

  31

  139

  24

  140

  28

  138

  29

  Norfolk HA

  QET

  109

  18

  109

  18

  110

  14

  106

  10

  106

  10

  North Essex HA

  QAX

  137

  27

  138

  27

  138

  28

  140

  31

  134

  25

  South Essex HA

  QAY

  146

  68

  147

  69

  147

  72

  148

  74

  144

  70

  Suffolk HA

  QCF

  92

  13

  93

  13

  92

  12

  92

  13

  93

  16

  London

  Barking & Havering HA

  QAP

  99

  57

  96

  51

  97

  53

  97

  50

  98

  54

  Barnet, Enfield & Haringey HA

  QEW

  203

  86

  206

  91

  206

  94

  207

  95

  209

  93

  Bexley, Bromley & Greenwich HA

  QEY

  144

  58

  145

  59

  146

  62

  143

  55

  143

  58

  Brent & Harrow HA

  QAR

  124

  54

  122

  53

  120

  51

  117

  49

  119

  46

  Camden & Islington HA

  QAT

  102

  49

  106

  56

  98

  46

  98

  46

  97

  44

  Croydon HA

  QAD

  69

  24

  70

  23

  70

  25

  68

  24

  67

  27

  926W
  filling modern matron posts; and what additional funding has been made available to help fill these posts. [42620]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 12 March 2002]: When launching guidance to the NHS in April 2001, we announced that there would be around 2,000 matrons throughout the NHS by 2004, and 500 in post by April 2002. Posts are funded from general allocations to Health Authorities.

  GP Surgeries
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many (i) GP surgeries and (ii) single handed GP surgeries there have been in each of the last five years for which figures are available, broken down by(a) region and (b) health authority. [42586]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 12 March 2002]: The information requested is shown in the table. The table identifies all General Practitioner partnerships (but not individual GP surgeries) including those "partnerships of one", by region and health authority. Some GPs who practice without being in partnership with another doctor may have a salaried Assistant or may work in a group practice.
  927W

  Partnerships and single-handed partnerships of unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs)1 in England by 2001 Health Authorities, 1997–2001

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Region name

  HA name

  HA code

  All partnerships

  of which which single-handed

  All parnterships

  of which single- handed

  All partnerships

  of which single- handed

  All partnerships

  of which single- handed

  All partnerships

  of which single- handed

  Ealing, Hammersmith & Hounslow HA

  QAV

  196

  94

  188

  84

  190

  86

  189

  90

  188

  89

  East London & The City HA

  QAW

  165

  75

  166

  77

  164

  72

  165

  74

  161

  75

  Hillingdon HA

  QA2

  55

  21

  55

  23

  52

  18

  53

  22

  53

  19

  Kensington, Chelsea & Westminster HA

  QA3

  106

  59

  104

  57

  102

  54

  99

  48

  99

  46

  Kingston & Richmond HA

  QAG

  62

  18

  61

  18

  61

  18

  62

  18

  60

  15

  Lambeth, Southwark & Lewisham HA

  QAH

  162

  62

  166

  62

  162

  60

  159

  57

  161

  56

  Merton, Sutton & Wandsworth HA

  QAJ

  132

  46

  128

  42

  124

  39

  118

  35

  115

  32

  Redbridge & Waltham Forest HA

  QA5

  120

  63

  123

  58

  119

  57

  116

  54

  121

  63

  South Eastern

  Berkshire HA

  QA7

  116

  27

  117

  29

  121

  31

  118

  30

  118

  28

  Buckinghamshire HA

  QA8

  92

  9

  95

  13

  95

  11

  95

  9

  92

  5

  East Kent HA

  QAE

  110

  47

  109

  43

  106

  37

  102

  31

  101

  30

  East Surrey HA

  QAK

  62

  10

  61

  11

  60

  11

  61

  12

  57

  11

  East Sussex, Brighton & Hove HA

  QAM

  137

  44

  136

  39

  135

  39

  132

  34

  131

  34

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth & South East Hampshire HA

  QEV

  99

  13

  96

  10

  97

  11

  96

  10

  94

  8

  North & Mid Hampshire HA

  QD1

  69

  9

  67

  6

  66

  6

  65

  5

  66

  7

  Northamptonshire HA

  QCC

  82

  10

  83

  12

  79

  12

  76

  10

  76

  8

  Oxfordshire HA

  QCE

  87

  10

  87

  10

  88

  8

  87

  8

  86

  6

  Southampton & South West Kent HA

  QD3

  79

  13

  78

  12

  78

  11

  79

  11

  78

  10

  West Kent HA

  QAF

  213

  93

  215

  96

  208

  89

  204

  82

  204

  85

  West Surrey HA

  QAL

  86

  16

  86

  16

  84

  14

  85

  15

  84

  14

  West Sussex HA

  QAN

  98

  10

  96

  8

  100

  11

  97

  10

  95

  10

  South Western

  Avon HA

  QD8

  147

  19

  147

  22

  147

  19

  146

  22

  145

  19

  Cornwall & Isles of Stilly HA

  QDV

  77

  5

  76

  5

  76

  4

  75

  3

  74

  2

  Dorset HA

  QDW

  108

  17

  108

  15

  110

  16

  110

  16

  109

  15

  Gloucestershire HA

  QDY

  84

  4

  84

  4

  85

  4

  85

  4

  85

  4

  North & East Devon HA

  QDX

  76

  7

  76

  7

  76

  8

  77

  9

  76

  9

  Somerset HA

  QD5

  75

  10

  76

  12

  77

  11

  77

  11

  76

  7

  South & West Devon HA

  QD6

  102

  16

  102

  16

  102

  17

  102

  16

  102

  16

  Wiltshire HA

  QD7

  92

  22

  91

  17

  94

  19

  94

  18

  94

  19

  West Midlands

  Birmingham HA

  QD9

  247

  107

  245

  109

  242

  100

  239

  97

  239

  100

  Coventry HA

  QEA

  65

  21

  66

  22

  67

  22

  66

  21

  64

  19

  Dudley HA

  QEC

  63

  24

  61

  22

  60

  23

  59

  21

  59

  21

  Herefordshire HA

  QED

  26

  2

  27

  2

  26

  2

  26

  2

  25

  1

  North Staffordshire HA

  QEH

  101

  44

  102

  43

  103

  45

  102

  46

  99

  44

  Sandwell HA

  QEE

  70

  28

  69

  28

  68

  27

  67

  27

  69

  32

  Shropshire HA

  QEF

  65

  7

  65

  6

  67

  7

  67

  9

  67

  10

  Solihull HA

  QEG

  32

  6

  32

  7

  34

  9

  32

  5

  31

  3

  South Staffordshire HA

  QEJ

  97

  38

  99

  40

  102

  43

  101

  42

  105

  50

  Walsall HA

  QEK

  72

  39

  70

  38

  69

  38

  68

  36

  67

  38

  Warwickshire HA

  QEL

  81

  18

  79

  16

  75

  12

  76

  12

  75

  11

  Wolverhampton HA

  QEM

  64

  31

  65

  36

  67

  40

  70

  40

  69

  40

  Worcestershire HA

  QEN

  67

  4

  68

  4

  68

  4

  68

  4

  68

  4

  North West

  Bury & Rochdale HA

  QCT

  79

  29

  78

  25

  79

  26

  80

  28

  75

  22

  East Lancashire HA

  QCX

  112

  43

  111

  41

  115

  46

  110

  43

  109

  41

  Liverpool HA

  QC2

  106

  42

  106

  45

  105

  45

  108

  49

  105

  46

  Manchester Health

  QC3

  109

  36

  109

  40

  110

  38

  107

  34

  110

  37

  Morecambe Bay HA

  QC4

  59

  17

  59

  16

  59

  15

  59

  16

  59

  18

  North Cheshire HA

  QCV

  46

  14

  47

  14

  49

  16

  48

  13

  49

  14

  North West Lancashire HA

  QCY

  91

  34

  91

  33

  89

  32

  89

  31

  86

  28

  Salford & Trafford HA

  QC6

  113

  51

  114

  47

  114

  50

  115

  54

  109

  49

  Sefton HA

  QC7

  53

  17

  53

  16

  53

  17

  53

  16

  52

  18

  South Cheshire HA

  QCW

  93

  9

  93

  6

  95

  9

  94

  9

  94

  9

  South Lancashire HA

  QC1

  65

  22

  69

  27

  67

  25

  66

  25

  66

  24

  St. Helen's & Knowsley HA

  QC5

  76

  26

  76

  25

  76

  24

  77

  28

  77

  30

  Stockport Health

  QC8

  60

  20

  60

  17

  60

  15

  59

  14

  59

  17

  West Pennine HA

  QC9

  91

  35

  92

  33

  91

  28

  93

  32

  91

  31

  Wigan & Bolton HA

  QDA

  128

  59

  128

  57

  123

  53

  125

  51

  118

  45

  Wirral HA

  QDC

  64

  11

  63

  11

  64

  11

  65

  10

  63

  10

  England Total

  9,003

  2,719

  8,994

  2,683

  8,944

  2,631

  8,878

  2,575

  8,817

  2,534

  1 UPEs include GMS unrestricted principals, PMS contracted GPs and PMS salaried GPs. Data as at 1 October 1997 to 1999 and 30 September 2000 and 2001.

  Source:

  General and Personal Medical Services Statistics
  928W

  Appeals Panels
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that NHS trusts establish appeals panels promptly. [40018]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 12 March 2002]: The Department is currently discussing new doctors' disciplinary procedures with the British Medical Association. This will include the handling of local appeals by NHS employers.

  The aim is to develop a national system that will provide for fair, quicker and more effective local procedures.

  Blood Donation
  Mr. Havard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who, on behalf of his Department, is conducting the assessment into the possible exclusion of transfusion recipients giving blood; and how many years in retrospect the assessment will cover. [42794]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 12 March 2002]: The Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Blood and Tissues has asked the Department's Economics and Operational Research Division to assess the impact of excluding transfusion recipients from donating blood on possible secondary infections of variant CJD, assuming blood to be infective. This risk assessment is still in progress and consequently no decision has been taken into the possible exclusion of transfusion recipients giving blood.

  Health Expenditure
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer given to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) of 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 391W, on health expenditure, if he will list the expenditure on health by weighted head of population in real terms for each health authority area, to include expenditure accounted for by (a) the Dental Practice Board and (b) the Prescription Pricing Authority. [42800]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 12 March 2002]: Expenditure per weighted head of population is not a reliable indicator to compare different health authorities. Allocations per weighted head are a much more reliable indicator.

  Expenditure by the Dental Practice Board and the Prescription Pricing Authority is not attributed to individual health authorities in their annual accounts.

  Public Appointments
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many appointments to public bodies have been made through his Department(a) from April 2000 to March 2001 and (b) since 31 March 2001; and how many of these were (i) men and (ii) women. [42158]
  930W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 12 March 2002]: The number of men and women appointed, or re-appointed, to bodies sponsored by this Department during the period in question is as follows.

  Period

  Men appointed

  Women appointed

  1 April 2000–31 March 2001

  1,125

  942

  1 April 2001–28 February 2002

  836

  693

  As well as appointments made by Ministers, the figures include appointments made by the National Health Service Appointments Commission to NHS trusts, health authorities and primary care trusts since the Commission's estalishment in April 2001.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many answers to parliamentary questions, are more than(a) two weeks and (b) three months outstanding; and if he will make a statement. [43926]

  Ms Blears
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on 13 March 2002,Official Report, column 1147W.

  As at the end of business on 25 March there were 22 parliamentary questions outstanding that were due for answer on or before 28 February.

  Correspondence
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West dated 19 November 2001 relating to Dr. Sheikh, a constituent. [44291]

  Mr. Hutton
  A reply was sent on 15 March.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to reply to the letter dated 4 December 2001 addressed to the Minister for Local Government and transferred to his Department on 10 January about the availability of benefits to the disabled within unitary authorities. [44305]

  Jacqui Smith
  A reply was sent on 12 March.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason the letter of 26 September 2001 to him from the hon. Member for Fareham was answered on 15 March. [45802]

  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise for the delay in replying to your letter of 26 September. This was caused by the letter being mislaid within the Department.

  Home Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 12 March 2002,Official Report, column 1022W, on home care, how many households, in each of the last five years for which figures are available received (a) up to five contact hours, (b) five to 10 contact hours and (c) more than 10 contact hours of intensive home care during a survey

  931W
  week (i) per thousand head of population aged 65 or over and (ii) per total number of people aged 65 or over. [44673]

  Households receiving home help/home care by contact hours Rates per 1,000 households and 1,000 population aged 65 or over

  Percentage of households receiving

  Up to 5 hours

  69

  65

  62

  59

  58

  5 to 10 hours

  30

  20

  21

  25

  23

  More than 10 hours

  —

  15

  17

  19

  19

  Number of households receiving intensive home care1

  —

  61,200

  67,000

  72,100

  76,400

  Rate per 1,000 households 65+

  —

  12

  13

  14

  15

  Rate per 1,000 population 65+ (C28)

  —

  7.8

  8.8

  9.2

  —

  1 From 1998 intensive home care/home help is defined as six or more visits with more than 10 contact hours, prior to this the criterion was six or more visits with five or more contact hours

  — Not available

  Source:

  DH HH1 Return

  Hospital Patients
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 13 March 2002,Official Report, column 1141W, on people remaining in hospital, what estimate he has made of the cost of, and what assessment he has made for the case for, social services departments being charged by the NHS for people who remain in hospital, after being medically discharged; and if he will make a statement. [44675]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 21 March 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave him on Wednesday 13 March 2002, Official Report, column 1141W.

  Primary Health Care Trusts (Wirral)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the membership of the two primary health care trusts for the Wirral. [44994]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 21 March 2002]: The non-executive members of the Primary Care Trusts are as follows:

  Bebington and West Wirral PCT

  Mr. Charles Pursglove (Chair)

  Mr. James Burns

  Mrs. Marion Cureton

  Dr. William Foggin

  Mrs. Ruth Shaw

  Mrs. Alexandra Wall

  Wallasey and Birkenhead PCT

  Mrs. Muriel Downs MBE

  Mr. Raymond Allen

  Lord Michael Chan

  Mr. Frederick Corkhill

  Mrs. Rosaleen Dixon

  Mr. Peter Russell.

  Hospital Readmissions
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many readmissions within 30 days there were to hospitals in Shropshire in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001. [44678]
  932W
  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 21 March 2002]: The available information is shown in the following table.

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 21 March 2002]: The Department of Health publishes statistics on emergency re-admission to hospital within 28 days of the last, previous discharge from hospital.

  The figures in the table are from The Royal Shrewsbury Hospital. This is the only hospital within the Shropshire Health Authority that has data that meets this statistic.

  Number of discharges

  Number of re-admissions

  Percentage of re-admissions, indirectly age and sex standardised

  2000–01

  42,786

  2,821

  6.53

  1999–2000

  41,212

  2,495

  6.00

  1998–99

  40,293

  2,360

  5.85

  Care Home Beds
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many care home beds were available in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000 and (e) 2001 in Shropshire. [44680]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 21 March 2002]: The information on the number of residential and nursing care beds in Shropshire is shown in the table at 31 March each year.

  Residential and nursing care beds in Shropshire1, 1997 to 2001

  At 31 March

  Rounded numbers

  Total number of registered care beds

  Residential care beds

  Nursing care beds2

  19973

  5,000

  3,090

  1,920

  1998

  5,950

  4,030

  1,920

  1999

  5,430

  3,470

  1,970

  2000

  5,320

  3,390

  1,930

  2001

  5,310

  3,430

  1,880

  1 Information on residential care for 1999 onwards is presented for Shropshire County Council and Telford and Wrekin Unitary Authority.

  2 Includes beds in private hospitals and clinics.

  3 Nursing beds relate to the period 1 October 1996 to 31 March 1997.

  Source:

  Department of Health's annual returns.

  NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency will publish its annual business plan. [46859]

  Ms Blears
  We are pleased to announce that the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency's annual business plan has been published and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Medical Devices Agency
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the key targets for 2002–03 for the Medical Devices Agency. [46860]

  Ms Blears
  We have agreed the Agency's key targets for 2002–03 and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Nursing and Midwifery and Health Professions Councils
  Alan Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if appointments have been made to the Nursing and Midwifery and Health Professions Councils in readiness for their formal establishment on 1 April. [46929]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Nursing and Midwifery and Health Professions Orders 2001 provide for the Privy Council to make appointments to the new Councils. I can confirm that members have accepted the invitations to serve for a three-year term from 1 April 2002. The following is a list of their names.

  Nursing and Midwifery Council

  President

  Jonathan Asbridge—England

  Practitioner members

  Nurses

  Jonathan Asbridge—England

  Sharon Hall—Wales

  Kathleen McLean—Scotland

  Mary Hanratty—Northern Ireland

  Midwives

  Catherine Warwick—England

  Jean Keats—Wales

  Heather Shaw—Scotland

  Elizabeth Bannon—Northern Ireland

  Health Visitors

  Bronya Webster—England

  Marianne Cowpe—Wales

  Ishbel White—Scotland

  Fiona Wright—Northern Ireland

  Alternate members

  Nurses

  Professor David Sines—England

  Elizabeth Hewett—Wales

  Nancy Kirkland—Scotland

  Angela O'Connor—Northern Ireland

  Midwives

  Professor Paul Lewis—England

  Christine Hayes—Wales

  Mary Vance—Scotland

  Eileen Pollock—Northern Ireland

  934W
  Health Visitors

  Heather Livesey—England

  Angela Roberts—Wales

  Sheena Wright—Scotland

  Maureen Jamison—Northern Ireland

  Lay (Others)

  Education

  Professor Gordon Dickson—Scotland

  Professor Donald Pennington—England

  NHS Employers

  Catherine Gritzner—England

  Non-NHS Employers

  Trevor Purt—England

  Lay (users)

  Jill Carter—England

  Christina Funnell—England

  William Buxton—England

  Moi Ali—Scotland

  Alan Ferguson OBE—Northern Ireland

  John Leece Jones—Wales

  Health Professions Council

  President

  Professor Norma Brook—England

  Practitioner members

  Professor Diane Waller (Arts Therapists)—England

  Pamela Sabine (Chiropodists)—England

  Dr John Old (Clinical Scientists)—England

  Morag MacKellar (Dietitians)—Scotland

  Neil Willis (Medical Laboratory Technicians)—Wales

  Mary Crawford (Occupational Therapists)—England

  Clare McGartland (Orthoptists)—Northern Ireland

  Joanna Manning (Paramedics)—England

  Dr Robert Jones (Physiotherapists)—England

  William Munro (Prosthetists & Orthotists)—Scotland

  Dr Alexander Yule (Radiographers)—Wales

  Dr Anna Van Der Gaag (Speech & Language Therapists)—Scotland

  Alternate members

  Michael Barham (Arts Therapists)—England

  Paul Frowen (Chiropodists)—Wales

  Dr Graham Beastall (Clinical Scientists)—Scotland

  Gillian Pearson (Dietitians)—England

  Gordon Sutehall (Medical Laboratory Technicians)—England

  Carol Lloyd (Occupational Therapists)—England

  Helen Davis (Orthoptists)—England

  Michael Collins (Paramedics)—Wales

  Eileen Thornton (Physiotherapists)—England

  Laurence Hughes (Prosthetists & Orthotists)—Northern Ireland

  Rosemary Klem (Radiographers)—England

  Jacqueline Pearce (Speech & language Therapists)—England

  Lay Members

  Education

  Professor Anthony Hazell—Wales

  Professor John Harper—Scotland

  NHS employers

  Robert Clegg—England

  Non-NHS employers

  Shaheen Chaudhry—England

  935W
  Lay (users)

  Jacqueline Stark—England

  Professor John Lilleyman—England

  Anne Foster—England

  Keith Ross—Scotland

  Christine Farrell—England

  Barbara Stuart—Northern Ireland

  Colin Lea—Wales

  Professor Jeffrey Lucas—England

  No Secrets Guidance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make his policy to include adult protection indicators arising from the implementation of No Secrets in the performance indicator framework; and if he will make a statement. [45634]

  (2) when the Social Services Inspectorate plans to inspect social services' implementation of the No Secrets guidance. [45625]

  Jacqui Smith
  This Department is not currently planning to inspect local councils for compliance with the "No Secrets" guidance. We have commissioned the Centre for Policy on Ageing to undertake an analysis of all local council multi-agency codes of practice. Once the results of this work are made available a decision will be made on the need to follow up the "No Secrets" guidance.

  At present there are no plans to include a specific adult protection indicator in the Personal Social Services Performance Assessment Framework. There are however several existing indicators of relevance to adult protection (for example emergency admissions, avoidable harm from falls and hypothermia, clients receiving reviews and inspections of residential care). A decision on including a specific adult protection indicator will be made once the Centre for Policy on Ageing have concluded their analysis.

  Community Pharmacists
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to utilise community pharmacists in the review of medication of older people. [45642]

  Jacqui Smith
  The NHS Plan set a target for all Primary Care Trusts to have schemes in place so that people get more help from pharmacists in using their medicines by 2004.

  The National Service Framework (NSF) for Older People highlighted the importance of medication review and the role pharmacists can play in helping older people take their medicines more effectively.

  We are investing in medicines management services including through the collaborative hosted by the National Prescribing Centre. This initiative will build on and complement other local initiatives through which community pharmacists are involved in reviewing the medication of older people, as promoted in the NSF.

  Nursing Care Payments
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those homes which have received a letter 936W
  from the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), following representations regarding the failure to pass on the free nursing care payments to residents. [45698]

  Jacqui Smith
  I wrote to four national care home providers about their fees and charging structures in the light of the introduction of National Health Service funded nursing care following the receipt of correspondence from concerned individuals. As a result of the responses received, on 11 March I announced my intention to issue a national model contract; to amend regulation 5 of the Care Home Regulations; and to ask the National Care Standards Commission to ensure that the minimum standard relating to contracts was enforced.

  Domiciliary Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are in place to prevent(a) financial, (b) sexual, (c) physical and (d) mental abuse against older people in home care settings. [45624]

  Jacqui Smith
  Statutory guidance on the prevention of elder abuse, "No Secrets", was issued on 20 March 2000 to councils with social services responsibilities. This required the implementation of local multi-agency codes of practice by 31 October 2001.

  Care providers registered with the National Care Standards Commission will be required to comply with the protection of vulnerable adults scheme from 1 August 2002.

  The National Care Standards Commission will take account of National Minimum Standards for domiciliary care agencies in deciding whether agencies comply with the forthcoming Domiciliary Care Agencies Regulations. The prevention of financial, sexual, physical and mental abuse in the home care setting will be an essential part of the National Minimum Standards.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to publish the Protection of Vulnerable Adults consultation document. [45635]

  Jacqui Smith
  We are planning to begin a consultation exercise involving all relevant stake-holders within the next few months.

  Care Home Standards
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the National Care Standards Commission will take with those care homes that fail to comply with the Care Standards Act 2000 Part 11, section 11(1) by 1 April. [45630]

  Jacqui Smith
  Providers who have submitted applications for registration by 31 March 2002 will be given transitional protection from section 11(1) of the Care Standards Act until their application can be processed by the National Care Standards Commission. Providers who fail to submit their application for registration by 31 March will be committing an offence under section 11(1) of the Act. However, before taking prosecution action as set out at section 11(5), we would expect the Commission to take account of the relevant circumstances.

  Bioterrorism
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what actions the Government have undertaken to warn the public(a) about possible bio-terrorist attacks and (b) of the symptoms of smallpox. [44010]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has not issued guidance to the public about possible bio-terrorist attacks as it is not currently considered that a specific or credible threat exists to the UK.

  Guidance was issued to all health authorities and Regional Directors of Public Health on the procedures to be followed in the event of a deliberate release of smallpox and other biological agents on 17 October 2001. At the same time, guidance for medical and laboratory staff was issued by the Public Health Laboratory Service on 17 October 2001. This is available on the PHLS website: http://www.phls.co.uk/advice/smallpox—guidelines.pdf. This is also available to the public. Guidance is also available to the public from NHS Direct.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he plans to deal with the revenue consequences of capital schemes which are in progress, but not yet in use, in making allocations to PCTs; and if he will list the(a) PCTs affected and (b) related capital schemes. [46413]

  Mr. Hutton
  We currently allocate funding to health authorities, and they allocate funding to primary care trusts, on the basis of the relative needs of their populations. A weighted capitation formula is used to determine each health authority and primary care trust's fair share of available resources, to enable them to commission similar levels of services for populations in equal need.

  In future the intention is that allocations will be made direct to primary care trusts. This is subject to the passage of legislation through Parliament. Allocations will continue to be based on the principle of weighted capitation. PCTs will meet the revenue consequences of capital schemes that are in progress but not completed from these allocations.

  Information for (a) and (b) is not centrally available.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he plans to allocate money to PCTs in order that they can meet expenditure associated with functions delegated to them; and when such allocations will be made. [46414]
  938W
  Mr. Hutton
  We currently allocate funding to health authorities, and they allocate funding to primary care trusts, on the basis of the relative needs of their populations. A weighted capitation formula is used to determine each health authority and primary care trust's fair share of available resources, to enable them to commission similar levels of services for populations in equal need.

  In future the intention is that allocations will be made direct to primary care trusts. This is subject to the passage of legislation through Parliament. Allocations will continue to be based on the principle of weighted capitation.

  We announced allocations to health authorities for 2002–03 on 6 December 2001. Health authorities are setting initial primary care trust allocations for 2002–03 for those functions for which primary care trusts will be responsible from 1 April 2002. Subject to Parliament the intention is that further functions will be devolved to primary care trusts from 1 October 2002. Primary care trust allocations will be reset to cover these functions.

  Faversham Cottage Hospital
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health further to his answer of 19 March 2002,Official Report, column 308W, on cottage hospitals, what funding is available to Faversham Cottage Hospital to develop its role. [46312]

  Hazel Blears
  The information requested is not collected centrally. The information is available from the Chairman of the East Kent Community NHS Trust.

  Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals NHS Trust
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many trolley waits of over four hours in locations other than within the accident and emergency department there were at the Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals NHS Trust in each month between January 2001 and February 2002; [46503]

  (2) how many operations were cancelled on the day before an operation had been scheduled at the Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals NHS Trust in each month between January 2000 and February 2002. [46502]

  Ms Blears
  This is day to day management information and is not available centrally.

  Information is not collected centrally in the format requested.
  939W
  Information on the number of operations cancelled at the last minute for non-medical reasons, and breaches to the standard to re-admit patients within one month following such cancellations, are collected on a quarterly basis at health authority level and placed in the Library. The latest figures are for Quarter 2 (July-September) of the 2001–02 financial year.

  NHS Finance
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the overspend is in each NHS trust, PCT and health authority; [45937]

  (2) what his assessment is of the likely level of (a) underspending and (b) overspending in the NHS in 2001–02; [45936]

  (3) which (a) NHS trusts and (b) health authorities are expected to exceed their resource limits in 2001–02; and by what amount the resource limit is expected to be exceeded in each case. [46416]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are in discussions with NHS Trusts, health authorities and PCTs about managing their end-of-year positions. The information requested will be available when the annual audited accounts are completed and published.

  Smoking-related Deaths
  Mr. Ian Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many deaths there have been since May 1997 from stroke; how many of these were smoking related; and what plans he has to introduce a bill on tobacco advertising and promotion. [18463]

  Jacqui Smith
  [pursuant to her reply, 5 December 2001, c. 367W]: I regret that my previous reply was incorrect. It should read as follows:

  The table shows the number of deaths from cerebrovascular disease, including stroke, which occurred in the United Kingdom.

  Year

  United Kingdom (all ages)

  1995

  69,395

  1996

  68,506

  1997

  66,352

  1998

  66,018

  1999

  64,515

  Source:

  Office of National Statistics; ICD 9 430–438

  The latest available UK figure for the number of deaths from cerebrovascular disease, including stroke estimated to be caused by smoking is 7,300 deaths among those aged 35 and over (1995 data). These deaths represent approximately 11 per cent. of all deaths from cerebrovascular disease in the UK in that year (Christine Callum, The UK Smoking Epidemic: Deaths in 1995. Health Education Authority, 1998).

  We have recently announced that we will take the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill through the House of Commons. The Second Reading will take place on 9 April 2002.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Ports
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received about state support to British ports. [45302]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have received representations about the proposed Great Yarmouth Outer Harbour Project and about the ferry service from the Port of Rosyth to Zeebrugge. We believe that port developments and port operations should not in general need public subsidy. However, if a project has the potential to justify worthwhile economic and environmental benefits, it may qualify to be considered for an element of public funding.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the differing levels of state assistance provided to European Union ports. [45301]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The European Commission included a report on public financing and charging in European ports in its Communication on Ports, published in February 2001. We believe that state funding and subsidies are an important factor affecting competition between European ports, and we have urged the Commission to take a further look at these issues.

  British Seafarers
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 20 March 2002,Official Report, column 348W, on British seafarers, what performance indicators are used by his Department to assess the impact of (a) the Support for Maritime Training Scheme and (b) the Tonnage Tax on the training and employment of British seafarers. [46359]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The indicators are the number of trainees as given in the reply of 20 March 2002,Official Report, column 348W, to the hon. Member's previous question.

  We recognise that this falls short of the approximately 1,400 recruits a year estimated by academic studies to meet current needs at sea and future posts in the onshore maritime sector. The validity of this estimate is to be reviewed. We believe that the recent changes to the SMarT scheme, together with the tonnage tax training commitments, will lead to a significant increase in seafarer recruitment.

  Short Sea Shipping
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 20 March 2002,Official Report, column 350W, on short sea shipping, when he will publish the proposals being considered by his Department for a short sea shipping employment grant. [46362]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are awaiting the industry to publish their proposals.

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to announce the key targets for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency for 2002. [46926]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I will shortly place in the Libraries of both Houses a copy of the Agency's Business Plan, which includes its key targets for 2002–03. The key targets are:to decide on the appropriate search and rescue response to accidents and life threatening situations, and initiate action if necessary, within five minutes of being alerted in at least 95 per cent. of incidents;
  to introduce three pilot search and rescue accident prevention projects targeted at the most common incident categories and measure their impact by 31 March 2003;
  to build on the risk based approach to improve the focus of ship inspections, and deliver at least 96 per cent. of the planned inspections based on that approach;
  to increase the percentage of available surveyor time spent on surveys, inspections and related operational work by 5 per cent.
  to achieve an 80 per cent. customer satisfaction rating as a result of a survey of the shipping industry; and
  to improve our performance by 5 per cent. in regard to Service Standard 4: Issue Notices of Eligibility for admission to seafarers' examinations.

  EU State Aid
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 20 March 2002,Official Report, column 350W, on EU state aid, if he will publish the assessments made by his Department of the operation of EU state aid rules on the encouragement of national flag shipping and seafarer employment. [46361]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Our assessment, in response to the EU Commission's enquiries, is that the current state aid rules allow for increasing UK ship registration and seafarer employment. The assessment cannot be published as it contains commercially sensitive information.

  Ferry Links
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to encourage expanded ferry links between Scotland and Northern Ireland via the Lockryan ports. [45917]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: The provision of ferry services is a matter for decision by individual ferry operators and port authorities.

  Swanwick
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of closures of air traffic control sectors by the centre of Swanwick since it began operations; what the(a) dates of (b) nature of and (c) reasons for closures were; and if he will make a statement. [45652]
  942W
  Mr. Jamieson
  These are operational matters for National Air Traffic Services as the operator of Swanwick and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) as the independent aviation safety regulator. The CAA is satisfied that the operational arrangements at Swanwick are safe and it is scrutinising the performance of the system closely.

  Air Cargo
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the total net change in air cargo movements has been since 1997 for each UK airport. [45308]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This information is not available in the form requested.

  Galileo Project
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects the Galileo Project for positioning to be completed; and when he expects it to be made compulsory for air movements in EU airspace. [45307]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The upcoming Transport Council on 26 March is expected to take decisions on the development and validation phase (2002–05) of Galileo, the European Commission's global navigation satellite system. The Government understands that Galileo is expected to become operational in 2008 and that the future Galileo aviation requirements have yet to be determined.

  Airports
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the proposed international airport in Northern France on the airports in the South East of England. [45247]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The South East and East of England Regional Air Services Study (SERAS) has not undertaken an assessment of the impact of the proposed airport in northern France on airports in the study region. It should be noted that the proposed French airport is a long way from London—about the same distance as Manchester.

  Slot Allocations
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he plans to make a decision on the application for public service obligation on the Gatwick to Inverness route; and if he will make a statement on the decision of Scot Air to delete the Inverness to London-City route and its implications for security of access from Highlands to London. [45140]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 21 March 2002]: The Government will make an announcement on the application to impose a public service obligation on the Gatwick to Inverness route shortly. Scot Air's decision to cease to operate air services between Inverness and London City was a commercial one for the airline. Two other airlines continue to provide air services between Inverness and London.

  NATS
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment has been made of future funding requirements for NATS. [44338]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Mr. Pound) on Wednesday 20 March 2002,Official Report, column 353W.

  Airlines
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proposals he has to pay compensation to airlines affected by the closure of US, Israeli and central London airspace following the terrorist attacks in the USA on 11 September; and if he will make a statement. [46927]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Following my right hon. Friend's announcement on 13 December 2001,Official Report, columns 103–04W, of a scheme of financial assistance to airlines, applications for compensation have been received. These have now been scrutinised and my right hon. Friend has decided that assistance totalling some £39.7 million will be paid to 11 airlines.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what basis state aid will be paid to airlines; which ones will receive it; whether such subsidy will be made available to all UK airlines who can prove financial loss due to the events in the USA on 11 September in proportion to the downturn in traffic they have experienced since that time; whether such subsidy will include meeting losses that can be shown to have been incurred by UK airports; and if he will make a statement. [9352]

  Mr. Spellar
  Following my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State's announcement on 13 December 2001,Official Report, columns 103–04W, of a scheme of financial assistance to airlines, applications for compensation have been received. These have now been scrutinised and my right hon. Friend has decided that assistance totalling some £39.7 million will be paid to 11 airlines. Air 2000, Airtours, BA, bmi British Midland, Britannia, British European, JMC, KLM uk, Monarch, Scot Airways, Virgin Atlantic. Airports were not eligible under the scheme.

  Airport Security
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) pursuant to the answer of 19 March 2002,Official Report, column 232W, on airport security, which United Kingdom (a) airports and (b) airlines have signed up to the Voluntary Commitments on Air Passenger Rights; [46449]

  (2) what non-legally binding commitments are set out in the Voulntary Commitments on Air Passenger Rights. [46444]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Twenty UK airports have signed up to the Airport Passenger Service Commitment. They are Aberdeen; Belfast International; Birmingham International; Bournemouth; Bristol International; Cardiff International; East Midlands; Edinburgh;944W
  Exeter International; Glasgow; Humberside; Leeds Bradford; Liverpool; London Gatwick; London Heathrow; London Luton; London Stansted; Manchester; Norwich International; Southampton.

  Ten UK airlines have signed up to the Airline Passenger Service Commitment. They are Air 2000; Airtours International (now MyTravel Airways); bmi British Midland; Britannia Airways; British Airways; British European Airways; JMC Airlines; KLM(UK); Monarch Airlines; Virgin Atlantic Airways.

  The Airport Passenger Service Commitment covers 11 areas, with signatories agreeing to: provide assistance to persons with reduced mobility; display passenger information on legal rights; provide assistance during periods of significant delays or disruption; improve airport access and ground transportation; provide appropriate infrastructure for check-in, baggage and security; regularly maintain equipment; ensure that sufficient trolleys are available; provide clear way-finding and staffed information desks; keep all public areas clean at all times; ensure that customer comment and complaint procedures are clear and effectively managed; produce regular consumer reports on levels of passenger satisfaction.

  The Airline Passenger Service Commitment covers 14 areas, with signatories agreeing to: offer the lowest fare available through each of their direct outlets; honour the agreed fare after payment; notify passengers of known delays, cancellations and diversions; assist passengers facing delays; deliver baggage as quickly as possible; allow telephone reservations to be held or cancelled without commitment or penalty within 24 hours; provide prompt refunds; provide assistance to passengers with reduced mobility and passengers with special needs; meet passengers essential needs during long on-aircraft delays; take measures to speed up check in; reduce the number of passengers who are involuntarily denied boarding; provide information to passengers regarding commercial and operational conditions; provide information on the operating carrier; and be responsive to passengers' complaints.

  The full text of the Commitments can be found on the website of the Air Transport Users Council at http://www.auc.org.uk.

  Air Traffic Control
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) of 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 177W, on air traffic control, if the estimate provided included (a) the direct internal costs referred to in his answer of 11 March 2002, Official Report, column 742W, (b) controller relocation and training costs and (c) interim costs of expanding the West Drayton Centre while Swanwick was non-operational; and if he will make a statement; [44450]

  (2) if he will provide a definition of commissioned cost he used in the answer; and if he will make a statement. [44574]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The figure of £623 million quoted in my answer of 5 March, comprises the capital and revenue costs, together with costs associated with bringing the system into operation (which include costs
  945W
  of operation, maintenance and support of the Swanwick site). The figure includes the direct internal costs and the controller relocation and training costs, but not the interim costs of expanding the West Drayton centre prior to Swanwick becoming operational.

  Heathrow
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will announce his decisions on the applications to extend the Heathrow Express and the Piccadilly Line to the proposed fifth terminal at Heathrow Airport; and if he will make a statement. [46934]

  Mr. Byers
  When I gave approval on 20 November last to the building of a fifth terminal at Heathrow, I said that I shared the inquiry Inspector's view on the importance of these two proposed railway extensions to the case for approving the new terminal. I therefore imposed conditions requiring two railway extensions to be provided before the core terminal building is opened. I also said that I was minded to make the necessary Orders under the Transport and Works Act (TWA) authorising the proposed railway extensions, and to grant planning permission for this development.

  I was, however, unable at that stage to grant the necessary approvals for the railway works. This was because I wished to attach planning conditions giving satisfactory control over the railway development, but these conditions had not been discussed at the inquiry. I therefore set out in my November letter the conditions I was minded to impose and invited comments. I have subsequently received comments from interested parties which have shown a good measure of agreement for the conditions I proposed, and which have helped me to finalise their wording.

  I have therefore now decided to make the TWA Orders and to give planning approval for the Heathrow Express and Piccadilly Line extensions. Copies of both decision letters, which include the full sets of conditions for these works, have been placed in the Library of the House.

  PFI/PPPs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the(a) private finance initiative and (b) public private partnership projects which have been delayed. [44877]

  Dr. Whitehead
  In this Department, the only PPP/PFI project where contract signature is likely to be reached later than originally planned is the Health and Safety Laboratory Estate Rationalisation project which I expect to be signed shortly.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what role his Department played in the transfer of(a) real estate and property and (b) other assets to the shadow PPP infracos. [45656]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State gave consent for the necessary transfers in accordance with the provisions of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 (as amended).

  London Underground
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what changes relating to reputational externalities were made in the Ernst & Young, London underground PPPs Value for Money Review, between the receipt of a copy from Ernst & Young and the presentation of the copy to the House on 5 February; and if he will make a statement. [46448]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No such changes were made.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether he intends to appoint an interim arbiter for the London Underground PPP; and under what powers and specification he is able to make such an appointment. [46381]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 170W, and 12 March, Official Report, column 920W.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the ability of London Underground rolling stock to operate on main lines beyond the terminal points of the tube network. [45880]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: This is a matter for London underground (LU). LU's rolling stock is purpose-designed and the Underground uses a four-rail system and operates to different rules from the main line. These differences make it difficult for LU rolling stock to operate beyond the existing network. However, there are short sections of the main line over which LU has long standing running rights and which have been specially adapted for this purpose.

  LU has carried out an assessment of a section where they plan to extend the Metropolitan line to Watford Junction (the Croxley Link). This involves a short section of new line and then a connection to the Euston/Watford Junction main lines.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the safety case that will be required to be conducted by the Health and Safety Executive before the transfer of London Underground to Transport for London; and what implications this has for contracts between infracos and London Underground under the PPP. [45660]

  Mr. Jamieson
  London Underground, as the operator of trains, stations and infrastructure, is responsible for preparing a safety case. The Health and Safety Executive considers whether the safety arrangements made out in the case, if implemented, are capable of delivering safety.

  HSE is currently considering London Underground's revision of its existing case, which sets out safety arrangements with its infrastructure companies in the private sector. Acceptance of these arrangements by HSE is necessary before the Tube modernisation plans can proceed. Whether a further revision will be necessary to cover transfer of London Underground to

  947W
  Transport for London depends on the extent of any further changes to safety arrangements that may be involved.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which aspects of the modernisation plans for the London Underground have been set as requirements by his Department; and what the mechanism is by which these requirements have been set in each case. [45654]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government do not have powers to set specific requirements in relation to London Underground's plans for the modernisation of the Tube. London Underground shares the Government's objectives of improving the Tube and ensuring that there should be no privatisation, that safety be maintained or improved and that the contracts should only go ahead if they represent value for money.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) pursuant to the answer of 11 March 2002,Official Report, column 736W, on London Underground, who in Government have been involved in the discussions on increased public grants to support the tube modernisation programme with Transport for London; on what dates discussions have take place; and what reference has been made to the infraco contracts in discussions with Transport for London; [45662]

  (2) what discussions he (a) has had and (b) plans to have with other parties regarding increased public grants to support the tube modernisation programme. [45655]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Tripartite discussions have begun between officials of my department, London Underground and Transport for London on the overall level of grant provision over the first seven and a half years of the Tube modernisation contracts. It is envisaged that a number of further discussions will take place between the three parties before the grant determination process is concluded.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 11 March 2002,Official Report, column 737W, on PPP Infracos, who has statutory powers to take over work from the London Underground PPP Infracos; and under what legislation. [45708]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Under the plans for the modernisation of the Underground, three infrastructure companies will carry out work to maintain and modernise the Tube's infrastructure under contract to London Underground. The contracts provide powers for London Underground to take over the work of the infrastructure companies if necessary for safety or other reasons.

  As referred to in my answer of 4 March 2002, Official Report, column 85W, the Greater London Authority Act 1999 provides statutory powers for an infrastructure company to be managed under a PPP administration order.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 7 March 2002,Official Report, column 555W, on London Underground, how many
  948W
  revisions of the draft PPP contracts were received by his Department; on which dates; and what the reasons were for the revisions in each case. [45623]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As stated in my answer of 7 March 2002,Official Report, column 555W, London Underground has shared revisions to draft contracts with DTLR throughout the process of developing the proposals for the modernisation of the Underground. Details of the number and dates of changes could only be provided as disproportionate cost. The reasons for any changes are a matter for London Underground, but throughout the aim has been to ensure that the public sector gets the best value for money overall.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what correspondence was received from(a) Transport for London, (b) the London Mayor and (c) London Transport on the London Underground PPP in the week preceding 7 February; and if he will place the correspondence in the Library. [42113]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: Consistent with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information exemption on internal discussion and advice, it would not be appropriate to place such correspondence in the Library.

  Central Railway
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact on Chiltern Railway passenger services of(a) the construction and (b) the operation of the Central Railway project. [46314]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The impact on the operations on the existing network is among the key areas that the SRA will be examining in its further detailed assessment of Central Railway's proposals.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 15 March 2002 to the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins)Official Report, column 1276W, on the Central Railway, if he will place in the Library a copy of the Strategic Rail Authority's report on the Central Railway proposal.
  [46367]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I am arranging for a copy of the SRA's consultants' report to be placed in the library.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what date he received the report of the SRA on the proposed Central Railway Project. [39106]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The SRA first notified my Department of the conclusions of its high level review on 20 September and discussions about the proposal are continuing.

  Rolling Stock
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 15 March 2002,Official Report, column 1271W on rolling stock, what proportion of the new vehicles entering service between 1999 and 2001 were ordered after 25 February 1999;

  949W
  when the remainder were ordered; and where information regarding the refurbishment of railway rolling stock is held. [45669]

  Mr. Jamieson
  15 per cent. of these vehicles were ordered after 25 February 1999. Of the remainder, 53 per cent. were ordered in 1998 and 32 per cent. in 1997. None was ordered between 1 January 1999 and 24 February 1999. Information about refurbishment of rolling stock is held by the rolling stock leasing companies (ROSCOs).

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what rules the Health and Safety Executive applies to the loan of rolling stock by preservation societies to train operating companies. [45304]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Provided that the vehicles have not been deleted from the Library list of rolling stock permitted to run on the network, and they have not been modified, they are covered by "grandfather" rights and do not require further approval under the Railway and Other Transport System (Approval of Works, Plan and Equipment) Regulations.

  However, the Railway Safety Regulations 1999 prohibit Mark 1 rolling stock from carrying fare paying passengers from 1 January 2003 unless the vehicles are modified to reduce the risk of overriding or an exemption has been granted for their use. These regulations also prohibit trains from running on the mainline railway that are not protected by a train protection system such as TPWS. The operation of the vehicles will also need to be addressed in the duty holder's Railway Safety Case.

  Railtrack
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether the Government have approached the European Commission about the possible extension of state aid approval for Railtrack in administration beyond September. [45347]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No approach has been made.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the additional state aid approval that would be required to extend Railtrack administration for an additional six months beyond the end of September. [45299]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No such estimate has been made.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimated funding levels were included in the 10 year plan for the level of income assessed for Railtrack by the Regulator for Control Period 3. [45677]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The original
  10-year Plan, published in July 2000, assumed that Railtrack's income in Control Period 3 would be based upon our projections for the fixed element of Railtrack's track access charges. This involved a 2 per cent. increase in real terms for fixed track access charges in 2001–02 and a 2 per cent. reduction in real terms for each of the subsequent nine years.
  950W
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what percentage increase the 10-year Plan includes for Railtrack income between Control Period 2 and Control Period 3. [45678]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No detailed breakdown is currently made of how much of the 10-year Plan funding in the Control Period 3 years (2006–07 to 2010–11) will be for Railtrack or for other individual companies. The level of income for Railtrack's successor in CP3 will depend upon the nature of the company and will be determined by the Rail Regulator through a Periodic Review, having regard to his statutory duties under section 4 of the Railways Act 1993.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what system of assessment is in place to monitor the work of Railtrack plc and the Rail Regulator in repairing and replacing rail track; and if he will make a statement; [44635]

  (2) what assurances the Government have received from Railtrack plc and the Rail Regulator that the track is being repaired and replaced to a proper level of safety; and if he will make a statement. [44605]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Office of the Rail Regulator (ORR) receives monthly information from Railtrack on the physical condition of its track. Railtrack also supplies monthly reports on the numbers of broken rails and other incidents that cause delay. These reports are shared with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and regular liaison takes place between the ORR and HSE so that the safety implications and performance of Railtrack are fully understood.

  In addition there is now in place a system of independent reporters who make an assessment directly to the Rail Regulator of the adequacy of Railtrack's stewardship of the network. The Regulator does not repair or replace track and so no system of monitoring his activities exists.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether he is able to provide financial guarantees for commercial funding to the Railtrack administrator beyond 30 September. [40233]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday, 25 March 2002, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend, the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) [ref. 45966]. I would also refer the hon. Member to the Statement made to the House yesterday by the Secretary of State.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) when he will have to make a further application for state aid consent to the European Commission if the process of ending Railtrack administration is delayed; [36316]

  (2) how much the application for state aid consent from the European Commission for Railtrack was for; [36313]
  951W
  (3) how much contingency funding the Government have allowed for in the state aid application to the European Commission for Railtrack. [36315]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday, 25 March 2002, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) [ref. 45966].

  Channel Tunnel
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with(a) the EU Commissioner for Transport and (b) his French counterpart on the suspension of rail freight services through the Channel Tunnel. [46134]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Rail freight services through the Tunnel have been severely disrupted since November last year as a result of the actions of would-be illegal immigrants at SNCF's Fréthun yard. The Government is extremely concerned at the impact of this disruption on UK businesses. My Department, and others, are in regular contact with both the European Commission and the French Government on this matter.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the impact has been on his rail freight targets under the 10 year transport plan of the suspension of rail freight services by SNCF through the Channel Tunnel. [46133]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We will be producing a review of the 10 Year Plan in July this year.

  ScotRail
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with National Express about the train drivers' strikes against ScotRail; and if he will make a statement. [46355]

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions his Department has had with National Express regarding the industrial dispute by employees of ScotRail; if his Department has given instructions to the company relating to the company's pay offer to drivers; and if ministers have intervened in giving advice to National Express on this matter. [46480]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Neither DTLR Ministers nor their officials have given any instructions or advice to National Express or ScotRail concerning ScotRail's pay offer to its drivers.

  Rail Freight (Harwich-Colchester Line)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received on proposals to increase rail freight on the line between Harwich and Colchester; and if he will make a statement. [46187]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: My Department receives representations from time to time about rail freight to the Haven Ports. As part of its
  952W
  Freight Strategy, the Strategic Rail Authority is developing proposals to upgrade rail links to Harwich and Felixstowe.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  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 369W, on the Strategic Rail Authority for what reasons (a) the expected amount of private investment under the plan will not exactly match that envisaged under the 10-year Plan and (b) infrastructure renewals are defined as investment. [45496]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority have indicated in their Strategic Plan that the total amount of private sector investment envisaged will be very similar to that envisaged in the 10-year Plan. They have also indicated that the precise amount will depend on the pace of negotiations and the terms that can be negotiated.

  Infrastructure renewals, which are the replacement or updating of railway assets to make them fit for use on the railway network, create assets that have a useful life over more than one accounting period. Under accounting rules, they can therefore be properly accounted for as investment to be amortised over the expected accounting life of the assets. Railtrack's current accounting policies reflect this, as did British Rail's when that organisation still existed.

  SWT Franchise
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what impact the SRA consultation on the franchising structure of the South West Trains and Wessex areas will have on the timetable to complete the new SWT franchise agreement. [45297]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The consultation process is not expected to delay completion of the new South West Trains franchise agreement.

  Train Drivers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many train drivers were working in the rail industry in November 1998. [45429]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This information is not held centrally in the form requested. According to ATOC information, in April 1999 there were 8,684 established drivers of passenger trains.

  Train Operating Companies
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place in the Library the franchise agreement ancillary document D for each of the train operating companies. [40872]

  Mr. Byers
  These documents are available for inspection at the Strategic Rail Authority's offices, in accordance with section 73 of the Railways Act 1993. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library.

  Railways
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what benchmarks and baseline periods he will use to assess the performance of the rail network in the next five years. [45351]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We published on 18 February a quarterly set of key indicators against which progress on improving the railways could be measured. They are intended to provide a benchmark for future reference. The baseline period is April-June 2001. The indicators focus on the issues that matter most to passengers: punctuality, reliability, safety and quality. The first quarterly update was published on 18 March. The next will be published on 6 June.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reason the total length of the electrified rail network has fallen since 1997. [45350]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The reduction referred to represents a very small proportion of total network length, about 0.2 per cent., and is an operational matter for Railtrack. I am not aware that it is attributable to a single factor.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with(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. [45416]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The SRA is conducting a review of fares policy and will report to Ministers. The Association of Train Operating Companies has met with Ministers to explain their proposals for the SouthEast Network Card.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what targets he has set for his rail performance measures to be met by March 2005. [45418]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government's 10 Year Transport Plan sets out clear targets for Rail focusing on increasing the number of passengers and volume of freight using the railways, and on tackling overcrowding. We do not intend to introduce yet further targets, but rather to have a set of benchmarks against which progress and improvements can be judged.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what changes have taken place in the last five years to railway discount cards; what changes are planned; and if he will make a statement. [45417]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) requires franchised train operators to continue to offer the Young Person's, Disabled Person's and Senior Citizen's railcards on the same terms as applied before privatisation. Train operators also operate commercial railcard schemes such as the Network Railcard (for travel in the South East) and the Family Railcard, whose terms are a matter for the train operators, and which are not subject to regulation by the SRA.
  954W
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many staff are employed in each key area of the railway industry; what the total requirement for staff in each key area is; what assessment he has made of staff shortage numbers in each key area; how many individuals are(a) in training and (b) trained for each key area; and how many individuals have (i) retired and (ii) left employment in each key area since 1995. [45500]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information from the Railway Industry Training Council indicates that approximately 140,000 people are employed in rail related work. The most recent information available indicates that in 2001 approximately 1,200 vacancies were reported as hard to fill. It is estimated that 5,500 people were in training for employment in the industry in 2001. No information is held centrally on numbers of people leaving the industry.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 15 March 2002,Official Report, column 1271W, on rail summit targets, what issues arising from the National Rail Summits are not being taken forward through the SRA Strategic Plan. [45670]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The broad thrust of the Rail Summits—improving both the rail network and its performance—is the fundamental goal of the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) and its Strategic Plan. That improvement will only come, as the Plan has made clear, through action to stabilise the industry and get back to basics now and through significant investment in renewal and enhancement of the network, in order to provide increased capacity for passenger and freight services. The SRA is currently engaged in delivering both of these.

