Sitting of 10 May 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Orders of the Day
  Home Energy Conservation Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Home Energy Conservation Bill
    New Clause 1

      FUEL POVERTY
      'After section 5 of the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 (c.10) there is inserted—
      "5A Fuel poverty
      An energy conservation authority in England and Wales shall, so far as reasonably practicable, perform its functions under section 2A in a way which, in the opinion of the authority, will contribute to achieving the objectives for the time being specified under, or mentioned in, section 2(2) of the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000 by the dates so specified".'.—[Dr. Desmond Turner.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      9.34 am
      Dr. Desmond Turner: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 5 and 6.
      Dr. Turner: It is a pleasure to speak to the new clause, which reflects a certain amount of difficulty that we encountered in Committee. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment for agreeing to the tabling of the new clause; he and I had to resolve the difficulty by what is perhaps best described as a simultaneous withdrawal, in order to avoid a difficult confrontation.
      I am happy to report to the House that the new clause does exactly the same with regard to fuel poverty as the equivalent amendment that I withdrew in Committee, as it seeks to make the work of local authorities in addressing fuel poverty a statutory duty. That is its intended effect. As far as I am concerned—and as I hope all hon. Members agree—that is a satisfactory outcome. The new clause returns to the Bill one of its three fundamental strands. The Bill is a package containing three interdependent and very strongly related elements. The intended effects of part 2 will be in place, assuming that the new clause is acceptable. I warmly commend it to the House.
      The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I am very pleased to confirm what my hon.
      410
      Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) has said. We have had extensive discussions on this proposal and others—most notably amendment No. 11. My hon. Friend's remarks were quite correct.
      I am pleased to speak to the new clause, which would require authorities, once targets have been set, to undertake their functions in relation to domestic energy conservation in such a way as would help achieve the national objectives of the Government's fuel poverty strategy. The main cause of fuel poverty in the UK is a combination of poor energy efficiency in homes, and low incomes. Other factors can also contribute, such as the size of properties in comparison with the number of people living in them and the cost of fuel. Estimates show that while the number of fuel poor was estimated to have fallen by 2000, some 4 million households in the UK were still believed to be in fuel poverty.
      Local authorities have a pivotal role to play if the objective of the Government and the devolved Administrations to seek an end to the problem of fuel poverty is to be achieved. Our first target, however, is to end the blight of fuel poverty by 2010 for vulnerable households. In 1999, there were 3 million such households, accounting for about 70 per cent. of all the fuel poor in the UK. Once progress has been made on the priority vulnerable groups, the focus will be widened to include healthy adult householders in fuel poverty.
      The health implications of fuel poverty can be extremely serious. A cold home can significantly increase the likelihood of ill health. Illnesses such as influenza, heart disease and strokes are all exacerbated by the cold. Cold homes can also promote the growth of fungi and house dust mites, and the latter have been linked to conditions such as asthma. Ill health can lead to enforced absences from work, and certain types of illness such as respiratory disease may restrict employment choices for people without work.
      The need to spend a large portion of income on fuel means that fuel-poor households have to make difficult decisions about other household essentials, which can lead to poor diets and/or withdrawal from the community. For people in vulnerable groups, those problems are exacerbated by the fact that they are likely to be at home for more—and possibly all—of the day, so heating is needed for more time than in other households.
      Cold can cause other discomforts for older people—for example, worsening arthritic pains. It can also contribute to a general feeling of illness. Research suggests that domestic accidents, including fatalities, are more common in cold homes in winter. Periods of prolonged immobility can result, making it even more difficult for older people to keep warm. People may need to go into residential care because of their injuries or because they can no longer live in a cold home.
      The cost of fuel poverty can be counted in more than the misery caused to the affected individuals. Increased illness adds to the pressure on health and social care services. That is especially true in the case of the disabled and the long-term sick. Fuel poverty is likely to exacerbate their problems and lengthen their recovery time. Cold homes may also make it more difficult for carers to look after acutely or chronically sick people, more of whom will have to go into hospital needlessly or go into a nursing home permanently.