  Barcelona Summit
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the discussions and resolutions of the Barcelona Summit related to transport. [45349]

  Mr. Spellar
  I am pleased to report that there was substantial progress made at the Barcelona summit in a number of areas related to transport, consistent with Her Majesty's Government's objectives.

  The summit outcomes and discussions will advance the liberalisation of the transport sector, in particular, the calls to: progress work on the Second Railway Package; liberalise public transport more generally; achieve a Single Sky in air traffic management in 2004; take decisions on the proposed rules on airport slot allocation by the end of 2002; and, adopt by December 2002 the pending proposals on port services.

  In addition, the summit called for the Council and the European Parliament to adopt revised guidelines and financial rules on the Trans-European Networks (TEN) and welcomed progress on the Galileo satellite navigation system. The Council was requested to conclude its work on the proposed Regulation on HGV Drivers' Hours. There were also discussions on the proposed directive for fairer transport tariffs across different modes of transport by 2004.
  955W
  I should also refer the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell to the Prime Minister's statement to the House on 18 March on the outcomes of the summit.

  10-Year Plan
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the rail projects in the 10-year Plan on which development work has already started. [45348]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Examination of the high-level feasibility of all of the rail projects listed in the 10-year Plan is either under way or has already been completed. The SRA's Strategic Plan lists at page 49 the major projects to which the SRA is already committed or which are prioritised for delivery by 2010.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 25 February 2002, ref. 37093, on 10-year Plan funding, for what reason £1.5 billion of advanced grants to Railtrack has resulted in an increase in the 10-year Plan total. [40604]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary on 26 February 2002,Official Report, columns 1207–08W.

  Multi-modal Transport Studies
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many multi-modal transport studies are behind schedule; and if he will make a statement. [46111]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer: Monday, 25 March 2002]: The Multi-Modal Studies programme contains 22 Studies which were split into three tranches. Five Studies from tranche 1 have so far reported to Regional Planning Bodies with recommendations. We have announced our decisions on three of these.

  From the remaining 17 Studies, two Studies from tranche 3 of the programme are expected to commence later this year. Nine studies from tranches 1 and 2 have been given time extensions. This is due to the complexity of the Study process, and the need for some additional work identified during the course of the Studies. Ten Studies are now due to report by summer 2002 and a further three Studies by December 2002. The remaining four Studies will report in 2003.

  Concessionary Fares
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the results of his survey with local authorities to assess the impact of the introduction of the statutory minimum requirement for concessionary fares introduced under the Transport Act 2000. [46858]

  Ms Keeble
  My Department will be publishing the results of the survey on 28 March. A copy of the Statistics Bulletin will be placed in the Library and will be available on my Department's website (www.dtlr.gov.uk) shortly.
  956W
  The statutory minimum requirement for concessionary fares was introduced in Spring 2001 and guarantees all elderly and disabled people half-fare or better on local bus services, with a free bus pass.

  The survey of local authorities in England was undertaken at the end of last year to assess the impact of the introduction of the statutory minimum requirement in each local authority area. The survey showed that over 50 per cent. of local authorities now offer a more generous concessionary fares scheme than before the introduction of the statutory minimum requirement, and 17 local authorities have introduced a concessionary fares scheme where none previously existed.

  Ninety four per cent. of local authorities offer a half fare concession for elderly people and 90 per cent. offer half fare for disabled people. The remaining local authorities either offer flat rate fares or free travel. Just under half of local authorities offer concessions on modes of public transport other than local buses.

  Vehicle Clamping
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of(a) how many vehicles have been clamped and (b) how much revenue has been obtained from car clamping in each year since 1997. [46164]

  Ms Keeble
  Wheel clamping is undertaken on both the public highway and private land as a means of enforcing parking restrictions. There is no central record of the number of vehicles that have been clamped in particular years.

  Parking Fines
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of how much revenue has been obtained from parking fines in each year since 1997. [46165]

  Ms Keeble
  Parking fines are issued by local authorities and the police service. The table below sets out the information available to the Department on total local authority income from parking in England and Wales. This is published in Local Government Financial Statistics; England and Welsh Local Government Financial Statistics. The figures include income from penalty charge notices and excess charge notices as well as parking charges—the Department does not have a breakdown of these elements.

  Year

  Income1 £

  1997–98

  652,644,000

  1998–99

  668,929,000

  1999–2000

  739,645,000

  2000–01

  799,719,000

  1 Covers all local authority income from parking, including fines.

  The following table shows the number of fixed penalty notices (FPNs) issued by police forces in England and Wales for obstruction, waiting and parking offences and estimated related income, which accrued to the Consolidated Fund, in each of the years since 1997 for which figures are available was as follows:

  957W

  Year

  Number of FPNs

  Estimated FPN income £

  1997

  2,199,000

  45,590,000

  1998

  2,118,000

  44,425,000

  1999

  1,808,000

  38,087,000

  2000

  1,595,000

  33,877,000

  Road Safety
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how much money his Department spent on producing free road safety literature in 2001; and how much money it plans to spend on producing it in 2002; [45666]

  (2) how his Department markets the free road safety literature it produces. [45667]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Department has committed approximately £750,000 to producing free road safety literature in the year 2001–02 in support of the Think! road safety campaign. It is envisaged that a similar amount will be spent on this next year.

  The Department markets its road safety literature via Road Safety Officers, Police forces, private sector and voluntary organisations who are active in support of national or local road safety campaigns. It also targets teachers and parents via exhibitions and advertising and editorials in the educational media. The literature is used on sites and in meetings throughout the country to spread road safety best practice to the public. All literature is also available on the Think! Road Safety website at www.think.dtlr.gov.uk.

  M4 Bus Lane
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effect on congestion of the operation of the bus lane on the M4 motorway since its introduction. [45971]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) monitored use of the bus lane during its first year of operation. A copy of their report was placed in the House of Commons Library in January 2001.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to change the bus lane on the M4 motorway to a carriageway for general use. [45970]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Highways Agency has recently consulted interested parties on a proposal to increase the speed limit between Junction 4 and the elevated section of the M4 from 50 to 60 mph and to allow motorcycles to use the M4 bus lane.

  Alternative Fuels
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what estimates he has made of the number of vehicle refuelling points in the UK in each of the last four years for(a) liquefied petroleum gas, (b) compressed natural gas and (c) hydrogen/fuel cell technology; [45896]
  958W
  (2) what estimates he has made of the number of vehicles in the UK for each of the last four years which were powered by (a) liquefied petroleum gas, (b) compressed natural gas and (c) hydrogen/fuel cell technology; [45895]

  (3) what (a) representations he has received from and (b) meetings he has had with vehicle manufacturers on measures to create incentives for investment in higher volumes of vehicles propelled by road fuel gases after 2004; [45894]

  (4) if he will make it his policy to set a target for the UK's consumption of liquefied petroleum gas as a road fuel as a proportion of total fuel consumption for vehicle propulsion. [45897]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department sponsors the Energy Saving Trust's Powershift programme which provides grants towards the cost of purchasing cleaner fuel vehicles. Last year, following an extensive consultation with vehicle manufacturers and fuel suppliers, I announced changes to the programme which offered higher levels of grants for manufacturer-approved LPG vehicles. This move is intended to encourage more manufacturers to invest in the development of production-line LPG vehicles. My Department maintains close links with vehicle manufacturers to keep track of their plans to introduce LPG models.

  The Government's general policy has been to encourage the wider use of LPG through fuel duty incentives and purchase grants offered under the Powershift programme rather than by setting an outright target for LPG consumption. Where Government does set targets these will tend to be based on environmental performance rather than specifying particular fuels or technologies.

  The table shows how the numbers of LPG vehicles and refuelling points have increased in the UK over the last four years (figures supplied by the LP Gas Association).

  Year

  Number of vehicles

  Number of refuelling points

  1998

  3,500

  150

  1999

  13,000

  285

  2000

  39,000

  610

  2001

  65,000

  1,000

  The take up of natural gas vehicles has been much slower. Over the last four years the population of natural gas vehicles has grown by around 50 vehicles per year with a total of 10 refuelling points over the same period.

  Hydrogen fuel cell technology is still in its infancy and there are, as yet, no hydrogen refuelling points for vehicles in the UK. However, the Government will be supporting a hydrogen refuelling point to be used in conjunction with a trial of three fuel cell buses in London expected to start in 2003.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what information he has collated on the effectiveness of
  959W
  particulate traps, as fitted to vehicle diesel engines, for the reduction of emissions of (a) PM2.5 particles and (b) oxides of nitrogen; [45898]

  (2) if he will make a statement setting out the measures and policy objectives, including targets, the Government have to reduce emissions from road traffic of (a) benzene, (b) 1,3 butadiene, (c) particulates and finer particles (PM10 and PM2.5), (d) carbon monoxide, (e) sulphur dioxide and (f) oxides of nitrogen. [45946]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The effectiveness of diesel particulate filters has been the subject of a number of studies in recent years. All show that these filters can effectively remove more than 90 per cent. of particulate matter including all particulates that would contribute to the PM2.5 value.

  Controls of oxides of nitrogen is not the objective of a particulate filter, but depending upon the specific system design, reductions can be achieved. Departmental research on heavy-duty engines has shown that systems comprising an oxidation catalyst and particulate filter can reduce NOx by approximately 10 per cent.

  The Government's measures and policies for tackling air pollution from road transport, industry and other sources are set out in the Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, published in January 2000. It includes ambient air quality standards for benzene, 1,3 butadiene, particles (PM 10) carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead and low level ozone and objectives for their achievement between 2003 and 2008. Proposals were issued last year to strengthen the objectives for PM 10, benzene, carbon monoxide and introduce a new objective for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The current advice from the advisory Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards is that PM10 provides the most appropriate basis for an air quality standard rather than the finer fraction particles PM2.5.

  Traffic Noise Pollution
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what policies the Government have in place to reduce traffic noise pollution; and if he will make a statement. [45944]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Since 1996 all new vehicles have had to meet stringent noise standards before entering service. No further reductions in noise limits are planned in the short term but the UK is participating in the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Working Group on vehicle noise which is examining the scope for further noise reductions. Requirements restricting the noise from tyres are being introduced in stages from this year in accordance with EU Directive 2001/43/EC.

  The 10-year Transport Plan extended the Government's commitment to reducing trunk road noise by stating that lower noise road surfacing will be used for all future maintenance and new construction work. All concrete roads on the national network will be resurfaced with this quieter material by March 2011.
  960W
  Current plans are that at the end of the 10-year Plan period some 60 per cent. of the national road network will have a lower noise surface.

  A programme of work is also underway to provide noise mitigation measures on certain trunk roads built or altered before 1988 prior to current methods of assessing traffic noise being adopted.

  Night Time Deliveries
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when his Department will announce a relaxation of night time delivery curfews for gas-powered trucks; what studies he has made of the impact on the environment in the neighbourhood around supermarkets; and what definitions he will apply to the relevant vehicles. [45123]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department is currently involved in a joint initiative by the Commission for Integrated Transport and the Freight Transport Association to explore the scope for Local Authorities to consider flexibility in delivery restrictions in exchange for better environmental performance by the distribution industry resulting in less disturbance to local residents. The aim is to develop a Code of Practice which would result in a significant reduction in the noise and other nuisance commonly associated with urban deliveries. This would enable deliveries to be carried out outside peak congestion hours, more flexibly and efficiently with fewer vehicles. Improved distribution would also help to ensure that products are available on the shelves at the times people want to buy them. The use of gas-powered vehicles might be amongst the appropriate "best practice" measures considered by local authorities in determining whether to ease delivery restrictions.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 14 March 2002,Official Report, column 1200W, on extra training for the Fire Service, if he will place in the Library the guidance on mass decontamination methods that has been provided for Fire Authorities by central Government; and where information on the additional training for firefighters since 11 September is held. [45336]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have arranged for copies of the letter from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Fire Services to all Chief Fire Officers dated 19 December 2001, (Dear Chief Officer Letter July 2001), which contains the central guidance on mass decontamination, to be placed in the Libraries of the House. Information on the additional training for firefighters since 11 September is held by individual Fire Brigades.

  Civil Defence
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what budget allocation his Department has made to support civil defence planning at national level. [45356]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions' civil emergency co-ordination unit has a budget in 2001–02 of £711,000 for administration and programme resources.
  961W
  In addition, the Fire Service Inspectorate have three officers working full time and other officers part time on issues as part of the "New Dimension" review following the events of 11 September. The Operational Practices section of the Inspectorate deals with civil defence planning as part of its references. The approximate costs of providing the above support are:

  Salaries—£140,000 pa.

  Expenses—£20,000 pa.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether the Department has been involved in updating contingency plans to deal with a major civil emergency since 11 September. [45355]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department's contingency plans for dealing with a major civil emergency have been reviewed in light of the events which took place on 11 September. In addition, the Department is actively involved in the Government wide post 11 September review of Civil Contingency arrangements.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the organisations which have responsibility for civil defence planning in the UK. [45352]

  Mr. Christopher Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  Local authorities have the main responsibility for preparing civil defence plans. They will need to include others with a role to play such as the emergency services, health authorities, utilities, transport operators, voluntary organisations and government departments and agencies.

  The Civil Contingencies Secretariat at the Cabinet Office was established in 2001 in order to aid coordination of civil defence matters at a national strategic level.

  Telecommunications
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps are being taken to force public sector agencies in the South West to obtain best value for telecommunications services; and to what extent such agencies are being encouraged to use broadband. [33728]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Office of Government Commerce (OGC) is responsible for delivering value for money improvements in procurement by the public sector. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked OGC to consider what more can he done to help Government departments and other public sector organisations buy broadband more effectively.

  In addition I recently detailed the allocation of a £30 million RDS broadband such with the South West RDA being awarded a £3.78 million package to encourage take up and rollout in their region.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the European Union directives and regulations 962W
  relating to his Department that have been implemented in each of the last four years, specifying (a) the title and purpose of each, (b) the cost of public funds of each and (c) the cost to businesses of each. [39119]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information requested is not held centrally and providing it would involve disproportionate cost. Regulatory impact assessments are produced for all proposals, including those originating in European legislation, likely to impose significant costs on businesses in the UK and are made available in the Libraries of the House. We do not hold information on the costs of implementation to public funds or businesses.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he intends to publish the consultation document on the Electoral Register. [45881]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer Monday, 25 March 2002]: The difficult and complex issues involved are necessitating very careful consideration and we hope to publish our policy paper on access to the electoral registers after Easter.

  Free Literature
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) local authorities, (b) schools and (c) companies ordered DTLR free literature in 2001. [45668]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The dissemination of DTLR Free Literature is contracted to an external distribution contractor. The contractor is unable to provide the information in the exact form requested but can provide the following information.

  During calendar year 2001:

  (i) 18,432 orders were received from 3,862 different address points within local authorities;

  (ii) 1,358 orders were received from 1,107 different school addresses; and

  (iii) 16,078 orders were received from 10,180 different company addresses.

  Privatisation
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if his Department has a standard definition of(a) privatisation, (b) part-privatisation, (c) public private partnership, (d) private finance initiative and (e) not for profit company (i) to which they must or have worked and (ii) which they have developed. [45673]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Government set out its definitions for the various types of public private partnership in "Public Private Partnerships—The Government's Approach" published in April 2000 and is available from the Libraries of the House.

  Council Officers (Libel Actions)
  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what guidance he has issued to local authorities on the use of
  963W
  public funds to support costs incurred by council officers who have pursued libel actions; and what plans he has to review such guidance. [42666]

  Dr. Whitehead
  No guidance has been issued to local authorities. However, section 101 of the Local Government Act 2000 makes provision for the Secretary of State, by order, to give local authorities a power to provide indemnities to their members and officers. We intend to consult on the scope of this power in due course. The consultation paper will clarify the circumstances in which authorities will be allowed to indemnify their members and officers against costs that they might incur.

  Finance (Liverpool)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what revenue and capital support he plans to make available to local government services in Liverpool in 2002–03. [44395]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Liverpool City Council will receive a general grant for the funding of revenue expenditure (excluding local authority housing) of £432.9 million under the Local Government Finance Settlement for 2002–03. Of the special and specific grants paid by this Department, Liverpool will receive £15.1 million from the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund. They will also receive Housing Revenue Account subsidy (HRAS) calculated on the basis of claims yet to be made by the authority. The amount of HRAS claimed for 2001–02 is some £97 million, including a Major Repairs Allowance of over £17 million for capital repairs to their stock.

  In 2002–03, Liverpool will receive £31.4 million basic credit approvals to support other capital spending as part of the single capital pot. They will also receive £9.9 million capital grant for Local Transport Plan administration. Additionally, £1.4 million Disabled Facilities Grants, and £0.4 million transitional private sector renewal grants are available to Liverpool, dependent on receipt of eligible grant claims.

  Local Government Finance
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the criteria are for the use of local authorities' section 33 arrangement to reclaim VAT as applied to(a) the New Deal for Communities partnerships and (b) registered social landlords (i) wholly and (ii) partially comprising stock transferred from a local authority. [43494]

  Ms Keeble
  This is a matter for local authorities, New Deal for Communities partnerships and registered social landlords to resolve with Customs and Excise.

  Local Authority Finance
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the average level of local authority debt in England is(a) in cash terms and (b) as a percentage of their budget; and if he will make a statement. [46039]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The average level of local authority debt in England, as at 31 March 2001, is £95 million per local authority. This figure is 70 per cent. of their total 964W
  budgeted revenue expenditure for 2001–02. These figures cover the London boroughs, Metropolitan Districts, Unitary authorities, Shire counties, Shire districts and the Isles of Scilly.

  Local authority debt finances capital investment. Long-term borrowing to finance capital expenditure is regulated by Government through the issue of credit approvals.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the debt-free authorities in England, broken down by the parties which control them. [46038]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The 108 English local authorities listed below, together with the parties which control them, have reported that they had debt-free status as at 30 September 2001:

  Local Authority

  Political control

  Barking and Dagenham

  Lab

  Basingstoke and Deane

  Noc

  Bath and NE Somerset

  Noc

  Bedford

  Noc

  Bracknell Forest UA

  Con

  Breckland

  Con

  Broadland

  Con

  Bromley

  Con

  Bromsgrove

  Con

  Broxbourne

  Con

  Chichester

  Con

  Cihltern

  Con

  Christchurch

  Con

  City of London

  Oth

  Congleton

  LDem

  Corby

  Lab

  Cotswold

  Noc

  Crawley

  Lab

  Dacorum

  Con

  Dartford

  Lab

  Daventry

  Con

  Dorset

  Con

  Est Cambridgeshire

  LDem

  East Devon

  Con

  East Dorset

  Con

  East Hampshire

  Con

  Eden

  Ind

  Elmbridge

  Noc

  Epsom and Ewell

  Ind

  Forest Heath

  Con

  Fylde

  Noc

  Hambleton

  Con

  Harlow

  Lab

  Hart

  Con

  Havant

  Noc

  Hertsmere

  Con

  Horsham

  Con

  Huntingdonshire

  Con

  Kennet

  Con

  Lichfield

  Con

  Malvern Hills

  Noc

  Mid Bedfordshire

  Con

  Mid Sussex

  Con

  Mole Valley

  Noc

  North Devon

  LDem

  North Dorset

  Con

  North Wiltshire

  Noc

  Penwith

  Noc

  Redditch

  Lab

  Reigate and Banstead

  Con

  Runnymede

  Con

  Rushmoor

  Con

  965W

  local authority

  Political control

  Ryedale

  Noc

  Salisbury

  Noc

  Sevenoaks

  Con

  South Bucks

  Con

  South Cambridgeshire

  Noc

  South Hams

  Con

  South Northamptonshire

  Con

  South Oxfordshire

  Noc

  South Kibble

  Noc

  South Shropshire

  Ind

  South Somerset

  LDem

  South Staffordshire

  Con

  Spelthorne

  Con

  St. Edmundsbury

  Con

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  Noc

  Stevenage

  Lab

  Stratford-on-Avon

  Con

  Suffolk Coastal

  Con

  Surrey Heath

  Con

  Swale

  Noc

  Tandridge

  Con

  Tewkesbury

  Noc

  Three Rivers

  LDem

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  Noc

  Tunbridge Wells

  Con

  Tynedale

  Noc

  Uttlesford

  Noc

  Vale of White Horse

  LDem

  Watford

  Noc

  Waverley

  Con

  Welwyn Hatfield

  Lab

  West Berkshire UA

  LDem

  West Wiltshire

  LDem

  Windsor and Maidenhead UA

  Noc

  Worthing

  Con

  Wychavon

  Con

  Wycombe

  Con

  Wyre

  Con

  Wyre Forest

  Noc

  cambridgeshire police authority

  Dorset police authority

  Kent police authority

  Merseyside police authority

  Suffolk police authority

  Sussex police authority

  Wiltshire police authority

  Dartmoor Natonal Park Authority

  Exmoor Natonal Park Authority

  Lake District Natonal Park

  North York Moors Natonal Park Authority

  Northumberland Natonal Park Authority

  Peak Natonal Park

  The broads Authority

  Yorkshire Dales Natonal Park Authority

  North London Waste Authority

  Greater London Authority

  Source

  Capital Payments and Receipts (CPR2) 2001–02

  Definition: An authority is debt-free if (a) at 31 March 2001, the authority's credit ceiling was nil or a negative amount and (b) at 30 September 2001, the authority had no money outstanding by way of external borrowing other than short-term borrowing or hard to redeem debt, as defined in Regulation 154 of the Local Authorities (Capital Finance) Regulations 1997.

  Con = Conservative

  Ind = Independent

  Lab = Labour

  Noc = No Overall Control

  LDem = Liberal Democrat
  966W
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proposals he has to require debt-free local authorities to pay into a central fund. [46037]

  Ms Keeble
  Our proposals for local government funding are set out in the recent Local Government White Paper—"Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services". They include the introduction of an arrangement for pooling a proportion of housing capital receipts arising in debt-free authorities to fund new housing investment where the need is greatest. This will mirror the arrangements that apply to non debt-free authorities. We are not proposing that this pooling should apply to receipts already realised.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment the Government have made of the cost to British farming of the Vibrations Directive. [45700]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Health and Safety Executive's Regulatory Impact Assessment of the Vibration Directive is available in the House of Commons Library. It assesses the cost of the Directive to industry as a whole; no assessment has been made of the costs to individual sectors.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment the Government have made of the impact of the noise directive on small manufacturers. [45701]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Health and Safety Executive's Regulatory Impact Assessment of the Physical Agents Noise Directive is available in the House of Commons Library. It includes an assessment of the impact of the Directive on small firms.

  Human Rights Act
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what monitoring his Department undertakes on local authorities to ensure compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998 when undertaking best value reviews of services. [45812]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Department does not monitor compliance with the Act. The DETR, along with Home Office and the LGA published the document "A New Era of Rights and Responsibilities—core guidance for public authorities" in October 2000, to draw authorities' attention to the requirements of the legislation. Beyond this, compliance is a matter for the individual authority.

  Wembley National Stadium
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the proposals for car parking arrangements and public transport contained in the planning application for Wembley National Stadium, with specific reference to(a) the requirements for a 90,000 seat world class sporting venue, (b) the transport and environmental needs of the Brent area and (c) the Government's vision for a 21st century transport system. [46323]
  967W
  Ms Keeble
  It is for Brent Council to form a view of the content of the planning application.

  Fatal Farming Accidents
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many fatal farming accidents there were in England and Wales in the last 12 months. [45209]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Figures for fatal injuries in farming for 2001–02 will be available by September 2002. The provisional figures for 2000–01 show 38 work-related fatal injuries in farming in England and Wales.

  Football Stadium
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the public inquiry into the redevelopment of Odsal Stadium will start. [45478]

  Mr. Byers
  The planning application was called in on 19 February 2002. The Planning Inspectorate is making the inquiry arrangements in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000. The target is to arrange inquiries within 22 weeks of the date of call-in.

  Asbestos-related Illnesses
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement on the criteria for compensation for asbestos-related illnesses contracted at work; [45206]

  (2) if he will introduce legislation to ensure compensation for individuals who have contracted asbestos-related diseases after working with asbestos for more than one employer; [45208]

  (3) if he will make a statement about the apportionment of responsibility between employers in cases where an individual suffering from asbestos-related illness has been employed by several employers. [45207]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The recent judgment of the Court of Appeal in the Fairchild case has the effect of preventing people suffering from work-related mesothelioma who worked for more than one employer from seeking compensation through the courts. On 13 February 2002,Official Report, column 401W, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that my Department will use the compensation scheme that the Department administers under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979 to make payments to people affected by the Fairchild judgment, provided that they meet the other conditions of eligibility under the scheme.

  The House of Lords will hear an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal on 22–23 April. We will determine whether we need to act further in the light of the outcome of the appeal.

  Care Homes
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many appeals for(a) the demolition and (b) the
  968W
  conversion of nursing and residential homes the Planning Inspectorate has considered in the past 12 months. [45296]

  Ms Keeble
  The provision of information on planning appeals is the responsibility of the Planning Inspectorate. I have asked the Inspectorate's Chief Executive, Mr. Chris Shepley, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Chris Shipley to Mr. Chris Grayling dated 26 March 2002:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about planning appeals involving the demolition or conversion of nursing and residential homes.
  The Planning Inspectorate does not record the existing land use of a site that is subject to appeal; just the proposed one, together with the development description give at the time of the planning application. To identify any appeals that fall into the categories you require, we have had to rely on the description also including existing usage.
  We can identify a total of 13. Four included the demolition of a home, all of which were dismissed. Of the nine involving converting a home to another use, five were allowed and four dismissed.

  North West Regional Assembly
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the annual cost is of the North West Regional Assembly. [45343]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The North West Regional Assembly is a voluntary body which receives funds from a number of sources. It is responsible for its own budget and publishes its accounts annually. The Department has made available £0.5 million for the Assembly in this financial year and proposes to make available £0.6 million in 2002–03.

  Urban Renewal
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on recent inner city regeneration initiatives. [45377]

  Ms Keeble
  The Urban White Paper Implementation Plan issued in March 2001 sets out how a wide range of initiatives across Government are supporting the objectives of the White Paper to deliver an urban renaissance. The Implementation Plan and six-monthly Implementation Bulletin (due to be re-issued in March 2002) provide an account of progress to date, as well as the key objectives we aim to deliver on over the next two years. Both documents can be found on my Department's website: www.regeneration.dtlr.gov.uk.

  We are working closely with 24 towns and cities across the country to take forward the urban agenda. These efforts will feed into the Urban Summit 2002. This will take place on 31 October and 1 November at the ICC in Birmingham. The Summit will reconfirm the Government-wide commitment to urban renaissance, celebrate success in bringing about change and identify where further action is needed, and evaluate the recommendations in the White Paper.
  969W
  The Government's vision for neighbourhood renewal was set out in the Neighbourhood Renewal National Strategy Action Plan, launched by the Prime Minister in January 2001. It aims to deliver economic prosperity, safe communities, high quality schools, decent housing and better health to the poorest parts of the country.

  This approach focuses Government programmes explicitly on deprived areas, many of which are located in inner cities, and requires local people and the public and private sectors to work in partnership. Government departments, local government and other public service providers are expected to bend their mainstream budgets to meet better local needs in deprived neighbourhoods. Departments have been set a series of minimum standards known as floor targets—for the first time they will be judged on the areas where they are doing worst and not on the national average.

  Extra resources are being directed to the 88 most deprived local authority areas to kickstart the strategy, including the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, worth £900 million over three years.

  The strategy is co-ordinated and driven forward by the cross-cutting Neighbourhood Renewal Unit based in DTLR. Further information on the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal, including updates on progress, can be found on the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit website: www.neighbourhood.gov.uk.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list, in date order from June 1997, the Government(a) reports and (b) white papers relating to urban renewal and social inclusion. [45376]

  Ms Keeble
  Government reports and White Papers relating to urban renewal and social inclusion, in date order, are as follows:(a) Reports (All were produced by the Social Exclusion Unit, unless stated otherwise)
  Truancy and School Exclusion (May 1998)
  Rough Sleeping (July 1998)
  Teenage Pregnancy (June 1999)
  Bridging the Gap: New Opportunities for 16–18 Year Olds not in Education, Employment or Training (July 1999)
  A Report of Policy Action Team 5: Housing Management (August 1999)
  A Report of Policy Action Team 9: Community Self Help (September 1999), Home Office
  Opportunity for all—tackling poverty and social exclusion (September 1999)
  A Report of Policy Action Team 7: Unpopular Housing (October 1999), DETR
  A Report of Policy Action Team 2: Skills (December 1999), DfEE
  A Report of Policy Action Team 3: Business (1999), HM Treasury
  A Report of Policy Action Team 6: Neighbourhood Wardens (1999), Home Office
  A Report of Policy Action Team 10: Arts and Sport (1999), DCMS
  A Report of Policy Action Team 11: Schools Plus (December 1999), DfEE
  A Report of Policy Action Team 13: Shops (1999), DoH
  A Report of Policy Action Team 14: Financial Services (1999), HM Treasury
  970W
  A Report of Policy Action Team 15: Closing the Digital Divide: Information and Communication Technologies in Deprived Areas (February 2000), DTI
  A Report of Policy Action Team 1: Jobs (2000), DfEE
  A Report of Policy Action Team 8: Anti-Social Behaviour (March 2000)
  A Report of Policy Action Team 12: Young People (March 2000)
  A Report of Policy Action Team 16: Learning Lessons (March 2000)
  A Report of Policy Action Team 17: Joining It Up Locally (February 2000), DETR
  A Report of Policy Action Team 4: Neighbourhood Management (April 2000)
  A Report of Policy Action Team 18: Better Information (April 2000)
  Minority Ethnic Issues in Social Exclusion and Neighbourhood Renewal—A guide to the work of the Social Exclusion Unit and the Policy Action Teams so far (June 2000)
  Opportunity for all—one year on: making a difference (November 2000), DSS
  National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal—Policy Action Team Audit (January 2001)
  A New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal—National Strategy Action Plan (January 2001)
  Preventing Social Exclusion (March 2001)
  New Deal for Communities Annual Review 2000–01 (September 2001), NRU
  Opportunity for all—making progress: third annual report (September 2001), DWP
  All 18 Policy Action Team Reports are summarised in: "National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal. Policy Action Team report summaries: a compendium"
  (b) White Paper
  Bringing Britain Together: A National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal (September 1998)
  The Urban White Paper "Our towns and cities: the future—Delivering an urban renaissance" (November 2000) DETR.

  Development Land Trusts
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards development land trusts. [37468]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer Tuesday, 26 February 2002]: "Development Land Trusts" is not a term that the department is aware of. If my hon. Friend would care to write to me, I will investigate further.

  Deaths at Work
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many deaths at work occurred in London in 2001. [45180]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Twenty six employees and self-employed people were fatally injured at work in Greater London in 2001.

  Planning Inquiries
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will set out the criteria by which a public inquiry on planning is designated as a major inquiry. [45449]
  971W
  Mr. Byers
  A Code of Practice, "Preparing for Major Inquiries in England" outlines procedures for handling major inquiries under the Planning Acts in England. The Code is set out in Annex 4 of DETR Circular 5/2000 "Planning Appeals: Procedures (Including Inquiries into Called-in Planning Applications)"

  Paragraph 4 of the Code indicates that it is intended for application in cases where the development proposal is of major public interest because of its national or regional implications, or the extent or complexity of the environmental, safety, technical or scientific issues involved, and where for these reasons there are a number of third parties involved as well as the applicant and the local planning authority.

  Housing
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what information his Department has collated on the proportion of former council tenants who purchased a property on the open market with the aid of a cash incentive scheme grant and who were subsequently unable to maintain their mortgage payments; [44464]

  (2) what proportions of local authority properties released for letting as a result of the cash incentive scheme in each Government office region in each of the past four years were let to (a) a homeless household, (b) a transfer applicant and (c) a waiting list applicant. [44462]

  Ms Keeble
  Forty six local authorities have been running cash incentive schemes in 2001–02. The detailed information requested is not available centrally.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will commission research to update the Review of the Cash Incentive Scheme 1994–97. [44463]

  Ms Keeble
  Two substantial research programmes have already been carried out into the Cash Incentive Scheme. Both showed that Cash Incentive Schemes could play a valuable part in freeing up council housing for households in housing need and in supporting moves into home ownership. We have no plans at present for any further research work on these Schemes.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the banding status of local housing authorities since performance bandings in the Housing Investment Programme were first introduced. [43025]

  Ms Keeble
  I am arranging for a copy of a table showing the performance banding assessments for all housing authorities given in the annual Housing Investment Programme exercise since these were first published in 1997 to be placed in the Libraries of the House. Six authorities—Bolton, Derby, Ipswich, New Forest, Portsmouth and Southampton—have been assessed in the top performance band in each of the five years.

  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the average management costs are for large scale voluntary transfer housing associations in the most recent year for which figures are available. [46370]
  972W
  Ms Keeble
  The Department does not hold this information.

  Housing Transfers
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much expenditure has been incurred by each local authority in transferring its stock to RSLs; and what he estimates the cost will be in(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04. [46365]

  Ms Keeble
  The Department does not hold this information.

  Introductory Tenancies
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many introductory tenancies have been terminated on the grounds of(a) antisocial behaviour and (b) rent arrears each year since their introduction. [43071]

  Ms Keeble
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Property Management
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he intends to consult on how to tackle poor standards amongst certain managers of property let on residential long leases; and if he will make a statement. [46928]

  Ms Keeble
  My Department intends to issue a consultation paper entitled "Improving the Standard of Residential Leasehold Management" on Friday 5 April. The paper is a response to widespread concern about the variable standards of management in the residential leasehold sector. It explores various options for improving standards, each of which has its own advantages and disadvantages.

  The Government is issuing this paper to stimulate a constructive and informed debate which will assist us in making our decision. Copies of the paper will be placed in the House Library.

  Noise Insulation
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what requirements for noise insulation exist in the case of the conversion of residential dwellings into a larger number of units. [45749]

  Ms Keeble
  The sound insulation between dwellings is controlled under Part E of the Building Regulations. Building Regulations 5 and 6 deal with Material change of use and sub-paragraphs 5(g) and 6(e) make it clear that Part E applies when a building which contains at least one dwelling undergoes a change of use such that it contains a greater or lesser number of dwellings than it did previously.

  Starter Homes Initiative
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he
  973W
  will list (a) the areas and (b) the number of households within each area which have benefited from the Starter Homes Initiative so far; [44985]

  (2) what the outturn expenditure so far incurred each year under the Starter Homes Initiative by his Department is; [44984]

  (3) what the estimated public expenditure expected to be incurred each year under the Starter Homes Initiative by his Department is. [44983]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answers Thursday, 21 March 2002]: We have provided £250 million for the Starter Home Initiative over the three years 2001–02 to 2003–04. Outturn expenditure figures for 2001–02 and the numbers of key worker households that have benefited are not available at present.

  Following the allocations in September 2001, schemes have been set up in local areas; priorities have been agreed with employers; and applicants have been assessed and instructed to select properties.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much the Government contributed to each of the regional assemblies in the last year for which figures are available. [46186]

  Dr. Whitehead
  In 2001–02, the Government is contributing £500,000 to each voluntary regional assembly.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans the Government have to establish regional assemblies in England; and what the implications will be for the shire counties. [45835]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The forthcoming Regional Governance White Paper will set out our proposals for elected regional assemblies for England, including the implications for local government.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much the regional assembly board in the South West is paid; and what payments members are entitled to. [45282]

  Dr. Whitehead
  This is a matter for the Assembly which is a voluntary body.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what role the South West Regional Assembly has in determining Government policy in the South West. [45273]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The South West Regional Assembly has an important role in the region in both scrutinising the regional development agency and in acting as a strategic focal point for the region. The Government is keen to take account of the Assembly's view, but there is no direct role in determining Government policy in the South West.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions 974W
  how much funding the regional assembly in the South West receives from (a) Government and (b) local sources. [45283]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The South West Regional Assembly (SWRA) is a voluntary body funded by local authorities and others in the region. Last year the Government announced £500,000 worth of funding for the SWRA as part of the £15 million fund for regional chambers over three years. The SWRA have recently submitted their plans for 2002–03 and 2003–04 amounting to a bid for £1.2 million from the fund. Other elements of the Assembly's budget are a matter for the Assembly.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what type of projects in the South West Regional Development Agency's area the regional assembly may(a) reject and (b) recommend. [45277]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The assembly has no role in the SWRDA's decisions on projects.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what criteria he has set for joint working between regional development agencies and regional assemblies; and which is the lead organisation. [45276]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 allowed for the Secretary of State to issue directions to require a RDA to have regard, in formulating and reviewing its strategy, to any views expressed by the chamber. No directions have been issued under this provision as the voluntary arrangements between the RDAs and chambers have precluded the need for this.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what role the regional assembly has in scrutinizing the working of regional development agencies; and if the regional assembly may turn down recommendations made by regional development agencies. [45281]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 allowed for the Secretary of State to designate a voluntary grouping of stakeholders in the region as the regional chamber for the regional development agency (RDA), and each region now has a designated chamber (or assembly). It also allowed for the Secretary of State to issue directions to require a RDA to have regard, in formulating and reviewing its strategy, to any views expressed by the chamber. No directions have been issued under this provision as the voluntary arrangements between RDAs and chambers have precluded the need for this.

  e-Government
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to pay grant to (a) provide e-voting pilots and (b) help local authorities achieve the vision of e-Government set out in their implementing electronic Government statements. [47163]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As part of the package of funding previously announced under the £350 million Local Government On-Line (LGOL) Programme, I have today laid before the House a Special Grant Report
  975W
  containing powers for my Department to Pay £4.1 million of grant to provide 15 e-voting pilots, £200,000 to each local authority that has submitted a satisfactory Implementing Electronic Government (IEG) Statement (to support the work set out in that Statement), and a further £200,000 to authorities that submit a satisfactory updated IEG and that demonstrate they have used the first £200,000 to good effect.

  The Report will also enable £50,000 of grant to be paid to fund the dissemination of best practice from the e-government pathfinders, and allow the 24 LGOL funded e-government pathfinders to continue, where necessary, past 31 March 2002 in order to complete their pioneering work.

  Arms-length Management
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much his Department estimates the average local authority will spend in setting up an arms-length management organisation, with specific reference to(a) employment or purchase of legal and other professional, (b) new accommodation, (c) new staff and (d) regrading of existing posts. [46371]

  Ms Keeble
  We have made no estimates of these costs, which will depend on each authority's circumstances. In 2001 a working group chaired by the Local Government Association, in which my Department participated, developed and published model legal documentation for arms length housing management organisations (ALMOs), so helping to reduce authorities' individual legal costs. We will continue to work closely with authorities and the local government associations to ensure that ALMOs are established and operate efficiently.

  Departmental Leak Inquiry
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the leak inquiry being undertaken by the Permanent Secretary has been completed; and if he will publish the findings. [45978]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer Monday, 25 March 2002]: The internal investigation into apparent leaks from DTLR between 11 and 14 February has been completed. Reports on internal investigations are not published. Consideration is being given to whether disciplinary action should be taken against any member of staff as a result of this investigation in accordance with procedures in the DTLR Staff Handbook.

  Self-funding Safety Camera Project
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many statements his Department has issued to counter mis-reporting of its self-funding safety camera project in the media, since it was launched in April 2000. [46245]

  Dr. Whitehead
  There have been two press releases (on 13 August 2001 and 3 December 2001) which mention the results from the pilot scheme of camera funding.
  976W
  No record is kept of oral statements made by the press office to the media.

  Research and Policy Programmes
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what changes to the management of research and policy programmes in his Department(a) have taken place since May 1997 and (b) are planned. [46337]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department continues to modernise and improve the approach taken to the management of research and policy programme, through a wide variety of means. It is not possible to list separately, all projects which contribute to this aim over the period specified.

  Public Engagements
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list his public engagements since 8 October 2001. [45450]

  Mr. Byers
  I have carried out engagements across the country and in Europe.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he last met(a) Ian McAllister and (b) Ian Coucher. [45357]

  Dr. Whitehead
  It is not the normal practice of the Government to release details of meetings or discussions with private individuals or companies.

  Reports
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 13 March 2002,Official Report, column 1090W, on reports, if he will place a copy of the standard terms and conditions referred to in the Library. [45676]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  HSE
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what technical support contracts were awarded by the Health and Safety Executive between 1 January and 31 December 2000. [45657]

  Dr. Whitehead
  HSE has a number of Framework Agreements with various suppliers of technical support services. These are listed in Annex 1 together with the number of jobs and the value of work undertaken by the supplier(s) for HSE during the specified period.

  In addition to the work carried out under these Framework Agreements, a number of individual pieces of technical support work were contracted during the period 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000 and are listed at Annex 2.

  Both Annexes have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions 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. [44950]

  Dr. Whitehead
  This Department's target for 2002–03 is for Ministers to respond to 76 per cent. of letters from hon. Member within 15 working days and 90 per cent. within 20 working days. For letters received directly from members of the public, the target for the centre of the Department for 2002–03 is for officials to respond within 15 working days. Our executive agencies also have a 15 working days target for such correspondence, with the exception of the Rent Service (five days), the Fire Service College (seven days) and the Driving Standards Agency (10 days).

  Human Rights Act
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions 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. [45067]

  Dr. Whitehead
  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 have recorded 68 cases to date.

  We do not collect information centrally about the costs to public funds, legal fees or compensation payments in cases that 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 Transport, Local Government and the Regions which public service agreement targets scheduled to be met in 2002 will not be achieved by the due date. [44818]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Information about progress on PSA targets will be published in the department's 2002 Departmental Annual Report.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions 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 jobseeker's allowance or other benefits. [44907]

  Dr. Whitehead
  This information is not held by this Department.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many people have been employed by his Department in 978W
  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. [44926]

  Dr. Whitehead
  This Department and its agencies have employed 77 New Dealers to date. Records are not kept centrally of the separate categories.

  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. These amounts are not held centrally.

  Crèche Facilities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what crèche facilities are provided by his Department; and at what cost. [44865]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Central) currently provides 12 subsidised nursery places in two London nurseries run by Westminster Children's Society and subsidises four nursery places for DTLR(C) staff in Hastings. In 2001–02 the Department also, exceptionally, paid subsidy on the first year costs of 4.5 places for DTLR(C) staff in Temple Quay, Bristol.

  The DTLR also participates in the Westminster Holiday Playscheme. In 2001–02, DTLR staff took up 51 places on the scheme.

  The Department's budget for 2001–02 for the provision of the subsidised element of its childcare provision was £50,600. The Department pays approximately 45 per cent. of the cost of places at the London nurseries—parents meet the remaining proportion. Places at the holiday playschemes are 50 per cent. subsidised by the Department.

  The Department is conducting a review of childcare provision in DTLR(C), which will make recommendations on a range of options—including childcare vouchers.

  Ministerial Private Offices
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the running costs were of(a) his Ministers' private offices, separately identifying expenditure on staff and (b) his Department in each year from May 1997 to the nearest date for which the information is available. [40984]

  Dr. Whitehead
  (a) The table shows the total administration and pay expenditure on Ministers' Private Offices. The figures for the years prior to 2001–02 are in cash terms and relate to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions prior to changes in Departmental responsibilities following the last election. The forecast for 2001–02 is on a resource basis.

  (b) The running costs for the Department have been published in the individual years' appropriation accounts and resource accounts, which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  979W

  Administration costs expenditure

  £000

  1997–98 Expenditure

  1998–99 Expenditure

  1999–2000 Expenditure

  2000–01 Expenditure

  2001–02 Forecast

  Private office total

  n/a

  2,475

  2,475

  2,517

  2,132

  of which Pay

  n/a

  1,371

  1,498

  1,597

  1,309

  Departmental Procedures
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if it is the policy of his Department for him to be consulted about(a) the discussions on the resignation of a senior official, (b) a decision to secure the resignation of a senior official, and (c) a decision to suspend a senior official. [41282]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 7 March 2002]: Staffing and disciplinary matters within the Department are handled in accordance with the DTLR Staff Handbook, which reflects the provisions of the Civil Service Management Code. The Permanent Secretary informs or consults me as appropriate within this framework in relation to senior staffing matters.

  Jo Moore
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether Jo Moore received a one-off payment from public funds following her resignation. [40090]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: Personnel matters of this kind are a confidential matter between the individual and the Department.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether Jo Moore is employed by his Department. [40089]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the Statement I made to the House on 26 February 2002.

  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what severance package was offered to Ms Jo Moore as a result of her resignation. [40176]

  Mr. Byers
  Personnel details of this kind are a confidential matter between the individual and the Department.

  Press Office
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his reply of 19 March, if he will list the Government departments to which press officers leaving his Department since June 2001 have transferred. [46120]

  Mr. Byers
  DTLR press officers have transferred to the following government departments or agencies:

  Cabinet Office;

  Home Office;

  Office of Fair Trading;

  Health and Safety Executive; and

  British National Space Centre.

  980W
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if Ian Jones is suspended on full pay. [45973]

  Mr. Byers
  I understand that Mr. Jones is currently suspended on full pay pending a decision whether to bring disciplinary charges against him. This decision will be taken in due course following the procedures laid down in the DTLR Staff Handbook.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions who was between Mr. Ian Jones and Sir Richard Mottram in the reporting line of the former at the time of his suspension. [42585]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer Tuesday, 12 March 2002]: The acting Director of Communication.

  Departmental Filler Advertisements
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport. Local Government and the Regions (1) how many television filler advertisements his Department produced in 2001; and how many it intends to produce in 2002; [46237]

  (2) how much air-time was allotted to his Department's television filler advertisements, indicating the channels used, in 2001; and how much air-time it expects to be allotted in 2002. [46238]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Department has produced eight new TV fillers in the financial year 2001–02. Five of these cover road safety and three, which were modifications of previous TV advertising, cover fire safety. We have also updated five existing fire safety fillers. The total cost committed was £219,745.

  The eight new fillers will be launched at the beginning of the new financial year and we will monitor their success to inform future strategy, including the need to produce additional films.

  Figures returned by TV stations indicate an estimated total of 19,765 transmissions will have been secured by the end of March 2002, equivalent to £3.2 million worth of airtime. Coverage was achieved on BBC, ITV, Channel 5 and various satellite channels.

  We expect the value of airtime received to increase in the next financial year as our research has indicated that TV stations are more receptive to newer films.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how much air-time was allotted to his Department's radio filler advertisements, indicating the radio stations used, in 2001; and how much air-time it expects to be allotted in 2002; [46242]
  981W
  (2) how many radio filler advertisements his Department produced in 2001; and how many it intends to produce in 2002; [46241]

  (3) how much of his Department's road safety publicity budget was spent on producing radio filler advertisements in 2001; and how much it intends to spend on producing radio filler advertisements in 2002. [46240]

  Dr. Whitehead
  In the financial year 2001–02 the department committed £21,545 for producing two radio fillers for road safety which were launched a month ago. We intend to commit an estimated £50,000 in 2002–03 to produce up to five radio fillers for fire safety campaigns.

  The Department's previous fillers (as DETR) secured at least 1,000 transmissions to publicise foot and mouth information and the role of the Drinking Water Inspectorate. Actual transmissions will be higher but not all stations provide returns. It is too early to know the number of transmissions secured by the new road safety fillers.

  We expect increased coverage in 2002–03 as the number of our fillers and radio use of them increases. Due to commercial sensitivity, we are unable to provide details of which stations have aired fillers.

  Road Safety Publicity
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much of his Department's road safety publicity budget was spent on television campaigns in 2001; and how much it intends to spend on television campaigns in 2002. [46235]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Department committed approximately £5.2 million to its Think! road safety television campaigns in 2001–02. It is expected that a similar amount will be committed in 2002–03.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much money his Department spent on road safety publicity in 2001; and how much it intends to spend in 2002. [46234]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Department committed approximately £12.9 million to the Think! road safety campaign in 2001–02. A budget of £13.4 million has been agreed for 2002–03.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much of his Department's road safety publicity budget was spent on radio campaigns in 2001; and how much it intends to spend on radio campaigns in 2002. [46239]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Department committed approximately £2.2 million to radio campaigns in the year 2001–02. It is expected that a similar amount will be committed in 2002–03.

  Press Releases
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how 982W
  many press releases his Department's press office has released in support of its self-funding safety camera project, since it was launched in April 2000. [46244]

  Dr. Whitehead
  There have been two press notices concerning the netting off scheme for safety cameras since that date. On 13 August 2001, my Department announced new rules on visibility and the results from the first year of the pilot scheme. On 3 December 2001 new rules on the colour of cameras was announced. The notes to editors contained the previously published figures.

  A press notice on 26 July 2001 made mention of speed cameras as a means of cutting speeding.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many press releases were issued by his Department's press office in 2001(a) on road safety topics and (b) on other topics. [46243]

  Dr. Whitehead
  (a) DETR (central)/DTLR (central) Road Safety topics—31

  (b) DETR (central)/DTLR (central) Other topics—531.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Retirement Ages
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the retirement ages that apply to the employees of his Department and its agencies, including how many and which categories of employees are affected by each; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on flexible retirement. [32824]

  Malcolm Wicks
  All staff in the Department other than the Senior Civil Service, a total of 129,342 (99 per cent.) can elect to remain in employment until age 65. At present the retirement age for staff in the Senior Civil Service is set by the Cabinet Office at 60, although there is the option to retain members beyond the age of 60 if it is judged to be in the public interest and the Department is satisfied about the fitness and efficiency of the individual to carry out his or her duties.

  We are committed to ending age discriminatory practices and Government ministers, through the Cabinet Office, are actively working towards removing the current barriers for members of the Senior Civil Service.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many retirement pensioners are receiving(a) housing benefit and (b) council tax benefit in (i) Great Britain and (ii) each region of Great Britain. [39547]
  983W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the table.

  Retirement pensioners receiving housing benefit and council tax benefit in Great Britain and by region: May 2000

  Region

  Retirement pensioners receiving housing benefit

  Retirement pensioners receiving council tax benefit

  Great Britain

  1,490,000

  2,153,000

  North East

  93,000

  130,000

  NorthWest

  189,000

  289,000

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  147,000

  209,000

  East Midlands

  99,000

  150,000

  West Midlands

  150,000

  232,000

  East

  125,000

  183,000

  London

  176,000

  223,000

  South East

  155,000

  216,000

  SouthWest

  103,000

  161,000

  Wales

  71,000

  112,000

  Scotland

  182,000

  248,000

  Notes:

  1. The figures are based on a 1 per cent, sample and are subject to sampling error.

  2. The data refer to people claiming housing benefit, who may be single people, or one of a couple or a family. More than one person claiming can live in one property, for example two or more adults in a flat or house share arrangement.

  3. The figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  4. The totals may not sum due to rounding.

  5. Retirement pensioners are defined as people where either they and/or their partner are receiving state retirement pension.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System, annual 1 per cent, sample, taken in May 2000.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will provide the basis for ministers' calculations concerning the number of children who have been lifted out of poverty by the measures introduced by his Government; and what assessment he has made of how many children would be lifted out of poverty by such measures if the take-up rate of social security benefits was 100 per cent. [45288]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  As a result of personal tax and benefit measures announced in the last Parliament there are an estimated 1.2 million fewer children living in households with incomes below 60 per cent. of the median (after housing costs) than there otherwise would have been. Families with children have very high take-up rates for social security benefits. It would make very little difference whether estimated or 100 per cent. take-up rates were used to calculate the impact of tax and benefit measures on child poverty.

  Disability and carers service targets 2002–03

  Normal rules claims

  Special rules claims

  Renewal claims

  Reconsiderations

  Supersessions

  Appeals

  Accuracy (%)

  Disability Living Allowance (DLA)

  43 days

  8 days

  32 days

  39 days

  49 days

  40 days

  96

  Attendance Allowance (AA)

  27 days

  8 days

  23 days

  38 days

  38 days

  40 days

  96

  Invalid Care Allowance (ICA)

  32 days

  n/a

  n/a

  95% in 70 days

  n/a

  40 days

  95

  Note:

  Normal rules claims: Claims on which a qualifying period must be served before benefit can be awarded.

  Special rules claims: Claims on which no qualifying period has to be served before benefit can be awarded because the claimant is terminally ill and has a life expectancy of less than six months.

  Renewal claims: Claims to renew an existing award of benefit that was made for a finite period. This can be made up to six months before the expiry of the existing award.

  Bereavement Benefit
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, (1) pursuant to his answer of 25 February 2002, ref. 32742,Official Report, column 771W, how many complaints he has received on this subject; [39178]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 25 February 2002, Official Report, column 77I W, ref. 32742, if he will make a statement on form BD8. [40293]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Bereavement Benefits were introduced on 9 April 2001 and are available to both men and women for the first time. They concentrate the help available where and when it is needed most, on immediate needs and on families with children.

  Form BD8, registration of notification of death, which is issued by registrars to bereaved people for social security purposes, was amended to incorporate the new bereavement benefits introduced from April 2001.

  We have received no complaints about form BD8.

  Performance Targets
  David Cairns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what performance targets he has set for the(a) Appeals Service, (b) Disability and Carers Service and (c) Child Benefit Centre for 2002–03. [46930]

  Mr. Darling
  The targets I have set the Appeals Service, the Disability and Carers Service and Child Benefit Centre are given below.

  Further information on the Appeals Service plans for 2002–03 is contained in their individual business plan, which has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Business plans for the Disability and Carers Service and Child Benefit Centre will be published shortly.

  The Appeals Service Targets 2002–03

  Waiting Times
  The average waiting time for an appeal to be heard will be no more than 14 weeks from the time of receipt by the Appeals Service;
  The number of cases over 24 weeks old as at 1 April 2002, will be reduced by at least 30 per cent. by 31 March 2003;
  For cases returned by the Commissioner, the average waiting time for an appeal to be re-heard will be no more than 10 weeks from the date of return to the Appeals Service in at least 75 per cent. of cases.

  Local Variations
  The range of waiting time variations between our local offices will be reduced by a factor of at least 5 per cent. per annum over a two-year period.
  985W
  Reconsiderations: Applications for review of an initial decision where the application is made on "any grounds" (i.e. dissatisfaction) within one month of the dates of the original decision.

  Supersessions: Applications for review of an initial decision where the application is made more than one month after the initial decision.

  Appeals: Any case where an independent Tribunal looks afresh at a decision.

  Ms Y. Allen
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reasons Ms Y. Allen of Salcombe, Devon was not informed when undertaking a two-year therapeutic counselling course under the new deal scheme that funding would be awarded for the first year only and that only outline sources of alternative funding would be available for the second year; and if he will make a statement as to the impact on(a) employers and (b) new deal participants of funding courses for less than 12 months. [31181]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The administration of the New Deal is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Employment Service, Leigh Lewis. I have asked him to reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Clare Dodgson to Anthony Steen dated 11 February 2002:.
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Minister of State has asked me to reply direct to your letter of 12 December 2001, enclosing one from Ms Yvonne Allen of 23 Round Berry Drive, Salcombe, Devon, concerning the funding of her course. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Operating Officer of the Agency.
  I was naturally concerned to learn of the difficulties Ms Allen is facing. To enable me to respond fully to the issues raised, I contacted Diana Ross, the Regional Director for the South West, and asked her to look into this matter for me.
  It may be helpful if I first provide some background information. As you may be aware, Ms Allen undertook the Education and Training Opportunity option which is available to clients taking part in the New Deal for 25plus initiative. To be eligible for the provision clients must be over the age of 25, unemployed and at the time Ms Allen commenced New Deal 25plus, claiming Jobseeker's Allowance for two years or more.
  Ms Ross tells me that prior to starting her training Ms Allen agreed an Individual Training Plan with her New Deal Personal Adviser. This states that her objective was to complete the Advanced Certificate in Therapeutic Counselling and gives the dates of the funding, which are from September 2000 to June 2001.
  I understand that after completing this funded opportunity, Ms Allen was then invited to discuss her next steps towards finding work with her New Deal Personal Adviser, Fiona Cardrick. At this point, Ms Allen expressed a wish to pursue further training to gain the Diploma in Therapeutic Counselling. Fiona explained that as Ms Allen had already received a year's funding under the Education and Training Opportunity option, she was not eligible for further funding through New Deal. I should add that since New Deal began, it has always been the clearly stated policy to offer funding under the Education and Training Opportunity option for a maximum of one year. I can confirm that Ms Allen has received the maximum amount of funding allowed for participants on this option and that she was made aware of the limitations on funding at the outset.
  I understand that Ms Allen is currently considering other sources of funding and has had further discussions with Fiona Cardrick, her Personal Adviser about her next steps.
  I am sorry to send what I know will be a disappointing reply, but I hope it is helpful in clarifying the situation.

  Guardian's Allowance
  David Cairns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will change the conditions for receiving Guardian's Allowance. [46931]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Guardians Allowance (GA) is currently paid to people bringing up a child whose parents have either died, or where there is a surviving parent who cannot be traced, or who is serving a prison sentence of five years or more.

  From 1 April 2002, we will extend entitlement to GA to those caring for children with a surviving parent who has been ordered by a court to be detained in a hospital, or sentenced to a term of imprisonment for two years or more. This will help to allow more children to remain within their extended family.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, when he will reply to the letter of 17 January from the hon. Member for Fareham, concerning Mrs. McDonald. [45805]

  Maria Eagle
  I replied to the hon. Member on 25 March 2002.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many pensioners are claiming the minimum income guarantee in the Clwyd, South constituency. [41388]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  As at November 2001, there were 2,500 Minimum Income Guarantee claimants in the parliamentary constituency of Clwyd South.Source:
  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry November 2001.

  Long-Stay Patients (Benefits)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, (1) what considerations led to the figure of £14.50 allocated to those in long-stay hospitals who are in receipt of a state benefit; [45144]

  (2) when the last review was carried out into benefit receipt for patients in long-stay hospitals; and whether there are plans to review the system in the near future. [45145]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding reply 21 March 2002]: We have considered carefully the impact of the current rules which reduce certain benefits paid to pensioners and people of working age after six weeks of hospitalisation. The down rating of benefits preserves the principle that the State should not make double provision. It also recognises that a substantial number of people leave hospital before six weeks.

  We consider the six week rule strikes a fair balance between what the state should provide financially and the provision individuals should make for themselves,

  987W
  however, we also recognise that people have on-going financial commitments whilst in hospital. We therefore announed on 5 March 2002 that we have decided to extend the period before benefits are downrated by a further seven weeks to the 13 week stage. This will mean that people previously affected by the six week rule will be able to keep their benefits untouched if their period of stay in hospital is under 13 weeks. This will account for the majority of stays.

  We will introduce this change to coincide with the introduction of Pension Credit.

  The hospital personal allowance, currently £14.50 per week, is intended to provide for small personal items not provided by the hospital and is set by legislation. The amount is currently set as a percentage of Retirement Pension, which is reviewed every year. Benefit is restricted to this amount because, generally speaking, the National Health Service can be said to have assumed, to a large degree, the responsibility of providing for patients who have spent more than 52 weeks in hospital. There are no plans to change the amount by which benefits are reduced for hospital inpatients who have been in hospital for more than 52 weeks.

  PFI/PPPs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the(a) private finance initiative and (b) public private partnership projects which have been delayed. [44874]

  Mr. Darling
  None of the Department's 10 PFI/PPP projects have been delayed beyond the expected or forecast contract close date.

  Payments to contractors under PFI are not usually made until the service is available. As I explained in my statement 20 March, Official Report, column 316W, that in one case, developing the new Child Support computer system, testing work is not yet complete. The Department will not pay EDS for the system until it meets the standard required.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his latest estimate is of the(a) number and (b) proportion of participants in the New Deal for Young People who have left the scheme for unknown destinations. [44899]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Figures on young people who leave the New Deal for unknown destinations are contained in the regularly published Statistical First Releases which are available in the Library.

  Energy Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on energy costs incurred by his Department in each of the last 10 years. [42442]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael) on 19 March 2002,Official Report, Volume 382, column 268W.

  Celebrations
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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. [42299]

  Malcolm Wicks
  There are certain days of the year known as "named days" when the Union flag must be flown from Government buildings. The days include St. David's day (in Wales), St. George's day (in England), St. Andrew's day (in Scotland) but not St. Patrick's day. In the Department for Work and Pensions there are no celebrations other than raising the Union flag.

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

  I should also like to refer the hon. Member to the reply the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport gave to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) on 11 February 2002, Official Report, columns 58–59W. In the Department for Work and Pensions all staff will be given the additional public holiday on 3 June 2002 to celebrate Her Majesty The Queen's Golden Jubilee.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate how many of the single pensioners who fail to take up their entitlement to the minimum income guarantee are aged 80 years or above. [32615]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available can be found in the publication "Take Up of Income Related Benefits: Statistics for 1999–2000", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps have been taken by his Department to ensure that the tapers determining the amount of housing and council tax benefit to which the recipients of working families tax credit are entitled do not result in a lower income in work after rent and council tax than out of work after receiving 100 per cent. housing benefit and council tax benefit. [29534]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding reply 25 January 2002]: We are transforming the welfare system from a passive organisation paying out benefits to an active system that fights poverty, creates opportunity and helps people become self-sufficient.

  In support of these aims we are ensuring that work pays. The Working Families Tax Credit and the National Minimum Wage have for the first time guaranteed a minimum income for working families with children. These measures together guarantee that every family with children where at least one person is working 35 hours a week will receive a minimum income of £225 a week, or almost £12,000 a year.
  989W
  Entitlement to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit is assessed by comparing a person's net income, less income disregards, with the amount they would receive on Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance. For each pound that their income exceeds this level, the amount of benefit payable is reduced by fixed tapers. For people moving from welfare into work these tapers ensure they are better off.

  For people in work, who receive a pay rise, the combined effect of the tapers in Working Families Tax Credit, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit means they remain better off. If Working Families Tax Credit was not taken into account in Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit families who worked longer hours or took better paid jobs would be worse off as they would face high marginal deduction rates.

  Housing Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the Department's policy towards providing incentives for local authority procedures for reducing housing benefit fraud. [34423]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Our immediate priority for Housing Benefit is to work with local authorities to drive up standards across the board, tackle fraud and error and promote work incentives. We have introduced a wide range of measures providing incentives for local authorities to tackle housing benefit fraud.

  In November 1997 we launched the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate to help raise standards in secure housing benefit administration. The BFI has so far published 116 reports helping local authorities to tackle weaknesses in their services and identifying and spreading good practice.

  In April 1998 we tightened the criteria for establishing fraud to prevent abuse of the Weekly Benefit Savings scheme which was originally introduced in 1993.

  In May 1998 we introduced the Verification Framework to help prevent fraud and error from entering the housing benefit system and help to detect it when it occurs. £160 million has been made available from April 2001 to fund local authorities which sign up to the Verification Framework, and over 75 per cent. of authorities have now done so.

  In April 2001 we introduced a comprehensive new anti-fraud scheme for local authorities that provides a broader range of financial incentives to prevent, detect, punish and prosecute fraud than did the old Weekly Benefit Savings scheme. To fund these two schemes we have made £180 million available since April 2001. Sixty-three authorities adopted the new scheme in April 2001 and the remaining authorities will do so in April this year.

  New Deal
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in Paisley, North have(a) entered work and (b) are in unsubsidised employment through the New Deal Programme. [43915]
  990W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The available information is in the table.

  Number of people entering jobs in Paisley, North (up to the end of December 2001)

  Programme

  Total

  Unsubsidised jobs

  New Deal for Young People

  636

  585

  New Deal 25 plus

  197

  163

  New Deal for Lone Parents

  1191

  191

  New Deal 50 plus

  1129

  129

  1 Subsidised employment is not available through the New Deal for Lone Parents or New Deal 50 plus. All jobs for these programmes are therefore unsubsidised.

  Note:

  Information at constituency level is not available for the New Deal for Disabled People and the New Deal for Partners.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions since the New Deal for Young People began, how many participants have joined the scheme(a) once, (b) twice, (c) three times and (d) more than three times. [44095]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  At December 2001, 741,000 people had entered the New Deal for Young People programme. Of these 104,550 clients have entered the programme twice (14 per cent. of all entrants), 14,200 (2 per cent.) have entered three times, and 1,880 (0.2 per cent) more than three times.

  Source: New Deal Evaluation Database.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions by what date he estimates the number of pensioners qualifying for means-tested benefits to fall to the level that existed in 1995. [43935]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The number of pensioners currently receiving one or more income related benefits is below the level in 1995, and has been in every year since 1995.

  Benefits Agency (Slough)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on each of the violent incidents that took place at the Benefits Agency Office at Slough during February. [45196]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding reply 21 March]: On 1 February at 15.25 a person forced his way through a door between the public counter into the caller staff area. He verbally threatened a member of staff and made physical contact with him (touching him on the nose) although he did not physically harm him. The police had been called immediately and they arrested the person. A review risk assessment was carried out on 4 February.

  On 15 February a male member of the public fatally stabbed a female member of the public. Police have arrested a man in connection with the incident. A further risk assessment has been carried out and recommendations sent to local management.

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in Telford are in receipt of the winter fuel allowance. [41426]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Figures for this year are not yet available. Details of last year's payments are in the Library.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in(a) St. Helens South, (b) St. Helens MBC area, (c) Merseyside, (d) the North West and (e) England are eligible to claim the minimum income guarantee. [44717]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding reply 21 March 2002]: Estimates of the number of people eligible for the Minimum Income Guarantee are not available below National level. Figures for the number of pensioners who may be entitled to but are not receiving the MIG are contained in the publication, "Take Up of Income Related Benefits: Statistics for 1999–2000".

  The figures in the report pre-date the MIG take up campaign in May 2000 which, up to the end of January 2002, has resulted in 128,163 additional successful claims—pensioners are on average £20 a week better off as a result.

  The table shows the number of MIG recipients as at November 2001, by area:

  Thousands

  Area

  Number of MIG claimants

  St. Helens South Parliamentary Constituency

  3,200

  St. Helens MBC

  6,300

  Merseyside

  6,180

  North West GOR

  24,540

  England

  1,459,200

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry November 2001

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people were prosecuted for housing benefit or council tax benefit fraud in the last year for which figures are available; how many of those prosecutions were successful: and if he will break down the succesful prosecutions by type of punishment. [44097]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information on the number of people successfully prosecuted for housing benefit and council tax benefit fraud in the last year for which figures are available is in the table. Information is not held centrally on successful prosecutions by type of punishment.

  Fraud investigations conducted by Local Authorities (LAs) 2000–01

  Number

  Cases referred to the LA fraud/investigation section for further action

  460,000

  Cases referred to the LA fraud/investigation section for further action that were investigated

  370,000

  992W

  Fraud investigations conducted by Local Authorities (LAs) 2000–01

  Number

  Cases where fraud was established and a Weekly Benefit Saving was claimed

  100,000

  Cases referred by LAs for prosecution

  2,300

  Successful prosecutions

  1,100

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information System Quarterly Administration Returns April 1999 to March 2000.

  Notes:

  1. The data refers to benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple.

  2. The figures have been rounded to 2 significant figures.

  3. Data is not available for all 409 Local Authorities. These totals include estimates for Local Authorities that have not responded which are based on historical and regional data. This type of estimate is standard practice in reporting totals where there have been non-respondents.

  New Deal for Young People (NAO Report)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he intends to reply to the National Audit Office report entitled "The New Deal for Young People". [43100]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Government's response to the National Audit Office Report "The New Deal for Young People" and the subsequent Public Accounts Committee Report will be published in the Treasury Minute. The Treasury Officer of Accounts is responsible for publishing the Treasury Minute approximately two months following publication of the Public Accounts Committee Report.

  Defaulters
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment has been made of the likely number of defaulters on grounds of principle; and what steps he is taking to address the issue. [44438]

  Malcolm Wicks
  No such assessment has been made. We do not accept that any non-resident parent who can afford to support their children has the right to deny children such support.

  Despite continued improvement in the rate of compliance over the last few years, at the moment, only around half of non-resident parents pay all the maintenance due or the support of their children. The aim of the Government's reforms is to see a marked increase in those numbers. The new scheme will be rigorously enforced; the simplicity of the new rules will enable the Agency to devote substantially more resources to enforcement. In the meantime, pending the start of the new scheme, I continue to look to the Agency to secure the best possible rate of compliance achievable under the current scheme.

  It is important to remember the effect of regular payments of child maintenance. It can transform the lives of lone mothers and their children; where the families are dependent on income support, providing a stable income can help lone parents into work.

  Annuities
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 4 March 2002, to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb),Official Report, column 8, on annuities, if he will set out the calculation on which his estimate of 18 million beneficiaries of the state second pension is based. [43349]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding reply 14 March 2002]: A breakdown of the 18 million people expected to gain from the introduction of the state second pension is in the table:

  million

  Low earners

  Moderate earners

  Carers

  Long-term disabled

  4.5

  9.5

  2.2

  2

  Figures for low and moderate earners were calculated by the Government Actuary's Department using an earnings distribution based on the New Earnings Survey. Estimates for carers and long-term disabled people were based on the Family Resources Survey and Department for Social Security administrative data.

  These figures are consistent with the projections contained in the report by the Government Actuary on the financial effects on the National Insurance Fund of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill 1999.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 5 July 2001,Official Report, column 271W, on council tax, what proportion of pensioner households and how many pensioners in total, paid (a) more than five per cent., (b) more than 10 per cent. and (c) more than 15 per cent. of their gross income in council tax in 2000–01. [42546]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Forty per cent. of pensioner households in Great Britain paid more than 5 per cent. of their gross income (net of council tax benefit) in council tax in 2000–01, 8 per cent. of pensioner households paid more than 10 per cent., and 2 per cent. paid more than 15 per cent.

  From April 2002 this Government will be spending an extra £6 billion a year in real terms on pensioners as a result of policies, including the Minimum Income Guarantee, free TV licences and Winter Fuel Payments, introduced since 1997.
  Notes:
  1. For the purpose of this analysis, council tax is taken to be net of council tax discount and council tax benefit.
  2. These figures are from the Family Resources Survey 2000–01 (Great Britain).
  3. Gross income is net of tax credits and council tax benefit.
  4. A pensioner household is one where the head is over state pension age.
  5. The estimates are based on sample counts, which have been adjusted for non-response using grossing factors that control for region, council tax band, tenure and a number of demographic variables. Estimates are subject to sampling error and to variability in non-response.
  6. All percentages have been rounded to the nearest 1 per cent.

  Housing Benefit Regulations
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the proposed amendment to the Housing Benefit Regulations will be brought into force to enable an ex-owner to claim housing benefit provided five years have elapsed since he or she ceased to own a property. [44802]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding reply 21 March 2002]: The regulations were amended by SI 2001 No. 487, The Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 2001, which were laid before Parliament on 27 February 2001 and came into force on 21 May 2001.

  Child Support
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library a copy of(a) each of the CSA's monthly Business Information Bulletins since April 2001, (b) the CSA Board's quarterly review of its progress, (c) the CSA's Risk Management Framework and report on Risk Management and (d) the CSA's Latest Controls report from December 2001. [32548]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what consideration will be given in the new child support system to fathers who have identical incomes and costs of travel to work and(a) who have different housing costs, and (b) who have former partners who have different incomes. [44434]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We believe a simple scheme is the right way forward, because the complexity of the current scheme is one of the major causes of the current administrative problems. Every non-resident parent has different costs or responsibilities. Any attempt to take account of them all would lead to the reinvention of the complexity of the current formula.

  The Government accepts that some parents have special, exceptional expenses that make complete reliance on a percentage-based assessment unreasonable. That is the justification for the variations system.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average maintenance assessment is for child support; and what the estimated average maintenance calculation is under the new scheme. [44435]

  Malcolm Wicks
  This information is in the tables.

  Average maintenance assessment in the current Child Support Scheme

  Number of qualifying children

  Average per week in pounds

  1

  18.46

  2

  24.57

  3

  23.40

  Source:

  5 per cent. scan of Child Support Computer System August 1998.
  995W

  Average maintenance calculation in the new Child Support Scheme

  Number of qualifying children

  Average per week in pounds

  1

  14.88

  2

  21.80

  3

  24.86

  Source:

  5 per cent. scan of Child Support Computer System August 1998.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what factors underlay the decision to reform the child support system; and on what date the reforms will be brought into effect. [44439]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Research commissioned for the White Paper of July 1999, "A new contract for welfare" found that the child support system was failing the children it was set up to help. A major part of the problem is that the existing formula for assessing maintenance is too complex. As a result too few resources have been available for enforcement. Consequently currently only around half of those Non-Resident Parents with an assessment pay all of the maintenance that is due. The Government therefore decided to simplify the child support system basing it on a simple percentage of the non-resident parents net income. It will be transparent and easier to understand so allowing a more customer focused Child Support Agency to spend less time calculating maintenance and more time chasing payments.

  As far as the start date for the new scheme is concerned, I refer the hon. Member to the statement given by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, on 20 March 2002, Official Report, columns 315–16W.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when existing cases will be brought into the new scheme for child support; how they will be treated when(a) there is an application on foot for revision or supersession, (b) the assessment is the subject of an appeal and (c) applications for an assessment are pending at the date of implementation. [44440]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Government has made clear that existing cases will be brought onto the new system only after it is clear that the new scheme is operating effectively. Parents will be given advance notice of the new liability.

  If existing clients make or have made an application for revision or supersession of, or appeal against, their maintenance assessment, that application will be dealt with under current rules. If appropriate, any change will be reflected in the conversion calculation.

  Where a maintenance assessment is pending when the new scheme is introduced for new cases, it will be treated in one of two ways. If no effective date has been set, it will be processed under the new rules; if an effective date has already been set, the current scheme will apply.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the rate of compliance under the new child support formula; and what the present rate of compliance is. [44436]
  996W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The rate of compliance in the current year to January 2002, is 70.9 per cent. In the new child support scheme we expect compliance to rise to at least 75 per cent.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to set up a child support council. [44430]

  Malcolm Wicks
  My right hon. Friend is not persuaded that there is a need for such a body.

  The Child Support Agency has set up fora for ongoing discussion with major stakeholders in the area of child support. These function well as a formal mechanism for dialogue between the Agency and the significant interested parties.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on when the changes to the CSA will come into force. [43893]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the statement given by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, on 20 March 2002, Official Report, columns 315–16W.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the maximum percentage is of net income that a non-resident parent can be asked to pay in child support maintenance under the CSA system for(a) one child, (b) two children and (c) three children. [33265]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Under the current Child Support provisions, the maximum percentage of net income that a non-resident parent can be expected to pay is 30 per cent. regardless of the number of children. This increases to 33 per cent. where the non-resident parent is paying child support maintenance arrears. Exceptionally, where the non-resident parent has failed to make or keep to an agreement to pay arrears of maintenance he or she can be required to pay up to 40 per cent.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list his areas of responsibility in connection with the Child Support Agency. [43077]

  Malcolm Wicks
  My right hon. Friend has overall responsibility for the policy and legislation in relation to child support. Day to day operation of the child support scheme is in the hands of the Child Support Agency, an Executive Agency of the Department. Its Chief Executive is accountable to my right hon. Friend, via the Permanent Secretary.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he last met the Solicitors' Family Law Association to discuss forthcoming changes in the Child Support Agency's maintenance formula; and if he will make a statement. [44267]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding reply 20 March 2002]: My right hon. Friend has held no meetings with the Solicitors' Family Law Association over the last 12 months to discuss the changes in the child support system.

  Zimbabwe
  Vernon Croaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what benefits are available to
  997W
  British citizens leaving Zimbabwe to resettle in the UK because of the internal problems in that country; and if he will make a statement; [31190]

  (2) what recent discussions he has had with the Foreign Secretary about the numbers of British citizens likely to leave Zimbabwe for the UK and the impact on the social security budget; and if he will make a statement. [31191]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Officials across government stay in very close contact about the situation in Zimbabwe. On 14 January 2002, there were 25,054 British nationals registered with the British High Commission in Zimbabwe. We do not know how many of these people may wish to remove to the United Kingdom as there is no requirement for them to inform the High

  2001–02

  Local authority

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit subsidy payments1 £

  Anti-Fraud Incentive Scheme1 £

  Discretionary Rent Allowance2 £

  Discretionary Housing Payments2 £

  Administration Grant £

  Verification Framework3 £

  Benefits Agency/ local authority Joint Working Pauments

  Christchurch

  7,548,315

  8,000

  2,525

  7,574

  103,261

  32,311

  27,00

  East Dorset

  8,729,550

  26,699

  2,798

  17,742

  128,946

  40,775

  —

  North Dorset

  8,226,478

  24,101

  2,259

  9,905

  107,762

  33,596

  —

  Purbeck

  4,430,394

  34,455

  3,041

  9,108

  90,878

  28,527

  —

  West Dorset

  15,308,958

  66,000

  4,722

  8,438

  211,224

  68,148

  4,449

  Weymouth & Portland

  15,606,859

  125,476

  9,256

  15,408

  171,624

  56,714

  —

  Notes:

  1. Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit subsidy and anti-fraud incentive scheme figures are taken from local authority mid-year estimates and are subject to change on receipt of the 2001–02 final claims; these claims are also subject to audit.

  2. Discretionary Housing Payments replaced Discretionary Rent Allowance from 1 July 2001.

  3. Verification Framework figures are for on-going funding only, no payments for set-up costs were made to these local authorities in 2001–02.

  Sources:

  Anti-Fraud Incentive Scheme: quarterly Weekly Benefit Savings/WIB5 returns.

  Discretionary Rent Allowance: DWP circular HB/CTB S3/2001.

  Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP): DHP Estimate Forms.

  Administration Grant: DWP circular HB/CTB A4/2001.

  Verification Framework: DWP circular HB/CTB A4/2001.

  Benefits Agency/local authority Joint Working Payments: DWP Counter Fraud Investigation Branch (Joint Working Unit).

  Benefit Deductions
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to(a) abolish, (b) reform and (c) freeze non-dependent deductions for housing benefit and council tax benefit. [45127]

  Malcolm Wicks
  For 2002–03, for the second year running, we are freezing the levels of non-dependant deductions while uprating the qualifying income thresholds. I also refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 14 November 2001,Official Report, column 787W.

  Scottish Parliament
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reason no devolved administration Minister attended the 2415 European Union Council of Ministers (Employment and Social Policy) meeting on 7 March; which particular
  998W
  Commission if they plan to leave Zimbabwe, or of their destination. It is not therefore possible to estimate the potential impact on the social security budget.

  British citizens leaving Zimbabwe to resettle in the United Kingdom currently have the same access to benefits as any other British citizen returning from abroad. If they claim income-related benefits within two years of arrival in the United Kingdom they must demonstrate that they are habitually resident in this country, in addition to satisfying the normal conditions of entitlement.

  Departmental Sponsorship
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the financial resources and initiatives sponsored by his Department in the last 12 months for Dorset which are additional to the Government SSA grants. [29893]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the table.

  suggestions or matters of concern from the Scottish Executive were raised in their absence by the UK Government delegation; and what information is being provided by his Department to guarantee effective post-council scrutiny by the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament. [44316]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding reply 19 March 2002]: The composition of the UK delegation to specific Council of Ministers meetings is decided in accordance with the Concordat on the Co-ordination of EU Policy Issues.

  For information about the meeting on 7 March I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 20 March to the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Jimmy Hood). Post-council scrutiny by the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament is a matter for that Parliament and for the Scottish Executive. Reports of Council meetings are available to Scottish Executive officials and officials stand ready to provide other information in line with the provisions of the Concordat.

  Job Sharing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the extent of job sharing in his Department. [41042]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 26 February 2002,Official Report, column 1261W.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reason housing benefit statistics produced by his Department exclude extended payment cases. [41786]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Extended payments of Housing Benefit were introduced in 1996 and are available when an Income Support or an income-based Jobseeker's Allowance claim ends due to a person starting work (or increasing their hours and/or earnings) which is expected to last at least five weeks. They can be paid for four weeks and remove the uncertainty faced by many people about whether they will be able to pay their rent and council tax between the last payment of benefit and receipt of their first wages.

  As these claims are a fixed period award of Housing Benefit for up to four weeks they were originally excluded from all Housing Benefit statistics to make sure they did not inflate or distort the figures. They were, however, collected for internal use and they have been included in a footnote to tables in the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Quarterly Summary Statistics since November 1999.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 13 February 2002,Official Report, column 500W, on the departmental expenditure limit, to the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood, what aspects of the administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit appeals have been transferred to the Lord Chancellor's Department. [44294]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has responsibility for the Social Security Commissioners. From 2 July 2001 people can appeal against a Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit decision to an independent appeal tribunal administered by the Appeals Service. A further appeal against the decision of these tribunals can be made to the Social Security Commissioners. Funds were transferred to the Lord Chancellor's Department to cover the costs of administering these appeals.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if attendance allowance will be paid to claimants who are recipients of the free care for the elderly scheme due to be introduced by the Scottish Executive; and if he will make a statement. [45967]

  Maria Eagle
  Attendance Allowance is intended to provide a contribution towards the extra costs faced by severely disabled people as a result of their disabilities.
  1000W
  In accordance with the Great Britain-wide rules which aim to avoid duplicate provision, Attendance Allowance is not paid to people living in residential care homes or nursing homes who receive financial help—which includes the provision of free personal care—with their placement from public funds.

  Child Benefit Centre (Tyne and Wear)
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what performance targets are in place relating to the handling of complaints and inquiries to the Child Benefit Centre at Washington, Tyne and Wear. [44255]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Child Benefit Centre has performance targets for the handling of complaints and enquiries. These are published in the Child Benefit Centre's Statement of Service. The aim is to answer all complaints, whether verbal or written within seven working days. Enquiries by letter will normally be answered within 10 working days.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions under what circumstances(a) two pensioners of the same sex living at the same address and (b) two pensioners of different sexes living at the same address would separately be entitled to claim the proposed pension credit. [42957]

  Malcolm Wicks
  There will be no provision for two members of the same sex to claim Pension Credit jointly.

  Residence at the same address will not be the sole factor in deciding whether two pensioners of different sex should claim Pension Credit separately or jointly. Rather, of particular importance is the nature of their relationship and whether or not they were living together as husband and wife in a single household unit within that building. Each case will be considered on its individual merits, in the same way as for Minimum Income Guarantee now.

  Pensions
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 11 February 2002,Official Report, column 104W, on pensions, what his definition is of good information; and if this includes information on loss of entitlement to means-tested benefits. [38317]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The government objective is to provide information that is, and continues to be, accurate and relevant to enable people to plan effectively for their future income in retirement.

  At the point at which such information is produced, it is not possible to forecast an individual's possible entitlement to means tested benefits at state pension age.

  However, there are a number of leaflets that give information on government support to those on low incomes and the impact that other income may have on their future pension entitlement.
  1001W
  These leaflets include IS20—a Guide to Income Support, MIG1L—on the Minimum Income Guarantee for people aged 60 or over, GL16—Help with your rent and GL17—Help with your council tax.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what reports his Department publishes on public sector pension schemes. [43348]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding reply 14 March 2002]: None. Responsibility for Public Sector Schemes rests with HMT.

  Pension Payment
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what guidance is given to those approaching pensionable age as to the methods of pension payment; and if he will make a statement. [35992]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Approximately four months before reaching State Pension age (60 for a woman, age 65 for a man) an automatic claims package is issued to prospective pensioners provided the customer's current address is held on the computer.

  This contains form BR833 which sets out the options of how to make a claim for State Retirement Pension and leaflet AC1 which explains the benefits of payment straight into a bank account. The claim form gives the customer the option of payment by order book or payment straight into a bank or building society account.

  We are modernising the service we offer to pensioners and since November 2000 customers can make a claim over the phone with an experienced operator to guide them through the claim form. As part of this process callers are explained the methods of payment available i.e. either order book or payment straight into a bank or building society account. The claim form is thereby tailored to the particular circumstances of that customer and is returned for them to sign and date. All they need to do then is to send the completed form to their nearest processing centre.

  From 2003, payments directly into a bank or building society account will become the Department's normal method of payment. This is a more modern, secure and efficient way of paying benefits and pensions, already chosen by over 40 per cent. of all customers and 60 per cent. of new pensioners.

  The Department has been aware of FRS17 throughout its development, a process that has taken several years.

  Ministers and officials hold regular consultations with those involved with the pensions industry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met representatives from the ASB on 27 February.

  There are many factors tending to increase the costs and risks faced by employers who choose to offer defined benefit occupational pension schemes including longer life expectancy and lower expected future investment returns. It is not possible to isolate the effects of FRS17 from these other factors.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what arrangements he has made to offer 1002W
  (a) state basic and (b) state second pension eligibility to workers earning less than the lower earnings limit from April. [42953]

  Maria Eagle
  Qualifying carers or disabled people who are earning less than the Lower Earnings Limit will be given automatic entitlement to State Second Pension. This will benefit approximately four million people.

  None.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what guidance he issues to companies that offer an occupational pension scheme on including pension surpluses in payments to former employees; and if he will make a statement. [43961]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Since 1986 the Inland Revenue has required pension funds which are funded in excess of 105 per cent of their liabilities to reduce their surplus. This may be done in a variety of ways, including improved benefits to scheme members, employer or employee contribution holidays and taxable refunds to the employer sponsoring the scheme. The Pensions Act 1995 requires that, before any refund is made to an employer, all current and future pensions in payment should be increased annually in line with the Retail Prices Index up to a maximum of 5 per cent., that trustees should satisfy themselves that the use of the surplus is in the interest of the members, and that members should be notified of the proposal in the manner set out in law.

  The trust deed for each pension scheme may also regulate the way that surpluses can be reduced. If the trustees propose to make a payment to the employer, and this is permitted by the trust deed, members can challenge their decision through the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (Opra) if they believe that the statutory procedures have not been followed. If the trust deed does not permit payments to the employer, the trustees may apply to Opra to change the scheme rules in order to allow payment.

  My right hon. Friend has not issued formal guidance on the operation of the Pensions Act 1995. Opra issues guidance on a variety of topics. Note 3, published in 1998, deals with Opra's role in the payment of surplus.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to allow provision for representation of pension members on pension trustee boards. [43954]

  Mr Nicholas Brown
  The Government is currently in the process of strengthening the law relating to the nomination and selection of trustees to ensure that every occupational pension scheme has member-nominated trustees. We do not think it was right to force schemes to have member trustees from particular categories of membership, because that would erroneously give credence to the idea that trustees have a representative role, which they do not. The duties and responsibilities of all the trustees are the same, regardless of how they come to the post.

  The timing of this work will depend on the outcome of the broader simplification review being undertaken by Alan Pickering which is due to report in June, but we remain firmly committed to increasing the number of member trustees generally.
  1003W
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people living in England and Wales are in private pension schemes. [43923]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  There are an estimated 13.2 million people of working age in England and Wales contributing to a private pension.Notes:

  Working age is 16–59 for women and 16–64 for men.

  Numbers are rounded to nearest 100,000.

  Estimates based on Family Resources Survey 2000–01 and may be subject to a margin of error.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 11 July 2001,Official Report, column 566W, on the Pensions Education campaign, when the summary of the quantitative tracking research on the pensions education marketing campaign will be placed in the Library. [44201]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 22 October 2001,Official Report, volume 373, column 54W, ref. 7901.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what methods his Department uses to identify the names and addresses of people four months away from state pension age, in order to contact them about claiming their retirement pension; and if he will make a statement. [45183]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Data held by the Inland Revenue on the National Insurance Recording System is used to identify people within four months of the relevant age.

  The data is passed to the Department's Pensions Computer System (PSCS) and a claim package is issued.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the average pensioner income as a percentage of average earnings in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–01 and (e) the last year for which figures are available. [43357]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 14 March 2002]: Not all the information requested is available. The information that is available is presented in the following table.

  Average pensioner income as a percentage of average earnings

  Year

  Average pensioners incomes (a) £

  Average earnings (b) £

  (a) as percentage of (b)

  1997–98

  209

  3681

  57 per cent

  1998–99

  224

  3851

  58 per cent

  1999–2000

  235

  4001

  59 per cent

  Sources:

  Pensioners' Incomes Series 1999–2000, DWP, 2001, Table 1.

  New Earnings Survey 2000, ONS, 2001, Table A30.

  Notes:

  1. Average earnings estimates relate to April 1997, April 1998 and April 1999.

  2. Pensioners are defined as single (non-cohabiting) people over state pension age (65 for men, 60 for women) and couples (married or cohabiting) where the man is over state pension age.

  3. Average pensioners' incomes are defined as mean gross weekly income of all pensioner units in Great Britain and are expressed in current prices rounded up to the nearest one pound.
  1004W
  4. Average earnings figures are taken from the New Earnings Survey and are defined as mean gross weekly earnings of full-time employees on adult rates, in Great Britain, whose pay for the survey period was not affected by absence, rounded to the nearest £1.

  5. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest 1 per cent.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the average time taken by his Department to answer(a) a named day question and (b) an ordinary written question tabled by (i) all hon. Members and (ii) the hon. Member for Northavon in (A) this and (B) the previous session. [43327]

  Maria Eagle
  The information for this session up to 20 March 2002 is in the table. Information for previous session is not available.

  Average time to answer Parliamentary Questions (Days)

  Ordinary Written

  Named Day

  All honourable Members

  12

  6

  Hon. Member for Northavon

  14

  5

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his Department's policy is towards age discrimination. [42580]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We recognise the importance of tackling age discrimination in the workplace. We have already provided voluntary guidance to help employers adopt age positive employment practices. We are consulting extensively with employers, individuals, and expert groups and, by 2006 we will legislate against age discrimination in the workplace.

  As an employer, the Department is committed to equality and valuing diversity within its workforce, and specifically to age diversity and non-discrimination on age grounds. In support of this policy we are working to ensure that our practices will be compliant with future age legislation. The Departmental retirement age for all staff below Senior Civil Service level was increased from 60 to 65 with effect from 1 April 2000 and staff have the choice to retire at any time between these ages. All staff are positively encouraged to take appropriate development opportunities regardless of age including promotion and change of duties. We acknowledge the skills and experience of our staff and are committed to utilising these to provide the best possible public service.

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate how many pensioners in the Harwich constituency are(a) entitled to and (b) have taken up the winter fuel payment. [45116]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the Written Answer I gave the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Colin Breed) on 18 March 2002,Official Report, column 153W.

  Pension-related Benefits
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of how much money would be accrued by the delay in payment of pension-related benefits, by two years in comparison to the payment of such benefits at 65 years if the retirement age were increased to 67 years. [43649]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding reply 20 March 2002]: Currently state pension age is 65 for men and between 60 and 65 for women, depending on their date of birth. From 2020 state pension age will be 65 for all.

  If the state pension age were increased to 67 in 2020–21, we estimate that the gross savings on state pension expenditure in that year would be around £6.2 billion, in 2002–03 prices.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what lessons have been learnt from the prosecution pilots in which DSS lawyers helped local authorities to prosecute people suspected of benefit fraud; and whether the scheme will be replaced. [42514]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The prosecution pilots showed that provision of legal services and advice to Local Authorities can help raise the profile of Local Authority prosecutions and encourage Local Authorities to pursue prosecutions and sanctions. The assistance provided through these pilots is just one aspect of the help being provided by the Department to Local Authorities to increase the professionalism of their investigation work.

  From April 2002, all Local Authorities will be participating in a new incentive scheme that provides greater financial support for prosecution-related work. We are also considering afresh what help Departmental solicitors might give Local Authorities who wish to impose sanctions on and, where appropriate, prosecute those who commit benefit fraud.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what plans his Department has to introduce legislation on age discrimination in employment before the EU directive is implemented; [42397]

  (2) what consultations his Department is having regarding the EU directive on age discrimination in employment; [42402]

  (3) what organisations his Department is having discussions with regarding the EU directive on age discrimination in employment. [42403]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The introduction of the employment related age discrimination legislation, and the consultations on its development, are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  The Department for Work and Pensions leads in challenging ageism in employment with its Age Positive campaign that is vigorously promoting the business benefits of employing an age diverse workforce. The campaign focuses on the Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment and a wide range of research
  1006W
  and development activities with both public and private organisations to help employers develop non-ageist employment practices that will help them prepare for the future legislation. Integral to this is the Age Positive Website (www.agepositive.gov.uk) that was launched in December.

  WBS Subsidies
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the National Audit Office's comments in the Appropriation Accounts, HC335, on the fall in WBS subsidies during 2000–01; and whether the Department intends to revise the weekly benefits savings rules. [42512]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Weekly Benefit Savings (WBS) scheme was introduced in April 1993 to encourage Local Authorities to undertake activity to combat benefit fraud. It is based on a system of rewards and penalties for the amount of fraud detected.

  Changes were made to the scheme in 1998 following concerns from the National Audit Office and Audit Commission that WBS was being inappropriately claimed in cases where fraud had not been established or a fraud investigation had not been properly undertaken. It was therefore decided to tighten the WBS claiming criteria and limit the amount of WBS claimed in certain circumstances.

  This tightening of the criteria was followed by a large reduction in the WBS savings scored by Local Authorities in 1998–99 and 1999–2000. To address this, increased rates of additional subsidy were made payable to Local Authorities and a reduced level of penalty was introduced in April 1999.

  In January 2000 the Department announced that it would replace WBS with a new anti-fraud incentive scheme over two years from April 2001. Sixty three Local Authorities took up the new scheme in 2001–02 with the remainder joining in April 2002.

  Households Below Average Income Survey
  Mr. Jim Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his Answer of 6 November 2000 to the hon. Member for Havant,Official Report, column 92W, if he will estimate the same data for each region and nation of the UK; and if he will also express the estimates as a percentage of the total numbers of pensioners and children the figures represent. [37885]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Such information as is available is in the tables. However, estimates of year on year change at regional level should be viewed with caution, as sampling error may be large in relation to the change itself.
  1007W

  Percentage of children living in households below 60 per cent. of contemporary median income by region, including the self-employed

  Percentage of children

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Income before housing costs

  England

  22

  20

  25

  25

  24

  North East

  29

  31

  28

  32

  33

  North West and Merseyside

  25

  23

  30

  29

  33

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  29

  26

  33

  30

  29

  East Midlands

  25

  21

  23

  24

  24

  West Midlands

  22

  24

  30

  29

  24

  Eastern

  21

  14

  20

  18

  17

  London

  23

  21

  24

  25

  25

  South East

  13

  15

  18

  17

  14

  South west

  19

  16

  22

  22

  22

  Scotland

  25

  25

  29

  28

  26

  Wales

  27

  28

  28

  29

  29

  Income after housing costs

  England

  32

  31

  34

  33

  33

  North East

  35

  36

  35

  38

  40

  North West and Merseyside

  33

  33

  38

  37

  40

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  35

  32

  37

  35

  36

  East Midlands

  31

  29

  29

  29

  30

  West Midlands

  28

  33

  34

  36

  31

  Eastern

  31

  22

  29

  26

  27

  London

  38

  39

  40

  43

  41

  South East

  24

  25

  28

  25

  24

  SouthWest

  30

  28

  32

  32

  32

  Scotland

  27

  32

  34

  30

  30

  Wales

  34

  36

  36

  36

  35

  Percentage of children living in households below 60 per cent. of contemporary median income by region, including the self-employed

  Percentage of children

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Income before housing costs

  England

  20

  19

  24

  24

  22

  of which

  North East

  28

  26

  27

  30

  31

  North West and Merseyside

  23

  22

  29

  29

  30

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  27

  25

  32

  29

  27

  East Midlands

  23

  20

  21

  23

  24

  West Midlands

  20

  22

  27

  29

  24

  Eastern

  17

  13

  18

  16

  16

  London

  21

  21

  24

  26

  24

  South East

  10

  13

  16

  15

  11

  South West

  16

  15

  20

  20

  20

  Scotland

  23

  24

  28

  27

  27

  Wales

  26

  25

  26

  28

  27

  Income after housing costs

  England

  30

  31

  34

  34

  33

  of which

  North East

  36

  31

  35

  37

  41

  North West and Merseyside

  31

  33

  37

  37

  38

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  33

  31

  37

  34

  35

  East Midlands

  29

  29

  28

  30

  31

  West Midlands

  27

  32

  33

  36

  31

  Eastern

  29

  22

  28

  24

  27

  London

  38

  41

  43

  45

  42

  South East

  22

  25

  29

  25

  23

  SouthWest

  27

  29

  32

  30

  31

  Scotland

  27

  32

  33

  30

  29

  Wales

  35

  35

  37

  36

  34

  1008W

  1009W

  Percentage of Pensioners living in households below 60 per cent. of contemporary median income by region, including the self-employed

  Percentage of pensioners

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Income before housing costs

  England

  21

  21

  21

  22

  23

  of which

  North East

  23

  28

  19

  21

  25

  North West and Merseyside

  24

  20

  22

  23

  24

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  23

  25

  25

  23

  25

  East Midlands

  19

  25

  24

  27

  26

  West Midlands

  23

  22

  25

  24

  23

  Eastern

  21

  21

  20

  20

  24

  London

  17

  16

  18

  18

  18

  South East

  20

  18

  17

  19

  20

  South West

  19

  23

  22

  24

  24

  Scotland

  23

  23

  24

  19

  20

  Wales

  27

  24

  19

  23

  25

  Income after housing costs

  England

  26

  25

  27

  27

  27

  of which

  North East

  31

  34

  26

  30

  29

  North West and Merseyside

  26

  23

  28

  26

  27

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  28

  26

  30

  30

  30

  East Midlands

  22

  26

  28

  29

  28

  West Midlands

  28

  24

  28

  27

  27

  Eastern

  28

  24

  28

  24

  30

  London

  26

  27

  29

  28

  28

  South East

  25

  24

  23

  24

  25

  South West

  25

  26

  25

  29

  24

  Scotland

  28

  25

  28

  25

  26

  Wales

  26

  23

  22

  28

  23

  Percentage of Pensioners living in households below 60 per cent. of contemporary median income by region, including the self-employed

  Percentage of pensioners

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Income before housing costs

  England

  20

  21

  20

  21

  22

  of which

  North East

  21

  27

  17

  20

  25

  North West and Merseyside

  22

  19

  21

  23

  24

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  23

  24

  24

  22

  23

  East Midlands

  17

  24

  23

  26

  26

  West Midlands

  22

  21

  24

  23

  22

  Eastern

  20

  21

  20

  19

  23

  London

  16

  16

  17

  19

  18

  South East

  20

  18

  17

  19

  19

  South West

  18

  22

  19

  24

  22

  Scotland

  21

  22

  22

  19

  19

  Wales

  27

  24

  19

  23

  24

  Income after housing costs

  England

  25

  25

  26

  27

  26

  of which

  North East

  29

  32

  26

  30

  28

  North West and Merseyside

  24

  22

  27

  26

  26

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  28

  25

  28

  29

  29

  East Midlands

  21

  26

  26

  29

  27

  West Midlands

  27

  23

  27

  27

  26

  Eastern

  28

  24

  28

  24

  29

  London

  25

  26

  28

  28

  28

  South East

  24

  24

  23

  24

  24

  South West

  25

  25

  25

  29

  23

  Scotland

  25

  24

  27

  25

  26

  Wales

  25

  22

  21

  27

  22

  1010W 1011W
  Notes:

  1. All figures are estimates and are taken from the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) data set which is derived from the Family Resources Survey (FRS). The FRS does not include Northern Ireland.

  2. The estimates are sample counts, which have been adjusted for non-response using multipurpose grossing factors that control for tenure, Council Tax band and a number of other variables. Estimates are subject to both sampling error and to variability in non-response. The income measure used is weekly net (disposable) equivalised household income (that is to say income that is adjusted to reflect the composition of the household).

  3. The estimates are presented on both a Before Housing Costs (BHC) and an After Housing Costs (AHC) basis in line with HBAI conventions. Figures are also provided including and excluding the self-employed, as research suggests that, for self-employed people, income as reported in surveys is often a poor indicator of living standards.

  4. Estimates for the numbers of pensioners and children living in households below 60 per cent. median income by region have not been provided as the FRS grossing regime does not permit the provision of reliable estimates of numbers, as distinct from percentages. This issue does not affect either GB level estimates of numbers nor regional estimates of percentages. The grossing methodology in the FRS is currently being reviewed with one aim being to resolve this issue.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey

  Benefits
  Mr. Colin Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many people were in receipt of income related benefits in each of the last 12 years; and

  Child Benefit Centre operational targets 2002–03

  Area

  2002–30 Target

  Child Benefit claims processing

  95 per cent. completed in 36 days

  Child Benefit claims accuracy

  98 per cent.

  Child Benefit change of circumstances

  95 per cent. completed in 14 days

  Child Benefit change of circumstances accuracy

  96.5 per cent.

  Guardians Allowance claims processing

  95 per cent. completed in 80 days

  Teleservice—proportion of available calls answered

  90 per cent.

  Appeals processed

  92 per cent. completed in 90 days

  Basic Pensions
  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 60th or 65th birthday. [37423]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Entitlement to Retirement Pension begins with the pay-day on or following the pensioner's 60th or 65th 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.

  Personnel Issues
  Mr John Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what was the(a) percentage and number of rail journeys undertaken on first class tickets, (b) average cost of a first class journey by rail and (c) total cost of rail travel in each of the past four years broken down by grade of civil servant. [37509]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested for the percentage, number and average cost of first class journeys is not available. As part of their terms and conditions of employment, first class tickets are
  1012W
  what the most recent available figure is for each constituency in England. [38337]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: The available information has been placed in the Library.

  available for senior staff undertaking long business journeys or working en route. The department has a contract with an external agent for the provision of rail tickets over £15. Over each of the last three calendar years (1999–2001) the department has purchased an average of £7.2 million worth of tickets.

  FRS17
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what assessment his Department made of the impact on occupational pensions of FRS17 prior to its implementation; [37781]

  (2) what representations his Department received from employers concerning the introduction by the Accounting Standards Board of FRS17 prior to its implementation; [37782]

  (3) whether his Department was consulted about the planned timescale for the introduction of FRS17: [37783]

  (4) when he was first informed by the Accounting Standards Board about the planned adoption of FRS17; [37784]

  (5) whether his Department consulted employers concerning the introduction by the Accounting Standards Board of FRS17 prior to its implementation; on what dates; and what the contents of those consultations were; [37785]
  1013W
  (6) what representations his Department made to Accounting Standards Board concerning the introduction of FRS17. [37786]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 27 February 2002]: FRS17 is an accounting standard introduced by the Accounting Standards Board (ASB) which is entirely independent of Government. Financial reporting standards are introduced after a long period of public consultation which offers an opportunity for those with an interest to make representations to the ASB.
  1014W
  The Department has been aware of FRS17 throughout its development, a process that has taken several years.

  Ministers and officials hold regular consultations with those involved with the pensions industry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met representatives from the ASB on 27 February.

  There are many factors tending to increase the costs and risks faced by employers who choose to offer defined benefit occupational pension schemes including longer life expectancy and lower expected future investment returns. It is not possible to isolate the effects of FRS17 from these other factors.

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.