      411
      The amendment would require local authorities, when implementing their functions in relation to energy conservation, to contribute to the targets and wider objectives set out in the UK fuel poverty strategy. The strategy, published last November, sets out the range of programmes and measures that were put in place to address the main causes of fuel poverty. They include programmes to improve the energy efficiency of fuel poor households; continuing action to maintain the downward pressure on fuel bills; and action to tackle poverty and social exclusion. Those issues are wide ranging, and require a variety of approaches.
      In England, our key mechanism for tackling fuel poverty in the private sector, where most of the fuel poor are, is the home energy efficiency scheme, which is now marketed, as hon. Members know, as the warm front team. The scheme gives grants of up to £2,500, and provides insulation and heating measures depending on the needs of the householder and the property type. Such action can have a direct impact on quality of life.
      We have a target for warm front to assist 800,000 homes by 2004. I am glad to say that it is on target to deliver, with some 350,000 households already assisted and more than 30,000 new central heating systems installed. Difficult issues remain, and hon. Members have written to me about them. I readily acknowledge that there have been delays in the installation and repair of central heating systems, largely due to a shortage of qualified gas heating engineers. To help tackle that, my Department has funded training courses to help provide additional qualified engineers to work under the scheme. Consequently, the number of installations per month trebled last year.
      For social housing, the Government objective is to bring all such properties up to a decent standard by 2010.
      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the design of some houses in the public sector is so poor that they need demolishing? For example, when I served on what was then the Select Committee on the Environment, I met someone in Glasgow who paid electricity bills of £20 a week, but whose home was colder than it was outside. The number of public sector houses being built is the lowest for seven years. Homeless people are increasing and the number of those in bed-and-breakfast accommodation with no home has soared by 150 per cent. since the last election. How will the Government square that circle?
      Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to raise the public sector, and the points that he made are correct. However, most of the fuel poor are in the private sector. I was addressing my remarks to that because the fuel poverty strategy deals mainly with that sector. However, there are many dwellings in the public and private sectors that simply do not have a life expectancy as decent homes. They can only be demolished. That forms part of local authorities' programmes. It is for them to decide what cannot be made into a decent home and should therefore be demolished and replaced. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that build must increase; that is the Government's intention. The Government have set a target to provide decent homes to all social sector tenants
      412
      by 2010, and to reduce the number of social tenants living in homes that are not decent by one third by April 2004, with most of the reduction in deprived areas.
      9.45 am
      The energy efficiency commitment is another major programme, which will help fulfil the Government's fuel poverty targets. It came into force on 1 April, only a month ago. It provides an opportunity to take an important step forward in promoting domestic energy efficiency in Great Britain. It places an obligation on electricity and gas suppliers to make improvements in energy efficiency. That is not simply a matter of providing more electricity and gas units per household, hopefully at lower prices, but of the efficiency with which the existing units are contained in the house. It will do that by encouraging and assisting domestic consumers to adopt energy efficiency measures.
      The energy efficiency commitment will have three important benefits. First, we estimate that it will cut greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 0.4 million tonnes of carbon a year. Secondly, by helping electricity and gas consumers to save energy, it will reduce their fuel bills, or they may choose to enjoy greater comfort by living in better-heated homes without increased costs. Thirdly, it will give specific help to lower-income consumers, who spend a larger proportion of their income on energy. That will contribute to the eradication of fuel poverty.
      The energy efficiency commitment sets an overall obligation on all electricity and gas suppliers of 62 fuel-standardised TWh of energy savings. That phrase may not convey a great deal to hon. Members, but, as suppliers will confirm, it is a testing target for the overall improvement of energy efficiency. We believe that it is challenging and achievable, and represents a significant increase in activity over the programmes that have been running successfully since 1994. I believe that it will provide a clear stimulus to the sustainable development of domestic energy efficiency.
      As I said, special help will be given to lower-income consumers, who are almost certainly in the worst category of fuel poverty, by a requirement on suppliers to achieve at least 50 per cent. of their energy savings from householders in receipt of income or disability benefit or working families or disabled persons tax credit.
      The energy efficiency commitment is expected to produce total energy benefits worth approximately £275 million. The average annual benefit for consumers taking up measures under the commitment will be around El 1. For those in the priority group of lower-income consumers, it should be more than £15.
      Local authorities are important strategic partners. Only last month, five local councils were awarded beacon status for their work in tackling fuel poverty. The beacon scheme aims to identify centres of excellence in local government from which others can learn. That is an important element of our local government modernisation agenda.