House of Lords: Elected Member Options
Lord McNallyasked the Leader of the House:
Whether an opportunity will be provided for the House to debate and choose among the various options on the size of the elected element in a reformed House of Lords.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords. making time available for debate is a question for the usual channels. The consultation period on the White Paper ended not long ago and we want to make sure that we have considered the responses fully before we proceed any further.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Leader of the House agree that taking refuge in the "usual channels" is the parliamentary equivalent of consigning the matter to a black hole? Will he take note of the cross-party Select Committee in the House of Commons and Early Day Motion 226 in another place which recommend a largely or totally directly elected House? Is not the noble and learned Lord's prevarication about consulting this House really because he is petrified that such consultation will reveal an identity of analysis and purpose between the two Houses which would allow for a rapid and radical reform of this House? Is he not clinging to a system of patronage which would have made James I blush?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: On the other hand, my Lords. It is very cruel and wicked to call Chief Whips a "black hole" as a collective noun. I have read the report of the Public Administration Select Committee—it is an interesting document—and I have looked at the EDM. We recognise that there are differences of view. But what unites us is the desire to make this place better, and that means looking at its composition and the way it works. Those matters are well in hand.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, on two occasions over the past 12 months the Government have asked the House to debate and vote on the issue of hunting, but they refuse to bring forward any further proposals on the House of Lords. In view of the disagreements that exist between the Houses— and very often within the parties—is it not time for the Government to review their position on the setting up of an authoritative Joint Committee of both Houses to examine these issues in the main?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is true that we have discussed hunting on two occasions. We have
158
put our minds occasionally to House of Lords reform—indeed, on 21 occasions—including in 1999 a single debate which lasted 14.8 hours, although it felt longer. In the Session 2001–02 we improved ourselves still further by having a single debate for 16.6 hours. The one thing that no one can say with any semblance of accuracy is that we do not discuss the most important issue—that is, our own future.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend's answer mean that there will or will not be a Bill in the next Session?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Barnett knows that it is quite inappropriate to guess or speculate about the contents of the Queen's Speech. However, your Lordships will have read with great interest the Prime Minister's speech at the London School of Economics. Should any of your Lordships not have had the opportunity to do so, I commend it. He said, quite unambiguously, that we are now in the third phase of the Labour Party's programme. The third phase—this appears at page 9 of the speech—includes,
"completing House of Lords reform, bedding down devolution and making the peace process in Northern Ireland durable for the long term".
So completing House of Lords reform is very much on the agenda for this present phase, which is the third phase. We do not intend to leave it as unfinished business.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, what is the object of debating this affair unless the Government are prepared to fulfil their undertaking and set up a Joint Select Committee of both Houses on all aspects of reform?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that was not the undertaking. The undertaking was that there should be a Joint Committee on the parliamentary consequences, the parliamentary aspects, not on composition—which, as the noble Lord is aware, was exhaustively debated by the Royal Commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. The point of debating the future of the House of Lords, as I understand it—apart from its intrinsic interest to all of us—is to come to a conclusion.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, have the Government considered further the issue of indirect elections from the Assemblies and the Parliament to this second Chamber?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, yes. of course. I am most obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, for raising this issue. It is a proposal which is put forward quite often from those who are Members of either the Assembly in Cardiff or the Parliament in Scotland. The proposal has its attractions, but it also has disadvantages.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that if he wants to complete the process

159
of reform of the House of Lords, the Government have to produce proposals which are broadly acceptable to both Houses? Is he further aware that it now seems that the House of Commons would accept a division of 50 per cent elected and 50 per cent not elected as a minimum percentage of election? Is he also aware—I hope that he is—that the 50:50 proposal would probably now be acceptable to this House? If so, is not that what the Government should do?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Richard, but obviously we shall need to look for broadly acceptable proposals. I also endorse his reading of what our colleagues in the House of Commons feel. It may well be the case that the 50:50 split might be acceptable in this House to avoid the revolutionary enthusiasm of the "80 percenters".
Lord Renton: My Lords—
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords—
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord agree—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think that it is the turn of the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that democracy is fully represented in the other place, but only on a party basis—and that there is a lack of the talent, expertise and experience to be found in this House? If this House were democratised, it would be shameful were we to lose the independent benefit and judgment of the Cross-Benchers and the vast amount of talent and expertise that exists here. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that to democratise this House to too great an extent would be to hurt the constitution?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, not long ago, the Conservative Party had a majority of about 300 in this House, and I never heard any complaints about party advantage on those occasions. I know the deficiencies of democracy. They offer themselves to my mind every single day.

Measles
2.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are taking action to anticipate the possibility of a serious outbreak of measles.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Department of Health is working closely with health authorities with the aim of increasing the current
160
rate of MMR uptake in order to reduce the risk of measles. The department has also taken advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation on strategies to respond to any resurgences of measles. mumps and rubella.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Do the Government accept that some parents are worried about the triple vaccine because it deals also with mumps and rubella, and because of rumours about side effects such as autism? What are the Government doing in order to reassure the public?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, let me make it clear that the Government's independent expert committee, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, and indeed the Committee on Safety of Medicines, have reviewed the kind of suggestions that the noble Lord has raised. Their advice is that there are no new data relevant to the safety of MMR vaccines. The Committee on Safety of Medicines has concluded that the current scientific evidence does not support a causal link between MMR vaccination and autism or bowel disease. I fully accept that there is a need to ensure that scientific information is available to parents who are concerned. It is our intention to let parents have that information—not in a lecturing way, but by giving them the data so that they can then make their own judgment.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, although there is no reason to suspect a link between the measles vaccine and autism, what is absolutely clear is that it will not make a hoot of difference whether three vaccinations are given at one time or they are given separately? Is it not the case that the immune system of babies is perfectly capable of dealing with a thousand vaccines at one time; and is not the campaign for separate vaccines the most illogical of all the campaigns against this matter?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord's point. If we go back to the arguments that Dr Wakefield has used, he is suggesting that there should be a year's gap between each of the injections. That would take a five-year timetable in order to give the six vaccinations that would be necessary as compared to the MMR, where two vaccinations are needed: the first between 12 and 15 months, and the second some three years later. In addition, if single vaccines are used, there is absolutely no guarantee that children will have all six vaccinations.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is it not equally important to draw the attention of the public, and particularly of mothers, to the dangers of not vaccinating? Should not the evidence now available from the German town of Coburg— where a large number of mothers were persuaded not to have their children vaccinated, and where there is now a very serious outbreak of measles—be brought to the attention of the public?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is an important suggestion. It is clear, if one looks back over the past 20 years or so to 1980, that there were nearly 140,000 notifications of measles and 26 deaths; by 2001, the number of notifications had been reduced to 5,773 and the number of deaths was down to one. I have no doubt whatever that the introduction of the MMR vaccine has proved to be highly effective in this country.
Lord Winston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that all the professionals concerned in this matter are totally supportive of the way in which the Government have handled the issue? Does he further agree that the root of the problem lies in the rather irresponsible reporting of what is clearly anecdotal evidence which has given rise to alarm? Is not the base of the problem the difficulty of educating the public in the notion of risk and the need to focus on this in the future, so that we can prevent this kind of thing happening again?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there is much in what my noble friend has to say. That is why the public information programme that the department is now developing is focused on providing information for parents, through NHS Direct and other mechanisms, about the scientific evaluation that has been undertaken so that they can make an informed decision. It is worthy of note that the recommendations on MMR that we have received have been supported by the WHO, the BMA, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of Nursing and the Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am the eighth of nine children, all of whom had measles. Why has measles become such a serious disease? Has the virus mutated? In my childhood, it was a normal disease that most children expected to get.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have heard that theory put forward. but there has always been a high cost to some members of the community who catch measles. I quoted the figure of 26 deaths in 1980 compared with today's figures. That shows beyond any doubt as far as I am concerned that the introduction of MMR was one of the most effective public health measures that has been undertaken in this country. I have no doubt that it was the right decision at the time and that we are right to support MMR now.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, can the Minister bring us up to date on uptake figures for the MMR vaccine? I understand that there is a considerable difference between urban areas and country areas, with the country areas doing much better. Does that not show that countrymen have a lot more sense than urbanites?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Not exactly. my Lords. I do not think that the figures quite support
162
that interesting supposition. The noble Lord is certainly right to suggest that the uptake figures give cause for concern. The latest figures that we have, for 1999–2000, show an 88 per cent uptake. We need to get up to the middle 90s to have what is described as herd immunity. There are enormous variations. The figures for London are particularly worrying, with some of the London boroughs down to the 60 per cent mark. However, there are also urban areas with very high figures. Barnsley, which is not entirely a rural community, has 94.9 per cent coverage.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I have a personal interest to declare in that my daughter-in-law is going to have a baby on 24th July, which will make me a grandmother. She asked me whether I think that she should have the triple vaccine. When I was a little girl, my mother used to send me out to play with children who had measles so that I would catch it and get it over and done with while I was very young. Now I believe that the triple vaccine is a wonderful thing and has advanced us enormously. My daughter-in-law wants to know whom she should ask to get an authoritative opinion on whether it will be the right thing for her.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I very much recommend that she asks her general practitioner. She may also contact NHS Direct, which will also be able to give informed advice.

Nuclear Weapons
2.53 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putneyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will move in the United Nations or the Security Council for the globally enforced abolition of nuclear weapons.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, the Government have made it clear that we are committed to the ultimate goal of verifiable global nuclear disarmament. We continue to press for mutual, balanced and verifiable reductions in the numbers of nuclear weapons worldwide. When we are satisfied that sufficient progress has been made to allow us to include British nuclear weapons in multilateral negotiations without endangering our security interests, we shall do so.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, my noble friend has given the affirmative Answer that I hoped for. As he says, the Government have long been committed to the idea of getting rid of nuclear weapons. Is not the time now right to follow the suggestion of the International Court of Justice to initiate discussions in the United Nations with a view to committing all the nations concerned to nuclear disarmament?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I know of my noble friend's long-standing interest in this matter. We are currently preparing for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee, which will be held in

163
New York from 8th to 19th April. That treaty is very much the cornerstone of the Government's policy and has been for a number of governments. My noble friend will acknowledge that the goal will not be achieved overnight or by means of resolutions; it will be achieved by a long and sometimes arduous process of small steps. That is what the Government have been doing. He will know from the letter that he received from my noble friend Lady Symons following his previous Question on the subject that the Government have taken a substantial number of steps. A copy of that letter has been placed in the Library.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, does the House a great service by his persistence in raising this vital issue? Does he also agree that in this age of suicide bombers and rogue states, with the nonproliferation doctrine under severe pressure and with huge leaps in technology in anti-missile defence, the entire doctrine of mutual nuclear deterrence has now reached a crossroads? Does he further agree that your Lordships' House is an ideal place in which to debate the issue thoroughly and put the new choices before the British public? Will the Minister press his noble and learned friend the Leader of the House, the usual channels or whoever needs to be pressed to get us debating that as soon as possible after Easter?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, the noble Lord knows that it is beyond my competence to deliver the precise agenda for the House. I very much agree that this House is extremely good at having extended debates on such issues. We had a very good debate last night on international terrorism, with particular reference to Afghanistan. Yes, the world has changed since September 11th and we need to be constantly vigilant in assessing the situation post that date.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, while we await that debate with some anxiety, will my noble friend confirm that the non-proliferation treaty rests on an undertaking by the nuclear powers to negotiate in good faith to bring about the end of nuclear weapons? Does he agree that that undertaking has not been honoured and that we might find that the non-nuclear powers will wonder whether this is perhaps a one-sided arrangement? Is not the time to save the world while there is still a world to save?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, my noble and learned friend rightly draws attention to the central importance of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. I repeat that it is not fair to say that this Government have done nothing. I am sure that my noble and learned friend was not saying that. He was talking about the nuclear powers generally. We have taken a number of important steps. We have signed and ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, we continue to promote its entry into force and we continue to press for negotiations to begin at the conference on disarmament on a fissile material cutoff treaty. Those are all important steps. I would not
164
be so presumptuous as to overstate the Government's position, but the steps that we have taken have been important and have been an example to other states. With people such as my noble and learned friend pressing me and the Government, further steps will be taken in the direction that he would welcome.
Lord Maclennan of Bogart: My Lords, in view of the meeting that is anticipated between Mr Putin and President Bush in the summer, at which those matters will be further discussed, is it the Prime Minister's intention to raise the issue of nuclear non-proliferation with President Bush at his Texas meeting shortly?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, the relationship between the USA and Russia has obviously been even more important since the events of September 11 th. Indeed, their close co-operation on a number of important issues has given cause for mild optimism. I am not able to give the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan. an answer on the precise nature of the agenda for the meeting between the Prime Minister and the President. As he will know well enough, however, although great significance always attaches to this type of summit, the simple truth is that regular communication between friendly heads of government is, in a sense, far more important than the dramatic hype that sometimes attaches to such meetings. It is the regular communication between the two men that is important.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the United Nations—
Noble Lords: Next Question.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we must, I think, move on.

Railway Inspectorate: Personnel
3 p.m.
Lord Bradshawasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the number of staff employed by the Railway Inspectorate this year will increase to over 200 compared with 31 employed in 1987.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Railway Inspectorate was under-resourced to monitor and enforce safety standards on the privatised railway, as confirmed by Lord Cullen's report.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. However, comparing the 1987 report with that for this year, one notices that this year's report is three times as large, lavishly illustrated and demonstrates, in my view, a concentration on presentation rather than substance. This week, large advertisements for inspectors have appeared in The Times newspaper and in the trade press for inspectors. I draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that inspectors are drawn from the small pool of railway

165
engineers. Moreover, the more people there are inspecting the work, the fewer competent people there are to do the work. That applies across many sectors.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am not certain that I heard a question there. However, I think that the House would have substantially more sympathy for the argument that there are too many rail inspectors if there had not been such a disastrous sequence of appalling railway accidents over the past 10 years.I remind the House, as though it needed reminding, of Southall, Ladbroke Grove and Hatfield.
When the railways were privatised, there was a move from assigning responsibility for safety to one operator— British Rail —to assigning it to a plethora of bodies, train operating companies and Railtrack. The move substantially increased not only the number of bodies which had to be supervised for rail purposes, but the interfaces between those bodies which themselves had to be adequately policed. Lord Cullen's report was quite clear that the Health and Safety Executive, through the Railway Inspectorate, had to have more resources if it was to restore public confidence—-which has been so severely shattered—in the safety of our railway network.
Baroness Match: My Lords, was the Minister aware that there were not enough inspectors in 1997, 1998. 1999, 2000 and 2001?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I can well believe it; recruiting high-quality public servants is often a problem. I am therefore sure that the noble Baroness will be delighted to celebrate the fact that this Government have succeeded in recruiting a substantial number of railway inspectors. Some 113 railway inspectors are now in post. In comparison, I believe that. in 1996, there were some 49.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, what are the other 87 people doing? Does my noble friend agree that, alongside railway safety, many of them are writing standards? It does seem a bit odd that there are several hundred people writing standards. What purpose does that serve?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall not enter into a detailed disquisition on how safety standards are informed in this country, as I suspect that many noble Lords know much more about the subject than I do. Essentially, however, the system does not attempt to inspect every single failure, but tries to put in place safety regimes. The bodies responsible for safety—in this case, the train operating companies and Railtrack Plc—must demonstrate that they have regimes to appraise risk and to establish safety and training regimes that adequately minimise the possibility of those risks becoming accidents. The Health and Safety Executive essentially monitors compliance with those safety regimes. Consequently, it is quite appropriate that people are writing the types of standards to which my noble friend has referred.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, could the Minister please answer the question asked by my noble friend Lady Blatch?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, was the question about why there were vacancies in the past?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the question was whether the Minister is aware that there was a need for more inspectors in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, no, I was not aware of that, and I do not see the thrust of the question. I have not inquired in detail into why there was a failure to fill inspectorate vacancies under the previous government. However, I have certainly been aware of the efforts made by this Government to fill vacancies in the Railway Inspectorate. That task has been remarkably successfully completed, and I am sure that the House celebrates that achievement.

HSBC Investment Banking Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Animal Health Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Whitty.)
Lord Moranrose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, to leave out from ("House") to the end and insert "declines to consider the Bill in Committee until

(i) the responses to the consultation on implementation of powers in the Bill have been considered and Her Majesty's Government have published their response; and

(ii) Her Majesty's Government have received. considered and published the results of the inquiries they have commissioned into foot and mouth disease from the National Audit Office and the Royal Society."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it seems a long time since we were discussing this Bill on Second Reading. In fact, it is a long time—no less than 10 weeks. The amendment which I am moving is of a somewhat unusual type, but there are good precedents. The ever helpful Public Bill Office showed me one, of 1887, which argued that,
"it is inexpedient for the House to proceed further with a Bill of so crude and delusive a character in such a hasty manner … without the opportunity of first ascertaining the genuine opinion of all classes of agriculturalists in Scotland".

167
My view of this Bill is similar. However, I thought that it might perhaps be less confrontational to take as a model a more recent amendment, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in 1992. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, I know, had it in mind to table a similar amendment.
Once again, I declare a marginal interest: my wife's small herd of Welsh Blacks on the Welsh hillside.
The debate on Second Reading can have left the Government in no doubt that most Members of your Lordships' House thought the timing and nature of the Bill profoundly unsatisfactory. Some 22 speakers were critical of it, many strongly so, and only three gave it their support. No fewer than 14 speakers, a number of them greatly respected authorities, made the point that it was wrong for the Bill to go forward without knowledge of the conclusions of the inquiries set up by the Government.
Having taken part in that debate and listened to so many powerful speeches, I thought that the Government might at the end of it have taken the advice of a song in one of the early Astaire/Rogers films, the theme of which was,
"Pick yourself up, dust yourself down and start all over again".
I expected that, at any rate, the Government would table amendments making major changes in their proposals. I waited week after week for a government reaction, but none came until last week, when we had from the Minister three useful amendments on detail but nothing fundamental. My wife suggested to me that the Government would probably have the Committee stage just before Easter when some of their critics might have departed on holiday. She was right.
I am sure that, in the light of what was said at Second Reading from all sides of the House, we need to make a fresh start. I do not believe that the present Bill, however extensively amended, will do. We must remember that the other place, which passed the Bill without amendment, would have to agree to any changes that we make. Nor are the Government likely to compromise on changes urged by this House, however reasonable, to judge from the announcement that they made about hunting last week.
Part I of the present Bill is based entirely on legalising and extending the mass slaughter of animals. Your Lordships may remember the conclusion of the notable speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, who said of the mass slaughter policy that she did not believe that farming families or the wider public would stand for a similar policy in the future. Once again, vets would be asked to take action against their professional judgment. Surely, that is not a road down which we should now go.
Part 2 of the Bill, on scrapie, which also appears to be based on disputed science, may result in the extinction of many rare breeds of our sheep and is, at best, premature. Therefore, I do not believe that it is sensible for us to devote time and effort to debating amendments to such a Bill. We can tinker with it and perhaps remove the worst aspects, but we cannot hope
168
to change its fundamental thrust. I see no prospect in Committee of turning it into a sensible and an acceptable piece of legislation.
However, it would be sensible to wait for the results of the Government's latest consultation exercise and, above all, for the relevant inquiries that they themselves set up. Will distinguished people be willing to take part in such official inquiries if the Government take no notice of them and go ahead with legislation on the very matters that they have been asked to consider without waiting for their recommendations? Can the Minister say whether it is correct, as reported in the press on 16th March, that the Attorney-General, during a hearing last month, argued that the inquiries would establish quickly the best ways of dealing with any future outbreak? If so, perhaps any Bill should wait until we know what are the "best ways".
Once the conclusions of such inquiries, including the lessons learned inquiry chaired by Dr Anderson, have been received and studied, the Government can, if necessary, rewrite the present Bill or, preferably, replace it with a much better one, that would be acceptable to the veterinary profession, the farming community and countryside bodies and interests and which can go forward with general support.
The Government's case for the present Bill has been based throughout on what they perceive as an urgent need. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said in introducing it, the first part,
"gives government as rapidly as possible powers which they currently lack".
Yet, what kind of rapidity can there be if two-and-a half months elapse between Second Reading on 14th January and the opening of the Committee stage today and if in a whole year nothing effective is done about the import of meat from countries where foot and mouth is prevalent, and nothing effective is done to put an end to illegal imports either in commercial consignments or in personal baggage?
In any event, if, god forbid, foot and mouth breaks out again, as it may, given the Government's failure to act firmly on imports, the Government already have powers to deal with it. They have set out in their recently published contingency plan their preliminary thoughts on how it may be tackled. They foresee a countrywide ban on all animal movements on confirmation of an outbreak and. I am sorry to say, the continuation of the contiguous cull, which last year resulted in the slaughter of so many thousands of perfectly healthy animals. But at least the plan says that that is,
"an interim plan until the results of the official Inquiries into the 2001 Foot and Mouth outbreak are published".
It also says that the plan,
"does not aim to pre-judge the outcome of the Inquiries".
That is rightly so. Surely, exactly the same should apply to legislation.
I put forward this amendment as a Cross-Bencher, as an independent. In no way is it a political initiative, but an effort to facilitate a sensible and lasting solution to a very serious agricultural problem, which affects the lives and livelihoods of a great many people in our

169
country. In considering what I now suggest that the House should do, I have tried to put myself in the place of the supporters of different groups in the House. We Cross-Benchers, of course, do not act as a group, but if I were a Conservative, I would have paid close attention to the notable speeches of those on my Benches who spoke with long experience, detailed knowledge and expertise. Criticisms, on which all those distinguished Peers agreed, would have strongly influenced me and would have led me to support an amendment such as the one that I have tabled.
If I were a Liberal Democrat, I would recall the amendment suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, at Second Reading. She said that there was quite a strong feeling that the Government should have considered the recommendations of the inquiries that they had commissioned and that that would have been the time to bring forward comprehensive legislation. I have noted that she raised the point again at Question Time on 31st January when she received a dusty answer from the Minister. It appears to me that my amendment is fully in line with that for which the Liberal Democrats argued.
If I were a Bishop—a position far above my humble aspirations—I would have been strongly influenced by the speech made at Second Reading by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, which drew more praise from around the House than any speech that I can remember. Once more, I would regard what he said as leading to an amendment such as mine.
If I were a Labour Peer I would reflect on the current perception of the Government as being unconcerned about the countryside and the people who live in it. I would be anxious to dispel that perception and to see the Government I support bring in a Bill that tackled the grave problems of animal diseases in a way that was accepted by vets and farmers and that was based on the best available scientific and practical advice. I would want to wait until the inquiries had reported and to see the Government respond to them.
Therefore, I conclude that this amendment is in the best interests of the Government. For reasons that appear good to them but that I do not myself find persuasive, I understand that the Liberal Democrat Party and the Conservative Party would, if the Government remained obdurate, prefer to put off any challenge until a later stage. It is not clear to me why, on a matter of such great importance to so many in the country, they are willing to allow the Committee stage to proceed, with the implication that the Bill may ultimately be acceptable. That may prove to be a waste of time and effort. I am surprised that they are willing to leave it to a Dad's Army of myself and like-minded colleagues to make a case for delay based on obvious common sense. Nevertheless, I hope that my amendment will commend itself to the House. In any event, I shall be glad to hear the views of other Members. I beg to move.
170
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, to leave out from ("House") to the end and insert "declines to consider the Bill in Committee until

(i) the responses to the consultation on implementation of powers in the Bill have been considered and Her Majesty's Government have published their response; and

(ii) Her Majesty's Government have received, considered and published the results of the inquiries they have commissioned into foot and mouth disease from the National Audit Office and the Royal Society."—(Lord Moran.)

3.17 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moran, who moved the amendment so ably. As he was kind enough to say, I had had thoughts of tabling a similar Motion. On reflection, I thought that it would come very much better from a noble Lord on the Cross Benches rather than from a somewhat more committed opponent of the Government.
The thought behind the Motion is that, before embarking on detailed consideration of the Bill, it would be helpful to have available as clear a picture as possible of what went on during the recent epidemic. The reports from the inquiries that are now in progress—Anderson, the Royal Society and the National Audit Office—would have shed some light on those events. Even more valuable would have been the report of a public inquiry, had the Government not run away from one. Had they not done so, they would now have the advantage of being able to say, as few governments can say with honesty, "We listened and we learned". The criticism that they face today would at least have lost some of its edge.
As matters stand, the Bill has few friends, and almost none in your Lordships' House. It is widely seen as an attempt to attribute what went wrong to the lack of sufficient powers and a yearning for new ones so drastic that they should not be granted without reasons far more cogent than any that have so far been advanced. Assurances that the powers now asked for would never be used are foolish. They leave quite unanswered the question, "Why take them?"
In the event, it was not a lack of powers but a lack of any coherent strategy on the part of what was then known as MAFF that was the cause of the mess and muddle which were the main features of the epidemic. The impression given was that no one knew what to do or how to do it. Lessons of 1967 had been forgotten; defences against just such an event had been neglected, if not dismantled. The protection of their own image seemed to have an almost indecent priority in the Government's mind. Fairness to those who had been hurt and a chance to have their say, the need to learn from what had gone wrong, and measures to be taken to prevent a recurrence were subordinated to that one consideration.
Even now, one has to ask what has been done in the way of protection against imports of infected meat. If the Government have no idea what to do, perhaps they

171
should consult their French colleagues, who know a great deal about how to deal with unwanted imports. It might be helpful to the Government to take a leaf out of their book.
The subject of vaccination, too, appears to have been lost. It has become bogged down in endless discussion in Europe. It would be interesting, even at this stage, to know what view Ministers now take of vaccination. I hope that they will not keep it a close secret for too much longer.
I do not want to extend my remarks too much. I finish on this note. MA FF now has a new name and address. Although I dislike these acronyms, the fact that it has moved to what is now known as DEFRA, which recognises the intimate connection between agriculture and the environment, is welcomed. However, it would appear from the Bill that the move has done little to change the creature's habit of mind—stubborn and unreceptive, as it showed itself to be in the matter of organophosphates, which was so consistently pressed by the noble Countess, Lady Mar. Its successor, thinly disguised, is now asking Parliament to furnish it with almost unfettered powers to order the slaughter of any animal and to authorise its inspectors to enter on land and there do more or less as they see fit. Surely, such powers should not be given to those who do not enjoy a degree of trust which, at least in this context, the department manifestly lacks.
It would seem appropriate to postpone further consideration of a Bill which is objectionable in its content, which has the support of few outside the Government, which most of us believe is wholly unjustified and one which, if the Government press ahead with it, will be greatly regretted.
3.26 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moran, has done us a great service and made a valid and valuable point in tabling this amendment. I shall resist the temptation to follow my noble friend Lord Peyton in his castigation of the Bill, which is justified.
I should like to ask the Government two questions. They are both aligned to each other. First, what is the point of setting up committees if one does not wait to hear their findings before taking action? Secondly—this is almost the same question in reverse—what is the point of introducing a Bill when one does not know what those committees may say? It makes a total mockery of the exercise of setting up professional bodies. The urgency to which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred earlier is not so great. If it were, it would surely not have been worth while to set up the committees in the first place, but the Government did set them up. Why did not the Government wait to hear the recommendations of the committees before introducing a highly controversial Bill?
3.28 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the wise amendment of my noble friend Lord Moran. It seeks to prevent hurried and ill-thought out
172
legislation and to help the Government to dig themselves out of a black hole of their own choosing, so that the Bill may eventually be based on proper and sound knowledge and information. We shall have that knowledge when the reports of the National Audit Office and the Royal Society into the foot and mouth disease epidemic are published. As it currently stands, the Bill appears not to be about animal health. It appears to be about animal death, slaughter, killing, destruction—a licence for mindless murderers to enter our houses and kill the pet goats in our kitchens. That, surely, cannot be what legislation is about. Law should be based on reason, logic and sense, so that people want to keep it. Anyone who supports that concept must also support my noble friend Lord Moran.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I was not present at the Second Reading of the Bill, for which I apologise. I was on part of a study tour to New Zealand. On entering New Zealand, we were confronted with very specific notices about foodstuffs that were not allowed in the country. People's cases were emptied and some of the contents confiscated. On entering Australia, where I stayed for only two days, my shoes were removed and disinfected. All those measures related to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease that had occurred in the United Kingdom in 2001. It struck me that there was far more consciousness about the insecurity of imported foodstuffs in those countries than there was in the United Kingdom.
In principle, I should like to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moran. He was formerly a constituent of mine, albeit as a Member of this House he was unable to vote. But I know of the sincerity of his concern that we do not have all the information that we require in order to legislate in an intelligent way about this huge tragedy of foot and mouth which struck the United Kingdom during the year 2001.
I believe personally that to debate the Bill as it stands is a test of whether the Government have good will towards the farming community and the rural areas. One of the reasons why later on we wish to test this matter in Committee is that we want to find out whether they will accept any of the tabled amendments which would much improve the Bill. Indeed if the Minister accepts those amendments then the Bill will be transformed.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that the Bill as it stands is totally unacceptable. The fact that we have not had the reports from the National Audit Office and from the Royal Society mean that there is a huge chasm of missing information and knowledge. That information surely will be contained in the reports of the Government's own committees which have been set up to investigate these matters. It is essential that we have this information before we can legislate properly. Let us test the Government on these matters.
As the Bill stands, the powers are draconian so far as concerns the disposal of animals, particularly those from contiguous culls. In my home area of Powys

173
many farmers and their families suffered grievously during the recent outbreak of foot and mouth. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, at Second Reading described the situation as swirling around. It certainly was in Powys during the middle of 2001. It was almost like a medieval situation where the fear of a disease was enormous. One could understand—looking back over the centuries—what it must have been like with something like the Black Death. It was that bad.
I see no effort in the Bill to consider a properly constituted task force should an emergency of this kind occur in the future. Obviously, with regard to my previous remarks, we need to have equally good legislation to prevent the disease from coming into the country again, as do the New Zealanders, the Australians and others in the world. We urgently need legislation for that because that is a vital missing part of the equation.
The disease did not start in this country but we need a task force to be set up in readiness, rather like civil defence, that is properly directed and trained. The training should go down to civil servants, the farmers themselves and their farm workers. This should be tested from time to time as is civil defence. Therefore, if there is an emergency we are ready for it and know precisely what to do. That was not the case in early 2001. People's memories were not long. I was around in 1967 but many people had not even seen the disease.
So there are many matters of that kind that are not in the Bill but which should be there. The test of whether the Government have good will left towards farming and the rural areas will be in the way that they approach and accept amendments on the Bill. Therefore, it is sensible to wait and see whether this transformation comes about. We can on Report, if necessary, put the Government to the sword and to the test as to whether the Bill, as amended at that point, is in an acceptable state.
The Minister has had a very tough time, as have his colleagues, because foot and mouth is a terrible disease. I believe that he has, as indeed do the Government, the will to come to a sensible and humane conclusion that the co-operation of the farming community is needed to protect their animals from foot and mouth. One should never legislate on a worst-case scenario. We all know what happened when the poll tax legislation came along. It was totally unsuitable. It alienated the population. I make a plea to the Government not to alienate the rural dwellers and the farming community. We should all co-operate together. We can do that only by bringing forward a constructive Bill which will be substantially amended from its present form.
3.35 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I was present for the last debate, so noble Lords who also took part will not be surprised that I am saddened that the amendment is on the agenda today. I shall oppose it because I genuinely believe that this legislation is needed.
174
Yesterday at Question Time I took the opportunity to ask the Minister whether or not at the present time we have powers in this country to deal with a further foot and mouth outbreak. He said, "No". He explained that the Bill would cover part of what is needed. I believe that whether or not we like it, as legislators, we should support the Bill. There are many Bills that pass through this House that we may like or dislike, but we debate them and we debate the amendments. When we agree with the amendments we try to amend the Bill. I am quite sure that noble Lords in this House will do exactly that with this legislation.
I believe that it would be wrong for us to hold up this legislation. Indeed, I feel more strongly than that: it would be totally irresponsible for us to do so, having been told by the Minister that we do not have the legislation at the present time to cope with foot and mouth.
It is rather strange that we hear this afternoon that there is no urgency for this matter. All the way through the debates on foot and mouth disease—and I was here for almost all of them we were told how urgent action was needed; how the Government had dragged their feet; and how things had to be done as quickly as possible. Now we hear the opposite. As I previously said, it would be irresponsible for us to wait for the reports. That could put us back months. It would be irresponsible because as legislators we have a duty to act in the best interests of the people. In this instance I am sure that we need legislation.
If we do not take any action and—God forbid—foot and mouth comes back, we know who the people will blame. We need to firm up laws when they do not suffice. The laws on foot and mouth do not suffice. The livelihoods of many people were affected. There was tragedy throughout the countryside. We cannot afford for that to happen again. We need this legislation.
3.38 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I also wish to express my very strong support for the noble Lord, Lord Moran. He has most eloquently and persuasively moved the amendment. When I spoke at Second Reading I described the Bill as harsh, unjust and untimely. I have had no reason to alter my opinion.
Many of us had hoped that the long interval between the Second Reading and the re-emergence of the Bill may have suggested that the Government were really having second thoughts, significantly revising the Bill and working hard to improve it. Rumours had been circulating of welcome changes within the ranks of DEFRA. I suppose that in our most wildly hopeful moments some of us had visions of the Bill being scrapped altogether, sunk without trace after the barrage inflicted on it in January; although the response of the noble Lord, Lord Whiny, to that debate was, as I remember it, fairly robust.
At the very least, we had visions of officials at DEFRA toiling late into the night, burning the candle at both ends to produce a fat volume of really significant amendments to the Bill, which, as it stands is indeed a very horrid thing, crude and delusive, in the

175
language of that wonderful 1887 Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, quoted. Alas! The Government amendments are derisory and pitifully inadequate. They are welcome as far as they go, but that is certainly not far enough. The Marshalled List owes its substance to the many noble Lords who have tabled their own, mostly excellent amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, was right to say that there is no prospect of turning the Bill into sensible and acceptable legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, pointed to the omission of any serious attempt to portray the manner in which another outbreak would be dealt: who would have responsibility; and how the command chain would work. The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, misunderstands the matter of haste. In debates, there was said to be a need for much greater haste in slaughtering infected animals and disposing of their carcasses, but that was not achieved because of the enormous scale of the slaughter.
The Bill asks for more slaughter. There is no evidence of any system being in place by which animals could be slaughtered quickly and the carcasses disposed of equally quickly.
The untimeliness of the Bill is the main reason that I support the noble Lord's Motion. There has been no Government justification for insisting on bringing back this Bill before the outcome of the two reports on the science of foot and mouth disease and the lessons to be learnt. The Government have just published their own contingency plan in case there is another outbreak. That is avowedly an interim plan, not intended to pre-empt or prejudge the results of the inquiries. That makes thoroughly good sense, but by what contorted logic can it be right to press on with the Bill with obstinate determination when, by definition, it pre-empts and pre-judges the results of the inquiries?
The Government have locked themselves into an extraordinary contradiction and I am aghast at the sheer unreasonableness of their attitude. Every argument of logic and political good sense—never mind the pressure of opinion in rural areas—points to delaying the Bill, not spending three days in Committee at this premature stage.
If the arguments of logic, good sense and reasonable political process are not sufficiently persuasive, I will resort to the ad hominem argument that to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moran, means that your Lordships could go home early on Maundy Thursday—which is no day anyway for political debate.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, also, a more useful way could have been found to spend parliamentary time on 11th April.
I hope and pray that the Government—who showed such an ability to listen, such reasonableness and flexibility over the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill—may yet see sense and that your Lordships will agree with the noble Lord's admirable Motion. If I am in "Dad's Army", I am a mere private. I defer to my commanding
176
officer—although I do not think that the noble Lord bears much resemblance to the gallant captain with whom most of your Lordships will be familiar.
3.42 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, as always it is a great privilege to follow the right reverend Prelate, who very much reflected—as he did on Second Reading—the opinions of the House. I too support the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, which reflects not only the feeling in this House but, perhaps more importantly, in the countryside at large.
In addition to the two reports—and, for heaven's sake, it must be sensible to await their outcome—a report has been instigated by the European Parliament. Presumably all three reports will result in recommendations that will demand further legislation. I am surprised that the Government Chief Whip has not intervened because the amount of parliamentary time required as a consequence of those three sets of recommendations will be considerable—over and above the three days in Committee allocated to the Bill.
The Minister argues that he needs the additional powers in the Bill to cope effectively with foot and mouth, yet the Government's own submission to the Anderson committee acknowledged that many mistakes were made during the sad outbreak that we all witnessed and that the powers afforded to the Government in the 1981 Act were not used as effectively as they could have been. The Bill seems to offer very little above what is already available to the Government under the 1981 Act, yet the damage that it will do in terms of its heavy handedness and confrontation with those who suffered so much over the past year is completely out of all proportion.
There is one further point that I would like to raise with the Minister, and I did so on Second Reading; namely, the question of Scotland. I totally fail to understand why the Scottish Parliament does not appear to think that there is a need to rush through legislation. The chances of an outbreak north of the Border must be similar to England or Wales—at least in proportion to the number of livestock in either country. Yet the Minister stated in a Written Answer to me:
"I understand that Scottish Ministers hope to issue a consultation on proposed legislation shortly". —[Official Report, 28/1/2002; col. WA9.]
Consultation, not a Bill. I can only assume that Scottish Ministers do not regard the issue with the same degree of urgency as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I concur with virtually every noble Lord who has spoken with the exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, that the sensible course is for the Government to wait until the reports have been published, reflect on their outcome and recommendations, then come forward with well-considered legislation that balances the needs of government and the countryside in a Bill that we could all support.
3.47 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I had no intention of intervening and do so only in response to the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and the noble Baroness,

177
Lady Strange. I particularly want to pick up on one phrase used by the noble Baroness—"mindless murderers"—in referring to MAFF staff carrying out policies that are the responsibility of Ministers and the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, was his usual excoriating self about MAFF officials and their behaviour.
Ministers and ex-Ministers have plenty of opportunities to defend themselves and to debate and change policy. I would be the last person to suggest that we should not learn from last year's outbreak or that we should not debate vaccination as against slaughter. I remind the House that when MAFF officials coped with last year's epidemic, together with many vets from abroad and in private practice, they did so without the opportunity to change policy.
The right reverend Prelate reminded us that officials were urged to implement a slaughter policy as swiftly as possible. to curtail the spread of infection. That policy was part of the contingency plans of successive governments, in conjunction with farming interests across the whole of Europe, for many years. That does not mean that slaughter must be the policy for the future and should not be revised. However, we should be careful about criticising officials—I say this in relation to the noble Baroness, whom I count as a friend—and using intemperate language, when those officials were carrying out policies that had been endorsed across the board.
3.49 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, it is with a heavy heart that I support my noble friend Lord Moran. I express my gratitude to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford for so adequately articulating the feelings of the rural and farming community. A friend of mine rang me on Sunday night to say, "I hope that you are taking part in debate on the Bill. Can you kindly tell the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that I am incandescent with rage about it?". I am not incandescent but I am disturbed about the content of the Bill.
The Minister said that it is his Bill and that he wants to see it through. On behalf of the Government, he asks us to extend permission for them to perform contiguous culls in future. The Government's figures show that not a single one of the 3,305 farms that lost their animals under the contiguous cull tested positive for the virus. Of 3,873 farms slaughtered out as dangerous contacts, only one tested positive.
At Second Reading, the Minister said of the Thirsk outbreak:
"Luckily, the disease did not spread any further south east, although in other directions the spread did not stop. That was due to luck, although good organisation and the support of the bulk of the farming community also played a major role. In the end, given the delay in the contiguous cull, it was probably luck that stopped the disease from spreading further".—[Official Report, 14/1/02; col. 837.]
If delays in the contiguous culls and luck played a part in limiting the spread of the disease, should the Government not submit their existing control policies to rigorous scientific examination by international experts before they seek to amend the Animal Health Act 1981?
178
Of the Brecon Beacons, the Minister said:
"the situation in the Brecon Beacons, where there was a dangerous and rapid spread in the hills, is also instructive. There, the additional policy of contiguous heft culling proved to be essential to stop further spread of the disease".—[Officiol Report, 14/1/02; col. 839.]
In view of the figures that I have just cited, would the Minister care to provide the scientific evidence on which that statement is based, especially in relation to laboratory-confirmed foot and mouth disease, the results of serological testing and the interpretation of that serology?
I am not in the least happy about the Bill; it is based on false science. We should get our language right. Culling means thinning; we were mass slaughtering animals. This was not an outbreak of foot and mouth disease; it was an epidemic. While I am at it. the Minister also said:
"after months of devastation from the biggest epidemic of foot and mouth disease in any country since records began".—[Official Report, 14/1/02; col. 835.]
Can he confirm whether it was the biggest epidemic of foot and mouth disease in any country or whether this country was where the largest number of animals were slaughtered as a means of controlling the disease? I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Moran.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I warmly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord. Lord Moran, in his excellent speech. In a moment, I should like to expand a little on what my noble friend Lord Peel said about Scotland.
I find it hard to understand why the Government are proceeding with the Bill. They announced it with a great fanfare of trumpets and urgency way back in the autumn, when the Bill received its Second Reading in another place. Proceedings were so urgent that they were guillotined; many amendments were not discussed and none was accepted. So there was not much consultation with Members in another place. Then the Bill came to this House in mid-January. One would think that there would be great urgency again, but no. Today it is two-and-a-half months since Second Reading. Presumably, urgency has dropped from the Government's mind.
That additional point supports the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that we should delay proceedings until we receive the results of the inquiries—not only those being undertaken in England but the important study being carried out by the Royal Society in Edinburgh to the highest scientific standard. We could then put together a Bill of practical use within about 12 months.
A year ago, many of us called for a public inquiry and continued to do so all through last summer and autumn. Eventually, the Government refused to hold one and went ahead with their own separate inquiries with the obvious intention of minimising the criticism that they were bound to receive for their handling of the whole affair.

179
I want to press the Government hard on their relationship with Scotland over the Bill. The epicentre of the outbreak spread from Northumberland to Longtown in northern Cumberland—no more than 10 miles from my farm as the crow flies. I lost all my sheep in the contiguous cull. Easter Sunday last year was the worst day of my farming life, when the sheep were all killed and the lambs with them.
It is ridiculous that we are legislating for a disease that is fluid and moves about quickly, yet there will be different legislation in Scotland, a few miles away. The Scottish Parliament shows no sign of urgency to follow with legislation on the lines of the Bill. That may be because, by and large, the authorities in Scotland—not only the Executive but local councils and especially the Army—carried out their job efficiently and well. Later, I shall talk about some of those procedures under amendments to the Bill in Committee and later stages.
It is impossible to divide the United Kingdom in legislation on animal disease, which hops about all over the place across the Border, one way or another. We cannot have two separate sets of legislation, compensation and a whole host of different procedures either side of the Border. Another outbreak may be right on the Border, as was the last one.
I urge the Minister to think carefully about what the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and other noble Lords have said and to postpone the Bill until we receive the results of the inquiries. We can then draft an effective Bill to cover the whole of the United Kingdom—jointly with the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly—so that we have a United Kingdom attack on the disease and, most importantly, a United Kingdom attack on imports. which are the root of the problem and about which the Government seem to do little at present.
We heard what happens in New Zealand. A few weeks ago, I was in America. On return to this country, absolutely nothing was said about agriculture or animal husbandry, whereas if one goes to America, one has to sign forms about where one has been and whether one has been on a farm. We do not seem to be taking such import controls seriously. Even in answer to a Question this week, the Minister said that things are developing. Why cannot they develop quicker than the Bill?
We really must wait until the detailed inquiries report to the country. We can then put together a Bill that we can be proud of.
3.59 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I had not intended to speak to the amendment because, while I fully agree with many of the sentiments expressed by those in favour of it, I thought that there might be advantage in seeing whether we can improve the Bill in Committee. My intention to remain silent was altered by the powerful speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. It is admirable that she should come forth to defend so powerfully officials of the ministry
180
of which she was such an industrious and popular Minister. But surely, what she said demonstrated conclusively that we need to know what happened.
The noble Baroness told us that the officials did their job. and that, if things went wrong, it was because they had been given the wrong policy. There is no doubt that, in the country at large, MAFF—or DEFRA, or government or whatever we choose to call it—has lost its credibility with those on the farm. If the noble Baroness is right to say that that is because there was disorder and chaos at the top and that the officials and the people on the ground were commendable, sensible, hard-working people, we can work on that basis in deciding what is needed. If, on the other hand, contrary to the noble Baroness's plucky and admirable defence, the officials were, in fact, clots who were making a mess of it, we need other legislation. Until the inquiries have told us about such things, how on earth can we know what is needed?
I am afraid that the noble Baroness has, perhaps unintentionally, converted me to the theory that the Motion is right, although I entirely accept, like her, that until we know, we should not be abusive about individuals.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I want to clarify what I said for the noble Viscount. I did not say that we should not take action until we knew. Nor did I suggest, in anything that I said, that there was chaos at the top. What I said, though perhaps not explicitly, was that the House had a rather short memory about how effusive it was in its praise of officials during the action and that we might well wish to review policy as the whole of Europe has done. In Australia they have torn up their contingency plan and want to think again, because of the scale of the epidemic that we encountered.
It is right that we consider policy. All that I was suggesting was that, if officials were implementing a policy that was accepted, agreed and unchallenged before the epidemic, it would be wrong to castigate those officials in the terms that were used in the debate.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I fully accept that the noble Baroness did not say that that was a reason for postponement. I merely said that it seemed that the inevitable conclusion of what she was saying was that we needed to know what went wrong before we tried to produce a solution.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I shall intervene in this singles match to support the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moran.
There can be no doubt that major errors were made during the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. No one is likely to contradict that. If it were not so, why would there be three inquiries, as well as the European one, which will probably be almost as important as our own. My friend the MEP for the South East, Caroline Lucas, has been selected to be vice-chairman of that inquiry, and I have no doubt that it will be conducted with extreme rigour.

181
The history of MAFF in the past few months—if not longer—is a sad one. As noble Lords know, many highly competent civil servants did their best, but, largely, they got it wrong. They got it wrong in all sorts of ways, including their approach to dealing with the disease and I n their dealings with farmers. MAFF and the Treasury, between them, have reduced our farmers to a level of subsistence that is about half that of any of their colleagues in Europe. That takes some doing.
We should not follow the suggestion that has been made by my former friends in front of me that we should embark on the Committee stage and see what happens. It would be better to wait until the various reports came in. For that reason, I hope that your Lordships will vote for the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and that he will put it to the vote.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, for giving the House the opportunity to defer discussion on the Bill. We should be grateful for several reasons. It gives the Government the opportunity to think again and gives people generally the opportunity to give their views, which they have not been able to do so far. The noble Lord's Motion refers to two reports. It is essential that we should receive those reports before we proceed with the Bill. The Government, the Liberals and—I believe—the Conservatives believe in pre-legislative hearings.
If there were ever a case in which a Bill should have a pre-legislative hearing, this is it. The Bill damages so many people and involves the entry by the Government into people's property and allows them to destroy that property at will. Ordinary people everywhere will understand that and deplore it. As there is no urgency, the passage of the Bill ought to be suspended while a pre-legislative hearing goes ahead.
It is not only people in the country who are concerned about what went on during the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Millions of people throughout the country were appalled at the destruction not only of diseased animals but of animals which were perfectly fit and well and were destroyed in a manner such as people had never contemplated or seen before. The general public must be satisfied that any legislation will take into consideration all aspects of an outbreak—not only foot and mouth disease, but BSE and others—to ensure that, if the Government have to deal with such an outbreak, they do so in the best, most humane way, with regard both to people and animals.
Recently, we heard about the Government's policy on fox hunting. I am bound to make a comparison. During the foot and mouth outbreak, the Government destroyed 9 million animals—mostly fit ones—by dubious and cruel means. It would take 300 years to destroy that number of foxes by hunting. I hope that that point will be taken on board.
I support the noble Lord's Motion, and I hope that the House will do so too. It would help farming, people in the countryside and, indeed, the
182
Government. It would show that we had a concerned, humane, listening Government who were prepared to listen and delay such draconian legislation.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, the speech that we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, was an extraordinarily important one. I join those who congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Moran, on tabling the Motion. The speech that we have just heard made it clear that the sentiments behind the Motion are held in all parts of the House. The Chief Whip is here. I hope that the Government will take on board the fact that the mood of the House is overwhelmingly in favour of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moran.
A little earlier we listened again to a quite outstanding speech from the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Hereford, which I hope the Government will reflect on very carefully indeed. I believe that the noble Lord's amendment is particularly justified at this stage of the Bill's proceedings. The Government come to your Lordships' House now looking a great deal more hapless and foolish than they looked when we had the Second Reading over 10 weeks ago. At that time the Government were still telling us that the Bill. as my noble friend Lord Monro of Langholm, said, came from another place with a tag of urgency attached to it with a background, as the noble Lord said, of a guillotine in the other place.
But what do the Government do after your Lordships dismembered the Bill at Second Reading? What do they do with this urgent Bill? They wait over 10 weeks before they start the Committee stage. It is no good them saying, "Oh, parliamentary time"—I have used that argument in another place on many occasions—"did not allow us to proceed". If the Government really felt that this Bill was urgent, they could have perfectly well dealt with the Committee stage in that ridiculous half-term holiday which we had a few weeks ago.
Until this moment, when we were told that we were going to have the Committee stage starting now, I thought the delay was because the Government had paid attention to the way in which your Lordships' House dismembered the Bill on 14th January. But what do we find? No way was that in their minds; they wanted to press on with this most unfortunate Bill.
It seems to me that what has happened is that the Government now have the worst of both worlds. They can no longer argue that the Bill is urgent because they wasted 10 weeks in allowing it just to lie on the table, but they are still mindlessly pressing on with it against the view widely held across the House that it is unnecessary and premature.
When the Minister replies, he has to answer two questions above all. First, what has been the reason for the 10-week delay? Why could we not have dealt with the Bill earlier if it is urgent? Secondly, if it is not urgent, why go on with it now when there are inquiries waiting to report? The Government cannot have it both ways. It seems to me that the Government have the worst of both worlds over this matter.

183
About a year ago I was one of the first to ask for a broad public inquiry on similar lines to the Northumberland committee of 1967. I was in the House of Commons at that time. I remember it vividly. At that time I said that I thought a public inquiry should start at once. My noble friend Lord Plumb was a member of the Northumberland committee. His distinction over matters of this sort as a former president of the European Parliament and of the National Farmers Union, confirm that his credentials to lead that committee were irrefutable. When I asked for an immediate start to the public inquiry it never occurred to me that there would not be one sooner or later. But I believed that it ought to start straightaway. I was totally astonished when the Government refused to have a similar inquiry to the one which Fred Peart set up when he was Minister for Agriculture all those years ago.
It occurs to me that if a Conservative Government had still been in power last year when this outbreak began and they had behaved in the same way as the current Government have behaved over setting up public inquiries, I could not envisage the extent of the howls which would have gone up from Opposition Members in this House and in another place. I am totally horrified by the way the Government have behaved over this matter. I believe that there has been incompetence from top to bottom in handling this recent outbreak.
As my noble friend Lord Ferrers rightly said, what is the point of setting up these inquiries and then embarking on legislation? It is the old case over which many of us castigated Labour governments in the past of the gentleman in Whitehall knowing best and ignoring inquiries and the experts on the ground who could give—and I hope they will still—advice as to how these things have come about and what ought to be done in future.
It seems that we are in the process of a great cover-up of government incompetence over the course of the last year. I hope that the House supports the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moran.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moran. Contrary to what the Minister said at Second Reading, he does not need the Bill. As the noble Countess, Lady Mar, said, the Government have already slaughtered millions of animals. It was not a cull, but a slaughter. If they have slaughtered 5 million animals that were not infected then the Minister cannot possibly need this Bill. He may want it, but he certainly does not need it.
At the leisurely pace at which this Bill has been proceeding, I have had time to make my own private inquiry in the absence of a public inquiry. My sister lives in Hatherleigh in Devon which, as noble Lords may know, was the centre of the disastrous outbreak of foot and mouth. She arranged a meeting for me there with local farmers as did the local Devon NFU which, I may say, differed considerably from the London branch in its attitude to this Bill.
184
The point which emerged most tellingly from both those meetings was the lack of local organisation and communication. Vets, the police and the Army all seemed to be uncertain of their role. Local vets were sidelined and put under the control of MAFF. The bureaucrats did not have the faintest idea of what was going on. That was the information that I received.
For example, the local auctioneer had not got a job because there were no cattle auctions at all. It is an old-established firm there. He put at the disposal of officials the services of his employees, their expertise, vehicles and maps and intimate knowledge of local farms, but they were turned down. There were large numbers of lorry drivers going down small Devon lanes laden with sleepers and coal, but going in the wrong direction and without maps. That is an example of the short-sightedness which should never have occurred.
Both the groups of farmers to whom I spoke for quite a long time on both occasions made the point that disease control operations must be handled at local level and not by remote control from London. At the end of our meetings I asked them all what they thought about the Animal Health Bill. They said unanimously that it should be held over until the Government's own inquiry had reported. That is the reaction that I received on the ground since our last debate at Second Reading.
While I was there I spoke with Professor Ian Mercer who chaired the Devon County Council inquiry into foot and mouth, which I believe is the only report which has been completed and published on the foot and mouth epidemic so far. As your Lordships know, his conclusions were pretty damning. However, it is worth quoting a few lines from his conclusion. He said:
"The reports received by the Inquiry of insensitive and even belligerent operatives and bungled culls do little to enhance the professional reputation of those involved. from Ministers downwards … the evidence presented to us is overwhelmingly critical of the balance of effective need against unnecessary killing of healthy stock under the contiguous cull policy as carried out by MAFF".
Yet that is the policy which was so roundly condemned by his report and which the Government ask us now to sanction in the Bill. That is like a drunk driver saying, "I'll drive much better if I have another bottle of Scotch".
What I saw and heard on my visit to Devon has been borne out by the evidence given to the two inquiries that the Government set up: the lessons learned inquiry and the Royal Society inquiry. That evidence is available on an excellent Internet site, which I recommend to noble Lords who may not be acquainted with it. It is www.warmwell.com. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said that the public and many people have not had their say. Many have had their say on that website. It makes extremely instructive reading. One can see many of the submissions made to the inquiries.
There are constants in the evidence presented by farmers and scientists, including Dr David Shannon. who until December 2001 was chief scientist at MAFF and DEFRA, the CLA, senior veterinary experts and

185
other organisations and individuals. The constants involved are that the so-called contingency plan was ineffective and outdated; the remoteness of the centralised bureaucracy in Page Street was divorced from the reality in the field; and that there was lack of effort to ensure that infectious diseases such as foot and mouth disease do not come into this country. The United States, Australia, New Zealand and Canada seem successfully to keep those diseases at bay. Why are we so slack when it comes to keeping out those diseases? If we cannot stop illegal imports, it seems utterly unrealistic to pretend that we can he a foot and mouth disease free country.
The final constant is the Bill. The contiguous cull was not necessary. It must be stopped. It was a highly expensive disaster for animal and human welfare and did nothing to prevent the spread of the disease—rather to the contrary. Evidence I have seen indicates that the contiguous cull may have contributed to the spread of the disease through movements of vehicles and people from infected areas into contiguous cull areas. What it did very successfully was to kill 5 million uninfected animals and divert resources away from essential disease control efforts in infected areas.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, mentioned the outbreak in the Brecon Beacons. I add my voice in asking this question. What is the evidence that the contiguous cull in the Brecon Beacons stopped the disease from spreading further? My information is that that was not the case. I shall be interested to hear evidence indicating that that action was successful. The noble Countess mentioned DEFRA's own figures. Of the 3,305 farms which were tested, one only was positive. DEFRA now seems to disagree with its own figures and has amended them. According to its most recent figures, there were 120 "positives" out of 2,960 contiguous culls. Perhaps in answer to a Written Question the Minister will explain the difference between the figures and state which figure is correct.
I conclude by quoting from the evidence presented by Dr Sheila Crispin to the lessons learned inquiry. She is an extremely experienced vet and reader in comparative ophthalmology at the University of Bristol. She says:
"If one single improvement is to be achieved after all the Inquires it is that the culture of MAFF/DEFRA must change … they must realise, or be made to realise that their own inadequacies cannot be hidden beneath draconian and unscientific measures such as contiguous culling policies and the amendment to the Animal Health Act".
DEFRA has forfeited the trust of the rural community. Until that trust is restored, I can see no reason for the Government to be given the powers they request in the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, will press his Motion to a vote. If so, I shall vote with him.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, unfortunately, I was not able to take part in the Second Reading debate. If I have an interest to declare, it is that I live in Cumbria which was at the heart of the dreadful outbreak. I do not farm but I am acutely aware of the enormous
186
damage that the outbreak did to the tourism and recreational industries on which much of the economy of the Lake District, where I live, depended. As I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said in her Second Reading speech, I am well aware that if the foot and mouth disease were to break out again there the wide support which the tourist industry and recreational bodies gave to Her Majesty's Government last year would not be repeated. If this Bill were to become an Act of Parliament, it would not help.
I rather sympathised with the Prime Minister when he decided against having a public inquiry because believed that that would take years and we wanted good, quick post hoc investigations. The three inquiries were set up. We have had the Curry report on farming, a first-class report. I should have thought that we were not that far away from receiving the other two important reports. But apparently the Government cannot wait. They want draconian measures. They want measures which make criminals of ordinary people. Yet it is 10 weeks since the Second Reading debate.
The Second Reading debate demonstrated that the Bill was exceptionally controversial. The fact that we have spent an hour and 19 minutes on the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, shows equally how controversial it still is. Yet apparently we cannot await the two reports. As the noble Ear), Lord Ferrers, asked, what was the point of commissioning those reports? What an insult it is to the distinguished people who make up those committees if we cannot wait before we leap into legislation. We all know that legislation in haste—and if any measure was legislation in haste it must be this one—usually ends in tears. How can it be right to proceed with such highly controversial measures when we do not know what the two important reports will say?
4.28 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I shall briefly state the reason that I shall vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moran. I refer to one lacuna in the Bill. There is nothing about protecting animal health by the proper processing of imports. I have been putting down a series of Questions for Written Answer. Those answers I have received reveal a shambles. I have put down subsequent questions which the Government have some difficulty in answering. But that consideration must be taken into account if the Bill is intended to protect animal health.
4.29 p.m.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, I do not speak because of the kind compliments paid by my noble friend Lord Jopling. He referred to earlier days. It is amazing how much one can remember of what took place 34 years ago. How many lessons we have learned during that time is debatable. There are plenty of lessons to be learned from the outbreak of last year. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, reminded us of the tremendous job that many people did in the field, working for periods of 24 hours. I wholly support that.

187
The noble Baroness said that of course they did not cause the chaos, but chaos there was. We saw chaos in abundance throughout the whole country. We all hope that that kind of thing will be avoided in the future.
After a debate lasting one and a half hours, the Minister must be anxious to respond to the many comments that have been made, and I am sure that the Chief Whip will be keen to get on with the business of the House. But in his excellent opening speech leading the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Moran, reminded us that some 10 weeks were allowed from the last debate we held in this House for evidence to be taken from those concerned in the industry. That was made clear. It will not surprise the Minister to learn that I have read the submissions of the majority of those who gave evidence over that period. I have to say that I see no comparison between the evidence that was submitted and what is contained in this Bill. The problem we have to face is that, while the Minister has tabled one or two amendments, they are not sufficient to satisfy people in the country.
As my noble friend Lord Peel pointed out earlier, it is those people with whom we are concerned. They have already reacted and they will react further unless we are given something that looks towards the future and which is satisfactory. I regret therefore that the changes we called for on the last occasion have not been included.
What will happen when Professor Anderson's "lessons learned" report eventually emerges? If we have come to certain conclusions in this place and the Bill has been passed, I ask the Minister whether we shall then have to have another Bill. Will further legislation be produced in light of those further reports? I know from my previous experience that I would have felt insulted if, after the government had accepted our recommendations, they had then suddenly decided to ignore them and to bring forward a Bill.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moran, in his comment that further time needs to be given to consider this. That does not mean that I or anyone else is anxious to delay matters. Contingency measures have been put in place so that action could be taken in the disastrous event of another outbreak of foot and mouth disease or, indeed, any other disease, because the legislation seeks to cover all diseases and thus they have to be dealt with in this way.
I have every confidence in the veterinary services of this country. I have every confidence that we have sufficient scientists and epidemiologists, who are already considering and preparing for the possibility, God forbid, that we suffer another outbreak. I would only submit that if we did have another outbreak, we would never see the same situation again. I truly believe that greater concentration would be made on "ring" vaccination which—who knows at the moment?—could prevent the massive contiguous culls which have caused the slaughter of so many clean cattle during this outbreak.
188
Much has been said about the importance of dealing effectively with meat imports. Following our previous debate 10 weeks ago, I asked the Minister for a figure which was then sent to me in writing. At the time I was told that over the course of the foot and mouth disease outbreak, some 180,339 tonnes of meat had been imported from seven countries where foot and mouth disease is endemic. That was absolutely crazy, given the measures taken by certain countries that have been referred to during the course of our debate. They take firm measures to prevent products or even people from countries where there is a disease outbreak from entering their areas. I suggest that we concentrate far more on dealing with problems before they arise, rather than concentrate now on what measures would have to be taken in the event of such a terrible tragedy taking place again.
4.35 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, deserves some praise for being the only supporter of the Bill over the entire one and-a-half-hour discussion so far. But her argument that the Bill is needed because the Government do not have the essential powers to deal with an outbreak of foot and mouth disease have been completely undermined by the Government's actions since Second Reading.
In addition to the two questions put to the Minister by my noble friend Lord Jopling, I should be grateful if he could tell noble Lords what action he took after the scare in Yorkshire some weeks ago? It was thought that we were about to suffer another outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Did the Minister have in hand emergency legislation that would have been presented to the House? Was this Bill going to be brought forward as a matter of urgency? What action was taken at that stage to remedy the alleged lacuna in the Minister's armoury to tackle foot and mouth disease? It is clear that this Bill did not appear on the Order Paper at that stage and, so far as I know, no attempt was made to bring it forward.
I believe, therefore, that the Minister himself has destroyed his own argument, one which he used in response to the House in the debate on Second Reading. He said then that he needed the provisions of this Bill and that he needed them quickly. I hope that he will be able to give a full answer to my noble friend Lord Jopling in response to the question that I have just posed.
4.37 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, of course I have a great deal of sympathy for the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, being considered this afternoon, having moved a similar Motion myself on Second Reading. My view then was that this House should hear the Government's reasoning as to why they needed the Bill in this form. This afternoon noble Lords have again expressed their anger in the strongest terms because they have not been offered a Bill in a form that they had expected.

189
The Government have claimed continually that what they seek is a simple amendment to the Animal Health Act 1981 in the form of emergency legislation. The anger that has been expressed by noble Lords this afternoon reflects the fact that this Bill goes far beyond that by conferring new powers on the Minister and his officials, while—as many noble Lords have pointed out—it does nothing to improve controls on imports. My party has pointed out both in this House and in another place that the Bill is not proportionate.
I had hoped that, between the debate on Second Reading and today, the Government would have brought forward a raft of amendments or would have indicated that they were willing to accept many of our amendments, along with those put down by other noble Lords. They would have vastly improved the Bill.
The two inquiries which have been referred to this afternoon are supplemented by the European Union inquiry which will look more deeply into the balance between vaccination and vaccination and cull. That inquiry may well reach different conclusions with regard to what the European Union will allow in terms of vaccination, as well as with regard to the whole policy approach to the control of foot and mouth disease. That is something which we should bear in mind.
I do not expect my position to be popular with noble Lords this afternoon because I continue to believe that we should allow the Government at least the Committee stage so that they are given an opportunity to explain how they might intend to bring forward simple emergency legislation. I recognise that the Government are responsible here and that they must do their best to control outbreaks of disease in animals. However, I firmly believe that the Government must accept into the provisions of this Bill some of the duties and responsibilities that are incumbent on them.
Beyond the matter of import controls, I return to the issue of the public inquiry, which is the subject of another amendment to the Bill. However, despite calls from all sides of the House and from all over the country, the Government have dug in their heels and have refused to allow a public inquiry. Thus, at the moment, the Floor of the House is probably the most public place in which we are likely to get any answers to our questions.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will forgive me, but how does the Liberal Democrat Party expect to be taken seriously as the main opposition party when the moment that the Government get themselves in shtook it starts crawling to them?
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I do not believe that the House wants to debate politics this afternoon. I want to debate the issue of animal health, and how best to control animal disease. The noble Earl should not make light of that aim.
190
The Government now have some choices before them: they can amend the Bill—indeed. there are many helpful hints as to how to do that in the amendments now before the House—or they could delay the Bill until they can benefit from the findings of the inquiries. I believe that the quality of the forthcoming evidence will be most useful. Alternatively, I ask noble Lords to consider a third option; namely, that we go for a thoroughly amended Bill that we debate on Report. I draw noble Lords' attention to my proposed sunset clause, which would allow the Government simply to take forward emergency powers that would then lapse. In tabling the amendment, I have given the Government time to consider the results of the inquiries, as well as the reactions to them, and t o draw up legislation as a result.
If I do not vote for the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, this afternoon, noble Lords can be absolutely assured that that is not a sign that the Liberal Democrats are of the view that the Government have come anywhere near striking the right balance in this Bill thus far. We should explore the issues further in public. I believe that the Government could still table amendments that would provide us with a constructive way to proceed. I urge the Government, therefore, to take that opportunity. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
4.42 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I have much sympathy for the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, about which we have spoken together. A similar amendment was moved and debated on Second Reading by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, when there were two to three speakers only who spoke in favour of what I regard as an odious Bill. The Government should have no doubt about the feeling on the Bill—namely, that it should be held over. To date, there has been only one supporter for the proposition that we should go ahead; and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has just expressed her concerns in that respect.
As other noble Lords have said, this Bill was brought forward in great haste. As my noble friend Lord Jopling observed, if this legislation was urgently required why have we waited these 10 weeks for its introduction? The Minister urged that there could be another outbreak. He said that the draconian powers in the Bill would be necessary, and that such legislation was urgently required. Second Reading took place on 14th January—I should remember because it was my birthday—and some two months plus have elapsed since then. Having waited those two months, why is it not appropriate to wait for the findings of the Government's own inquiries that are due to be completed this summer, given the fact that we are unlikely to complete the proceedings on the Bill before that time? Indeed, that even adds weight to the suggestion that we should wait.
My noble friend Lord Plumb said that the evidence being given to the various ongoing inquiries does not reflect the thrust of the Bill. Indeed, Scottish Ministers are not pushing for an equivalent Bill, as is the case

191
with the Northern Ireland Ministers. Animal health and disease control are not dependent on national boundaries. My noble friend Lord Peel spoke about the consultation in Scotland, without the introduction of a Bill, while my noble friend Lord Monro referred to issues that need addressing as regards the Scottish and English borders.
The National Audit Office and Dr Anderson's inquiries are well under way. On top of that, as several of my noble friends observed, there have also been various county inquiries. The Mercer inquiry in Devon was particularly critical, and stressed that the first matter to be addressed should be the question of import controls. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford referred to the need for the Government to address the prevailing situation. Although the Government have brought forward one or two amendments to the Bill, none of them appear before Clause 6. I believe that the first government amendment is Amendment No. 58.
The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, asks for a delay until,
"the responses to the consultation … have been published".
The consultation period on one of the matters that the Government are considering ended on 15th March of this year. But, to date, we have not heard anything from them. Can the Minister say why we are taking up this Bill again, when the Government know the results of those consultations? Indeed, they are privy to those results, while noble Lords in this Chamber and those outside are not. Surely the completed consultation ought to inform the Government's thinking and aid our debates.
The second part of the noble Lord's Motion deals specifically with the government inquiries into the foot-and-mouth outbreak. The Government should hold a proper, independent public inquiry. They should wait until such inquiries have been completed and reported; and, as several noble Lords have said, such findings should be incorporated in the legislation. In fact, looking at the situation logically, if we go ahead with the Bill today it will not complete its passage through both Houses of Parliament until the time when both inquiries will report. Therefore, is it not logical to wait until such inquiries have reported, so as to have something firm upon which to build? If proceedings on the Bill go ahead today, we shall press that argument strongly during its passage.
Amendment No. 151 goes further than the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. It is bad enough that the Government have set themselves against holding a public inquiry; but, in doing so, they risk losing the important information that the inquiries in progress could bring forward. Some of that information might help to restrict and to prevent the disease spreading in any future outbreak.
Does the Minister accept—I hope that he does—that the self-congratulatory style in the Government's submissions to the official foot and mouth inquiry dated 22nd March of this year do not inspire confidence in his department from those who were
192
affected by the foot and mouth outbreak? I heard the pleas made earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in that respect. As she knows, I have supported the way in which many officials carried out their work. However, there were criticisms. It seems strange that, in the submissions, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said:
"We already have drawn up revised interim contingency plans which will build on our experience and are in place to guide our response to any further outbreak".
The noble Lord continued to say:
"There are further lessons to be learned. The lessons learned and Royal Society inquiries will be comprehensive and fully independent; they will identify what should be done if we were faced with any future outbreak of animal disease".
Does that not add weight to the argument that your Lordships have put forward this afternoon as regards the delay?
Perhaps I may refer the House to an animal health centenary document printed in 1965, which some noble Lords may remember. I believe that the statements made in that document are as relevant today as they were at that time. Under the heading "Principles and practices", it said:
"All these and other inconveniences will only be accepted by farmers if they are made fully aware of the objects of the policy and kept informed of the progress of the campaign at every stage … The farming community must be willing to co-operate in every aspect of the work".
Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke commented on the fact that we need to take communities with us.
Bearing all that in mind, is not the Minister prepared to accept some of the criticism of the way in which the foot and mouth outbreak was handled? If not, how does he expect the Government to take these farming and rural communities along with them, while at the same time giving themselves huge powers in the Bill to slaughter on suspicion?
The forum on illegal food imports, which was announced last week on 21st March, is to start work to address this issue. It has been asked to bring forward an action programme. What is the time-scale for this forum to report to the Government? When will its report be published? When will we have an opportunity to debate it?
Numerous reasons have been given today as to why we should not proceed with the Bill at this time. As I said, my only criticism of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, is that it does not go far enough. Amendment No. 151 goes a step further and seeks a full independent public inquiry. That is what should happen.
The killing of millions of animals—as the noble Countess, Lady Mar, said, it was not a cull, it was a slaughter—brought untold suffering to animals and to farming communities. It also brought devastation to rural communities, rural businesses and the tourist industry. Compensation for consequential loss was not available and many people are still struggling to regain lost income.

193
In addition, different practices were adopted and different decisions were taken. For example, no scientific evidence was produced for allowing Phoenix the calf to live. Recently, Kirsty, the girl who attacked an official—I am sorry that she did—when her goat was killed, was given an absolute discharge because the judge felt that the circumstances warranted it.
Those two examples highlight the Government's difficulty. There is no logicality and no scientific grounds for many of the proposals in the Bill. The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, seeks to delay the Bill, but it totally fails to address the issue of the importation of meat and food products into this country, an issue which has been raised many times by my noble friend Lord Marlesford. The Government have announced the setting up of a forum to address the issue, but we need to know more about it.
We want to know what has been said to the Government by those who have been consulted during the inquiry which finished on 15th March. If we are to discuss these issues in Committee we shall need to know what people have said. If the Government refuse to hold a public inquiry, then, as far as the wider world is concerned, a public inquiry will be held in Committee and on Report in this House. The responsibility will fall on us.
I sympathise with the points made by the noble Lord. Lord Moran, and I note the strength of feeling that has been expressed in this area. My role is to ensure that the Bill does not come into force until a full inquiry has been held.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I very much regret that the Motion has been moved in this form. Let us be clear, if the Motion were agreed to the Bill would not pass in this Session of Parliament. If that is the aim of noble Lords rather than to delay the Bill to obtain information, let them be frank about it—because that would be the result.
A number points have been made, both about the conduct of the response to the foot and mouth epidemic and about the powers in the Bill. I shall deal primarily with procedural points and with the reasons why we believe that this Bill needs to be enacted as rapidly as possible. That is not to say that the other points are not important, but many of them will be touched on if we proceed into Committee on the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, and others— including the noble Baronesses who have spoken from the Front Benches opposite—asked why, if the matter was so urgent, there has been a delay between Second Reading and the Committee stage, which I hope will begin today. The answer is contained in part of another question of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, in regard to the results of the consultation which ended last week.
During the course of Second Reading, I was asked whether we would consider before Committee stage the response to that consultation in respect of the protocol on the slaughter powers in the Bill. I believed that that was a reasonable request. I did not
194
immediately accede to it, but it seemed reasonable that we should consider those responses—and we have done so. Had we proceeded directly to the first group of amendments in the Marshalled List I would have indicated in broad terms the outcome of that consultation. I would have placed in the Library a summary of those responses in order to inform the Committee during the subsequent stages of the Bill.
It seemed a reasonable request. Although it has meant delay—and I would have preferred not to have had that delay—it is a clear example that the Government listened to the voice of the House during a fairly robust Second Reading.
The normal position with Bills at Committee stage in this House—certainly in my experience—is that the Government listen. My own personal conduct at Committee stage is also to listen. More than 200 amendments have been tabled by noble Lords who have taken the trouble to register their views as to why they believe the Bill is deficient and why we should take a different course with some parts of the Bill. I have indicated that I would very much be prepared to listen to some of those arguments. The Government have not closed their ears or their mind to the possibility of adopting some of the amendments, or something very like them, in the course of the Committee stage. That is what Committee stages are for. We would come forward with amendments at later stages if we were convinced of the arguments during Committee stage. But to deny the House a Committee stage seems to be an odd departure from the normal procedure of the House.
Indeed, at Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, moved an amendment which, if taken literally, would have delayed the Bill. She was persuaded that it would be sensible to proceed to the Committee stage, and she has rightly reiterated today that the House should move to the Committee stage to hear the Government's responses to the amendments and the arguments. She made the correct decision and did not press her amendment on that occasion. I therefore regret to see a rather more specific amendment, which would cause more delay, on the Order Paper today.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is the Government's mind open to the concept of a full, honest and open public inquiry into this matter? Or is that something the Government will not accept during the Committee stage?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is not something the Government will accept during Committee stage. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, indicated that she has tabled an amendment to that effect, but we have made it clear that we believe the two inquiries will more rapidly establish the lessons to be learnt that are not already apparent. We shall proceed along those lines and take very seriously the outcome of the inquiries. A full quasi-judicial and very legalistic public inquiry would take far too long. There have been a number of examples where public inquiries have led to that kind of delay.

195
I find it slightly ironic that the people who argue for a public inquiry, which could take years, are the same people who are now arguing that we should delay until one has been held. We need to know the results quickly and we believe that the independent inquiries will give us those results.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will the noble Lord undertake that if the inquiries come up with something which runs contrary to the Bill, and if the Bill has by then become an Act, the Government will immediately introduce an Act repealing those sections of the Bill which have been found by their own inquiry to be inadequate? If he will not give such an undertaking, the case for the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, will be overwhelming.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have always said that the inquiries—both the scientific inquiry and the lessons learned inquiry under Dr Anderson—could well lead to recommendations for legislation which is different from the existing Animal Health Act or any amendment to that Act carried during the passage of this Bill. Therefore, if the inquiries recommend that we should legislate on these issues, and the Government accept the recommendation, we shall take the matter very seriously. Therefore, I do not think that that issue arises. The issue is whether the House wishes to deprive the Government of powers which in their judgment the Government consider are wanting for the period between the passage of this Bill and a point at which we can further legislate.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I have asked the Minister this question previously regarding interim recommendations that may be coming forward. The terms of reference for the lessons learned inquiry specifically state:
"If there are important emerging recommendations that should be passed to the Government sooner, the inquiry will publish interim findings".
Will the Government encourage the inquiry to do so, and bring them before the House so that we might learn what they are? Has the Minister inquired whether such findings are forthcoming?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, Dr Anderson's inquiry has the ability to bring forward interim recommendations. However, the conduct of that inquiry and whether he wishes to do so is a matter for him; it is not a matter for the Government. It is an independent inquiry and the procedure adopted by Dr Anderson at present does not seem to be leading to interim recommendations. But, as I say, that is a matter for him.
The point that I as a Government Minister have to face—and, frankly, the House has to face—is what powers are available to the Government were a disease, whether foot and mouth or any other, to occur over the coming year or so, which would be the minimum period which would ensue were we to legislate post the outcome of these inquiries.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will he define to the House exactly what powers he needs that he does not have?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is fairly clear in the Bill. We consider that the Bill does not answer all the questions as to what lessons can be learnt. We do not expect all those lessons to be learnt until we have the full outcome of those inquiries. But we already know what some of those lessons are. Some are now incorporated within the interim contingency plan. But some are also about legislative powers. It is clear to us—in particular in carrying out a contiguous cull, but also in potentially carrying out other strategies to contain diseases, whether vaccination, blood tests, serology or alternative approaches—that we do not have adequate powers of entry or rapid enough powers for enforcing entry in order to contain the disease.
However many specious cases and statistics are raised in the Sunday Telegraph, they are not relevant to this matter. What is clear is that the more rapidly we achieved our targets under the contiguous cull strategy, the more rapidly the disease was contained. That is not to say that there is not an alternative strategy that we might at some stage have to pursue.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, of course, if you kill all the animals, they will not get the disease. We need to have rational grounds for showing that those animals would have caught the disease. There is absolutely no indication of that. Using DEFRA's own figures, less than 2 per cent of the animals killed in the contiguous cull had the disease—and that even includes the 120 mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have tried to explain this matter to the House on numerous occasions. I tried again in response to one of the supplementary questions to the noble Countess's Question the other day. A contiguous cull is to eliminate the spread of a disease. We should not expect the majority of animals, or even a significant minority, to have developed the disease if a contiguous cull is carried out within 48 hours of the disease appearing on the initial farm. Indeed, the more effective the contiguous cull, the lower would be the level of post-mortem tests showing the disease to have spread. If anything, the statistics reported in the Sunday Telegraph, and quoted by the noble Countess, are an indication of the relative success of the contiguous cull. The whole point of a contiguous cull is to ensure that other animals do not die; and the degree to which we achieve success in a contiguous cull reduces the ultimate number of animals that will be exposed to the disease.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the noble Lord himself, in relation to the Thirsk outbreak, pointed out that the contiguous cull had been delayed in Thirsk. He said—believe it or not—that it was a matter of luck and the good will of the farmers and other people in the

197
community who took care with disease control. We do not have the scientific proof that it was the contiguous cull that prevented the spread of the disease.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Countess completely misinterprets what I said at that time. The point was that, in the Thirsk outbreak, there were a number of delays to the contiguous cull. Where there was delay, there were a number of cases of animals having the disease—within a very few days in some cases. The disease was therefore spreading. At one point, it looked as if it was spreading in the general direction of the south east, towards the intensive pig units of the East Riding. It would have been an utter catastrophe had the disease got into those pig units. In fact, the disease spread in a different direction. When I referred to "luck", it was a matter of luck that the delay in the contiguous cull led to the disease spreading in a northerly direction. Had it spread to the south east, the pig industry and the whole of the East Riding and the East Midlands would have faced utter catastrophe. That was the point I was making.
The fact that we eventually contained the disease did depend to a large degree on the co-operation of the vast majority of farmers. But we are not talking about the vast majority of farmers; we are talking about those very few farmers who, one way or another, delayed the undertaking of the contiguous cull.
Nor am I saying that at some future point, either as a result of the inquiries or as a result of a reassessment of what the correct strategy should be at European level, a different strategy might not be adopted. But, whatever strategy is adopted, whether contiguous cull, vaccination or a mixture of the two, entry to premises will be required. The Bill provides a greater rapidity of access to such premises and greater rights of access. Those are the powers that we currently lack. Were there to be a further outbreak—let us all hope and pray that there is no further outbreak of foot and mouth or any other such virulent disease—the lack of those powers will inhibit the Government.
It would be utterly irresponsible of any Minister in this House—having the hindsight which neither the authors of the Animal Health Act 1981 nor my predecessors at the beginning of the recent epidemic could possibly have had, and knowing that we could have those powers—were he able to persuade the House to agree to them, to sit back and say: "Oh, sorry. Okay, I will take the view of the House and delay pressing for those powers".
I am talking about interim powers in many respects. We need to have the full reports of the inquiries. But those interim powers could be crucial: for the health of our agricultural industry, and possibly, in the case of some exotic diseases that might enter this country, for public health and for human health as well.
I believe that neither the noble Baroness opposite, nor the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, were they in government, would take a different view from mine. The Government need to
198
acquire the powers that we know we need in such circumstances. There may be other things that we need.
Lord Prior: My Lords, in circumstances where the powers were needed urgently because of an outbreak, surely the House of Commons and this place would give the Government those powers straightaway— and, not only that: the Minister must know now what powers he might need, because he has just tried to tell us what powers the Government would be given under the Bill which he considers to be essential. Why does he not put those into the form of a Bill which he could introduce and push through this House and the other place in a matter of 24 hours?
I do not see why we have to go into this great difficulty now in order to solve a problem which could easily be solved if it came to the crunch. In doing so, the Minister could then start to win the support of the rural community, which is longing to get together and stop all this stuff that is going on at the moment, at a time when the farming industry is in very serious trouble indeed.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it seems odd to argue that powers that we know we could get through the normal legislative process should be sought only in an emergency situation. I may be wrong, but I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Prior, was the Minister for Agriculture at around the time that the Animal Health Act was passed. Had he and his colleagues had the terrible experience of this epidemic and known what we know now, I believe that they would rightly have written into that Act the powers that I am seeking. They would not have waited to rely on emergency powers. I am therefore seeking parliamentary time, which is always precious, to do that in the normal, considered way in which Parliament undertakes these things. I hope to avoid finding that there is already an epidemic before we bring the matter to the House.
We know what we need. It is not the totality of what we need. We do not know everything that we need, but we know this. In that situation, it would be irresponsible for the Government not to urge on the House the adoption of the Bill and it would be irresponsible of the House to prevent us from gaining those powers. I hope that the House will reject the amendment.
Earl Peel: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he address the question of Scotland? Why has the Scottish Parliament decided, in its wisdom, that it is not necessary to bring in an emergency Bill and instead issued a consultation document? I wonder whether the reason is that they managed the affairs in Scotland so admirably under the powers that they already have under the 1981 Act. As my noble friend Lord Monro said earlier, it is crazy to have legislation in England that will be different from that in Scotland.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am constantly amazed at the rejection of devolution in many contexts, which the Opposition continue to pursue. In this respect,

199
agriculture is a devolved issue. Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Parliament are entitled to take a different view from that taken in England. In addition, the fact that Scottish Ministers are engaging in a period of consultation shows that they, too, believe that they need additional powers. I also point out tentatively that if, at the end of that consultation period, Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Parliament are convinced that they need legislation, the legislative process in the Scottish Parliament will be somewhat more rapid than it is in Westminster. For that reason, they have, perhaps, the luxury of being able to engage in consultation.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the argument that Ministers use—that devolution means that Scotland will do something different—cannot apply when we are talking about a disease in cattle that wander backwards and forwards over the Border. Surely it is the responsibility of any government and any Scottish Parliament to come to an agreement before they legislate.
Lord Whitty: With respect, my Lords, no. The criminal law in Scotland is different from that in England. Criminals also cross the border with a fair degree of rapidity. There is no reason why the Scottish Parliament should not take a different view on animal health legislation, just as it can on criminal legislation. As a matter of good practice, it is important that Scottish Ministers and English Ministers should keep in close touch and that their powers should not be significantly different. However, the right of the Scottish Parliament to take a different view and to adopt a different timescale is a consequence of devolution. I wish that some noble Lords respected the logic of that position in this context as in many others.
I repeat, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, does not pursue the amendment to a vote, and that if he does so the House will reject it.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I thank all those around the House who have supported me. I have listened with great interest to what has been said. We have heard many powerful speeches and many new and different points have been made. That has been very useful.
My main concern on tabling the amendment was that, on this very important matter, it is necessary to get any legislation right. Almost everybody agrees that the Bill as it stands is not what we want. I am sure that, to be right, the legislation needs to be based on the inquiries that the Government set up. I believe that it is very much in the Government's interests to do that.
At the start of the afternoon, I was firmly of the opinion that it would not be sensible to divide the House, because I did not have the marshalled support of the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Parties. It seemed to me dotty that I should try on my own to challenge the Government. At various times during the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has given me a baleful and rather intimidating look.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I have never given anybody a baleful look in my life.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I accept that assurance. I am sure that it was going through the noble Lord's head that here was a tiresome independent holding up proceedings, which he was anxious to get on with. I know that he is a distinguished countryman and a noted farming expert. I wondered whether, at the back of his mind, his private view was slightly sceptical.
Having heard what has been said all around the House, I think that it is right that, however slender our chances, those who take the same view as I do should have the chance to express their opinion. I therefore ask the House to support my amendment.
5.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 130; Not-Contents, 124.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Geddes,L.

Ampthill, L.

Geraint, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Glentoran, L.

Arran, E.

Gloucester, Bp.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hanham, B.

Attlee,E.

Hayhoe, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Henley, L.

Belstead,L.

Hereford, Bp.

Biffen, L.

Higgins, L.

Bledisloe.V.

Holderness, L.

Boardman, L.

Hooper, B.

Bowness, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Howell of Guildford,L.

Bridges, L.

Hunt of Wirral,L

Brightman, L.

Hylton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Jopling, L.

Bumham, L.

Kimball, L.

Buscombe, B.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Byford, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Laird, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Chorley, L.

Lindsay, E.

Colville of Culross,V.

Listowel, E.

Colwyn, L.

Liverpool, E.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Luke, L.

Cox, B.

Lyell, L.

Crathorne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Mar,C.

Cuckney, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Dahrendorf, L.

Marlesford, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Denham, L.

Miller of Hendon,B.

Dundee, E.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Monson, L.

Elliott of Morpeth,L.

Montrose, D.

Elton, L.

Moran, L. [Teller]

Erroll,E.

Moynihan, L.

Falkland, V.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Feam, L.

Naseby, L.

Ferrers, E.

Noakes, B.

Fowler, L.

Northboume, L.

Freeman, L.

Norton of Louth,L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Garel-Jones, L.

Onslow, E.

201

Palmer, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Patten, L.

Slim,V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Peel, E.

Stewartby, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Plumb, L.

Strange, B.

Prior, L.

Swinfen, L.

Reay, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Rees,L.

Tenby.V.

Renton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rix,L.

Tugendhat, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Vivian, L.

Rogan, L.

Waddington, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Wakeham, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Walpole, L.

Sandwich, E.

Warnock, B.

Seccombe, B.

Wilberforce, L.

Selsdon, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.[Tellers]

Shrewsbury, E.

Wright of Richmond, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Grocott, L.

Alli,L.

Hardy of Wath,L.

Andrews, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Harrison, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Haskel,L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hayman, B.

Bach, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Barnett, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Berkeley, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hoyle, L.

Billingham, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Blease, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Borrie, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.(Lord Chancellor)

Boston of Faversham, L.

Bragg, L.

Jeger, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Jones, L.

Brookman, L.

Jordan, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Layard, L.

Carter.[Tellers]

Lea of Crondall, L.

Chandos, V.

Lipsey, L.

Christopher, L.

Lockwood, B.

Clark of Windemere, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

McCarthy, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Crawley, B.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.[Tellers]

David, B.

Davies of Coity,L.

McIntosh of Hudnall,B.

Davies of Oldham,L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Desai,L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dixon, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Eatwell, L.

Mitchell, L.

Elder, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Nicol, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Orme,L.

Filkin, L.

Parekh, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Gale, B.

Pendry, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Peston, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Goudie, B.

Puttnam, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Radice, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Greengross, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Grenfell,L.

Rendell of Babergh,B.

202

Richard, L.

Thornton, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Turner of Camden. B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Uddin, B.

Serota, B.

Varley, L.

Sheldon L

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Simon, V.

Whitaker, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Whitty, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Williams of Elvel,L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Strabolgi, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Woolrner of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Business
5.28 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am not sure whether all the speakers are here for the Unstarred Question. I think that we should adjourn during pleasure until 5.45 p.m. so that the speakers can be found and we can proceed with the Unstarred Question.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 5.29 to 5.45 p.m.]
Lord Grocott: My Lords, the Unstarred Question is being taken at the end of business and is limited to one and-a-half hours rather than one hour. Therefore, speakers may speak for a little longer than indicated on the speakers' list.

Indonesia
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Coxrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to recent developments in Indonesia.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who are to speak. I express my gratitude to those noble Lords who had intended to speak, but who now are precluded from doing so because of the change of time. I especially express gratitude to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford who had hoped to speak despite all the commitments of Holy Week, and to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. Our debate will be the poorer for not hearing their contributions.
Indonesia is a vast nation with enormous potential for prosperity. It has abundant natural resources, rich cultural traditions, magnificent scenery and people who are famous for hospitality and graciousness. Its parliamentary democracy has withstood challenges and its economic development is encouraging.
However, there are bitter conflicts in regions such as Aceh, Irian Jaya, Sulawesi and the Moluccas which could endanger the fragile democracy and destabilise national unity. I shall focus on Maluku and Sulawesi,

203
which I visited recently with a small interfaith, independent delegation. We went to the epicentres of recent violence and met both Muslim and Christian political and religious leaders.
Indonesia is the world's largest Islamic nation, with a population of 220 million. It has a long and well-respected history of religious tolerance. About 10 per cent of Indonesians are Christians, but in Maluku and Sulawesi the proportions are approximately 50:50. The communities lived peaceably together until the end of the 1990s, when the previous government's policy of population transmigration generated some tensions, but nothing resembling the bitter conflict that erupted in Maluku in January 1999. Since then violence has escalated, with several thousand deaths and over half a million people displaced. Last year serious fighting broke out in Sulawesi, mainly around Poso, which only ceased when the government sent in massive security forces.
One of the main reasons for the violence was the influx of Laskar Jihad militant extremists. They began to come in significant numbers in the spring of 2000. Now there are some 3,000 in Maluku, with many more in Sulawesi. They have received international financial support and personnel from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and other Islamic countries. They have set up training camps: one on the outskirts of Ambon is clearly visible and well established. We were told that there are several in Sulawesi and they can easily relocate in the dense jungle when approached by government security forces.
Both Muslims and Christians have suffered death, displacement and widespread destruction of homes, places of worship, schools and hospitals. Psychological scars have left the communities segregated by fear and intimidation. Those beautiful, once prosperous lands—famous tourist attractions—have been reduced to a state of devastation.
Many attempts to end the conflict, such as the grassroots Baku Bae process have failed, causing resurgence of violence. Then the government initiated a new series of negotiations resulting in the Malino agreements. The first related to Sulawesi and the second, this February, covers Maluku. Successful implementation is crucial. Failure would bring widespread disillusionment and fear that the government cannot maintain law, freedom, stability and protection of their own citizens.
The first Malino agreement was concluded last December against a background of attacks against Christian villages in Sulawesi, involving a two-month offensive by thousands of Laskar Jihad militants. Christians fled to the remaining stronghold of Tentena, doubling the population of the city. Tens of thousands of refugees faced death at the hands of the jihad warriors when the government sent in thousands of security personnel to restore order.
The Malino agreement is the fifth attempt to reconcile the two communities since the start of the conflict. Muslim and Christian representatives in Sulawesi support the agreement, but emotions run
204
high. The massive security contingent in the area is the main reason for the cessation of violence, but it had only a six-month mandate. Local people fear what will happen if the government forces leave, especially as Laskar Jihad has military training camps in the area.
The conflict has affected other communities, such as the Hindus, originally from Bali. The mayor's office in Poso told us that one Hindu temple had been destroyed, but we saw numerous temples destroyed and local Hindus claim that over 40 have been destroyed. They are devastated. The destruction of their temples is sacrilege. They do not know how they will raise money to restore them and they are living among the ruins. Therefore, it is disturbing that the mayor's office gave inaccurate information, which trivialises the suffering of the Hindus. It is essential that they are included in confidence-building and reconstruction programmes.
In Maluku, the Christian and Muslim communities are tired of the violence and ready for reconciliation. But when the Malino signatories returned to Ambon, there was opposition to the agreement from some militant Muslims. The Muslim signatories' car was pelted with stones and there were bomb explosions on 13th February. They took refuge at the governor's residence. The Laskar Jihad radio was calling for a violent response against them, claiming that they had betrayed the Muslim community. The violence was inter-Muslim and it was not, as reported in the Jakarta Post, Christians who had thrown stones at the Muslim delegates.
The national authorities, including the head of police, the Co-ordinating Minister for Political and Security Affairs and Vice-President Hamzah Haz, all reaffirmed that strong measures would be taken against provocateurs who tried to disrupt the agreement. Leaders of the Muslim and Christian Malino delegations have also emphasised the importance of the military and the police in the coming months.
However, concerns remain about the government's commitment to translate promises into action. For example, the Co-ordinating Minister for Welfare, Yusuf Kalla, reportedly stated in an Australian radio interview that there was no necessity to remove Laskar Jihad militants from the region, as they would automatically convert their violent activities to social work if the conflict were to stop. The head of national police expressed similar sentiments.
There is concern over the growth of militant Islamism in these areas, with a fear that Indonesia will become a new base for the training and support of international terrorists. As Afghanistan can no longer serve as a primary base, it could be an ideal alternative, with its island terrain of jungles and mountains. The substantial proportion of its population with Arabic backgrounds would enable incoming jihad warriors from the Middle East to be easily absorbed.
During our visit two foreign militants—a Kuwaiti and an Algerian—were arrested when entering Ambon. They had an inflammatory jihad video and were reportedly planning to preach in a mosque

205
against the Malino agreement. They had married girls from Poso—a tactic commonly used by Islamist militants, as it legitimises their presence. They were due to be deported, but it was unclear whether they would be sent back to their own countries abroad or hack to their wives in Sulawesi.
The presence of both Christian and Muslim militants is the greatest threat to the achievement of peace and stability. We were also told that the agenda of Islamist militants in Sulawesi was to continue their military offensives against all areas with significant Christian populations, finishing in the Tana Taraja region. Having killed, converted or evicted the Christians, they would achieve demographic change with Muslim populations who would apply for the right to implement Sharia law. That would have far-reaching implications for the principles of religious freedom and the quality of life in those communities.
The presence of militants includes both Christians and Muslims and poses the greatest threat to the achievement of peace and stability. That is reflected by a commitment in the Malino agreement. However, their eviction will present a serious logistical and political challenge. Unless the government act, their presence will undermine the confidence of local communities, which is an essential ingredient of the reconciliation and normalisation processes.
It is important to mention that there have been some positive developments. Members of the military forces and the police had been implicated in the violence in Sulawesi and Maluku in a very one-sided way, but their recent interventions have contained violence in a professional and impartial way, which is to be welcomed.
I turn to reconciliation and reconstruction. Millions of dollars of aid have been provided by western governments for emergency assistance and rehabilitation. However, local people are concerned about corruption among local and regional officials responsible for distributing the funds. Therefore, essential economic assistance should be accompanied by evaluation procedures to ensure that funds reach the intended recipients. Ineffective assistance exacerbates tension and provides breeding grounds for militants.
Reconciliation, inter-communal peace, stability and trust are preconditions for the normalisation of everyday life, with reconstruction of homes, places of worship, schools and healthcare facilities. There is also an urgent need for economic investment to provide employment. The costs will be very great.
I therefore ask the Minister whether Her Majesty's Government will urge the international community to offer whatever support might be appropriate to assist the Indonesian Government to implement the law enforcement and security measures recommended by the Malino agreements; take the strongest possible measures against those inciting hatred and engaged in violence; bring to justice the perpetrators of violence; invest adequately in programmes of reconciliation, rehabilitation and reconstruction of devastated communities; and provide employment opportunities.
206
In conclusion, what is at stake today in Indonesia is not only the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people but the stability of the world's largest Muslim nation—a nation that has a highly respected tradition of religious tolerance and cultural pluralism. If its somewhat inevitably fragile democracy succumbs to threats from militant Islamist minorities, supported by external forces, the price will be very high for its own people and for the international community. This great nation plays a significant role in regional and global affairs. It must be in everyone's interests that its government are supported in their endeavours to resist militant Islamist subversion and maintain the best and most honourable traditions of the Indonesian people, including their tolerance, friendliness and historic cultures, which elicit respect and affection from all who visit their beautiful land.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, the House is once again indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for initiating a debate drawing the attention of the House to what is happening in Indonesia.
The noble Baroness has graphically described some recent events that have taken place in parts of Indonesia. No reasonable person could fail to be moved by her tireless efforts on behalf of the people of many countries. I am confident that every Member of this House will agree that her work in pursuing the human rights of individuals to live in peace and enjoy freedom of worship is an inspiration to many both inside and outside this House.
Violence has continued in the Moluccas for more than three years. As the noble Baroness said, the traditional peaceful communities have grown weary of the attacks perpetrated by minorities determined to sabotage the current efforts to bring about reconciliation by trying to restart the violence. Recent developments have resulted in Muslims who support reconciliation being subjected to attacks. Muslim and Christian peace meetings have also been attacked. The object of those attacks was to heighten tension between the communities within the region.
During the debate in this House on 20th June 2000 I drew attention to the influx of jihad warriors in the Moluccas. At that time, almost two years ago, in answer to a Question in another place expressing concern about reports that a number of extremists had travelled to the province from outside Maluku, our Government confirmed that they were aware of the situation. They said,
"We have urged the Indonesian government to ensure that the security forces maintain law and order and the protection of all citizens".
The recent Malino agreement, which has already been referred to, dealing with the situation in Maluku was signed by the Indonesian Government. It made clear that the Indonesian Government were responsible for the enforcement of the law and for security aspects.
When the Indonesian Government signed the Malino 2 agreement they effectively undertook to carry out a number of commitments which were spelt

207
out. The first commitment was to end the conflict and to bring an end to the violence. Importantly for all the Indonesian people, they also undertook to uphold the supremacy of justice in a lawful, stringent and honest way, at all times acting impartially and supported by the whole population.
In the time available today—although I accept that we now have a few moments longer—it is not possible to deal in detail with the 11 tenets of the Malino 2 agreement. It is sufficient to say that it confirmed the right of the people of the Moluccas to live and work and to be active in the whole of Indonesia. That right was spelt out as being a responsibility that there should be respect for local cultures and that security and local regulations would be upheld.
A major tenet of the agreement was that a national independent team would be established to investigate conclusively the events of 19th January 1999. That was the date when the conflict started. The hope that was widely expressed at the time of the Malino 2 agreement has still a long way to go before being fulfilled. In my view, the international community must press for the agreement to be implemented as a matter of great urgency.
The peace process is in constant danger all the time that there are individuals—many who come from and are supported by outside countries—who are determined to wreck the efforts of those brave people who strive for peace and in many cases suffer violent attacks for what they are trying to do.
Another important part of the agreement was about rehabilitation. Quite clearly, the Government were committed to undertake the programme of rehabilitative training and understanding that would help rebuild the economy and public facilities in that country.
It was said at the time of the agreement that a national independent team would look into the whole question. It was hoped that there would be open doors. Unfortunately, that has not happened. There is still a tremendous amount of obstruction to people who want to find out what is going on.
I ask my noble friend to comment on the recent reports of a number of attacks on those who support the peace efforts. It is very important that those people, who are fighting both physically and with any other thing at their disposal, see that governments such as ours are supportive of the need to implement the intentions of that Malino 2 agreement.
I should also like to mention that it is time for an international monitoring team to be sent, outside of the independent review team that was mentioned in the Malino agreement. As a matter of urgency it should be sent to look into what is happening and to initiate moves to involve the international community to become more involved in the peace process in this troubled part of the world.
As I have said—and as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said—the Indonesian people are traditionally peaceful and harmonious. They have a long history of peaceful co-existence among the various communities
208
in that part of the world. In that country there are different faiths, traditions and cultures which go back many centuries. I would ask the Minister to observe the fact that those working for peace deserve our support not just in words but, more importantly, by international effort.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow, if not my noble friends, certainly kindred spirits—the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I apologise to the noble Baroness that I was unable to hear the first part of her remarks today in the light of this debate coming slightly earlier than some of us had perhaps anticipated. However, I was very pleased to hear what she had to say in the part of her speech that I was able to hear. I know from my conversations with her prior to this debate that we should all listen with great care to what she has said to the House today.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, always has my admiration in raising these questions. Many of us are united in our admiration for her. When travelling in various parts of the world, all of us encounter people whose first question is to ask how the noble Baroness is. Whether it is people from the Sudan, Armenia or, in my case, when I visited the Karen on the Burma/Thai border. In refugee camps there the noble Baroness was already known because she had been there. She has been a great standard bearer for people who suffer intimidation and violence in many parts of the world. Today she has been properly raising the situation in Indonesia.
I should like to add my voice to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and also to convey my thanks to Ministers at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for extending invitations, as they have done, to the noble Baroness, myself and the noble Lord. Lord Avebury. I suspect that the noble Lord is still recuperating from his recent period in hospital, but I know he would otherwise want to be associated with the remarks which are being expressed in the House tonight.
I found those information briefings helpful. It was through one of those meetings that I met the retiring Indonesian ambassador. During his time in London he did a great deal to try and address the concerns of parliamentarians and agencies working in the field. I was particularly pleased when he invited me to the embassy to discuss human rights issues. He clearly had a great interest in how we in the United Kingdom saw the language of human rights and how that must become a common language for the discussion of foreign affairs and Foreign Office issues in the future.
I am also very glad that there is now an all-party group dealing with the Indonesian question. A few months ago, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, I was able to meet a number of parliamentarians from Indonesia who were visiting the Palace of Westminster. It is good to see that there are the beginnings of a more stable democracy. Whether

209
people come from Muslim or Christian backgrounds, they are prepared to discuss the necessary conditions for the flourishing of a civil society in their country.
The great tragedy of the last few years is that—whether people are Muslim or Christian—those who have incited violence in Indonesia have been undermining a long-standing relationship of coexistence that has previously existed in that country. Also they have been destabilising the position in parts of the country of both Muslim minorities and Christian minorities.
The Jubilee Campaign is a human rights group which I helped to establish in Parliament some 15 years ago. I know that the Minister in a previous incarnation was always a great supporter of that organisation's work. I have always been grateful to him for that. Through that campaign I became increasingly concerned about the deepening problems which the Christian minority in Indonesia faced.
Perhaps I may at the conclusion of today's debate give the Minister a copy of a report entitled Indonesia: Paso and Maluku Fear for Life's Safety Overcomes the Urgency of Humanitarian Needs which has been prepared by the Jubilee Campaign and specifically by Ann Buwalda and Kie Eng Go. In January of this year they were in Indonesia taking evidence. As the Minister will see, it is a voluminous and detailed report. In their summary of conclusions they state:
"We observed overwhelmingly clear and convincing evidence of the Laskar Jihad's well-organised and well-funded campaign to destabilize Poso and Maluku. This report provides the basis of our conclusions based on our observations. Our team encountered a number of sightings and examples of an international terrorist presence that appears to be training and coordinating Laskar Jihad militants. Early indication also exists of coordination with the Laskar Mujahidin, despite denials by the Counsel of Mujahidin, Islamic Defenders Front (FPI), and others. Numerous credible reports show that the Laskar Jihad will resume attacks on Christian villages in the target area in Central Sulawesi. Despite what has been voiced within the Malino Declaration"—
to which the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred—
"there is no indication that the extremists are stepping down their threats of attack, nor their capabilities. After direct investigation on Ambon Island, we uncovered the same well-founded fear of Islamic militant attacks within the remaining Christian areas".
The evidence for their remarks is contained in that report, which, as I say, I shall give to the Minister at the conclusion of our debate today.
Fighters from Laskar Jihad, the militant Islamic group responsible for killing thousands of Christians in the Molucca Islands and in Sulawesi in eastern Indonesia, have now infiltrated into the Indonesian province of West Paptia—where those militants are training local militia who support Indonesian control over that province. The Laskar Jihad has sent more than 100 of its armed fighters into the West Paptian district of Fak Fak and is operating military training camps there.
Some Indonesian authorities are supporting the training that Laskar Jihad fighters have been giving members of the pro-Jakarta, East Merah Putih militia. Unrest and fear have also spread through the Christian community in the Sorong district of West Paptia,
210
following further recent arrivals of Laskar Jihad fighters who have lately been trying to provoke religious tensions in that district.
The Laskar Jihad started by invading the Moluccas in 2000, then moved to Sulawesi. Now it is starting to infiltrate West Paptia, which has a large Christian community. Laskar Jihad's devastating effect on the people of the Moluccas and Sulawesi make it amply clear that there will be a lot of bloodshed if it is permitted to operate in West Paptia, as it has been able to do with impunity elsewhere in Indonesia. Urgent action is needed once and for all to stop Laskar Jihad from implementing its strategy of inciting religious hatred and carrying out systematic violence against Christian communities in Indonesia.
The Laskar Jihad is comprised of Islamic extremists from different parts of Indonesia. Some come from outside that country, from some other Muslim states such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. In May 2000, just as sectarian violence in the Moluccas appeared to be starting to wane—many of us hoped that it might be abating at last—the Laskar Jihad invaded the islands with about 7,000 fighters to wage a jihad or so-called holy war against the Christians of the Moluccas.
That invasion brought the levels of violence in the Moluccas to unprecedented levels, resulting in the deaths of thousands of people. Months before the Laskar Jihad invasion of the Moluccas, it had vociferously declared its intention to go to the Moluccas to wage a jihad against the Christians there—yet sadly, the Indonesian Government did nothing to stop the Laskar Jihad. Some elements of the Indonesian military even supplied Laskar Jihad fighters with automatic weapons and mortars.
Last December, the head of Indonesia's National Intelligence Agency, Lieutenant General Hendropriyono, publicly confirmed that members of the notorious Al'Qaeda terrorist network were joining Laskar Jihad militants in fighting against Christians in Sulawesi. Due to pressure from more fundamentalist people operating in Indonesia, General Hendropriyono later retracted that statement. It is important to note that he withdrew it only because of political pressure, not because he had got his facts wrong. Intimidation was placed upon him by people from a far more extreme background.
While peace agreements signed between Muslim and Christian leaders from Sulawesi in December 2001 and from the Moluccas in February 2002 indicated a positive step towards peace and reconciliation, it is most unlikely that there will be long-term peace until the Laskar Jihad is completely expelled from the Moluccas and Sulawesi and its leader, Jafar Umar Thalib, is detained and prosecuted for inciting and carrying out sectarian violence. Not surprisingly, the Laskar Jihad has publicly denounced those peace agreements. It is self-evident that the Laskar Jihad has no intention of abiding by either peace accord. Numerous Christian villagers in Sulawesi report an intimidation campaign, in which they have been threatened that harm will come to them after the Indonesian troops are withdrawn in the middle of this year.