      The warm zone initiative is another example of strategic co-ordination on the ground. It channels existing programmes in a local area. To enable that to happen, warm zones have formed partnerships between the energy utilities, health authorities, community and voluntary sectors, the Government and, again, local authorities.

      413
      A pilot programme was launched last year with five zones across the country based in Northumberland, Stockton, Hull, Sandwell and Newham. The aim of warm zones is to deal with fuel poverty in a locality in three years. They are working on the basis of reaching all households in an area, providing assistance through available grant schemes.
      I shall draw my remarks to a close, because this is rather a lengthy opening statement. Energy efficiency is a real win-win strategy, as all hon. Members will acknowledge. It takes people out of fuel poverty, creates jobs, cuts greenhouse gas emissions and reduces the burdens on the NHS and social services. One of the biggest difficulties, of course, is finding those in need. Schemes such as warm front can be helped by local community workers—doctors, nurses, social workers, voluntary groups and local authority officers—identifying and persuading vulnerable householders, particularly pensioners, to come forward.
      There are other, often more difficult, issues that we need to consider: people whose homes are off the mains gas network; homes whose construction makes them difficult to heat; tackling fuel poverty among the healthy adult fuel poor in the private sector; and under-occupation. These are all challenging issues, and I would be the first to recognise that they still constitute a difficult problem for us. I believe, however, that the new clause will help to focus action at a local level, and, at the same time, ensure that a range of schemes and programmes remains to tackle the needs of the various groups in fuel poverty. I commend the new clause to the House.
      Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: The Government have repeatedly pledged to eradicate cold-related diseases by 2010, yet current statistics show that up to 50,000 elderly people may be dying of cold in Britain every winter. Commenting on the apparently laudable intentions of the Government's 10-year fuel poverty plan, the Minister described himself as
      "declaring war on fuel poverty".
      When the fuel poverty strategy was announced, the Minister admitted—as he did again today—that the targets were challenging, but said that the strategy was
      "an important element of our programme to tackle poverty and social exclusion."
      I acknowledge that the Minister has addressed some of our concerns about fuel poverty in new clause 1, but he could have done so much more. If he had used the eight months since the Bill was published to devise and propose fundamental improvements, he would have earned the gratitude not only of all in this place but, even more important, of those in greatest need. If he had used that time to tackle energy inefficiency and reduce energy consumption, we all would have applauded. If he had used the time to reverse the farce whereby, under the Government's own plans for housing, the certified standard assessment procedure rating scheme for social housing is considerably lower than that set as part of building regulations for private housing, we would all have helped him.
      That means—shorn of its jargon, so that all hon. Members can understand it—that local authority homes for poor people are being built to be less energy efficient than those of the better off. In consequence, those who are in local authority and housing association
      414
      accommodation—often the poorest people in society—are likely to be those who will remain in fuel poverty the longest. When the Minister talked about
      "declaring war on fuel poverty",
      what he should have been doing was ensuring that local authority and social housing was at least of the same energy efficiency standard as private sector housing. If we add to that the absurdity that, under current plans for energy efficiency and fuel poverty, the poor pay more and the rich pay less to achieve the same degree of warmth, we have a very clear indication of how the Minister could usefully have spent the last eight months of his time.
      This is a Government who continue to congratulate themselves on their commitment to lifting people—most prominently, children—out of poverty. I wish they would. But the figures show that if they think that they are achieving that, it is just another example of Labour's social delusion. [Interruption.] Just wait for it! At the last general election, the Chancellor asserted that Labour had lifted 1.2 million children out of poverty. Recently released Government figures show that the true figure was not 1.2 million but 500,000, which simply takes the poverty rate back to roughly where it was in 1994–95.
      Another deception on the part of the Government has involved the definition of fuel poverty. The long-standing definition of someone in fuel poverty is someone who would need to spend more than 10 per cent. of their disposable income on the fuel required to heat their home to a reasonable level of warmth, disposable income being the money that people have left over after paying for housing costs. By sleight of hand, the Government changed the definition from 10 per cent. of disposable income to 10 per cent. of total income.