211
In central Sulawesi, about 20,000 Christians have fled their torched villages for Tentena, a village of about 8,000 inhabitants. Since June 2001, despite the absence of provocation by local Christians, Laskar Jihad-supported fighters undertook planned offensives to clear the town of Poso of Christians and systematically to target and destroy surrounding peaceful Christian villages. Thousands of Christians have become internally displaced as a result of violent attacks by Laskar Jihad and its allies.
The villagers' resources are limited, so they are living in miserable conditions. The Christians in Tentena are cut off and surrounded by thousands of hostile fighters. If the Indonesian police and military fail to protect Tentena, there will be a massive bloodbath.
While the president's despatch of thousands of additional soldiers to central Sulawesi to help keep the peace is much to be welcomed, it is deeply disturbing that those troops will only be there six months and are scheduled to be withdrawn by June. It is highly unrealistic to expect that the Indonesian military will no longer be needed to keep the peace in central Sulawesi after only six months. The peace agreement between the Muslims and Christians of Sulawesi will have little value unless there are Indonesian troops present and willing to act impartially in enforcing the agreement's terms.
In the Moluccas, the scandal remains of the desperate plight of at least 3,000 Christians who have been forced by Muslim militants to convert to Islam on the islands of Halmahera, Bacan, Buru and Seram. The Indonesian Government has so far refused to evacuate these forced converts to a place of safety where they can safely revert back to practising their Christian faith.
The Indonesian Government needs to take firm and long-term measures to control and disband the militant Islamic groups such as the Laskar Jihad. If the Indonesian authorities simply try to appease and accommodate those militant groups, they will only grow stronger and more effective in inciting sectarian violence throughout the country.
I refer your Lordships to an article by Andrew Marshall in the New York Times Magazine on 10th March entitled "The Threat of Jaffar". That article sets out precisely the nature of the man with whom we are dealing, the admiration that he has expressed for Osama bin Laden and his rejoicing after the tragedy of September 11.
I urge the British Government to put strong pressure on the Government of Indonesia to remove all Laskar Jihad members and militants from the Al'Qaeda network from Sulawesi, the Moluccas and West Papua-and to detain and prosecute the Laskar Jihad leader, Jafa Umar Thalib. The Indonesian Government should also be prepared to maintain for at least two years the current level of troops in Sulawesi to keep the peace—and to ensure that the police and military in the Moluccas and Sulawesi act impartially to preserve law and order. Furthermore, the British
212
Government should call on the Indonesian Government to evacuate as a matter of urgency the thousands of Christians who have been forced to convert to Islam on Haimahera, Bacan, Buru and the Scram islands in the Moluccas.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Cox on sponsoring this important debate. Indonesia has embodied principles of religious tolerance and has served as an example not only to other Islamic countries but to the wider international community. It is unfortunate that the latest image of Indonesia in international news is of a safe haven for militant extremists and religious strife.
That is especially the case regarding the activities of militant organisations in the provinces of Moluccas and Sulawesi. While members of Christian and Muslim communities have been implicated in both conflicts, the recent violence is associated with the militant extremist organisation Laskar Jihad. That is the most organised militant faction in Indonesia, with reportedly more than 10,000 members. Although relatively small numerically, according to experts in the region it enjoys high-level military and political backing.
Some reports suggest that members of the Indonesian armed forces have provided the organisation with training, funds and weapons and have ordered Moluccan officials not to intervene in the violent activities of Laskar Jihad in the region.
I should also stress that the great majority of moderate, peaceable Muslims do not want the Laskar Jihad to remain in their midst, and the Moluccan Muslims have insisted that the Indonesian Government should remove them from the region. When the Laskar Jihad leader, Jafar Umar Thalib recently visited the Aceh region, a predominantly Muslim area, he was asked to leave by the Achenese Muslim leaders.
However, despite opposition to the organisation's extremist activities, no concrete action has been taken against it. Instead, according to the latest tragic reports from Moluccas, Laskar Jihad has been allowed to jeopardise the Government's negotiated reconciliation agreement. For example, participants in spontaneous peaceful demonstrations were attacked, sustaining serious injuries. The attackers intended to intimidate Muslims supporting reconciliation and disrupt the fragile reconciliation process. There have been no reports to suggest that the perpetrators of that act have been brought to justice.
It is in the areas of law enforcement and security that the international community and the British Government could play an important role. The Indonesian Government have committed themselves to uphold law and order in the Moluccas and Sulawesi and to act swiftly against those parties trying to reignite the violence.

213
Have the Government offered any assistance to the Indonesian Government to help to bring about a peaceful conclusion? Such an initiative would be of particular importance given the recent reports of possible Al'Qaeda connections in Indonesia.
The militant extremist organisations enjoy numerically little support. At the same time, however, they have been able to destabilise two crucial regions in the country, with plans for a violent campaign in a third, Papua to tarnish Indonesia's international reputation and undermine foreign investment and tourism in the country.
The latest developments in Indonesia are both a hope for the future and cause for concern. The Indonesian Government needs our friendship and our assistance at this crucial time.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I welcome the debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. Being from the North, I should have realised that a dinner-hour debate should start at 5.30 or six o'clock.
Indonesia is a country that has seen little respite from its turbulent politics, the faltering economy and simmering conflicts since a mass uprising forced President Suharto from office in 1998 after 32 years of autocratic rule. Since then, it has had three presidents, with B. J. Habibie removed in an election in 1999 and Abdurrahaman Wahid ousted by Parliament after a lengthy impeachment process involving corruption charges in the summer of 2001. Megawarte Sukarnoputra, daughter of Indonesia's founding leader, Sukarno, now heads a fractious and deeply troubled country.
The President faces a myriad of dark legacies from the Suharto era, including weak institutions, and a corrupt and untrained judiciary and a pervasive military structure that exists in parallel with the civilian government. Separatist conflicts in Aceh and Irian Jaya remain unresolved, and plans for greater autonomy for those provinces have not come to fruition. Communal violence has flared in Kalimantan and Maluku and simmers away elsewhere. Little has been done to fix an economy that nearly collapsed in 1997 and has shown few signs of recovery. Corruption and lawlessness are still defining themes of a Government that have spent most of their time preoccupied with political scandal.
That is a bleak picture for Indonesia. However, there are bright aspects. The Malino agreement mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is a bright spot. We should commend the work of all the NGOs that have worked so hard and the tirelessly in all the trouble spots to bring the trouble to an end.
I should like to focus on a different aspect of the recent troubles, which is their international context. Indonesia has been seen, especially by the Americans, as one area from which Islamic fundamentalism and support for Al'Qaeda have derived. Indonesia has two prominent radical Islamic organisations, the Front To Defend Islam and the Laskar Jihad, which were
214
reported to have received money, men and arms from bin Laden's group and its allies, but no evidence was presented.
Indeed, in the case of Laskar Jihad, affiliation with the Al'Qaeda network must be doubted given the openly contemptuous attitude of its leader towards bin Laden, whom he accuses of rebelling against Saudi Arabia, a state that applies Islamic law. The group has vigorously condemned the United States attack on Afghanistan, but it has not been in the forefront of the current anti-American demonstrations. The Front To Defend Islam has taken a more aggressive stance towards America, but within Indonesia it is not reckoned capable of carrying out some of the threats that it has made.
Other militant groups are also engaged in protesting against the United States and threatening to expel Americans and citizens of allied countries from Indonesia, several of which registered volunteers who were sent to Afghanistan. Indonesia's radical Muslim organisations represent only a tiny proportion of the population of 210 million. Nevertheless, the outrage expressed by radicals against the United States is widely shared by the moderate Muslim majority, as well as by secular groups. They accuse America of having double standards by fighting terrorism with terrorism.
That has created a dilemma for the government of President Megawarte Sukarnoputra. They have pledged to support international action against terrorism, but do not want to be seen to support a US attack on a Muslim country, with inevitable civilian casualties, as there unfortunately have been. Further, the government desperately need US assistance to restore an economy that has still not recovered from the 1997 financial crisis.
The demonstrations, which have rarely involved more than 1,000 demonstrators, are not in themselves a serious threat to the government, but in a context where Indonesia's democratic transformation is being accompanied by a crisis of lawlessness, it is feared that anti-foreign sentiment could prejudice prospects of economic recovery. Little could do more harm to the government's efforts to persuade investors to return to Indonesia than attacks on western property or isolated physical assaults on westerners.
Obviously, Indonesia is to a degree outside the Government's sphere of influence. However, I ask them to use their influence to ask the American Government not to be too proactive in aggressive action within Indonesia, because that could have the undesirable effect of provoking action rather than combating terrorism.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, as always, I know that your Lordships' House is extremely grateful to my noble friend Lady Cox not only for promoting the debate on this important issue but for bringing to it her up-to-the-minute expertise and clarity of exposition, which we greatly value. That has enabled us to have a debate against a highly informed background, introduced by a highly informed expert.

215
People forget something on which the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, touched. Until live years ago, Indonesia was regarded as a good investment bet. Indeed, it was regarded as one of the new tigers of Asia and attracted considerable foreign capital. All the major investment banks․I declare an ex post interest; I was working for one of them—ran enormous operations in Jakarta and saw it as a part of the future. Then the Asian turmoil came out of the blue, knocking the Indonesian rupiah way down. After that, there were the IMF remedies, which proved totally unsuitable and ill adjusted to the situation, plus the usual dose of disastrous advice from economists who seemed unable to perceive the relationship between economic matters and the social and political condition of the country, as they have done in many other areas. The consequences shook the country to its foundations. It was, as we have been reminded, a dictatorial autocracy, but it had one quality, which it has struggled to regain ever since, namely enormous enterprise and energy, leading to a rapid rate of economic growth. There was also some social development, even under the dark shadow of the former president, Suharto.
All that is history. Since then, political and social instability has increased. Mixed up with that has been the opening of old sores and divisions and the sinister presence of terrorist activity. We see that pattern all around the world; terrorism feeds on nations in difficulties and re-activates old problems. Of course, none of that began in the past few years—we are dealing with ancient rivalries and difficulties—but what has developed in the past few years is the enormous opening up of ancient quarrels, with a terrifying level of violence. Is it all related to the Al'Qaeda global terrorist network? No one really knows. We get various stories and assertions. Were there training camps on some of the islands? Again, that is said to be so and then the statements are retracted and contradicted. It is hard to get a clear picture, except that it is clear that, in this world of e-enabled terrorism and global interconnection, there are international terrorist links.
Recently, some of us, including my noble friend Lady Cox, hoped that the communities on the islands, particularly the Moluccas—Maluku and Sulawesi—were weary of the endless strife and violence and that moderate groups on both sides were seeking to bring the communities together again to live in peace. We also hoped that the attacks—not just those by one side against the other but those on all moderates who talked of reconciliation—would cease. I was particularly fascinated by the fact, revealed by my noble friend Lady Cox, that there was a triangular battle of faiths. I had not appreciated that. Not only were Muslims attacking Christians and, in some cases—we must be realistic—Christians attacking Muslims, but the Hindu community was being exposed to murderous violence. There, too, the Hindu-Muslim disaster that we saw so recently in Gujarat and elsewhere is being played out.
216
A new factor has come along, about which the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, spoke eloquently. That factor is Laskar Jihad. When I visited that group's website, when preparing for the debate, I found some chilling indications of what it believed in and what it was up to. As always, the matter is not straightforward. I do not deny that, in some areas, the group may have done some social good. It may have given some impoverished and frightened Muslim communities some protection and a better standard of living. There are some testimonies in the group's favour. Generally, however, the group seems to be fully committed to violence and intent on carrying out jihad, not in the moderate Islamic sense but in the violent sense.
The group has links with Saudi Arabia, Yemen and the Philippines, where the United States recently identified major activity by the Al'Qaeda network. Some of the group's language is very sobering; it says that it will "deal" with Christian problems and will do it "by force". That identifies it as a highly undesirable and, in many aspects, evil movement, even if there are, as always, some less evilly motivated people attached to it and believing in some of the things in which it believes.
It is a situation of enormous concern. As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, it may not be within the Government's scope or bailiwick to do much about it immediately. However, we are all, as never before, part of an interdependent global network. The continuing sagging of Indonesia's giant economy, in contrast to its brilliant performance in early years, is all part of the slow-down in Asia and may even be interconnected with the continued stagnation in Japan. It is in our interests, as a prosperous trading nation, to see Indonesia prosper again.
Even if we cannot have a direct effect, are there some things that we can do? By holding this debate, we can show the Indonesian Government that we recognise their pain and difficulty in the face of the violent clashes. We must give them the strength to ensure that the security forces act professionally, as they appeared to be doing in Sulawesi and may still be doing. If they act in an even-handed and professional manner, it will be possible to start generating the first shoots of peace, compromise and reconciliation. In the broader Indonesian context, it is encouraging that members of the armed forces and police who, in East Timor, were not even-handed and may even have promoted atrocities, are being brought to trial. Cynics will say that they are only small fry and that the real offenders are not being brought to trial. Nevertheless, there is an important attempt being made by Indonesia to bring to justice the offenders who were in uniform and may have promoted or accelerated terrible doings in East Timor and, for all I know, elsewhere. We should welcome that.
Laskar Jihad must be confronted and, sooner or later, disarmed, before it continues to undermine the stability and cohesion of the whole of Indonesia. I also agree with my noble friend and others, who said that economic assistance had, of course, a role to play. I would not put it all that high; enormous sums have

217
already gone into Indonesia, since the collapse of the currency in 1997. Not all of the money is traceable, and there are serious questions about accountability, as my noble friend Lady Cox reminded us. It is difficult to monitor whether the aid is used for the right purposes. In any case, there is a question whether outside aid is the answer to the problems of a series of communities that have torn themselves apart for political and social reasons. Although there is serious poverty and deprivation, which has grown since 1997, they are enterprising people, capable of turning their assets and skills into capital if they are given the chance and the rule of law is allowed to prevail. Justice and peace can give them the conditions in which they can operate.
It is right that the British Government and other governments should indicate their full support for the two Malino agreements, as noble Lords have urged. Those agreements must be pursued and implemented. I am sure that the Government will do what they can from a distance to send that message. We must all recognise that it is a country in a precarious condition. Visiting Singapore a few years ago, I was told that the Singaporeans foresaw the total disintegration of Indonesia in a few years. That was at the time when the violence in Aceh was particularly prominent and also when East Timor was at its worst stage of difficulties.
Through some miracle the country has not disintegrated: it has held together. If we work and support the right forces, express the right sentiments and work with the rest of the international community in a sensitive way—and dare I repeat it, keep some of the economists with their absurd propositions well out of the way—we may see Indonesian society yet stick together.
Mrs. Megawati is on a tightrope and everyone recognises that. It is a similar kind of tightrope to that which confronts, say, the rulers of Saudi Arabia. The tightrope is with the extremists who have very strong appeal. They are anti-American and give very strong support to Islamic culture and ways, often of a very extreme kind. They have immensely powerful propaganda with some admiration for Osama bin Laden and some readiness to condemn the whole of the West. That is the constituency that Mrs Megawati has to recognise because it exists. She has to take it on otherwise it will destroy her and democracy totally in Indonesia.
On the other side there is the need to maintain Indonesia as part of the global capitalist system and to make it attractive again for foreign investment and to mobilise the colossal enterprise, which I have just mentioned and which exists in Indonesia to attract once again the huge investment flows that were so happily going into that country in the early 1990s.
This is not an area where bankers and economists can really understand what is going on. Indeed, the bankers were all predicting that Indonesia was the ideal investment spot almost up to minutes before the entire system collapsed. It is an area where we need to understand, as in many other areas, the inner workings of the society. There our intelligence and the skills which this country has long had in coping
218
originally with our former vast empire, and with our understanding of peoples and cultures around the world and their differences will be particularly valuable.
People say that they are worried that the Americans believe that they can go it alone. They cannot because the curbing of extremism and the attack on terrorism is a totally collaborative venture and our skills here are just as much needed as the vast military might and the 13-carrier fleets of the United States of America.
That is the picture and we have had a fascinating glimpse of it, thanks to my noble friend Lady Cox. I personally am very grateful to her. We look forward to hearing the Minister's views on how the situation stands and on what we can do here to improve it.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, as we might have expected. this has been an extremely well-informed debate with a very wide measure of agreement. I do not believe that anything I shall say—at least, I hope not—will in any way detract from the views which have been expressed by most speakers. As ever, we are indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. She introduced the debate with characteristic sincerity, passion and commitment. We have all benefited from the first-hand experience which she brought to bear.
It is sometimes easy to forget that Indonesia held its first democratic elections for 44 years in 1999. Today, Indonesia is a young democracy facing many difficult challenges. We must judge the country from the progress it has made so far.
I know that the noble Baroness is a keen follower of events in Indonesia and this Government share her concern at the ruinous inter-communal conflicts that have blighted central Sulawesi and Maluku provinces.
I would like to place on record our appreciation of her constructive interest in the country, its many problems, and for her consideration in sharing her findings with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I also appreciate the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in his expression of gratitude for the various briefings which have taken place.
We take some encouragement from the Malino peace deals which have been referred to by a number of speakers. The Government recently supported an EU statement which called on the Indonesian authorities to do their utmost to nurture the fragile peace.
The House will be aware that in the weeks since the signing of the Malino peace agreements, efforts have been made in implementing their terms. The agreements were described by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, as one of the bright spots of recent times. Multi-faith gatherings have been held in Maluku and attempts by extremists to trigger violence have met with little success.
For their part, the Indonesian Government have facilitated the surrender of a significant number of weapons and begun deportation procedures against suspected extremists. I can assure my noble friend

219
Lord Clarke that we continue to urge the Indonesian Government to implement in full the security and law enforcement measures agreed in the Malino peace accords. We continue to monitor closely developments in the Moluccas and Sulawesi through our embassy in Jakarta. Additionally, we draw on a large international presence already active in the provinces. A UN resource centre is permanently stationed in Maluku and international personnel undertake frequent trips to the provinces.
But these agreements are but a first step in a long process to reconcile warring communities, rehabilitate families who have been forced from their homes and reconstruct the many buildings destroyed during the violence. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, will also be aware of this Government's actions in bolstering Indonesian efforts to promote reconciliation, having recently met with our ambassador in Jakarta. She will have heard about the United Kingdom support to the UN Conflict Prevention and Recovery Unit in Jakarta, which monitors developments in areas of conflict in Indonesia. We are also undertaking a three-year strategy using funds from the Global Conflict Prevention Pool to promote reconciliation and facilitate reconstruction in all parts of Indonesia affected by violent conflict.
I agree with the noble Baroness that the conflicts in Maluku and Sulawesi, which are primarily inter communal in nature, have been made much worse by the activities of Muslim and Christian extremist groups. Laskar Jihad was the group specifically mentioned by a number of speakers—the noble Lord, Lord Howell, described it very well—and the chilling language used by the group. The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, also made an important point. They do not just intimidate Christians, but Muslims as well.
With our European Union partners, this Government have consistently urged the Indonesian Government to take firm action against extremists and to bring all persons guilty of human rights abuses to justice. As regards terrorism, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, drew our attention to the fact—it is quite important to make this point—not just that Indonesia is the largest Muslim nation in the world, but that it has a moderate and tolerant interpretation of Islam and a history of religious tolerance. She is also right to point to the worrying speculation that post September 11th organisations with links to Al'Quaeda could operate out of Indonesia. The Government have been following closely Indonesia's approach to counterterrorism. President Megawati was very quick to condemn the acts of September 11th and shortly after she visited President Bush in Washington.
A number of speakers have raised the point that there is as yet no conclusive proof of strong institutional links between Al'Qaeda and Laskar Jihad. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has written to President Megawati to share with her his thoughts on the war on terrorism. He has urged her to take firm action against individuals suspected of having links to terrorist organisations and in particular to investigate allegations of terrorist camps
220
in Sulawesi. With our partners in the United States and the wider coalition against terrorism, we will continue to monitor the situation closely and explore ways in which we may support Indonesian efforts to counter terrorism.
The problems facing Indonesia, of course, go wider than the inter-communal conflicts in the two provinces we have been speaking about and our concerns about possible terrorist links. Separatism poses a particular challenge in the two furthermost Indonesian provinces of Aceh and Papua. Bills for special autonomy have been passed devolving significant financial resources to both these provinces. They also offer a stronger sense of local democracy. These laws now need to be implemented in full and we strongly urge the Indonesian Government to ensure that that is done.
Continued efforts are needed to reach a peaceful negotiated settlement with secessionist groups in these provinces. The murder of the Papuan leader, Theys Eluay, last October was a particularly worrying development. We have made clear to the Indonesian leadership that it is vital that a full and open investigation is carried out and that those implicated in the murder are brought to justice.
The noble Lords, Lord Astor of Hever, and Lord Howell, mentioned security sector reform. The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, described the situation in Indonesia as cause for concern but hope for the future. That is a useful phrase. It is very important within Indonesia's new democracy that the security forces operate within a framework of democratic control. During the impeachment of President Wahid, the armed forces played an even hand. Military participation in Parliament will cease entirely in 2009. But much remains to be done, in particular with issues on human rights and budget transparency.
Britain is playing a part in pushing forward the debate about the need for reform of the security forces. I can tell the House that Ministers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development have agreed a three year £2·5 million security sector reform strategy for Indonesia. It aims to foster the debate about the need for democratically accountable security forces. In taking it forward, the British Embassy in Jakarta is engaging with Ministers, parliamentarians, the media and other local groups, academics and security forces. That is an important point.
A number of speakers referred to human rights. There is a legacy of human rights abuses committed in Indonesia under the Suharto regime. Soon after her installation, President Megawati issued a decree to extend the jurisdiction of ad hoc human rights courts to cover events in 1999 prior to the popular consultation in East Timor. Those courts started to consider cases on 14th March 2002. We are pressing the Indonesian Government to ensure that the cases are tried in a transparent and open way and that wider concerns about the jurisdictional limitations of the courts are addressed. In particular, progress is needed on accountability for past human rights abuses in Aceh and Papua.

221
On corruption, President Megawati has begun to tackle the legacy of corruption, collusion and nepotism from the Suharto era that percolates through many tiers of government, business, the judiciary and the military. The president has established an anticorruption commission. We were heartened recently to see a resolution of the corruption case against the Governor of the Bank of Indonesia and the steps being taken to prosecute those implicated in the latest scandal involving BULOG, the State Logistics Agency. But much work remains to be done and our Government are using the United Nations Development Plan and the World Bank Partnership for Good Governance to push forward the debate about governance reform within Indonesia.
The justice sector also needs a major overhaul. We and other partners are lending a hand, for example, through the Partnership for Good Governance and visits to the UK by representatives of the Indonesian Supreme Court. Recently there have been some encouraging signs: the upgrading of the convictions in the Atambua murder case where three UN aid workers were killed in West Timor; the conviction of Jacobus Bere for the murder of New Zealand peacekeeper Leonard Manning in East Timor; and the charging of Tommy Suharto for involvement in the murder of a High Court judge. Yet perseverance and political will will he needed to make lasting changes.
I must mention briefly the economy and the problem of poverty in the country. Indonesia still faces tremendous economic and social challenges. The noble Lord. Lord Howell, referred to that issue. Total public debt amounts to 90 per cent of GDP, and poverty has risen sharply as a result of the east Asian
222
financial crisis. Debt repayments claim over 30 per cent of government expenditure, limiting the scope for effective poverty reduction measures.
The Department for International Development is supporting Indonesian efforts to develop policies that support the poor. Sustained structural reform is the only way Indonesia can revive its economy and stay on track with the IMF and its Paris Club creditors.
On relations with East Timor, Indonesia continues to try to mend the wounds in its relationship with East Timor. We warmly applaud this rapprochement. President Megawati has met Timorese leaders Xanana Gusmao and Ramos Horta and has been invited to the independence celebrations in Dili on 20th May. High level bilateral talks continue between the countries about outstanding issues of concern—for example, refugees and judicial co-operation on human rights cases.
Our Government and their strategic partners in the European Union, United States, Australia and Japan believe strongly that the important foundations of democracy laid down in Indonesia in 1999 must be built upon. President Megawatt assumed office in July 2001 in a constitutional and peaceful way, following the impeachment of former President Wahid. She has made a positive start but we all acknowledge that the challenges facing her government remain formidable.
Indonesia needs our help if the reform process is not to falter. It is in all our interests that Indonesia delivers the prosperity and security that its people demand.

Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at four minutes before seven 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 Brabazon of Tara) in the Chair.]:
    Clause 33 [Complaints about grievances]:
    Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 167:
    Page 38, line 40, at end insert—
    "( ) Nothing in this section applies to a case in which the employer has effected a constructive dismissal of an employee."
    The noble Baroness said: We now turn to a discussion on constructive dismissal, which we have mentioned at various times throughout the discussions in Committee. This is one of the most difficult areas of industrial relations work. Constructive dismissal can be said to occur when working is made so difficult for an employee that it becomes impossible for him or her to continue in work.
    It can take many forms. Demands may be made upon the employee that he or she simply cannot meet and that is being done knowingly by the employer. There may be a series of demotions or transfers to work for which the employee is not suited and has not trained. There can be overwork. There can be subtle forms of harassment. There can be bullying, which—as my union knows because it has done a great deal of research on the matter—occurs often within industrial and commercial environments. In fact, one of my colleagues is promoting a Bill backed by my union called Dignity at Work Bill, which will be discussed tomorrow in your Lordships' House.
    There could be failure to pay wages or deductions from wages. On a construction site, an employee may be asked to do work which he may feel is unsafe for him, although it is true that an employee blowing the whistle has some protection. That protection is largely thanks to legislation originally promoted in this House by my two noble friends when we were successful in getting the Offshore Safety (Protection Against Victimisation) Act on the statute book following the "Piper Alpha" disaster. We do, therefore, occasionally have some successes. That Bill was promoted by me but was drafted by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn and supported and spoken to by my noble friend Lord McCarthy.
    Nevertheless, there are industries where the whole working environment is inherently hazardous and where the availability of so-called "illegals"—perhaps illegal immigrant workers—who are prepared to do any work at low rates and not to make any complaint, can act as a pressure on existing workforces. Many
    CWH 368
    examples can be given of pressure that can be exerted by employers to get rid of employees without incurring any financial penalty.
    If there is a union environment, protection can usually be given to such an employee. However, remember when I was a union official and was approached for advice by employees who were not members of a union, I would tell them that the last thing they should do was resign. I would say, "Never resign. Stick it out if you can because if they want to get rid of you, make them pay for it".
    However, the situation can sometimes be much too stressful for that to be a workable possibility. The employee may then feel that he or she has no alternative but to resign from the employment. What we call "constructive dismissal" then takes place.
    The object of our amendment is to ensure that constructive dismissal should be treated as an exceptional case and the individual concerned should not be expected to go through the various procedures laid down in this part of the Bill. The relationship will have broken down anyway and it will simply not he a reasonable and practical proposition.
    I hope, therefore, that my noble friend the Minister will agree that this is an exceptional set of circumstances as regards an employee and that therefore the full procedures laid out in Section 33 should not be expected to be followed before the individual concerned can proceed to an employment tribunal. I beg to move.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As my noble friend Lady Turner rightly says, constructive dismissal is one of the most difficult areas of employment law and for that reason I approach it with considerable care. The amendment deals with the application of the admissibility criteria to cases of constructive dismissal. We have made it known that, unlike other cases of unfair dismissal, we are minded to apply the admissibility regime—that is, the regime set out in Clause 33—to some cases of constructive dismissal. Perhaps I may explain why. In cases of unfair dismissal, the employer is obliged to use one of the statutory dismissal procedures. Therefore, the employer should be in no doubt about the employee's attitude towards the dismissal.
    In contrast, employers may be entirely unaware of the employee's concern in cases of constructive dismissal. Millions of employees resign or quit voluntarily each year. Most leave without ever giving a full explanation to the employer, and there is no reason why they should do so. In a proportion of those cases, the employee left because he had a serious grievance against the employer. He may not have raised that grievance with the employer while in employment. In some cases, the first an employer hears about a grievance is when he receives a copy of the tribunal application claiming constructive dismissal. That is the situation which we want to avoid. We want an issue to be aired to enable the parties to find a resolution themselves before an application to a tribunal is made.

    CWH 369
    However, we recognise that constructive dismissal cases come in a variety of forms. Some may present particular difficulties when applying the admissibility regime. For example, what should happen when an employee resigned because the employer disciplined him unfairly without following the statutory procedure? We shall need to give careful attention to this issue when drafting the relevant regulations. Of course, we welcome the views of those whom we shall consult when we prepare the regulations. For that reason, I said that we are minded to apply the admissibility regime to some cases of constructive dismissal because we are minded not to apply it in other cases. The guiding principle in drafting the regulations is clear. We want to ensure that both parties are aware of a complaint before a formal application is made to a tribunal.
    My noble friend Lady Turner of Camden asked what happens where constructive dismissal involves serious prior harassment of the individual. The general exemptions from the application of the admissibility criteria will also apply to cases involving constructive dismissal. Therefore, if an employee resigns following a physical assault. for example, we shall ensure that the regulations exempt such an individual from the admissibility criteria. That is another example of a case where the admissibility criteria would not apply.
    We believe that there is a good case to apply the admissibility regime to some, but not all, constructive dismissal cases. However, as I and my noble friend Lady Turner said, it is an extremely complicated area and it will require careful drafting in the regulations. I hope she will agree that the matter should be sorted out in regulation.
    Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for that explanation of the Government's position. I am not entirely happy with it, as he can well understand. As I believe he will have realised, my noble friends and I have been anxious to have some of these issues included on the face of the Bill rather than be left to regulations. It seems from the Minister's explanation that there could be a great deal of uncertainty. Some cases will be subject to the admissibility rules and other cases will not. It seems to me that no one will quite know where he stands. I consider that to be a rather an unsatisfactory situation. We shall have to think about it carefully to see whether we need to proceed with the matter any further. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Razzallmoved Amendment No. 167A:
    Page 38, line 40, at end insert—
    "(11) An employee has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer, done on the ground that any action was taken, or was proposed to be taken, by or on behalf of the employee to comply, or which would comply, with any of the requirements of Schedule 2, Part 2.
    (12) An employee may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that he has been subjected to a detriment in contravention of subsection (11) above."
    CWH 370
    The noble Lord said: This amendment touches on various analogous points that we have already debated but it raises a new point. The amendments in this group are designed to give free-standing protection to an employee who complies with the steps of the statutory agreements procedure and, as a consequence, is subject to any kind of detriment by his or her employer. Obviously, in many cases where complaints relate to breaches of statutory rights, the employee will already have protection from detriments, but the clause would extend the protection to all grievances. Members of the Committee may well ask why, in the circumstances of the Bill, this is necessary, but it is really necessary because of the penalties that an employee will face for failure to comply with statutory procedures.
    For example, under Clause 31, his or her award would be reduced and under Clause 33 he or she would be prevented from making a claim. If, under the legislation, the employees are required to raise grievances internally, we feel that they should be protected from detriment by their employer when they do so. I beg to move.
    Baroness Turner of Camden: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 190 because it is grouped with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. As regards Amendment No. 190, I am indebted to Professor Hepple for the text. Members of the Committee will know that Professor Hepple is a distinguished expert in the field of labour law and is well known to a number of us. He expressed considerable surprise that the Bill, which introduces a number of new concepts, does not include a no-detriment clause. As my noble friend Lord Wedderburn said, "no detriment" means "no victimisation" in lay terms.
    It is essential that an employee should not be afraid to exercise the rights which Parliament has said he should have. The aim of the two new sections in the amendment is to provide some protection for an employee in such circumstances.
    The first part of the amendment, proposing new Section 47D, lays down that an employee has the right not to be subjected to any form of victimisation because he has presented, or is presenting or proposing to present, a claim to an employment tribunal, or because he proposes to utilise the statutory or other disputes resolution procedure.
    We all know that unscrupulous employers exist—if they did not, much of our legislation would not be necessary. However, vulnerable employees exist as well. The unions are there to protect such people, but as we know only too well, there are non-union environments. We have to enable an individual who feels that he has rights that he wants to pursue, to be able to do so without being intimidated in any way.
    The second part of the amendment, proposing new Section 104C, deals with dismissal and spells out very clearly that if an employee is dismissed and the reason, or if more than one reason the principle reason, is that he has presented or proposes to present a claim to an ET, or has sought to use the statutory or other disputes resolution procedure, that dismissal will automatically be regarded as unfair.

    CWH 371
    The amendments are admirably clear and direct. We have been talking about deterrent effects mainly because some of the provisions of the Bill seemed directed towards deterring employees. It is hoped that the amendments which we have proposed will have a deterrent effect on an employer. An employer who is enraged because one of his employees has dared to challenge him by taking a case to an ET will know that if he tries to take out his anger on his employee in any way—and particularly if he attempts to dismiss or does dismiss the individual concerned—he will automatically be regarded as having unfairly dismissed the employee, with the financial consequences that this may entail.
    It is no use having rights in legislation if people are too scared or too intimidated to enforce them. I hope that the Minister will agree that these amendments are entirely desirable and that they should be included in the Bill—and if not this wording, similar wording—to ensure that employees are enabled, without being scared or intimidated, to utilise the rights the law gives them.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, will not mind if I say that our proposal for the new clause has certain advantages.
    Lord Razzall: I think it is better.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The noble Lord thinks it is better—that is admirable. It is a disadvantage of our procedure that in merely speaking to Amendment No. 190 it probably will not be printed in full in Hansard. Could I make a plea that Hansard prints Amendment No. 190 in full? If that is not likely to be done, I shall read it but I do not believe that Members of the Committee will be happy if I do so. My noble friend summarised it.
    The other point that has caused a great deal of attention among commentators who have been looking at the Bill is why on earth the Bill does not have a victimisation clause. Every employment protection piece of legislation from, I believe, 1971 onwards has had provision that where you create a right for employees, and in some respects obligations, one puts in a provision that the employee has a remedy if the employer imposes upon him or her a detriment—that is, victimises him or her—for exercising those rights and pursuing those obligations. It is perhaps the most glaring omission from the Bill that it does not contain such a provision. I wonder whether the Minister can give us any reasons for that, other than the fact that workers' interests are not entirely fully dealt with in the draft of the Bill?
    3.45 p.m.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It certainly helps matters if the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, believes that the wording of Amendment No. 190 is better than his own drafting. The principal difference—
    Lord Razzall: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. Academia often beats the Law Society.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is a significant difference, quite apart from issues of drafting, which is that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, deals only with detriment, whereas Amendment No. 190 deals also with dismissal. That is a significant point and I need to address myself in particular to Amendment No. 190.
    We sympathise with the underlying intention of the amendment and have looked carefully at it. There is no criticism of its drafting. As regards unfair dismissal, there is protection in the Employment Rights Act 1996, and elsewhere, for employees who are dismissed for asserting a wide range of statutory right; for example, the right not to suffer unlawful deductions from wages. To dismiss an employee in those circumstances is regarded as automatically unfair. That applies whether the employee asserts a right simply by alleging that his employer has infringed it, which might be done by instituting a grievance procedure, or by complaining to a tribunal.
    Under the general unfair dismissal legislation, a dismissal must be fair in the circumstances. It is beyond dispute that since dismissals for asserting a statutory right are automatically unfair by statute, no sensible tribunal would find a dismissal for using one of the statutory dispute procedures fair It is implausible to suggest that such a dismissal could ever be fair—any more than it could be fair to dismiss an employee for making use of voluntary procedures. An employer who said, "I sacked him because he raised a grievance against me, or said he was proposing to", would never be able to convince a tribunal that the dismissal was fair.
    Turning to detriment short of dismissal, there is currently protection against detrimental treatment on a range of specific grounds, mainly set out in the 1996 Act. While additional protections against detriment have, from time to time, been added to this list, the Government have not added to them wholesale and are, in my view, entirely right to have taken this cautious view. There is no evidence that broad rights not to suffer detriment are needed and I need hardly say that any such broad rights would add greatly to the potential for tribunal complaints.
    I do not therefore believe that the case for having a protection against detriment, as is proposed in the amendment, is made out. Our aim is to get employers and employees to sort out disputes in a sensible way, ideally within the workplace. I cannot feel that it would be helpful to that aim to allow employees to complain to tribunals helpful to that aim to allow employees to complain to tribunals if they think that any reversal or failure to progress in their working lives is traceable to some past attempt to resolve a dispute.
    Lord McCarthy: Hansard will tell us what the Minister said, but we do not know when we are going to meet again. I would like to clarify what the Minister

    CWH 373
    said. He seemed to me to be saying that he accepts that workers might suffer a detriment. He regretted that they might well suffer a detriment, but the trouble was if we did anything to mitigate their suffering it would add to the number of tribunal cases. Is that what he said?
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Hansard will indeed record what I said. I said that I sympathise with the idea but, as regards unfair dismissal and detriment, I said there are remedies in the existing legislation, in particular in the 1996 Act.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I understand that, but my noble friend said two things. First of all, as regards dismissal, he said there could never be a case where the employee would fail if detriment in the way of dismissal were imposed upon him for presenting or proposing to pursue a complaint.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not say never.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The Minister says that he did not say never. We will look at Hansard. Then I moved from dismissal because I thought the Minister had some case on dismissal, although I did not like the word "never". Let us move to detriment. He says there are remedies available already in a case—and I want to be quite clear about this—which the individual specified by the amendment could pursue under the 1996 statute. The individual is someone who, let us say, is suspected of presenting, or proposing to present, a complaint by reason of Section 33, or one that is contrary to Section 33. He says, "I do not like being shut out from the tribunal", and then he is victimised. The employer says, "No more overtime", or whatever it is. Which section of the 1996 Act could he rely upon for his remedy?
    Lord Razzall: Before the Minister replies, could he perhaps also answer the question I would like to put, which may be the same question in similar form? If an employee has failed to comply with the statutory procedures under Clause 31 his or her award will be reduced, and under Clause 33 he or she will be prevented from making a claim. Is the Minister saying that if employees are required to raise grievances internally, have failed to comply with the statutory procedures but detriment thereafter ensues, under no circumstances will those clauses be applied against that employee?
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not say, "prevented from making a claim". This is a common misunderstanding. There is no possibility of preventing people from making a claim. We say that when the admissibility criteria apply there has to be a letter and there has to be a wait of 28 days. Once those very minimal requirements have been gone through there is no question of preventing anybody from making a claim. Indeed, if a claim is made which is not
    CWH 374
    admissible, that can be corrected by overcoming the objections to the claim and the claim can then be made subsequently.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I repeat my question to the Minister: which section?
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I said that currently there is protection against detrimental treatment on a range of specific grounds, mainly set out in the 1996 Act. I do not have the facilities to go back to all legislation. On that matter I will have to write to the noble Lord. Lord Wedderburn.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I appreciate that but I must protest that the Government come to this Committee and reject an amendment which is quite specific and which adds a normal remedy for workers who are victimised. The Minister says there are remedies already. When I ask him where they are, he does not tell me; he is not prepared for it. He does not come with a section, he does not come with an Act. I am not asking him to survey hundreds of years of legislation. He mentioned the 1996 Act; I assume he knew where to find it.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: What I said was that currently there is protection against detrimental treatment on a range of specific grounds mainly set out in the 1996 Act, but not necessarily only in the 1996 Act. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, is entitled to an answer, but I cannot give him an answer off the cuff, and I have offered to write to him.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: It is not a question of giving an answer off the cuff; it is central to the argument. I must protest again. I am sorry. The Minister looks bored and fed up. I can well believe he is fed up because he has made a case which he cannot substantiate. If one says to workers "You have a remedy already", one must tell them, or at least their advisers, where it is. The Minister says it might be in some other Act. Which other Act? If it is in the 1996 Act, which section?
    Lord Razzall: May I dare to suggest that the Minister should reflect on what the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, has said, perhaps before we get to Report stage, and provide us with the answer to the question the noble Lord has put and in the meantime the amendment should be withdrawn?
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the amendment is withdrawn, I have undertaken to write to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, already. I will copy the letter to everyone else who has taken part in the Committee, and my letter will include a reflection on the matters that I am asked to reflect on.
    Baroness Turner of Camden: Before the Minister sits down, would he perhaps look again at the two new Sections 47D and 104C that we are proposing? The Minister said that he sees nothing wrong with the drafting of the new sections, nor do I get the impression from him that he is anything other than

    CWH 375
    sympathetic to what I was saying. I would be pleased if he would be good enough to look at these two new sections again before Report to see whether any steps can be taken to meet the arguments that we have put.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Certainly, and if the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, would like us to have a meeting with Professor Bob Hepple on the subject, we would be happy to do that as well.
    Lord Razzall: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 33 agreed to.
    4 p.m.
    Lord McCarthymoved Amendment No. 168:
    After Clause 33, insert the following new clause—
    "AVAILABILITY OF ACAS CONCILIATION
    Where a complaint is communicated to a tribunal but section 33(2), (3) or (4) prohibits its presentation to that tribunal, then notwithstanding that section, the communication shall be treated as an application falling within section 19 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (c. 17) (conciliation procedure), and regulations shall provide for a copy to be sent to a conciliation officer together with such other information as will assist that officer to bring about a conciliated settlement of the claim, and for the Secretary of the tribunal to send to the applicant and the named respondent a notice of the availability of the services of a conciliation officer."
    The noble Lord said: I am in a hinterland between Clause 33 and Clause 34. Clause 33 has gone, but not quite gone.
    This amendment is another example of what they call "a probing amendment" in this place. I did not know about probing amendments until I came to this place. If I understand what they are for, they are where one does not know any more than the Government seem to know why something has been done or not done. Without knowing what the answer will be, because one is puzzled and perplexed one tables what is called a "probing" amendment.
    What we are probing is the absence of ACAS in this new system. The Government say—and I want to quote from them subsequently in the Government response to Routes to Resolution—that one of their central objectives is the promoting of conciliation. After all, conciliation comes before a hearing and is the way in which, as the Government say, a very substantial number of settlements are in fact arrived at, or workers abandon their claims for various reasons. The Government want to promote conciliation. Of course they do; it is much cheaper than hearings, and it can work quicker than hearings. It might also provide better remedies than hearings. It may after all, if it works quickly enough, provide reemployment or reinstatement. One does not know what conciliation can do. The Government want to promote conciliation, I see that.
    CWH 376
    Why, therefore, is it absent from this period when the 28 days run? If one looks at the words of the amendment, noble Lords will see what we propose:
    "Where a complaint is communicated to a tribunal bat section 33(2), (3) or (4) prohibits its presentation to that tribunal"—
    we are in the dead period—then, notwithstanding that section, it states,
    "the communication shall be treated as an application falling within Section 19 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996".
    That section authorises ACAS to come in in all other ordinary tribunal cases, after the application has been sent. The parties are told that ACAS is sent a copy and that there is a possibility of conciliation. They are told what it does and if applicants say that they want to get into the conciliation process, that is it. They get a telephone call and the process begins. Why is that taken up during this period, if the aim is to promote settlements?
    We have some guidance in that regard. On 8th December, the Minister in another place said:
    "The applicant should be required to complete at least one step of the procedure, the sending of the written complaint, before the tribunal can admit an application. In addition, a period— say, four weeks—should elapse after the step one letter".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee F, 18/12/01; col. 195.]
    At that point, I thought that the Minister would go on to talk about conciliation, but he continued,
    "has been sent before an application can be admitted".
    He went on to explain the reason for that. It is that that,
    "ensures that the parties have time to begin discussing the grievance, which should ensure that the grievance is at least aired and clarified before an application is made. If the dialogue proved productive, I would expect many potential applicants to defer submitting their tribunal application beyond the end of sot period while the procedure was used more fully".
    Why can they not have help during that period? After all, ACAS specialises in the discussion, elaboration and clarification of agreements. It specialises in trying to get the parties to see that they have some area in common and in narrowing the area of difference and not promoting a specific settlement, because that would be mediation. It hopes that the parties will come to see that there are some grounds for a meeting or that one side or another wants to give in. That is what it is all about. Why should that not happen during this period if the Government want to promote a settlement that is not a settlement using the tribunal?
    The Government's response to Routes to Resolution contains a strange page and a bit about the promotion of conciliation. One fundamentally disagrees with almost every part of that. It says, for example, that the ability to have a fixed period of conciliation and a period when there is not conciliation will promote conciliation. I cannot see why that is. It states that as a form of conciliation, which it is not,
    "if you broaden the scope of compromised agreements you promote conciliation".
    You do not; you provide a substitute for conciliation. It continues:
    "We should promote the use of alternative dispute resolutions",
    but it says nothing further about that.

    CWH 377
    The interesting thing is what the response says about conciliation as it sees it. It admits that three-quarters of tribunal claims are settled or withdrawn before a tribunal hearing takes place—presumably, it gives conciliation credit for a significant part of that. It goes on:
    "In many of these cases, the tribunal would have wasted time and effort on these claims, which would have been better spent on claims which do require a determination".
    I suggest that that sentence is absolute nonsense. It asserts that the tribunal would have wasted time, but that is not the case because literally, this arises before it gets to a tribunal. If anybody was wasting time, it would be ACAS. Perhaps they really meant to say, "In many of these cases, ACAS will have wasted time", or, "In many of these cases, the tribunal might have wasted time". How do they know? What is the evidence that tribunals or ACAS are going around wasting time, which would have been better spent on cases that require a determination. I do not think that they understand the first thing about conciliation or that they appreciate the way it works. I do not think that the people who wrote the government response know the difference between what happens when the parties get together and argue (that is one process), when ACAS comes in and conciliates (that is another process) and at the appearance at a hearing (that is a third process). Those are discrete and different processes and they are the reason why, if it works, people get something out of the system. My question is a simple one: during this period, when you condemn inaction for 28 days unless the parties can reach a settlement with themselves, why do you exclude a process that most people would say can solve most of the disputes? I beg to move.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The first criticism that my noble friend Lord McCarthy makes involves the lack of an explicit reference to ACAS in this part of the Bill. Basically—on the availability of ACAS—ACAS can already provide conciliation to parties in advance of a tribunal application in certain circumstances. There is no reference because that facility will remain in place—the Bill does not affect that position.
    It is possible that ACAS could be involved in a case in the period before the employee presents an admissible application to the tribunal. What I think lies behind this amendment is the assumption that failure to meet the admissibility criteria will debar or prohibit the employee from applying to the tribunal a second time. As we have said in response to a number of earlier amendments, this is not the way in which we intend the admissibility regime to work. As a general rule, applicants who originally make an inadmissible application would be given a second chance to make an admissible application.
    In other words, employees would be given another opportunity to open up a dialogue with the employer by initiating the statutory grievance procedure. If they then fail to sort out the problem between themselves using the procedure, the employee can make a second application to the tribunal which meets the
    CWH 378
    admissibility criteria. Where that happens, ACAS would be informed that an admissible application had been made and ACAS's conciliation services would be offered to the parties in the normal way.
    The failure by applicants to meet the admissibility criteria with their first application does not close off the opportunity to involve ACAS at some stage before the matter reaches the tribunal. We do not need to make special provision to secure ACAS involvement, as the amendment seeks to do.
    Lord McCarthy: I am sorry, but I shall read the conciliation procedure, which is the basis on which ACAS intervenes, as stated in Section 19 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. It states that employment tribunal procedure regulations,
    "shall include in relation to the employment tribunal proceedings, in the case of which any enactment makes provision for conciliation—
    (a) provisions requiring a copy of the application".
    But he cannot have it, because he has to complete it within 28 days. However, it states,
    "provisions requiring a copy of the application by which the proceedings are instituted, and a copy of any notice relating to it which is lodged by or on behalf of the person".
    But we do not have those pieces of paper. It goes on,
    "against whom the proceedings are brought, to be sent to a conciliation officer".
    That is how they get in in the first place. Paragraph (b) goes on,
    "provisions securing that the applicant and the person against whom the proceedings are brought are notified"—
    they have to be notified—
    "that the services of a conciliation officer are available to them".
    They are available to them because ACAS has authority, based upon the fact that there has been an ET1. That is their authority. It continues:
    "(c) provisions postponing the hearing".
    Someone has to postpone the hearing; otherwise, as happened in the old days, one might get to a hearing; of course, one would not get there now, but never mind. But never mind. Paragraph (c) states:
    "provisions postponing the hearing of any such proceedings for such period as may be determined in accordance with the regulations for the purpose of giving an opportunity for the proceedings to be settled by way of conciliation and withdrawn".
    That is how the arrangement works. I am not saying that there never has been a case in the history of man when ACAS has been involved in a hearing before they got the piece of paper.
    That is not what is supposed to happen. In all other cases, it is absolutely clear when ACAS becomes involved. What the Minister does not answer is why the Dickens that cannot apply in this case. He says, "We know that ACAS sometimes gets in round the back door". How is it supposed to know what is going on, what its authority is and what papers to work from? Why the Dickens cannot that be in the Bill?
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before my noble friend proceeds to withdraw the amendment, does he also not agree that the reply we have been given means

    CWH 379
    that being prohibited from presenting a complaint is, in the view of the Minister, not a terribly serious matter, because one will go away and make a second complaint? Therefore, it does not seem that the tribunals will be relieved of many hearings. The Minister says that the prohibition will generally be followed by a second complaint that will get to the tribunal. How can the Government save 40,000 cases out of that?
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may try again because I have not come very far with what I have said so far. First, many grievances are handled internally by employers without ever involving a third party. I believe that that is common ground. It is the normal way in which disputes are resolved between employees and employers That is a matter of fact and that is the pattern of behaviour that we want to encourage. We certainly do not want to say that ACAS should always be involved and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, does not want that either.
    What I said was that ACAS can already provide conciliation to parties in advance of a tribunal application in some cases. That is provided for in Section 18(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It provides for ACAS to conciliate before an application is made. The point I am trying to make is that that will continue; that is not affected in any way by the Bill.
    Lord McCarthy: The point is that in the good old days nothing got in the way of the application. There was no possibility that one would needed a barrier. The worker could not even write a postcard. If the worker could write a postcard, he would be sent an ET1 and the whole process would begin; the data would be collected and off we would go.
    Unless the Minister can bring me figures to show that the great hulk of ACAS entries are brought in without using the formula, I do not see why he objects to the proposal. I do not see why he is being so difficult. Of course, a great number of settlements are achieved in the normal way without bringing in ACAS. However, at present if the individual worker thinks he is getting nowhere he can blow a whistle. The whistle he can blow is to send either an ET1, or whatever, to the ET service and say, "I want conciliation". He is really saying, "I want some help. I want conciliation". He gives notification and ACAS has authority. The applicant has asked for him to come in and that is the usual way forward. The Minister does not answer me by saying that the normal way is not to use it or that the normal way is to settle the matter domestically. That is a completely de novo situation.
    One of our main criticisms of the Bill, and we have made it over and over again, is that it has been produced in a factual vacuum. Provisions have been put on the face of the Bill by people who do not understand the consequences of what they are doing. They are now imposing conditions. They say they impose those conditions to help the worker and I accept that. However, the critical condition in this context is they have their 28-day wait. In that period, they give no help at all.
    CWH 380
    If we were living in the 1970s—I am not saying that I want to go back to living in the 1970s—there would be a stoppage and, by God, ACAS would come in then. Things would happen and the Bill would be changed, but all we have are our arguments.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, was thinking of withdrawing the amendment but I want to make an apology first. I said wrongly that Section 18(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides for ACAS to conciliate before an application is made. It is Section 18(3) of the Employment Tribunals Act, not the Employment Rights Act. I apologise for that.
    I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said about the context in which we are debating the issue. After all, the Bill, for the first time, gives all employees access to dispute procedures. Three million employees will be covered by procedures who were not previously covered by procedures, and that is the context in which we have to look at it. In those circumstances, surely the issue of what happens in 28 days is of secondary—I will not say minor—significance.
    4.15 p.m.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before the Minister sits down, will he not appreciate that Section 18(3) applies at a time where,
    "a person claims that action has been taken in respect of which proceedings could be brought by him before an employment tribunal".
    The situation we are discussing is a case where he is prohibited from presenting a complaint. I appreciate that Section 18(3) is a general provision about conciliation, but it applies where action has been taken in respect of which
    "proceedings could be brought by him before an employment tribunal".
    I do not understand why even the citation of the right Act and this section does not help the Minister.
    Secondly, does the Minister not understand that the Government have already amended Section 18 in Clause 24, to cut out a duty to conciliate in certain situations and impose a power. We objected to that at the time, but how Section 18 helps the Minister I do not know.
    The point that my noble friend and I are pressing is that under Section 19 there is the natural route for the case to reach the ACAS conciliation officer. Section 19 provides that where one has a complaint that is presented to the tribunal one sends it as a matter of course to the conciliation officer. When the Government's provisions prohibit access to justice, why not allow the matter to go as a matter of course to the conciliation officer? It might help to get a settlement. That is all there is.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is no question of prohibiting access. We are saying that in order for an application to be admissible it has to pass some very minimal criteria. We are talking about writing a letter and we are talking about waiting 28 days. When there

    CWH 381
    is a failure to meet the admissibility criteria, there is no debar or prohibition on the employee from applying to the tribunal a second time.
    Lord McCarthy: This is why I say that the Government do not answer questions. They never answer questions. The question is a simple one. Why not allow the employee to go to ACAS in the usual way? What damage does it do? Why should he wait 28 days? What assistance would that be? If ACAS cannot solve the matter, he will have to wait 28 days. If the Government want to facilitate settlements, in the name of God why cannot that be put on the face of the Government's Bill?
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Because we want first to encourage settlements of the kind which nearly all settlements are—that is, settlements between employer and employee—and we want to do that first.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The Government want to promote settlements but in order to do that they do not send the case to the conciliation officer in the normal course of things. Conciliation officers help settlements. Has not the Minister met a few? Has he not talked to them about what they do? Of course they are not present in all settlements, but I am surprised that the Government under-rate the value of ACAS conciliation officers. They are enormously important in promoting settlements. We are trying to help the Government here. Why are they so resistant?
    The Minister must understand that there are people who say that these perfectly reasonable and sensible amendments are resisted because the CBI will not have them. That is what people way. If we are left without any rational argument for rejecting them, we will have to listen to those people more.
    Lord McCarthy: We must bring the matter back on Report. We cannot let this go here. I believe that the Government are simply being obstinate. Let them to go ACAS; let them ask ACAS; and let them tell us what ACAS says in particular about this part of the Bill. What do they think the conciliation officer does on the telephone? What do they believe the first question is? The conciliation officer rings an applicant—that is the usual way—and asks, "Where have you got to?" If the applicant says, "We've had a settlement"—God knows the organisation has enough work to do—he says, "Do you think we can help?". No one is getting in the way of domestic settlements; why the hell should they? I urge the Government to think about it, and we shall come back to the issue on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 169:
    After Clause 33, insert the following new clause—
    "COMPLAINTS PROHIBITION PROVISIONS
    (1) Where an employee is prohibited from presenting a complaint to an employment tribunal by reason of section 33, the following provisions shall apply.
    CWH 382
    (2) A breach of duty or unlawful act under a jurisdiction specified in Schedule 4 by any party named as respondent or otherwise in the complaint, shall constitute and remain, if proved before a court or tribunal, an illegal act or unlawful means for the purposes of any enactment or any rule of law notwithstanding the prohibition."
    The noble Lord said: I fully appreciate that Amendment No. 169 is a somewhat technical amendment. It posits a situation where,
    "an employee is prohibited from presenting a complaint to an employment tribunal by reason of section 33".
    In view of what the Minister said, he will not like the word "prohibited" and he may prefer the situation to be described without that word. I cannot think why he does not like the word "prohibited". But under subsections (2), (3) and (4) of Clause 33 as it now is, the employee,
    "shall not present a complaint to an employment tribunal".
    Therefore, perhaps we can rephrase it with the words "arising in that situation".
    An employee alleges that an unlawful act has taken place for which he wants a remedy but he is not able to present the complaint. In the general law, an act which is a breach of duty, in particular under a statute but generally, is capable of being unlawful means for the purposes of a general common law.
    This is a complex area but I hope that I may summarise it accurately in the following way. Unlawful acts can be relied upon by a person whose business, trade or employment is interfered with by a person in an action in the High Court, or, indeed, county court, for damages and perhaps even an injunction. In other words, it is not an action in the tribunals but it impacts upon that because here the employee is alleging—by hypothesis, for the moment we assume that it is correct—that it is an unlawful act on the part of the employer. However, he cannot present that to the tribunal. In other words, this is an act by the defendant in respect of which his right is unenforceable. Whether he goes a second time is not within the purview of the argument. I am talking about a case where he does not. The Minister's confidence that every worker will go a second time is perhaps an important message to trades union advisers. However, in this case there is, by hypothesis, an unlawful act which is unenforceable.
    Unlawful acts include not only a breach of statute but also a breach of contract. That arises under the Bill since the House of Lords decision in Rookes v Barnard [1964] Appeal Cases 1129. According to Lord Justice Dilhorne in the case of Department of Transport v Williams [1993] in The Times of 7th December in the Court of Appeal, it also includes the breach of any statute.
    Here a breach of contract arises if it amounts to a failure to operate the procedures properly because Section 30 of the Act will make it so. It is also a breach of the statute because Schedule 2 and Section 29 require it to be operated. Therefore, we have a case that falls strictly within the doctrine, with an exception. Where the employee suffers damage therefrom, he can sue in tort—that is, "t", "o", "r", "t", which usually gets spelt, but not in Hansard—for

    CWH 383
    unlawful interference with his employment. So an employer who refuses to answer a written statement—that might happen—is giving the employee that situation as he is deprived of his remedy at that point.
    Without going into the very complex case law that governs this point, the essential ambiguity in the law is that the cases do not make it wholly clear whether an unenforceable act of an unlawful kind is still actionable under this doctrine. It is my submission that the better authorities suggest that the action would still lie in the ordinary common law courts. All that the amendment does is to clarify that ambiguity, if there be one, and to state that where the unlawful act is unenforceable, it remains—I quote the amendment—
    "an illegal act or unlawful means for the purposes of any enactment or any rule of law notwithstanding the prohibition".
    That is, notwithstanding the fact that the employee cannot present a complaint to the tribunal and enter the doors of its jurisdiction. I beg to move.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall not make a point about the word "prohibition"—my noble friend generously anticipates what I shall say. I will only say that, rather than prohibiting applications on a permanent basis, the proposed regime will apply in ways that will ensure that employees have a second opportunity to make an admissible application, if their first was inadmissible.
    The issue is about whether an illegal act somehow becomes lawful. Clause 22 is about the circumstances under which employees may have access to the tribunal system. Of course, there have always been conditions limiting access to the tribunal system. Most notably, applications must generally be made within a specific time limit. Clause 33 adds new conditions—it is not a legal question, but a political question. We think that the conditions are both reasonable and proportionate, and we think that they bring significant benefit to both parties in encouraging mutual dialogue before an issue has to go to a tribunal. That is an issue of policy, however, and not an issue of law. The issue of law is that there are already conditions limiting access to the tribunal and Clause 33 adds to them.
    However, what Clause 33 does not do is to change the underlying employment rights themselves. When an employer has infringed those rights, that infringement does not of course become lawful simply because the employee has not—or has not yet—been able to challenge the legality of the employer's action before a tribunal.
    In that sense, Clause 33 operates in the same way as the existing time limits on making applications to a tribunal. The tribunals can already refuse to accept an application that is out of time. When they do so, an unlawful act does not become lawful as a result, but it means that the employee cannot seek a determination or remedy from the tribunal for the alleged unlawful act. We do not have provisions of this nature that apply to the existing law on the time limits and there is no reason to suppose that they will be necessary in this context either.
    4.30 p.m.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and for not making too much about our use of the word "prohibited", which is quite accurate, but which he does not like. I make these comments only: the case of two applications is irrelevant. I am concerned with the application. I am not concerned with time-barred claims; limitation of action. Limitation of action is a quite different juridical category. I am not concerned with policy questions, other than making the law clear. I do not understand why this is such a high political issue. I thought it was an issue that arose from the case law, which the Minister has not discussed. I refrain from citing the case law on unenforceable rights. They leave a slight question mark, which is in all the books. I thought that the amendment might clarify the matter. The Government, for reasons I still do not understand, will not have it, but there is nothing to do at this stage but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 170:
    After Clause 33, insert the following new clause—
    "COMPLAINTS ON ONE OR MORE GROUNDS

    (1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision for applications to an employment tribunal which include more than one ground of complaint, including complaints under more than one jurisdiction.

    (2) Where such an application is made on one or more grounds to which section 33 applies, and one or more grounds to which that section does not apply, subsections (2) and (3) of that section shall not apply to it."

    The noble Lord said: This is a small point, which relates back to Clause 33. Perhaps I take the nub of Clause 33 again.
    "An employee shall not present a complaint to an employment tribunal under a jurisdiction to which this section applies if

    (a) it concerns a matter in relation to which the requirement in paragraph 6 or 9 of Schedule 2 applies, and

    (b) the requirement has not been complied with".

    This essentially probes the meaning of Clause 33 in that respect.
    "An employee shall not present a complaint".
    I have always wondered why the clause was drafted in that way. I take it it was more to do with the instructions to the draftsman than the draftsman himself because I cannot believe that the draftsman would not have wanted to refer to the technical terms which exist at present in the law and would not have drafted it as:
    "An employee shall not present an originating application to an employment tribunal".
    However, the subsection does not say that. It says "a complaint".
    The reality is that in many cases a complaint, or at least an originating application, will include a number of cases. If the Minister would like to look at the statistics of cases which come to a hearing in employment tribunals, produced annually by the Employment Tribunals Service, he will find that the

    CWH 385
    130,000, which are enumerated, are listed under the major head of what is being presented in the applications. If one looks at the number which present multiple grounds of complaint, one gets a much larger total by specifying them all out.
    Many complaints have multiple grounds. The subsection provides that where the tribunal—we have learnt most valuably in our debates that there is to be a tribunal, or at any rate, a tribunal chairman notified through the secretary—sees an originating application submitted on multiple grounds, some of which fall within Section 33, in order to avoid the tribunal having to engage in a long process of assessing which grounds fall within Section 33, those complaints or originating applications should not be prohibited from being presented under the section. I beg to move.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Let me start by agreeing that applications which are called multijurisdictional—in other words, which involve two or more complaints—are by no means unusual. My noble friend Lord Wedderburn is saying that they are the majority of cases and that seems entirely possible. Employees often allege in a single application that an employer has infringed a number of employment rights. That often occurs in cases of unfair dismissal. However, as we have explained, the admissibility criteria will not he applied to cases of unfair dismissal, other than in some constructive dismissal cases, nor will they generally be applied to former employees. The scope for the admissibility regime to be applied to multi-jurisdictional cases is not as great as may appear. However, we recognise that such cases will occur and that we need to have systems in place to deal with them.
    The amendment highlights this issue. It proposes a rule for the application of the admissibility criteria to cases where proceedings are brought both under a jurisdiction or jurisdictions to which Clause 33 applies, and under a jurisdiction or jurisdictions to which it does not apply. It proposes in these circumstances that where the admissibility criteria do not apply in relation to any one or more of the complaints, they are not to apply to any of the complaints made at all. I hope that I describe the impact of the amendment correctly. It appears that I am.
    We recognise that the regulations will need to deal with the special circumstances raised by complex cases involving several complaints. In drawing up the regulations, we will be guided by several considerations. Where possible, we want to avoid unnecessary and wasteful processing of complaints. It follows that we do not want to compel employees in all circumstances to treat each element of a complaint separately, thereby forcing both them and the employer to undertake separate rounds of the three steps for each part of the complaint.
    On the other hand, we see no reason in principle why in the case of multi-jurisdictional applications, the admissibility regime cannot normally be applied successfully to those complaints which attract it. That is, however, a matter that can be dealt with in the
    CWH 386
    regulations to be made under the clause. We do not think it is desirable to limit the discretion we have in this area by imposing limitations in the Bill.
    The regulations will need to deal sympathetically with situations of the kind encouraging closely related complaints to be linked. We will also need to cater for circumstances where a complaint evolves through a dialogue between the employer and the employee. Sometimes, an employee only recognises the full nature of the complaint through the discussions. Again, we will need to allow for those circumstances, ensuring wherever possible that employees are not required to send a second letter listing a further grievance where that grievance has already been aired orally at the meeting under the statutory procedure.
    I can assure my noble friend Lord Wedderburn of Charlton that we appreciate the issues raised by multiple complaints. They are certainly complex issues. We will need to address them carefully in the regulations. As we have said, we will consult on the draft regulations to find the best approach. However, I am afraid that that does not mean that we can accept the general exclusion of the admissibility criteria in these cases.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful to the Minister for what he says. Of course the amendment is not primarily about unfair dismissal; it is about grievances because they fall within paragraph 6 or 9 of Schedule 2.
    However, as regards the record and what we know about it, we have raised a new point. I am glad that the regulations will purport and try to deal with this matter. I am not entirely sure from what the Minister has said how he will deal with it. I appreciate that like so much in the Bill we will have to wait until the tablets of stone are delivered in what are likely to be volumes of regulations as far as I can see. We look forward to that. I am glad that it is being considered. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Schedule 4 [Tribunal jurisdictions to which section 33 applies]:
    [Amendments Nos. 171 and 172 not moved.]
    Lord Razzallmoved Amendment No. 172A:
    Page 67, leave out lines 21 to 24.
    The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 176A and 176B, which make different points technically but the same point in substance. That point is very straightforward. It goes hack to the issue of detriment which we touched on during debate on an earlier amendment. The parts of Schedule 4 all relate to claims of detriment where the employee claims that he or she has suffered a detriment as a result of claiming a statutory right. In those circumstances, the employee has already put the employer on notice that he or she is taking steps to enforce a statutory right. Therefore, it is difficult to see the justification for preventing the employee bringing a claim when the new complaint is that the employer has reacted badly to the initial complaint. Simply

    CWH 387
    deleting the sections may be a cumbersome way in which to attempt to deal with this matter, but I am sure that the Minister takes the point on board. I beg to move.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The grouping has betrayed us to some extent because we discussed much of this issue previously when we debated the amendments which paved Amendment No. 172 and so on. However, I must take these four amendments on their own. They seek to leave out a number of detriment jurisdictions from Schedule 4 to which, of course, Clause 33 applies. A number of amendments relating to detriment have already been debated. Our view is well known. We do not believe that these jurisdictions should be omitted from Schedule 4 but there is a case for exemptions in some circumstances.
    Amendment No. 172A seeks to omit Section 146 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which is concerned with detriment in relation to trade union membership and activities, and paragraph 156 of Schedule Al of the same Act, which is concerned with detriment in relation to union recognition rights.
    Amendment No. 173A seeks to leave out Section 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which is concerned with detriment in relation to such issues as health and safety cases, working time cases, employee representatives, protected disclosures and leave for family and domestic reasons.
    Amendment No. 176A seeks to omit Section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, which is concerned with detriment in relation to the national minimum wage. Amendment No. 176B would leave out Schedule 3 to the Tax Credits Act 1999, which deals with detriment in relation to tax credits.
    It has been argued that employees who have already had detrimental action taken against them will be inviting further victimisation by initiating the statutory grievance procedure. However, I do not see why writing a Step 1 grievance letter to an employer should normally be an intimidating step to take. After all, as my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer pointed out yesterday, if the employee subsequently wanted to make a complaint to an employment tribunal, that would need to be set down in writing.
    As we said earlier, there should of course be exemptions for things such as bullying or the threat of violence, and the regulations will address that. I hope that it will provide some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. But I do not see any need to provide what, in effect, would be a general exemption where detrimental action has been taken by omitting the lines in Schedule 4 as proposed by the amendments.
    4.45 p.m.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The Minister is right that we touched on this matter previously and I have looked very carefully at the debate. However, I do not understand why the Government insist that their
    CWH 388
    procedures—that is, Step 1 or any other step— must be gone through where the employee has been victimised. This is not a case where he is simply pursuing his rights.
    I understand the Government's arguments, although I do not agree with them, in relation to a case where a worker is pursuing his rights. There they are adamant, even under the Disability Discrimination Act, that he must satisfy their procedures before he can go to a tribunal. I do not understand the logic in saying that the worker will be excluded when he is bullied—or, as I understand it, that that will apply in certain cases of bullying—but that he will not he excluded where he is victimised for pursuing his rights. A large number of the cases in Schedule 4—that is what we are again discussing—are detriment jurisdiction cases. In fact, if one added them up, one would, I think, find they constituted a very high minority of cases—not half but a high percentage of cases are detriment cases, in which a worker is victimised for proposing to pursue his rights. If you want to protect him where he is being bullied, why will you not protect him where he is being victimised?
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have nothing to add. We have debated this issue before.
    Lord Razzall: I accept, as the Minister indicated, that we have debated this before. Perhaps the grouping is slightly unfortunate, because we should have considered this matter in relation to Amendments Nos. 167A and, particularly, 190. If Amendment No. 190 is agreed to, none of these amendments would be necessary.
    Having heard the debate—particularly that on Amendment No. 190—and listened to the Minister's undertaking to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, the appropriate thing for me to do is to withdraw the amendment and to consider how to return to this whole issue on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 173 to 178 not moved.]
    Schedule 4 agreed to.
    Clause 34 [Procedural fairness in unfair dismissal]:
    Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 179:
    Page 39, line 5, at end insert "or in Part 2 of that Schedule (grievance procedures)"
    The noble Lord said: We now come to Clause 34, which is generally known in the discussion of the Bill as the Polkey clause. However, the amendment is not essentially to do with Polkey; it concerns the first provision in new Section 98A, which Clause 34(1) would include within the provisions of the Employment Rights Act.
    New Section 98A would provide that an employee who is dismissed is to be regarded as unfairly dismissed if three conditions are satisfied. First, if one of the

    CWH 389
    procedures concerning dismissal and discipline applies; secondly, that that discipline procedure has not been completed; and, thirdly, the non-completion of the procedure,
    "is wholly or mainly attributable to failure by the employer to comply with its requirements".
    We understand that, and we do not need to be told what subsection (1) of new Section 98A means. What we ask in the amendment is why is it so limited? What is inserted is a discipline procedure under Part 1 of Schedule 2. Our amendment would include grievance procedures in Part 2 of that schedule.
    If I may put the Bill's proposal in this way, if the employer does not complete, because of his failure, the discipline procedure and dismisses, that is an unfair dismissal. However, we have already seen in a number of debates that the ACAS code is right in saying that, in the course of discipline—or, indeed, a number of other things—a grievance can arise and the employee may be pursuing a grievance procedure.
    The amendment raises the question: why should it equally not be an unfair dismissal if dismissal eventuates where the employer has failed properly to complete a grievance procedure? The Minister, I am sure, will not say that that could not happen. It may happen in a small number of cases but it could plainly happen that the employer fails to write or does not take whatever other step is required under the standard procedure or under the modified procedure.
    Its seems to us a matter of even-handedness that the employee should be equally protected in a case where a grievance procedure has not been completed, because he is quite properly protected in a case where a discipline procedure has not been completed by reason of the failure of the employer. I beg to move.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): New Section 98A(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which will be inserted by Clause 34, will make it automatically unfair to dismiss employees without following specified minimum procedures. Those specified minimum procedures are the disciplinary and dismissal procedures in Schedule 2, and the new protection provides both an extra incentive for employers to use them and compensation for employees if they do not. Where an employee raises a grievance and is later explicitly dismissed, nothing would be added by providing that failures by the employer in the course of the grievance procedure would render the dismissal unfair. It would be a superfluous protection since, in these circumstances, it is for the employer to follow the disciplinary and dismissal procedures; any failure to do so will be automatically unfair.
    However, the amendment may be intended to apply where an aggrieved employee resigns because of the employer's conduct and claims that this was a constructive dismissal—in other words, in cases where it is assumed that the disciplinary and dismissal procedures have not been followed because the employer did not consciously dismiss the employee.
    CWH 390
    Although I cannot support the amendment, I should like to take the opportunity to tell Members of the Committee how we expect to deal with constructive dismissals.
    We intend to provide in regulations under Clause 31 that employees who resign and complain that they have been constructively dismissed will generally have to follow one of the grievance procedures, either before or after resigning, if they want to take a case to a tribunal. In such cases the employer is liable to an enhanced penalty if he has not complied with his side of the grievance procedures, but I think it would be wrong for any such failure to render the dismissal automatically unfair. The link between the employer's action or inaction and the potential consequences would be too tenuous.
    However, where an employer takes disciplinary action against an employee, he will of course have to follow the disciplinary and dismissal procedures in doing so. If the employee considers that the disciplinary action was a fundamental breach of contract entitling him to resign and claim constructive dismissal, and the tribunal agrees, there may be a case for providing that any failure by the employer to follow the disciplinary and dismissal procedures when taking that action will render the constructive dismissal automatically unfair under new Section 98A(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. But this is a difficult area. It is arguable, for instance, that it should only be the case where the employer contemplated dismissal rather than some lighter punishment. This is the kind of issue which we shall need to consider before making regulations about the application of the procedures. I can assure Members of the Committee that we will consider it and we will of course consult on whatever we propose. However, I believe that it would be unwise to make specific provision at this stage. I therefore invite my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the Government's position. Of course, I understand that they do not want to put anything in the Bill—they never want to put anything in the Bill—but we have some glimmer now of how they might deal with some of the cases that could arise in respect of our amendments. He has been rather more forthcoming than my noble friend Lord McIntosh was in his discussion about constructive dismissal. If I understand him right, in at any rate most constructive dismissal cases, the employee must follow the grievance procedure—I think that that is what he said.
    We know that, in certain situations, which in law will be dismissal, the employee has got to follow the grievance procedure. Yet he will not be protected by the protection of automatically unfair dismissal if the employer fails to fulfil and complete the grievance procedure—at any rate, not on that ground alone.
    I thought the Minister was hinting that our case could not really arise because in order to dismiss properly, the employer must complete the discipline procedure. But, with great respect, that does not

    CWH 391
    finalise the argument. Under the grievance procedure in Step 7(3), an employer must inform the employee of his decision as to his response to the grievance. That is nowhere mentioned in the discipline procedure because the discipline procedure is drafted separately. So if the employer does not inform,
    "the employee of his decision as to his response to the grievance"
    he is in breach of the grievance procedure.
    Perhaps I may give one example; there could be others. If he is in breach of the grievance procedure, fulfils the discipline procedure but then dismisses, why on earth should the employee not be able to say, immediately and automatically, "That is an unfair dismissal" and why should the tribunal not agree with him?
    With the greatest respect, I believe that once again the Government's response is technically inadequate and in policy terms quite indefensible. Why should this apply only where the discipline procedure has been broken by the employer? Why should it not arise, as in the example I have given, where the grievance has not been completed by the employer?
    I ask that question again. I shall read Hansard with great interest. On what I have heard today, I do not think I shall find an answer, except that the Government will not do it. The Government must understand that there is a theme running through their refusal even to consider the amendments. I do not ask that our wording should be accepted, but they refuse even to consider these amendments as proper for the Bill because they are always amendments that improve the position of the employee. It is therefore not unreasonable to believe that they are under pressure from employers' organisations not to accept any amendment which improves the position of the worker.
    Ministers must understand the history of this matter. We objected to some of the proposals put forward in Routes to Resolution. We said that the research, which was unpublished, did not justify the conclusions the Government raised. We are then told that that has little significance from the point of view of policy making. The Secretary of State drives Clause 33 through the Joint Committee on Human Rights; through what, with great respect, last time we called a misleading prospectus. We then receive a refusal to accept any amendment that improves the position of the employee. The record will show that that is so.
    Therefore, why do the Government have to object so strongly to a tiny amendment that would, I accept, apply only to relatively few cases, but cases where the justice of the case would demand that the dismissal be automatically unfair? I place that on the record. The Minister may not wish to answer it now but I put to Ministers that they have a case to answer. I suggest that a pattern is emerging whereby every measure which would improve the position of the employee is rejected. It is not even taken away for further consideration. I hope that organisations which represent workers in this country will notice that and
    CWH 392
    draw their only conclusions about the representations that should be made to the Government before we reach the Report stage.
    Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Perhaps I may respond to the last point. My response clearly covered the technical position that the noble Lord raised. We have two criteria to this Bill. The first is whether it improves industrial relations in the workplace; and the second is the criteria of fairness. That is what we shall judge all the aspects of the Bill by and we are under considerable pressure from all parties in that. The first of the two criteria in which we are interested is improvement of the workplace relationships and the second is social justice. We shall stick to those two principles.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    5 p.m.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 180:
    Page 39, line 10, at end insert —
    "(1A) In cases of unfair dismissal falling within subsection (1), the tribunal shall, if the employee expresses such a wish under section 112(3), make an order under section 113."
    The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 180 refers to what is already in the Bill; namely, that where an employer has failed to complete the discipline procedure but dismisses, that is an automatically unfair dismissal.
    In unfair dismissal, in our law in the tribunals, the primary remedy is, theoretically, that the worker should get his job back. That is called "reinstatement" or "re-engagement on similar terms". I shall call it reinstatement. Other systems regard it as obvious that this should really apply. In practice in our system, something like 0.03 of the successful cases achieve reinstatement. Of course, there are some cases where the employee does not ask for reinstatement, and it would be absurd to provide the remedy there. However, that does not explain the astonishingly small number of orders for reinstatement or re-employment in our system.
    In Italy, reinstatement is the primary remedy and in enterprises of above 15 workers, where it applies at the moment in full, that is effective. Let me underline what we are talking about; a very large number of workers who are unfairly or arbitrarily dismissed. We are talking about workers who are just shoved out without justificatory motives, as the Italian system puts it— justified motives. It really works there and that is why Sylvio Berlusconi has put forward a programme to decimate the remedy under pressure from employers in Italy. There is more than an echo in the Bill of a stony Berlusconi approach. I am perhaps assuming too much. Perhaps I am assuming that the Minister will resist this amendment. We have to become accustomed to such things.
    I want to put to the Minister a case in which an employer has dismissed a worker without regard. Let us take a really bad case. The employer has ignored the

    CWH 393
    discipline procedure and he has not investigated the case. That happens and there are cases in the law reports. I can think of a case where the employer simply said, "Go and clear your desk in the office and get out. Be off the premises in five minutes". When the worker was not, he was escorted out.
    The worker may say, "I want to pursue the primary remedy of reinstatement". He may be misguided and if it were me I would not go near the place again. However, there may be all kinds of reasons—for example, continuity of employment and pension rights—why he wants an order of reinstatement. Surely, in such a case he should receive it. I beg to move.
    Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The amendment deals with the part of Clause 34 which will make it automatically unfair to dismiss an employee without following the new statutory procedures. The effect of the amendment would be to replace the discretion which tribunals have to order an employee's reinstatement or re-engagement, if that is what he wants, with an obligation to make such an order where the dismissal is found to be unfair because the minimum procedures have not been followed.
    I cannot agree that this should be the case. Whether reinstatement or re-engagement is desirable can depend on many variable factors that are unrelated to the reason for the dismissal being unfair. It would not therefore be wise to require these remedies to be ordered simply on the say-so of the employee where one particular reason for the dismissal being unfair applies.
    There is a very simple case here as to whether one replaces the discretion of the tribunals or not. We do not wish to do so, and I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am not sure whether that was the short answer or the long answer. In my submission and with great respect, it is a pretty inadequate answer. The Government do not think it is wise to give a worker this right and yet he is a worker who has been put out on the street without regard to the dismissal procedures and the disciplinary procedures on which the Government place so much reliance to improve industrial relations. I refer to people who do not improve industrial relations but dismiss workers arbitrarily. It would not be wise to give an automatic remedy of re-employment against them, because, of course, the remedy of reemployment or reinstatement may have legal consequences, quite apart from the reality of any reinstatement.
    The Government do not seem to want to bother about such cases. They tell us that is not wise and that the tribunal has a discretion. Of course, the tribunal has a discretion; that is why we moved the amendment. But in this case there should be no discretion in terms of application of the primary remedy and consequences which flow from it.
    CWH 394
    However, I see once again that any improvement in the worker's position is to be resisted. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 181:
    Page 39, line 12, leave out "in relation to" and insert "connected with".
    The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 181 is a drafting amendment which we hope the Government will accept. With Amendment No. 181 are grouped Amendments Nos. 185 and 187.
    Amendment No. 185 relates to Section 112 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 which deals with remedies, orders and compensation in the case of unfair dismissal. Where the employee is unfairly dismissed by reason of the failure of the employer to observe discipline procedures, the employment tribunal is told to make a special award of four weeks' pay to be paid by the employer to the employee.
    This raises a very central point. The Government's case is that their new structure improves industrial relations—in our view an admirable objective—by getting a settlement of cases rather than litigation (an objective which we have shared and said so) by a variety of provisions, especially those in Clauses 25 and 30, Schedule 2 and Clause 33, and now Clause 34.
    When we come to the particular point in Clause 34 of an extension of what is regarded as automatically unfair dismissal and the remedies for that, the purpose of the sanction—and no right is worth much without an adequate sanction—must be to deter the employer from ever doing such a terrible thing. It is our case that throughout the Bill—and I just make the general point—the sanctions which are inserted by the Government are wholly inadequate to be a deterrent against these acts which are regarded as disruptive of employment and industrial relations.
    Here, the additional award is to be four weeks' pay for an automatic unfair dismissal which breaks even the most minimal rules of civilised employment life. First of all, we ask whether the Government have done any research as regards who is deterred by one, two, three, four, 10 or 12 weeks' pay as an award? Have they done any work on the question? There has been work done in the past. It may be that that is some time ago and they have better research.
    Quite frankly we are a bit sick and tired of being told that it is a matter of judgment, or it would not be wise to do anything different from what the Bill does. Those are semantics of the lazy. The semantics of the lazy always advance their arguments as wise and tell you nothing else. What I want to know is whether the Government have done any social research on the effect of sanctions. Perhaps I have missed it; I would be delighted to know about it as it would extend my knowledge.
    If the Government do not have the results of inquiries on the reasonable period of an award, whether that is four weeks' or 10 weeks' pay, they must tell us what other reason they have for referring to the

    CWH 395
    period of four weeks. Our belief, looking at the work that has been done on unfair dismissal cases generally, is that for these very bad employers—we are talking about an employer who cannot even operate minimal civilised standards on the Government's own hypothesis—an award of four weeks' pay is not likely to have a deterrent effect.
    A good employer, of course, will not want to behave in this manner anyway, quite apart from the matter of an award of four weeks' pay. However, bad employers have to be deterred by something rather large. Our amendment seeks to replace the figure four with 12 because we could not think of a better figure. It could be 24, or it could be higher. There are systems in western Europe which impose penalties much larger than this for certain types of unfair dismissal. Indeed, there are some that go beyond the award of compensation but that is not our culture and custom.
    What led the Government to say "four weeks" here? In connection with that, what thinking about sanctions generally informs their proposals in the Bill? I beg to move.
    Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I speak to the group which comprises Amendments Nos. 181, 185, 187, 188 and 189. Most of these amendments deal with the part of Clause 34 which will make it automatically unfair to dismiss an employee without following the new statutory procedures. An important aspect of it is that an employee who is dismissed in these circumstances will generally receive four weeks' pay, whereas at present an employee whose dismissal is unfair on purely procedural grounds may receive no compensation at all. The mechanism for achieving this in most cases is that the tribunals must increase the employee's basic award to four weeks' pay if it would otherwise be less. Where the tribunal orders his reinstatement or his re-engagement in a comparable job, and there is therefore no financial compensation on which that lower limit of four weeks' pay can be set, the tribunal must make a separate award of four weeks' pay.
    One of these amendments, Amendment No. 185, would increase the award where a dismissal was found to be unfair because the minimum procedures had not been followed, and the employer was ordered to reinstate or re-engage the employee, from four weeks' pay to 12. I consider this excessive, especially since another amendment, Amendment No. 186, which we are debating separately appears, if I am right in thinking that it inadvertently refers to Section 112(6) of the 1996 Act instead of Section 112(5), to provide tribunals with the power to increase compensation from 12 weeks' pay to as much as they see fit. We believe that employers should generally incur a penalty for not following the new procedures; we believe that a "one size fits all" penalty is right, and we believe that four weeks' pay is a reasonable amount.
    I should point out, of course, that this is the minimum for dismissal simply because the procedures are not being followed. I believe that it is right and proper to adopt our figure rather than trying to seek a deterrent.
    CWH 396
    At the moment, a tribunal does not order both a financial award and reinstatement; it is one or the other. In future, because we are introducing a minimum four-week penalty for an automatically unfair dismissal under Clause 34, it will be possible for a reinstatement order to be accompanied by a four-week penalty. Amendment No. 187 relates to the circumstances where an employer then fails to comply with an order for reinstatement or re-engagement. In those circumstances, the 1996 Act provides for the tribunal to award the employee both compensation for his loss as a result of that failure and compensation for unfair dismissal in the normal way. In other words, the tribunal considers what level of financial penalty is appropriate in the light of all the circumstances.
    Under our proposals, the penalty could never he less than four weeks' pay if the dismissal was unfair on procedural grounds, although in practice it is almost certain to be more. The reason that it cannot be less than four weeks' pay is because we are providing a minimum award for dismissals in breach of the statutory procedure. But that is the same reason why the employee will already have received his four weeks' pay. Therefore, we propose that the four weeks' pay that he has already received should be deducted from the compensation that he now receives. The employee in this particular set of circumstances would otherwise benefit twice from the four-week minimum, whereas employees in the generality of unfair dismissal cases would not. That deduction therefore strikes me as entirely right but Amendment No. 187 would prevent it, and that, by the same token, must be wrong.
    In cases where reinstatement or re-engagement is not ordered—in other words, in the great majority of cases where financial compensation is awarded—the mechanism that we have chosen for awarding four weeks' pay where the dismissal was in breach of statutory procedures is that the tribunals must increase the employee's basic award to four weeks' pay if it would otherwise be less, as I mentioned at the beginning. Amendment No. 188 would change that to at least four weeks' pay, while Amendment No. 189 would remove the discretion given to the tribunals not to make an award if it would result in injustice to the employer.
    To give the tribunals discretion to vary the size of the award would risk complicating their proceedings while they attempted to delve into the extent or nature of the employer's failure or the motives which lay beneath it, which might be far from easy to discern. As to removing the tribunals' ability not to make an award if it resulted in an injustice to the employer, I do not believe that it would be right to fetter their discretion in that way.
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): A Division has been called on the Floor of the House. The Committee stands adjourned.
    [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 5.18 to 5.30 p.m.]
    Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I assume that Members of the Committee were following me every step of the

    CWH 397
    way in my earlier argument, so I shall go back to the beginning of the paragraph that I was in the middle of, rather than right to the beginning of the whole speech.
    In cases where reinstatement or re-engagement is not ordered—in other words, in that great majority of cases where financial compensation is awarded—the mechanism we have chosen for awarding four weeks' pay where the dismissal was in breach of statutory procedures is that the tribunals must increase the employee's basic award to four weeks' pay if it would otherwise be less, as I began by mentioning.
    Amendment No. 188 would change that to at least four weeks' pay, while Amendment No. 189 would remove the discretion given to the tribunals not to make an award if it would result in injustice to the employer. To give the tribunals discretion to vary the size of the award would risk complicating their proceedings while they attempted to delve into the extent or nature of the employer's failure or the motives which lay beneath it, which might be far from easy to discern.
    As to removing the tribunals' ability not to make an award if it would result in injustice to the employer, I do not think it would be right to fetter their discretion in this way. However, we expect an award to be made in the vast majority of cases. This provision is certainly not a get-out for employers who plead ignorance or poverty, if that is what Members of the Committee fear. "Injustice" is a tough test, and we do not expect it to be met in many cases.
    Finally, Amendment No. 181 addresses the second part of Clause 34. The clause currently refers to,
    "a procedure in relation to the dismissal of an employee",
    and the amendment would substitute "connected with" for "in relation to". It is not quite clear to me what difference the wording is meant to make. The essential feature of this provision is that, if a procedure is in principle potentially relevant to the reasonableness of a dismissal, but a failure to follow that procedure in fact makes no difference to the decision, that failure will not by itself make the decision unreasonable.
    The procedures that are relevant in this context seem to be procedures "in relation to" the dismissal, and that is what the Bill says. It may be that Members of the Committee feel that the phrase "connected with" would somehow narrow down those procedures to which a "no difference" argument could be applied but, even if that were true, I do not think it would be helpful.
    What is important, for the clarity of all concerned, is that the "no difference" argument should clearly be available in respect of all those procedures that go beyond the statutory minima, which may be relevant to the outcome. I believe that that is what the Bill does and, therefore, no amendment is needed. I ask the noble Lords to withdraw the amendment.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful to my noble friend for his explanation of—or, at any rate, his attention to—the amendments. Dealing with his last
    CWH 398
    point first, there is some reason to believe that a procedure "connected with" the dismissal of an employee would be a little wider than a procedure "in relation to" the dismissal of an employee, and that is why we moved the amendment; "in relation to" is somewhat circumscribed, but I leave it there.
    So far as concerns the other amendments, the proposed deletion of what I might call the deduction subsections— that is, new subsections (4) and (5) in the new Section 98A of the Employment Rights Act, which are printed on page 39 of the Bill—about the way in which deductions should be made from a compensatory award, might well, we think, operate unfairly as against the employee. Compensatory award is for his actual loss and these amounts are to be deducted from his actual loss compensation. We do not believe that that is fair; that is why we proposed their removal.
    So far as the other matters are concerned, once again we felt that the sanctions that were proposed are inadequate to provide any deterrent effect against an employer taking part in dismissals which, on any showing, cannot possibly be justified and would, in fact, automatically be unfair under the Bill. Our sitting was suspended, so I hope that my noble friends will forgive me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that the Minister advanced any real justification for particular sanctions, such as four weeks and the like. Our proposal is that this should lie, as it were, on the table, to be addressed perhaps on some other occasion. In that regard, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Lea of Crondallmoved Amendment No. 182:
    Page 39, line 14, leave out from "that" to end of line 15 and insert "the fairness of the dismissal was not affected by his failure to follow the procedure"
    The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns the Bill's provisions to overturn the House of Lords' judgment in the Polkey case. This case was originally judged in a lower court in 1979 and reversed in the House of Lords in 1988. The judgment stated that procedural failings could render a dismissal unfair but that if following them would have made no difference, compensation should be reduced or eliminated. My noble friends will say more about the details of the judgment; let me simply say that it was a very reasoned—and indeed reasonable—judgment. There is no independent evidence to show that it has been operated since then in a capricious or unreasonable way.
    The Government appear to argue that, nevertheless, that places too much weight on minor procedural breaches, creating havoc with the real intentions of the law. That in turn is hotly disputed in relation to the debate which has been going backwards and forwards about Routes to Resolution and so on. Some of us had the impression that some of the arguments are just being straightforwardly taken from employer representations.

    CWH 399
    In committee in the other place on 18th December, Mr Alan Johnson agreed to an amendment tabled by Mr Rob Marris, with the result that new Section 98A(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which is about unfair dismissal, appears as it now does in lines 11 to 15 on page 39 of the Bill. The burden of that provision, I think, is that failure to follow a procedure would not by itself make action by the employer unreasonable. However, Mr Marris would be the first to say that that does not go very far in addressing the problem. The fact is that procedural niceties are at the heart of the Bill.
    Moreover, this matter involves not only the question of the scope and interpretation of the statutory default procedure in Part 2 but also the scope and interpretation of enhanced voluntary procedures, including the vital question of the ACAS code and the danger of the statutory procedure now being a safer bet for the employer than the ACAS code.
    In using such language—"a safer bet for the employer" —some Members of the Committee may ask whether that is just a product of a rather fevered imagination. Let me quote Alan Johnson. In the other place, he argued:
    "If we did not reverse the no-difference test, employers would rightly wonder why they should move to a more sophisticated code if they could be found to be wrong".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee F, 18/12/01; col. 228.]
    I have to say that I have now read that sentence several times and the more I read it, the more I seem to find myself taking part in the Mad Hatter's tea party. I will read it again:
    "If we did not reverse the no-difference test, employers would rightly wonder why they should move to a more sophisticated code if they could be found to be wrong on a minor error of procedure, irrespective of the fundamentals of the case".
    It has unfortunately become a general perception that the Government are showing some lack of confidence in the tribunals at a time when we know that they would like the number of cases to be reduced. On that aspect, let me repeat that we would like the number of cases to be reduced as well, but on the basis that domestic procedures are at least up to the basic ACAS standards, with a degree of joint ownership and commitment for which the Government, so far, are not making provision.
    We cannot reiterate too often that the best way to reduce the gap between the default procedure and the ACAS procedure is to introduce the major benchmarks of the ACAS code into the default procedure. It is a dangerous path down which we would be treading if we were to juxtapose, as did Alan Johnson—and perhaps he would not wish to repeat what he said word for word but he juxtaposed in a slightly unfortunate way—the statutory code and the ACAS code. Indeed, it is that gap which I and many of us find the most worrying feature of the Bill as a whole.
    Perhaps we should take some comfort from the thought that this will be easier when we have a sight of the promised, or hinted at, amendment to the statutory procedure on the examination of the facts of the case and so forth. Be that as it may, Amendment No. 182 cuts through some of the ambiguity and clearly states
    CWH 400
    that the employer would have to show that the fairness of the dismissal was not affected by his failure to follow the procedure. That, as we understand it, is precisely what the Government are aiming at, and we cannot see why we cannot say so on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
    5.45 p.m.
    Lord McCarthy: I intervene early in what will undoubtedly be a prolonged debate because I want to widen the considerations that should govern the Government's approach towards procedure and the whole issue of deciding discipline and grievance applications. More detailed arguments will subsequently be put forward by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn in relation Amendments Nos. 183 and 184.
    The point I am trying to make is that the Government are misunderstanding the function and role of procedures in doing the two things which the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said were the central criteria that he wanted; namely, fairness and improvement in industrial relations. Fairness and improvement in industrial relations are closely bound up with the provision of adequate procedures.
    The trouble is that the whole debate about the amendment of Polkey has become highly politicised and highly divisive. It would be impossible for anybody who had not studied this subject in considerable detail to understand the position taken, for example, by the CBI.
    The CBI sees this once again as a crucial change. It states in its evidence to us that it is essential that: we should clear away the procedural considerations. It states that all procedural failings, no matter how minor, could lead to a finding of unfair dismissal. That is not true, but that is what the CBI believes.
    The CBI states that this change will enable firms to introduce internal procedures beyond the statutory procedure without leaving themselves open to a finding of unfair dismissal based on a minor technical error. Again, I suggest that that is not true. It even states that it is not in the interests of the worker that there should be a procedural element. They will disadvantage employees who are able to bring successful cases under the current law, but under the current rules successful claimants typically receive little benefit. They are awarded minimum compensation since they have suffered no loss and are often confused about whether they have won or lost. That is a very extreme view to take of the significance and importance of the procedural element, saying that it is absolutely essential to get rid of the procedural element in this context.
    One cannot square what the CBI says with what Judge Prophet said—the man who is supposed to know what goes on in tribunals. In his evidence to the Minister in another place, he said that the Government are putting in a potentially disastrous clause, and he goes on and on about the consequences of that.
    It seems to me that what is being lost in all this is the function of procedure in deciding between workers on the basis of fairness, and on the basis of a desire to

    CWH 401
    improve industrial relations. They are the two important elements which the Minister earlier told us he was concerned about and what he wanted to see.
    It seems to me that the opposite is the case. This element of employment protection law has no downside. There is no disadvantage in encouraging an employer to go through a procedure, even if he were to come to exactly the same result if he had not gone through a procedure. Going through a procedure is an educated element; it is an educated process. There is no downside.
    It is right and proper that an employer should be encouraged to see whether he is being fair, and to let the worker see that he is being fair. It is right and proper that an employer should give dismissal on the grounds provided by the legislation. There is nothing wrong with sacking people on grounds of conduct and capacity rather than anything else, and there is nothing wrong in asking people to use the procedure in order to demonstrate to the worker that they are being fair.
    I would have thought that the amendment would particularly lend itself to the Government at this time. They would want to accept it especially because of what they want to do; they want to discourage people going to tribunals. I want to discourage people going to tribunals, if I can provide them with a satisfactory alternative.
    We disagree about the elements of the satisfactory alternative; we want to see other measures put into the statutory procedure. However, there is one thing that will make some workers—I do not say large numbers—see the point of staying within their domestic procedure; it is because in some way they have a fair investigation of the kind they believe they might receive if they go to a tribunal.
    Let us suppose that the employer says to the workers, "We are going to have a hearing. You are going to have somebody who represents you, and we are only going to dismiss you if we have clear legal grounds. We do not dismiss anybody in this organisation illegally because we want to obey the law— in fact we want to go further than the law". If the employer takes that approach to the organisation, if he takes that approach in his industrial relations, if he is manifestly fair and if he makes a point of being fair, that will encourage workers not to go to tribunals. Inside their organisation they will be getting the full rigour of an adequate procedure.
    I do not care whether it turns out to be that the employer might find that it was an unfair dismissal even in some significant aspect or if, on other grounds, there would not have been an unfair dismissal. This is not important. What is important is that employers should be seen to be fair. They should be seen to practise what is a small shadow, sign or example of the kind of practice one receives in tribunals. In such circumstances ACAS can say, "Well, you seemed to have the elements of a fair procedure when you reached this point. The employer was there and you had an opportunity of making your case. Do you think you will get anything different if you go to a tribunal?
    CWH 402
    You have had a fair crack of the whip". That is what people want—a fair crack of the whip. They do not want to be told, "Because you could have been sacked anyway, we are not bothering with the procedure". That is not good industrial relations, it is not equity and it is not fair. On the basis of their own beliefs and their own statements to us this afternoon, it is not what the Government should want.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall and I speak also to the two amendments standing in my name and in the names of my noble friends Lady Turner and Lord McCarthy. All three amendments aim to do not quite the same but very similar things. They aim to put in Clause 34(2) an explicit statement that whatever else the subsection provides the dismissal must remain fair if it is to pass muster.
    This is a complex area of the law and I would hope that for the first time it receives full treatment from the Committee and from Ministers. When the Government published their response to consultation in 2001, on page 23 they stated the following about unfair dismissal legislation:
    "The consultation document also proposed that, provided the minimum procedural standards set out above are met, tribunals should disregard a procedural mistake by an employer making a dismissal, if this made no difference to the outcome. Responses were mixed on the merits of this proposal. Employers and their representatives, including the CBI, strongly supported it. They considered the emphasis should be on the merits of the case … Others including the TUC opposed the proposal, which they thought sent wrong messages about the correct use of procedures".
    There were the opinions set out, and the Government have taken the side of the CBI proposals—except that they cited one other authority. They quoted the evidence sent to them by the Northumberland County Council. I have not been able to trace the litigation in which the Northumberland County Council has been involved and I did not know that it was a leading authority on this area of the law and of practice. However, the Government chose to quote its evidence as follows:
    "It would seem good sense to allow tribunals to disregard procedural mistakes if there would be no difference to the outcome of the case".
    The Government were misled into using the same phrase,
    "if there would be no difference to the outcome of the case".
    But even that, if it were justifiable, which, in my submission, it is not, is not what is provided in Clause 34(2), which introduces the new Section 98A. Subsection (2) states that:
    "Subject to subsection (1)—
    that is, subject to the rule that an employer who does not observe minimal procedures and dismisses is guilty of an unfair dismissal—
    "failure by an employer to follow a procedure in relation to the dismissal of an employee shall not be regarded for the purposes of section 98(4)(a) as by itself making the employer's action unreasonable if he shows that he would have decided to dismiss the employee if he had followed the procedure".

    CWH 403
    My noble friend may wish me to read more of the response and I am willing to do so, if he wants me to?
    Lord Sainsbury of Turville: No, I was waiting to hear the quotation.
    6 p.m.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am sorry, I misunderstood what was going on. What the section deals with is not an outcome but a decision by the employer. Discussion of abstracts where what is dealt with is concrete are always somewhat Hegelian and often rather misleading. The new section states that, where the decision of the employer would not have been different, albeit that he has not followed a procedure which he supposedly should have followed, that by itself will not make his action unreasonable. If it is not unreasonable under Section 98, it will not be an unfair dismissal.
    As my noble friend Lord Lea pointed out, there has been considerable confusion about what the effect of this clause, now as redrafted in Committee and in another place, would be. My honourable friend the Minister, Mr Johnson, said at on 18th December (col. 210 of Commons Hansard) that where the statutory minimum procedures are concerned the Government are strengthening the position and the principle in Polkey. He went on to say that he would give examples. In my submission, looking carefully at the record, he never did.
    He said more than once that the aim was to strengthen Polkey but later at col. 228, which my noble friend Lord Lea read and which was a very puzzling pronouncement, at least one thing is clear. The Minister used the words "if we did not reverse the no difference test". Also at col. 228 he makes clear the fact that the change to Polkey referred to disciplinary procedures above the minimum. So he is strengthening Polkey but he is changing it. We do not understand what he really had in mind at all.
    One of the reasons for that was that he was fed with the argument that although page 39 of the Bill changed the law—there would not be much point in enacting it if it did not—it did not change the basic principle that a dismissal must be reasonable and fair in order to be justified by the employer. It does not change that rule totally but, if the Government mean that the employer's decision to dismiss what the employer would have decided if he had followed the procedure that he omitted to follow—if they mean that that decision to dismiss must be on the supposed facts fair or reasonable—they can take their pick among the three amendments and accept one or the other, or say they accept them in spirit and will put forward their own words.
    One cannot read the transcript of the Committee stage in another place without realising that there is a terrible mess, How has this mess arisen and, more importantly, how has the lack of confidence among trades unions and commentators on a wide scale arisen as regards the effect of the Government's amendment to the law in Clause 34 under new Section 98A(2)?
    CWH 404
    In my submission, it has arisen from two factors. It has done so, first, by underrating the vital importance of procedure in employment relations, to which my noble friend Lord McCarthy has already spoken. I underline what he said. The second reason is that everyone discusses the case of Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd, reported in 1998 appeal cases, without ever bothering to see what the noble and learned Law Lords actually said in deciding that case. I intend to put on the record what they said in that case because it illuminates the manner in which this clause could well alter the law unless an amendment of the type that we have tabled is accepted.
    It is often thought that, by talking of a failure by an employer to follow a procedure in respect of or in relation to dismissal, new subsection (2) refers to an extra contractual procedure or something which is specifically laid out at the place of work. Of course, it could refer to such a case. But Polkey was not such a case. In Polkey, in a reorganisation van drivers' duties were changed such that four van drivers were replaced by three other workers. However, only one of the four drivers was considered suitable for transfer to new duties. Accordingly, the other three were made redundant.
    In Mr Polkey's case, the first that he knew about it was when he was called into the branch manager's office and told that he was being made redundant. This was a flagrant breach of the principle that one must consult the employee before redundancy and, indeed, warn him of the impending redundancy. That procedure was suggested in the industrial relations code of practice at the time and, as the industrial tribunal said, nothing excuses the failure of employers to consult. It was not a written procedure which they failed to operate; it was the basic procedure of warning and consultation.
    What did your Lordships' Judicial Committee decide? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the then Lord Chancellor, giving the leading judgment, said—I quote from the Industrial Relations Law Reports of 1987 at page 504; I do that because it is easier to bring a copy of the volume to your Lordships' Himalayan meeting rather than carry the full volume of the appeal cases:
    "the subject matter for the Tribunal's consideration is the employer's action in treating the reason as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee. It is that action and that action only that the Tribunal is required to characterise as reasonable or unreasonable. That leaves no scope for the Tribunal considering whether, if the employer had acted differently, he might have dismissed the employee. It is what the employer did that is to be judged, not what he might have done. On the other hand, in judging whether what the employer did was reasonable it is right to consider what a reasonable employer would have had in mind at the time he decided to dismiss as a consequence of not consulting or not warning [a worker]".
    Later, as part of that strand of the judgments, in criticising the judgment of one member of the Court of Appeal, he also said:
    "With much of what he says"—
    that is, the Lord Justice in the Court of Appeal—
    "I would respectfully agree but I cannot accept it all. For example, in referring to a case of dismissal for misconduct where the evidence of misconduct could be capable of explanation and no

    CWH 405
    explanation has been invited before dismissal, the examination of which the learned Lord Justice speaks is an examination of matters other than the [employee's] conduct which could not be known to the employers until after the decision to dismiss had been reached and therefore it was not available to the employer at the time he reached that decision. Perhaps the point is highlighted most plainly in the very last sentence which I have quoted. The consequences of the failure determine whether or not the employee suffered an injustice".
    He continues:
    "This is not to be confused with the question whether the employer acted reasonably".
    He says quite clearly that the two questions are separate.
    Those are the first two matters that are addressed in the speeches in the Polkey case. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, sets out the third, which is a similar strand of argument but which in fact is materially different. Perhaps I should say what we have covered already. What we have covered already shows that this whole matter is part of not allowing the employer to add extraneous and other reasons to those that were with him at the time. The question immediately arises whether, in upsetting the Polkey rule in new subsection (2), the effect of the Government's Bill would be to upset that rule. There are many who believe that it will.
    The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, added the third strand of argument. He said at page 508 of the same report,
    "the application of the so-called British Labour Pump principle",
    that is, the previous case law,
    "tends to distort the operation of the employment protection legislation in two important ways. First, … if the Industrial Tribunal, in considering whether the employer who has omitted to take the appropriate procedural steps acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating his reason as a sufficient reason for dismissal, poses for itself the hypothetical question whether the result would have been any different if the appropriate procedural steps had been taken, it can only answer that question on a balance of probabilities. Accordingly, applying the British Labour Pump principle,"
    that is, the previous case law,
    "if the answer is that it probably would have made no difference, the employee's unfair dismissal claim fails. But if the likely effect of taking the appropriate procedural steps is only considered, as it should be, at the stage of assessing compensation, the position is quite different".
    He said:
    "The second consideration is perhaps of particular importance in redundancy cases. An Industrial Tribunal may conclude, as in the instant case, that the appropriate procedural steps would not have avoided the employee's dismissal as redundant. But if, as your Lordships now hold, that conclusion does not defeat his claim of unfair dismissal, the Industrial Tribunal, apart from any question of compensation, will also have to consider whether to make any order under s.69 of the Act of 1978".
    He went on to explain—I quote again—that it could,
    "if it thinks fit, make an order for re-engagement under that section and in so doing exercise a very wide discretion as to the terms of the order. In a case where an Industrial Tribunal held that dismissal on the ground of redundancy would have been inevitable at the time when it took place, even if the appropriate procedural steps had been taken, I do not, as at present advised, think this
    CWH 406
    would necessarily preclude a discretionary order for re-engagement on suitable terms, if the altered circumstances considered by the Tribunal … were thought to justify it".
    From those passages I draw these points. First, the matter is of particular importance where appropriate procedural steps should have been taken and were not, and one cannot allow the failure to do so to justify the dismissal. That goes to the very root of the entire structure of the employment protection legislation, which the Government on their own ascertain are leaving unchanged in other parts of the employment protection legislation in the Employment Rights Act 1996. It leaves that legislation unchanged, they say, and claim that it will operate without any difference. Yet it changes the very rule which, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, is fundamental to its operation, and then says it will make no difference. The matter is a logical absurdity. It is changing what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, said was the basis of his decision and thinking about what is now the Employment Rights Act, and then says that it will make no difference to the Employment Rights Act. That is Polkey. It is only in later cases that we have had it confirmed—most of the discussion is assumed—that it does apply. Its rationale, its reasoning and the three strands of its reasoning apply to other cases of unfair dismissal.
    The latest case, I think, is that of Whitbread v Hall, in 2001, IRLR page 275. Mr Hall was a manager of a hotel. While he was away on holiday, irregularities took place in the stock control operations. On his return, the area manager suspended him, pending further investigation, but a disciplinary hearing was immediately held, chaired by the area manager herself. In the face of this, Mr Hall admitted the offences. The area manager decided to dismiss him for—the report says—"gross misconduct". He appealed against that decision, which was heard by the operations manager, but was still dismissed after it.
    The tribunal was particularly concerned about the role of the managers, especially the area manager who had acted as prosecutor and judge. It was quite clear that, since he had admitted the misconduct, the employer would have dismissed anyway—in the words of the clause, "would have decided to dismiss". But, under the Polkey rule, the Court of Appeal had absolutely no difficulty in a short judgment in saying that the employer could not use that argument—that he would have dismissed anyway—to cure the fact that he had not even operated the elements of natural justice in the procedures that he should have operated.
    Lady Justice Hale says that this view is supported by—and I quote from page 278:
    "authority at the highest level, albeit in the context of unfair dismissal for redundancy rather that misconduct".

    CWH 407
    She then cites Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd in the House of Lords. She continues:
    "These expressions of principle undoubtedly apply to dismissals for misconduct as much as they apply to dismissals for redundancy. They are binding upon us. They clearly indicate a procedural as well as a substantive element in the band of reasonable responses open to employers faced with such misconduct".
    She cites another case to the same effect. She says it is difficult to say,
    "that the offences were so heinous as to admit of only one answer. Dismissal had been decided by the employee's immediate superior who had a bad relationship with him and had gone into the process with her mind made up".
    The clause would include the case of an employer who went into the process with his mind made up. That is why there is this lack of confidence in the Government's curious argument that the arrangement will not affect tribunal decisions in respect of reasonableness and fairness.
    If the Government have some answer why the facts in Whitbread v Hall would not be affected by this clause, they had better give it. The reason they had better give it is that, in Committee in another place, the Minister, my honourable friend Mr Alan Johnson, said on more than one occasion, in reply to the decisions of tribunals with which he was pressed in that case, that the Government had looked at all the cases since Polkey, and they thought that the great majority would not be changed by Clause 34.
    I want to know which were the minority cases that would be changed by Clause 34. I say that Whitbread v. Hall might well—indeed probably would—be one of them. I want to know what survey the Government did of all these cases which Mr Johnson said on numerous occasions they had considered and the majority of which would not be changed by Clause 34. It is the opinion of eminent authority who have looked at the Bill that many such previous cases might well be changed by Clause 34 which inserts the new Section 98A(2). It would very likely include an employer who,
    "would have decided to dismiss the employee if he had followed the procedure".
    Such an employer would he one whose mind was made up, who was adamant that this employee must go, who had said, "Get out and clear your desk", and who would not have changed his mind if he had operated either the ACAS code procedures or any other procedure that he should have consulted. It is quite absurd to say that it is impossible for a tribunal to see this clause as something which would affect that argument. Tribunals have great experience and the employment appeal tribunal in particular is likely to look very carefully at this clause.
    Therefore, if we look at it carefully, the question for the Government is: why not say what you mean? The Government say they mean that this clause should be enacted but that it has to it a hidden extra; namely, that it will only operate to exculpate the employer where the dismissal is reasonable or fair in every respect. We say in these amendments that the decision should have been fair and reasonable and for a sufficient reason, or, if you like, in the amendment of the noble Lord,
    CWH 408
    Lord Lea, that the decision and the dismissal are in all respects fair. Alternatively, in our other amendment in the group we propose a formula on fairness.
    I cannot understand why the Government should insist on not saying what they mean. That is what it comes to but they have to address, not simply by a few words here or there, what they are doing in changing the law as expressed in the Polkey judgment of your Lordships' Judicial Committee. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, made clear and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, with respect, agreed, that was an assessment of the basis of the entire employment protection legislation in regard to dismissal—not allowing the employer to rest upon some reason other than those known to him at the time and not allowing the employer to escape from procedures which he should have followed by saying that it would have made no difference to his decision to dismiss, including the case where his mind was so closed that nothing could affect his decision to dismiss.
    The Government must not legislate things that appear to be absurd or uncertain or, indeed in this case, what may well turn out to be again unfair to workers who are unfairly dismissed. Please will the Government say what they mean? Please can they accept at least the spirit of one of this congeries of amendments?
    6.15 p.m.
    Lord Gladwin of Clee: Understandably, my noble friend Lord Wedderburn is concerned with details of the law and the effect of cases heard not only in the employment appeal tribunal but also in the Court of Appeal and in your Lordships' Judicial Committee. My concern is with the industrial relations impact of this. The clause refers to the failure by an employer to follow a procedure. That is not the statutory procedure but a procedure which, in my experience, is often fairly comprehensive and sophisticated.
    New Section 98A(2) states that,
    "failure by an employer to follow a procedure in relation to the dismissal of an employee shall not be regarded … as by itself making the employer's action unreasonable if he shows that he would have decided to dismiss the employee [even]"—
    and I have inserted the word "even"—
    "if he had followed the procedure".
    It just so happens that I have been in contact with a number of human resource directors. I hate the title; I used to call them personnel directors and that means something to me. It is offensive to use the term "human resources" in that connection. They are concerned—I refer to the Industrial Society's brief—about the impact that this measure will have on companies. Most of the major companies represented by the CBI have these procedures. They are not caught by the statutory procedure. We know who is caught by the statutory procedure—the 600,000 workplaces that have nothing at all.

    CWH 409
    Where an employer has fairly sophisticated procedures, human resource managers have told us that it will be even more difficult to persuade managers to follow a procedure if they think they can get away with it by arguing that the employee would have been dismissed anyway.
    I cannot interpret subsection (2) to mean anything else. If the employer shows—to whom, to an employment tribunal?—that his decision to dismiss the employee would have been taken anyway, even if he had followed the procedure, my fear, which I know will be denied, is that the impact of the statutory procedure will encourage the sophisticated ACAS-type procedures to wither on the vine. Why should an employer, under pressure from his own line managers, maintain sophisticated procedures if he can get away with sacking people who, it may be considered, were going to be sacked anyway? I cannot interpret the clause to mean anything else. My concern is the impact of the measure on industrial relations.
    Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The amendments before us propose alternative wording for the "no difference" element of Clause 34. It may be useful if we first remind ourselves of what Clause 34 does.
    I am not seeking to hide the fact that this clause changes existing unfair dismissal law although I do not believe that the changes are quite as fundamental as some have suggested. I make no apologies for that. We are making changes to statute which we believe are right and necessary.
    I believe that these changes contain two key elements of our package of measures which, taken together, will promote better procedures and core minimum standards in handling workplace disputes.
    In the first place, as we have discussed, Clause 34 underpins the importance of the statutory minimum procedures by making it automatically unfair for employers to dismiss employees without following the procedures, thus reinforcing their central and escapable importance to all dispute resolution.
    Secondly, of course, the clause provides for a partial return to what is known as the "no difference" test in unfair dismissal cases. I recognise that this in part reverses the Polkey judgment, and that it interacts in complex ways with various other judgments over the years which the noble Lord has mentioned. However, I want to focus on the substance of the new law which we are introducing. Is it fair? Will it contribute to better workplace relations? I believe that the answer to both those questions is yes.
    As to the first question, the fundamental fairness, if, first, the employer can demonstrate a fair and substantial reason for the dismissal; if, secondly, he has followed all the relevant statutory procedures; if, thirdly, he has acted reasonably in all other respects; and if his only error is a procedural one which the tribunal is satisfied has made no difference to the outcome, then I believe it is right that the dismissal should be considered a fair one. That is what this clause provides for. I do not believe that it is a
    CWH 410
    fundamental change to the principles of existing unfair dismissal law. It does not alter the basic tenets that there must be a fair reason for the dismissal and that the employer must act reasonably. But I believe that, taken for what it is, it is a sensible change and I make no apologies for it.
    Will this change enhance dispute resolution in the workplace? I believe that it will. Many employees have expressed real concerns that tribunals currently place too much weight on minor procedural breaches. As a result—I make this point to my noble friend Lord Lea—many employers believe that introducing detailed in-house procedures is a losing game. Because they can never plead "no difference", they fear being caught out by a tribunal if they are found to have made the slightest error in following their own procedures.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am most grateful to my noble friend. I appreciate that that is what employers complain about, but can my noble friend cite a case where he believes that that is so? Will he tell us which of the cases decided in the reports would have fallen within that compass? And will he tell us the effect of the clause upon the law which will apply? The law here is trying to improve industrial relations. Is he confident that the effect on the legal principle will do what he says it will do? Which cases is he thinking of?
    Lord Sainsbury of Turville: It is important to focus on practical realities here. Perhaps I may quote the well-known British Airways case. An employer who dismissed a number of employees for racially harassing their colleagues lost his case solely because of procedural error, even though the tribunal acknowledged that it would make no difference to the outcome and awarded no compensation to the employees.
    Perhaps I may give the full facts of the case. Following investigation of an allegation, there was a full initial disciplinary hearing during which the employees were given the opportunity to comment on records of interviews with those who had complained about them. The manager charged with hearing the appeal held interviews with the dismissed employees but also decided to speak personally to those who had complained of harassment in order to gain a feel for their credibility. Because the dismissed employees did not see transcripts of the second interviews with the complainants, the tribunal found that the dismissals were unfair on procedural grounds. Under the new proposals, the tribunal would have discounted the procedural error since it made no difference to the dismissals, which were fair in every other way.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: In order to ensure that I have understood my noble friend the Minister, would that now be a fair dismissal?
    Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Yes. As I said, the tribunal would have the ability to discount the procedural error since one could form the view that it made no judgment to the dismissals, which were fair in every other way. That is what we are talking about when we discuss these particular cases. If my noble

    CWH 411
    friend considers that it would be fair to say that those people were unfairly dismissed in that particular case, of course he has the right to do so. However, I believe, and it is the Government's view, that it would not be a case of unfair dismissal because, if the tribunal had formed a view, it would have made no difference that that procedural error was not followed.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I intervene in order to ensure that we understand what my noble friend is saying. In a case where employees have not been provided with transcripts of what they are alleged to have done wrong, that would now be a fair dismissal. The Government are happy that the clause would change the law in respect of the Polkey principle in that regard and in similar cases where employees have not been told what they are doing wrong and not given the details. The Polkey principle would be changed and they would all be fair dismissals. My noble friend is quite happy about that.
    Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I believe that my noble friend should read what I have said in Hansard tomorrow. I was referring specifically to a procedural error. The error was that the transcripts of the interviews had not been given to the people in those circumstances. On that basis, which is regarded as a procedural error, the view is that the tribunal could find in those cases that it was not an unfair dismissal.
    6.30 p.m.
    Lord McCarthy: My noble friend reads one case. On the basis of what he says, I agree with my noble friend Lord Wedderburn, or I think I agree with what I think he thinks. It does not seem to me that that is proof of the need for a change. We do not know how significant, how important, that was, and we do not know what might have happened. No one knows; one makes guesses. An employer comes in and says, "I would not take any notice of it", but there you are, we do not know.
    In any event, it is one isolated case. I want to know whether the Government have done any research or whether they intend to do any research in order to find out how frequent that has been. What are the cases where the existing law has resulted in people being declared unfairly dismissed exclusively on some failure of procedure? How often does that happen, what are the circumstances and what are the cases?
    Other people say other things and I have read Judge Prophet many times in this Committee, and I do not apologise for doing so, because the man is the president of the tribunals service in England and Wales. He has an exemplary record of dealing with these problems. After saying this is a potentially disastrous clause, he says:
    "It sends out the wrong message in that it suggests that disregarding internal procedures understood by employees, unions and employers is not important".
    CWH 412
    I have made that point and he makes it too. This is the point I am trying to make to the Minister. This is what Judge Prophet says generally happens,
    "tribunals every day accept that minor procedural lapses"—
    and the Minister's position is that that was a minor procedural lapse,
    "by employers do not necessarily cause a dismissal to be unfair. However, if the lapse is more serious"—
    the Minister says his lapse was not serious—
    "for example, in not showing the employee a proper hearing, it is sensible for the finding to be one of an unfair dismissal with the justice of the particular case … deciding the appropriate compensation".
    Is it the case that most cases where the Polkey rule comes in are of the kind that Judge Prophet describes, or is the case that most of them are of the kind that the Minister says is exemplified? This is a matter for research. I ask, almost certain of the answer I shall receive, whether any research has been done into which is the typical case.
    Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I think there is a rather more fundamental issue. The issue here is whether those cases are fair or not. We cannot have a situation where we say, "This is the situation. It does not happen very frequently, therefore we should pay no attention to it even though it is unfair". I find that an extraordinary argument.
    The noble Lord said quite specifically that if this case is unfair, we should take action to tackle that. The fact that there may be a few or many cases like that is irrelevant to the issue that it should be tackled. I find it extraordinary that the noble Lord should argue that simply because it happens infrequently it should not be tackled.
    However, when we turned to this issue, I was asking what impact that has on human resource managers or, as I also like to call them, personnel managers.
    Lord McCarthy: The Minister misrepresents me and I must protest. I did not say that at all. Judge Prophet says that there are insignificant cases and there are significant cases. He says,
    "In the insignificant cases we do not declare unfair dismissal".
    However, he goes on to say,
    "In the significant cases, we do declare unfair dismissal".
    I do not believe the Minister wants to say that even in the significant case, where it made a real difference, Judge Prophet is wrong and that both significant and insignificant cases should go down the river. I think what he is trying to say is that most cases are insignificant. The overwhelming majority of cases are insignificant. There are very few significant cases which we would call an abuse. I say that that can he settled only by research.
    Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The noble Lord is not focusing on the fact that there is the no-difference test here. That is used to determine whether these procedural issues are of importance and that seems a very good way to do it. I return to the point that if one does not have that situation, one will have a situation where many personnel directors will feel that they will

    CWH 413
    not put in elaborate additional procedures. If on a small procedural matter they can fall foul of it, why should they put in the more elaborate procedures?
    The argument that managers will, therefore, not follow procedures—because they will take the view that they can always fall back on the no-difference principle—is not one that people would take. They would then have to argue that it would have made no difference and it is for the tribunal to make that decision. My own view is that on that balance, one is more likely to have a situation where personnel directors say they will have the minimal kind of procedures, rather than one in which personnel managers say that they will just not bother about the procedures because they will rely on the no-difference test. That situation is unlikely to arise.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I have tried to listen carefully to what the Minister is saying. I have two difficulties. First, as the Polkey case and hundreds of other cases show, this is not only about putting in extra procedures. It is about that and of course the effect of the clause will, arguably, cause people not to have elaborate procedures and just to rely on the minimum. But in the Polkey case, what was wrong was a failure to consult in line with what has become the ACAS code. The Minister's argument has to be addressed to that.
    Secondly, the Minister appears to be saying something different from his honourable friend Mr Johnson in the other place. I quote what Mr Johnson said:
    "In the great majority of such cases that we have looked at, the failure was in procedures that would have fallen within the new minimum standards and clause 34 will be in line with the Polkey judgment. Less frequently, the procedural breach relates to a procedure that would have gone beyond the new minimum procedures. It is only in such cases that we propose to allow employers to argue that following the procedure would have made no difference to their decision to dismiss".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee F, 18/12/01; col 211.]
    He seems to be saying that there are very few such situations. What the Minister said was that there were quite a number of such situations, as in the case that he cited, where the employer failed to follow basic principles of—some people would say—natural justice, or a right to be heard, or a right to see the evidence. In all those cases, my noble friend says he would be happy to see the dismissals fair. I am not sure whether that is what the Minister said in another place at col. 211. He indicated that most of the cases they have looked at would be in line with the Polkey judgment after Clause 34. Which is it?
    People want to know and they want to know because this is very uncertain. My case rests on the great uncertainty which will be injected into the law at this point because the Government are changing judgments which are fundamental in their attitude to the entire structure of the law. You cannot tinker about without taking a concluded view as to how far this change will go. The Minister seems to say it will go quite a way, but the Minister in another place did not seem to agree. What is this survey of the majority of
    CWH 414
    cases? Can the Minister tell us something about it? As my noble friend said, the Government say they have looked at it, but can the Minister tell us what they looked at and what they concluded?
    Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I was asked to give an example of the kind of situation we are talking about. I gave an example of that. I gave no view on their frequency and I am not differing in any way from what Alan Johnson said in the other place. He said that that was the judgment that had been formed from the ones that we have looked at.
    I turn to the amendments. I understand that in tabling the amendments the noble Lords sought to shore up reasonableness and fairness in unfair dismissal cases where the employer presents a "no difference" defence. Similar concerns about whether the measure ensures that a decision must be fair in all other respects and whether it means that employers who successfully argue "no difference" will be found to have acted reasonably on that ground alone were raised in the other place.
    I cannot stress too much what I have already said. Even when an employer is able to show that following a procedure beyond the statutory minimum would have made no difference to his decision to dismiss, for the tribunal to reach a finding for the employer the dismissal must be otherwise fair. The employer must still show that he dismissed the employee for one of the potentially fair reasons that are set out in the Employment Rights Act 1996—we are not changing that. And he must still act reasonably in all other respects in dismissing the employee, as Section 98(4) of the 1996 Act requires—we are not changing that either. The amendment we accepted to the clause in the other place has, I think, made this crystal clear. It spells out that a "no difference" line of defence where a procedure has not been followed does not by itself mean that the employer has acted reasonably.
    To the extent that the amendments seek to clarify this point, they are unnecessary. Moreover, they introduce undefined concepts of fairness and reasonableness which would risk the development of a different test of these concepts for new Section 98A from that which the tribunals otherwise apply in dismissal cases. I do not think that that would be desirable.
    Amendment No. 184 seems to go further, unless I mistake its purpose, by putting an obstacle in the way of ever successfully invoking a "no difference" defence. I take that to be the purpose of the words,
    ""having regard to procedures which he was obliged to, but did not, follow".
    Their flavour seems to be that failing to follow a procedure which one is obliged to follow is intrinsically unfair and unreasonable. That is not our view. We believe that failure to follow the absolute letter of procedures beyond the minimum, no matter to how small a degree, should not be unfair if following it would have made no difference to the employer's decision to dismiss.

    CWH 415
    Finally, the amendments all put the burden on the employer to demonstrate the fairness of the dismissal, or its reasonableness, or both, without defining those concepts. As Members of the Committee will be aware, once the employer has demonstrated that he has dismissed the employee for a potentially fair reason, it is neither for him to show that he acted reasonably nor for the employee to show that he did not. It is for the tribunal to make that judgment. That has been the position for more than 20 years and I see no reason to change it.
    I ask my noble friends to accept my assurance that the effect of this measure will not be as far-reaching as they may fear, and to withdraw the amendment.
    Lord Lea of Crondall: It is very clear that there remains the greatest anxiety about the consequence of this clause being left as it stands. It was put most vividly by my noble friend, Lord Gladwin. The issue of who is right and who is wrong about this interpretation—us or the Ministers—leads me to say that we do not want to come back in X years' time with various negative consequences for industrial relations and say, "We told you so". We want to take this debate forward. Between now and Report in particular we trust that Ministers will read very carefully what we have been saying; we will do the same.
    In support of my noble friends, Lord Wedderburn and Lord McCarthy, we seem to have the paradox that we are looking at a case which has been going backwards and forwards where no compensation was awarded and that was thought to be a terrible thing. Of course, in one respect it can be put the other way round—here was a case where the result was that there was no compensation. Even if that is not a very satisfactory position, it has to be set against the first point that has been made very strongly—commensurately strongly —with the problem we are confronting. Moreover, I have to say that on the question of human resources directors thinking that they might as well get out from under the sophisticated procedure, I do not think that characterisation of most human resource managers is accurate, for the reasons that my noble friend Lord Gladwin gave earlier.
    That is not what is being said by the people who are attempting to put in a quality benchmark—a kite mark—which is what we all want for the ACAS-type voluntary procedures; we also want improvement in the default procedures. We wish to ensure acceptable procedures but the main disincentive to the ACAS-type procedures involves whether there is a very much softer option in the default procedure. That is the area which I understand Ministers will take some time over Easter to look at. We understood from comments on the clauses concerning the examination of facts and so on in the default procedure—which of course has some procedural consequences—that there can be no doubt that there will be some procedural strengthening of the default procedure. This is what was said the other day. I trust that the indication from my noble friend Lord Sainsbury is that I am not totally wrong on that and that the matter is being considered.
    CWH 416
    There is time straddling Easter; clearly we shall return to this matter, on which we have now spent an hour, at Report. That we shall do so is a racing certainty—easier than betting on a horse in the Grand National. We will come back to this at Report.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment, as he plainly is about to, would it be possible for the Minister to confirm what my noble friend has just said—that these matters will be reconsidered to this fundamental degree?
    Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I can confirm that. I am sorry that I did not say that earlier, rather than just nodding my head.
    Lord Lea of Crondall: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 183 and 185 not moved.]
    6.45 p.m.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 186:
    Page 39, line 32, at end insert ", but in a case where it considers that an award limited to that provided for under section 112(6) results in injustice to the employee, it shall award such sum in addition to the award under that subsection as it considers just and equitable"
    The noble Lord said: I simply interpose that I did not move Amendment No. 184A, which deals with the case of misconduct, because we took the view that this had been dealt with in our earlier discussion. We are delighted that the Government are going to give fundamental reconsideration to this whole question. I understood that that is what the Minister indicated at the end of our debate on the previous amendment.
    Amendment No. 186 is a small amendment—
    Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I beg your pardon, but I do not think that the word "fundamental" passed my lips.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I apologise to my noble friend—the word "fundamental" did not pass his lips. Perhaps what he regards as serious reconsideration we shall try to see as fundamental, or vice versa. Anyway, some reconsideration is going to take place, and we look forward to it. In that reconsideration, we hope that Amendment No. 186 could also be considered, even if only as a footnote. We are rather keen on the footnotes to this discussion because every single word will matter. When this arises in litigation—it will do so as soon as this part of the Bill is put into force and comes into effect—it will be tested. We hope that it might include some evenhandedness; that is, albeit at present the Bill allows for adjustments in cases where there might be an injustice to the employer, as set out on page 39, line 32, we have a case where an employment tribunal, even in the case

    CWH 417
    of unfair dismissal, which is automatically unfair, is not required to make the mandatory award where it would,
    "result in injustice to the employer".
    First, I hope that the Minister will explain what that means. If he cannot explain it in terms of a general formula, perhaps he can give us an example of a case where an employer has dismissed in a manner which is automatically unfair and in breach of the fundamental procedures and where normally an award will automatically be made against him of at least four weeks' pay, if that is thought to be an adequate sanction. However, now the proviso runs:
    "An employment tribunal shall not be required to make an award under subsection (5) if it considers that such an award would result in injustice to the employer".
    What kind of injustice do the Government have in mind? What kind of case are they thinking of where the employer throws out the employee without consideration of any procedure, deprives him of his job and his wage and then says, "It would be unjust to make an award against me"? I wonder whether we could have an example of that.
    However, accepting that that is what the Government want—no doubt they have some real life cases in mind—we wish to add in Amendment No. 186,
    "but in a case where it considers that an award limited to that provided for under section 112(6)"—
    my noble friend kindly indicated in a previous debate that that should be Section 112(5), but we are very happy to accommodate his suggestion—
    "results in injustice to the employee, it shall award such sum in addition to the award under that subsection as it considers just and equitable".
    If there is provision for a case, which we cannot imagine, where it would be an injustice to award the amount against the employer, there may well be a case for saying that such sum should be awarded as just and equitable if the limit on that award would be an injustice to the employee. We have deployed "sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander" arguments in relation to previous clauses in the Bill. This is another example. I beg to move.
    Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The amendment also deals with the part of Clause 34 which will make it automatically unfair to dismiss an employee without following the new statutory procedures. As I explained when speaking earlier to Amendment No. 185, an employee who is dismissed in such circumstances will generally receive four weeks' pay. In most cases, that will be achieved by increasing his basic award to four weeks' pay if it would otherwise be less. Where the tribunal orders his reinstatement or re-engagement, it must make a separate award of four weeks' pay.
    The earlier amendment would have increased the award where the employer was ordered to reinstate or re-engage the employee from four weeks' pay to 12. As I explained, we consider that to be excessive, all the more so since the current amendment appears—it is obviously referring to Section 112(5), as my noble
    CWH 418
    friend said—to provide tribunals with the power to increase compensation from 12 weeks' pay to as much as they see fit. Not only do we believe that four weeks' pay is a reasonable amount; we believe that a "one size fits all" penalty is right. To give the tribunals discretion to vary the size of the award would risk complicating their proceedings while they attempted to delve into the extent of the nature of the employer's failure or motives which lay beneath it, which might be far from easy to discern.
    Baroness Turner of Camden: Before the noble Lord sits down, would he not agree that there is in new subsection (1B) on page 40 provision to make an award or not make an award—or not increase the amount of an award—where an increase would result in injustice to the employer. However, there is no parallel provision to provide similarly to an employee who otherwise might suffer an injustice and there does not seem to be any kind of equality about that.
    Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The purpose of this amendment is to say that if this does appear to lead to an injustice it should be removed. This is what, in the context of this particular clause, seems to me to be the right thing.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I understand what my noble friend the Minister says in reply to my noble friend Lady Turner. However, the Bill is concerned with the matter in two places. A special subsection is introduced to deal with "injustice to the employer". When we suggest that perhaps some even-handed introduction should be made to deal with injustice to the employee, it seems we are outside the scope of the Bill's imagination.
    This again illustrates the way in which this is a one-sided Bill. When the Government reconsider matters over Easter, I earnestly ask them to consider whether this is not a one-sided Bill. The minimum statutory procedures are unfair in a variety of respects which we have shown, and after indicating the same point on a large number of clauses, we now come to the fact that the Government are willing to make express provision—although it is still not at all clear to me exactly where it would apply—for cases of what they call "injustice to the employer".
    As soon as we suggest that the Bill should deal with cases which are very easy to imagine where an amount of four weeks' wages or any other award might create an injustice to the employee because he has been dismissed—not just dismissed, but dismissed in a way that breaks the very fundamental rules of civilized behaviour—no, the Government cannot possibly introduce a provision that might give the tribunal a discretion, which is what we are asking for, to deal with cases of injustice to the employee. The Minister really must understand that he is defending a Bill which is unfair, lop-sided and not even-handed.
    I am sorry the Minister will have to spend so much time on the Bill over Easter. I wish him well in the break to which we are all coming. However, in his labours over Easter could he possibly suspend disbelief

    CWH 419
    and imagine that it is possible that this Bill is one-sided? The refusal of this amendment is the final proof that someone, in of all things a Labour government, can introduce provisions for injustice to the employer. I cannot quite imagine what the cases are, but I do not make complaint fundamentally of that. What I complain of is that a Labour Government, however new or old, have put themselves into a Berlusconi mindset where they cannot even consider or take away for Easter, and in bed read before they go to sleep, some provision for injustice to the employee.
    I did not expect the Grand Committee to be such a shock. I have been a member of my party for some 56 years, and I have never heard anything of the kind ever suggested before. However, perhaps times are changing. It may be that those who reconsider over Easter regard my suggestions as quite outrageous; that the only thing that Parts 2 and 3 of the Bill are capable of dealing with are injustices to employers, as they are seen by the draftsmen, and not injustices to employees.
    It may look a small amendment, but it speaks volumes for what has gone into the construction of this Bill. All I can do at the moment, is beg to leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 187 to 189 not moved.]
    Clause 34 agreed to.
    [Amendment No. 190 not moved.]
    7 p.m.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 191:
    After Clause 34, insert the following new clause—
    "INTERIM RELIEF
    In section 128(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18), after "or in" there is inserted "section 146 or in"."
    The noble Lord said: It has been shown already that it is possible to discuss the remedy of interim relief within the confines, perhaps generously understood, of the new structure of unfair dismissal law and detriment law that is introduced by the Bill.
    Interim relief now applies to a large number of cases, including the right to be accompanied. It seems to us that it should include an interim relief against the suppression of trade union membership and trade union activities. That would be achieved, we submit, by introducing Section 146 of the consolidation Act 1992 into the Employment Rights Act, at the place which is suggested by the amendments. I beg to move.
    Lord Sainsbury of Turville: This amendment concerns interim relief, which is a remedy that employees may apply for if they consider that the reason, or principal reason, for their dismissal was on certain inadmissible grounds. One such ground is that they were dismissed on grounds of their membership, or non-membership, of a trade union, or their participation in the activities of an independent trade union. That is provided for in Section 161 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
    CWH 420
    The interim relief procedure, which has to be started promptly after dismissal, is designed to protect the employee by securing either that he is reinstated, or re-engaged, or, failing that, that his contract continues. As its names suggests, it is an interim remedy that does not determine the merits of the case.
    The amendment seeks to add Section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act to the list of jurisdictions in respect of which interim relief is available. That section is concerned with action short of dismissal on grounds related to union membership or activities. It does not mesh at all with the interim relief provisions because, as I have indicated, they are available only when an employee claims to have been dismissed for certain automatically unfair reasons. Therefore the amendment is defective not just in form, but also in substance. An employee claiming under Section 146 has not been dismissed (unless he has been dismissed since for a different reason), and the remedies of reinstatement or continuation of the employment contract available under the interim relief provisions are therefore incapable of being applied.
    Those who suffer detriment because they are trade union members, or because of trade union activities, may already complain to a tribunal and get a remedy. Interim relief is available for dismissal for certain inadmissible reasons because in that case the employee has lost his job. It is relevant only in that case, and I can see no case for a procedure beyond what is already available. I therefore hope this amendment will be withdrawn.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful to the Minister. He is of course quite right that acceptance of this amendment would require some further changes in the detail of the notion of what is interim relief.
    However, it is quite remarkable that although, when the employee suffers the final detriment of being deprived of his job, he can get interim relief. It seems that the Government are quite happy with the suggestion that the remedy should be expanded—and that would need further amendments to the 1992 Act, where he suffers perhaps the most catastrophic reduction in his earnings or in his position at the place of work—and that he cannot get any interim remedy. This goes to speed in the tribunals, and it is time, as has been said in various commentaries, that the notion of interim remedies should he considered on a wider basis. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 192:
    Before Clause 35, insert the following new clause—
    "STATUTORY PROCEDURES
    (1) Section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18) (statement of initial employment particulars) is amended as follows.
    (2) In subsection (4) there is inserted—
    "(hh) an explanation of the effect of all relevant statutory procedures under the Employment Act 2002.""

    CWH 421
    The noble Lord said: There is a sense in which some of this matter has been discussed already but it refocuses the minds of Members of the Committee on a very important matter. The amendment asks the Government to consider adding to Section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. That is the section under which the employer must give—I note the phrase that has been used since it was first introduced in 1963—to the employee a statement of written particulars. It is true that under Section 3 of the 1996 Act, the employer must give to the employee, along with the written particulars, a note which specifies, as Section 3 puts it—a note about disciplinary procedures and grievance procedures and, as a matter of fact, about pensions, other than procedures relating to health or safety at work. The employer must give a note informing the employee of:
    "(ii) a person to whom the employee can apply for the purpose of seeking redress of any grievance relating to his employment, and the manner in which any such application should be made, and
    (c) where there are further steps consequent on any such application"—
    that is, of a grievance procedure—
    "explaining those steps or referring to the provisions of a document explaining them which is reasonably accessible to the employee".
    As a matter of practice, we know that the ability of the employer to refer to other documents reasonably accessible to the employee causes workers considerable difficulty when they are advised to go and look at what the grievance procedures are. And now they have a new situation created by this Bill. The new situation is created because into their contracts of employment is implied the provisions of Schedule 2. Schedule 2 sets out the statutory provisions in regard to procedures concerning disciplinary matters on the one hand and grievance procedures on the other. So, when one takes a job and makes a contract which contrary to lay opinion is not always a written contract—one makes a contract of employment as soon as one is taken on if one is lucky to find a job. Then the employer gives one the written particulars and a note, as he is required to do under the Employment Rights Act 1996. But he can say in that note, in regard to disciplinary procedures and grievance procedures, "You must go and look at some other document about the details of these matters". I have quoted from Section 3 on grievance procedures.
    We do not think that that is good enough. When an Act of Parliament says, "These are the procedures which must be fulfilled on each side, by the employer and by the employee. Here in Schedule 2 are the procedures", it is not good enough for the employer simply to say, "Go away and look at Schedule 2, which is reasonably accessible to you in the woodshed, or even behind it". We think that the obligation should be to give to the employee something which both sides will understand, so that they will know where they stand. The employer, after all, has to give a huge number of details in the written particulars. I will not read out paragraphs (a) to (k) of Section 1(4) of the
    CWH 422
    Employment Rights Act 1996, but anyone who has not read them should go away and have a look at them because they contain a long list of things which the employer must set out—although in some cases he can refer to other documents, limiting what he actually has to write.
    We say that, among that list, should be a new paragraph (hh), which is in the amendment. The employer should explain the effect of all relevant statutory procedures. It is no good saying that an explanation is more than he is required to do at the moment. If I take Section 1(4)(d)(iii), he must set out details as to the pension schemes.
    I often wonder whether some of the details which are put into written particulars really fulfil Section 1(4) in that and similar respects, but this is no greater burden. Indeed, it is not a greater burden because what in fact will happen is that the Department of Trade and Industry, in its somewhat subsidiary Employment Relations Department, will issue to employers a little leaflet which explains what the statutory procedures are. They provide all sorts of regulations and forms and all sorts of documents. I am sure that they will provide employers—big, small and medium—with a document that explains the statutory procedures. The employer will not have any great difficulty in attaching one of those, or even a photocopy, explaining the statutory procedures to the written particulars which, at the moment, he is obliged to provide under paragraphs (a) to (k) of Section 1(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
    I have tried to puzzle what sort of objection there will by from the Government to this proposal. I am sure—I have an apprehension—that there may be some objection, as there is to so much of what we suggest. It cannot be that things would be too clear, because that would contradict the Government's aim for clarity. It cannot be that it is a big burden, because it is a very small addition to what is already in Section 1. I apprehend that the Minister's department will assist this process by having an explanatory document.
    My noble friend Lord McIntosh nods his head— there will be such documents. It would be quite reasonable—indeed, it would be in the employers' interests—that everyone should know where they stand under the contract of employment as fashioned by the Act. I appear to be getting approval even from the official Opposition for these notions. They are not very revolutionary—they are very modest. They will allow everybody to know where they stand. I begin to feel that possibly the Government could accept the spirit of the amendment. I beg to move.
    7.15 p.m.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Let us start with the common ground, because the ground of difference is relatively minor. The common ground is that the essential purpose of the Bill is to ensure that all operators operate, and all employees have access to, certain statutory minimum disciplinary and grievance procedures. Once those procedures are in place, it is clearly essential that all concerned are made aware of

    CWH 423
    the procedures so that they can make good use of them in practice. The written statement of employment particulars is a key document in the employment relationship, setting out the key terms and conditions of that relationship. Other clauses in the Bill strengthen the role of this statement by ensuring that there can be potentially significant penalties on employers where they fail to provide it properly.
    It is clearly right that it is in the written statement that the application of the new statutory procedures should be communicated. That is where important issues such as pay, hours and so on are formally set out between employer and employee. It equally forms the best mechanism for formally setting out the disciplinary and grievance procedures which will be operated between the two parties to the employment relationship.
    I would like to stress, in case there is any doubt, that the effect of existing law, taken together with the amendments which we are introducing under Clauses 35 and 36 of the 1996 Act, will be to make it obligatory on all employers to issue a written statement that includes details either of the statutory procedures or of something better but not something less. That is not at issue. The problem with the amendment is that it goes beyond this basic position and would oblige employers to explain the effects of the statutory procedures.
    The advantage of the current position is that those employers who simply operate the statutory procedures will know, clearly and unambiguously, what it is that they must set out in the written statement. They must set out the statutory procedures. There is no need for these employers to agonise or worry. They will be able to copy out the information which the Government and other agencies will provide. I confirm—I did so by nodding my head to my noble friend Lord Wedderburn—that we will of course be producing a document, I hope in plain English. We shall do in consultation with ACAS and the other relevant agencies. That means that employers will be able simply to cut and paste the relevant text from our website if they want to. They will know that in doing so they are fulfilling their legal obligations. Everybody will know where they stand.
    If we were to force employers to explain the effect of the statutory procedures, we would be introducing the possibility of doubt and differences between different employers. I believe that the Bill sets out the statutory procedures in clear and simple terms, but it is far from obvious what "explaining their effect" would mean in practice. I notice that in all the citations that my noble friend made from legislation, none involved explaining the effect. Since this would be a statutory requirement, employers would worry about what it meant. Some would want to cover their backs by setting out at length, in lawyer-speak and with all sorts of caveats and complications, all the possible effects of the statutory procedures in practice, which would be very difficult to do. Others might take a more minimalist view. It would not be clear who was right.
    CWH 424
    The written statement is designed to be a simple, clear and understandable picture of the employment relationship between the two parties. It would not be right for us to turn it into a legal textbook and, though I recognise that that is not the intention of the amendment, I am afraid that that could be the result. I noted what my noble friend Lord Wedderburn said about going away and looking at Schedule 2. That certainly would not be an acceptable way of presenting the statutory requirements.
    Lord Lea of Crondall: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way but, before he leaves this point. I want to clarify something. My noble friend Lord Wedderburn explained, as we all know, that it is one thing to have a statutory requirement to glue something to the noticeboard. We earlier discussed whether "explain" is the right word or whether another word should be used. In relation to XYZ Electronics in Kings Lynn, Schedule 2 requires somebody to say, "If you have a grievance and you are in the transport depot, you have to write to Mr Struthers. You must do that within X days. Then we will have a meeting within Y days". That is not the same as saying that we rest on something that is a standardised DTI/ACAS procedure which is circulated on the website and glued to a noticeboard at the headquarters in Kings Lynn.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No. Clearly, the procedures which the noble Lord, Lord Lea, describes are part of what it is required employers should do. That is the procedure. That is not explaining the effect. Clearly, if you set out the requirements and you set out the procedures whereby they are brought into effect, you then say, "You go and talk to Mr Struthers" or whoever else it may be. That is not the same thing as is asked for in the amendment, which is explaining the effect.
    If there is any explaining of the effect to be done, it should not be done on an individual basis by individual employers, who may come to different conclusions from the next door employer about what the effects of statutory procedures would be. If there is any explaining of the effects to be done, surely it should be done—as it will be done—in a booklet produced by the Department of Trade and Industry in collaboration with ACAS and with the other agencies, which will be made available to employers and to employees. Is not that the right way to do it?
    I make one final point before I sit down. It needs to be made clear that the obligation on employers is not to operate the statutory procedures, full stop; it is to operate the statutory procedures or something better. Many employers will have procedures in place which go beyond the statutory minimum. To oblige employers to spell out the effect of these statutory procedures would be a distraction from the task of setting out what the detailed procedures are—that is what my noble friend Lord Lea and the Government want—and that could easily lead to confusion about what procedures actually apply in a particular case.

    CWH 425
    I hope that the distinction between procedures and explaining the effect is clear.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: It is clear, but the effect of the relevant statutory procedures means explaining to the worker how they affect him. My noble friend asked me for a precedent. The Act has a precedent. In the note which accompanies the written particulars, the employer is obliged to include in a note—and I quote from Section 3(1)(b) —
    "specifying (by description or otherwise)—

    (i) a person to whom the employee can apply if dissatisfied with any disciplinary decision relating to him, and

    (ii) a person to whom the employee can apply for the purpose of seeking redress of any grievance relating to his employment, and the manner in which any such application should be made."

    I appreciate that the department, in its usual helpful way, is going to give to every employer the advantage of having a piece of paper in which—without being a legal textbook that the Minister referred to—the general understanding of the department of the nature and effect in general terms of the relevant statutory procedures will be set out. Employers will be able to rely on that as part of what they give to the employee at the time of engagement or some weeks afterwards, as they are entitled to do.
    In addition to that I thought that we needed an explanation of the legal effect. "Effect" may be the wrong word. The Minister has understood it to mean precisely beyond what his department can say about the legal effect—some further words on the legal effect. As usual, he may have a better word than effect.
    The amendment was meant to take up the model of Section 3 of the Act, to which he has not referred; namely, the effect of the relevant statutory procedures at that place of employment. He says that there may be further procedures. Very good; let them be set out. Presumably they will be set out in the note on disciplinary and grievance procedures. However, the Act as it stands will not refer explicitly to Schedule 2 of the 2002 Act, even though—I know that Ministers do not like to refer to this—the Government have made it obligatory in every contract of employment. We believed that the employer might welcome the chance of saying, "Here at this place of work, these are the relevant statutory procedures and this what the Department of Trade and Industry employment relations department or section says they generally mean in their application to all contracts of employment. This is the effect of them here. If you have a grievance under these statutory procedures, just as in regard to Section 3, you go and see Joe Bloggs or Mary Poppins".
    The employer cannot use Section 3 to refer to some other document. In a sense, we consider it to be wrong and unfair to both parties that the employer should be able to use Section 3 to say that one must go and look at some other document. We believe that the note, or, as we say here, the written particulars—of course, we would not object if it went into the note—should set out some explanation of what the "effect" means here and now, today, tomorrow and at this place of work.
    CWH 426
    There is probably a better phrase which will cure the ambiguity which has arisen between my noble friend the Minister and myself.
    At this place of work, surely the employer and employee should have a document to which they can refer in a case of complaint. After all, we are not dealing with a situation where everything is at peace and all is right with the world. The Bill impacts on situations where there is a complaint, or where, under the previous Clause 34, there is an unfair dismissal or where there is a grievance. There, the statutory procedures come into play. We believed that it would be advantageous if both the employer and employee could have a document which not only said what the statutory procedures were but which also set out what they meant in general legal terms or in lay language—the department will provide that—and if in the written particulars there was also an explanation of the effect at that place of work.
    I take it that the Minister does not accept that if the amendment made it absolutely clear that it would be desirable for the employer to say, "Here at this place of work, this is the way that we apply"—he nods; I am confused.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I believe that I said so in answer to my noble friend Lord Lea, but let me set it out. The parts which state that if one is in the transport department one talks to Mr Struthers are part of the procedure. They should be set down.
    As I listen to my noble friend Lord Wedderburn, I believe that the difference between what he calls "effect" and what I call "procedures" is getting a little closer than seemed to be the case at the beginning. I agree with him that certainly the document which is required from an employer should not hide behind references to other documents; in other words, it should be as self-sufficient as it reasonably can be. When it comes to interpretation, as he calls it in non-legal language, so far as possible that should not be the statutory responsibility of an individual employer, as proposed in the amendment, but the responsibility of the department, of ACAS and of all the agencies.
    I hope that if we agree on that, we can agree that that is a better way forward than the amendment which we have before us. I do not find myself disagreeing in objective with what my noble friend Lord Wedderburn is arguing; it is simply the wording of the amendment which could be confusing.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am immensely grateful to my noble friend the Minister. If it is only the wording of the amendment, we can rely upon its spirit. If only we could spend this time over Easter together, when all this work is going to be done. My noble friend must not reject these offers! My noble friend would do well to listen to us over Easter and indeed, for much longer.
    In view of what he has said, I feel sure that the Government, when they reconsider these matters, will come up with a proposal. It will not have the word "effect" in it, I see that because the word "effect" is

    CWH 427
    ambiguous. I have some confidence that the Government will come back with something which at least is in the spirit—
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not want to give a false impression. I think the Bill provides that already. I do not think there is anything we need to come back with but it is something that I ought to write to my noble friend Lord Wedderburn about in order to make that entirely clear.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I shall look forward to the postcard from wherever the Minister is over Easter! But I do not think that the provision is in the Bill already. The Minister will look long and hard
    CWH 428
    before he finds it there already. This is a good amendment, badly phrased. I believe that he will think about it when he relaxes a bit and find that this is something to which the Government will feel constrained to respond. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clauses 35 to 37 agreed to.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn, until Tuesday 9th April at 3.30 p.m.
    The Committee adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before eight o'clock.

  Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill
  Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill
  Public Guardianship Office: Investment Strategy
  Public Guardianship Office: Investment Strategy
  Law Commission Annual Report
  Law Commission Annual Report
  Personal Injury Awards
  Personal Injury Awards
  Land Registry: Performance Targets
  Land Registry: Performance Targets
  Public Records Office: Performance Targets
  Public Records Office: Performance Targets
  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
  Computer Misuse Act Prosecutions
  Computer Misuse Act Prosecutions
  Police: Best Value Performance Indicators
  Police: Best Value Performance Indicators
  Home Office and Prison Service Accommodation in London
  Home Office and Prison Service Accommodation in London
  Leave to Remain in the UK: Application Forms
  Leave to Remain in the UK: Application Forms
  Personal Income Tax: Top Rates in the EU
  Personal Income Tax: Top Rates in the EU
  Working Families' Tax Credit
  Working Families' Tax Credit
  Pre-Budget Report: Measures for Business
  Pre-Budget Report: Measures for Business
  Customs and Excise: Prosecuting Authority Role
  Customs and Excise: Prosecuting Authority Role
  Cefn Croes: Proposed Wind Power Station
  Cefn Croes: Proposed Wind Power Station
  Broadband Services
  Broadband Services
  Sector Skills Councils
  Sector Skills Councils
  Pupils Taking GCSEs Early
  Pupils Taking GCSEs Early
  Individual Learning Account Programme
  Individual Learning Account Programme
  Physical Education and School Sport
  Physical Education and School Sport
  Disability Discrimination (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
  Disability Discrimination (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
  NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency Annual Business Plan
  NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency Annual Business Plan
  Medical Devices Agency: Key Targets
  Medical Devices Agency: Key Targets
  Peerages: Agreement of the Government of Ireland
  Peerages: Agreement of the Government of Ireland
  Europe: Views of Sir Stephen Wall
  Europe: Views of Sir Stephen Wall
  Sex Discrimination Act 1975
  Sex Discrimination Act 1975