      In other words, if a pensioner received £130 a week, paid £30 rent and had fuel bills of £12.50 a week, under the old definition they were fuel poor, because they were paying 12.5 per cent. of their £100 disposable income on fuel. However, once the UK fuel poverty strategy was introduced by this Labour Government—the same strategy that the Minister has been lauding today—that pensioner was suddenly no longer fuel poor, because their fuel bills were less than 10 per cent. of their £130 income. Of course they were not actually any warmer; they had just been defined out of fuel poverty. That is no doubt the reason why the Government now tell us that the number of households classified as being in fuel poverty has been reduced by about 1.5 million across the United Kingdom. That just shows how changing the definition has helped the Government to massage their figures.
      We can give a muted cheer to new clause 1, so far as it goes, but, by George, the Minister could have used the eight months since this Bill was published much more profitably.
      Mr. Huw Edwards: I am delighted to be able to contribute to the debate on new clause 1. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) has just said that he gives it a "muted cheer". In Committee, he gave more enthusiastic support to the strategy to combat fuel poverty, and I am slightly disappointed to hear his slight change of tone, now that we are discussing it on the Floor of the House. As a member of the Committee, I give my great support to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner). He has worked immensely hard on this Bill, and I am delighted that the compromises and

      415
      discussions that have taken place between him and the Government have now resulted in new clause 1, which we can all support.
      My interest in fuel poverty goes back some 20 years, to when I first studied a book written by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks), now the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. He wrote several books, but his seminal work on this subject was called "Old and Cold: A Study of Hypothermia", which dealt with the problems of fuel poverty, especially among the elderly in this country. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire referred to the debate about the definition of fuel poverty. I understand that that definition is up for consultation, and I hope that an agreement will soon be reached.
      I was the only member of the Committee from a Welsh constituency, and I would like to address my comments to the position in Wales. There is no direct estimate of the number of fuel-poor households in Wales, but there are some indications. The 1997–98 Welsh house condition survey estimated that 220,000 households were deemed eligible for help under the energy efficiency scheme in Wales, in that they lacked basic insulation and/or heating, and could potentially suffer from the problems of fuel poverty. One hundred and fifteen thousand people live in social housing, 84,000 in owner-occupied housing, and 23,000 in the private rented sector.
      According to Age Concern Wales, 20 per cent. of the Welsh population are classified as pensioners, and, as my right hon. Friend the Minister has pointed out, the problem of fuel poverty is most serious among the elderly. A Shelter Cymru report estimates that a quarter of a million households in Wales are
      "unable to adequately heat their homes and are at risk from serious health problems or death from the effects of cold housing."
      10 am
      Fuel poverty in Wales does not just affect densely populated areas; it is also a significant problem in rural areas. That was discussed at the rural fuel poverty conference in May 2001, when it was noted that
      "Wales suffers from an underdeveloped infrastructure, particularly in accessing affordable fuels such as mains gas."
      My constituency, which is very rural, contains a socially isolated community in Llanelly Hill, near Blaenavon. The area has no mains gas, and, being in a particularly cold part of Monmouthshire, it would benefit from a commitment by local authorities to provide the gas that it needs.
      Help the Aged has contacted me about fuel poverty among the elderly, and the link with winter deaths. It estimates that, nationally, between 20,000 and 50,000 people die as a result of inadequate heating.
      I commend the new clause, which is part of the Government's commitment to eradicating social exclusion. I also commend the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown.
      Sue Doughty: I pay tribute to all who have worked so hard over the past few months to bring the Bill to this stage. It has taken a tremendous amount of hard work and negotiation. Sadly, we are not out of the woods
      416
      yet. On day one, we were presented with what appeared to be a practical solution to the problems of local authorities—what they were expected to do and how they would meet their targets while conforming to the Government's strategy for the eradication of fuel poverty and delivering on other environmental targets—but we are not much further down the line. Clauses go into the Bill and out again, and we still have the same worries about the Government's commitment not just to ending fuel poverty, but to meeting the environmental targets that the Bill supports so strongly.
      The Bill goes some way towards dealing with fuel poverty. I am sure that we are all committed to dealing with that problem. It cannot be right for one of the most prosperous countries to suffer the scourge of fuel poverty nowadays. Its rapid elimination is essential as a matter of social justice. We must, however, give local government the tools with which to do the job. It is ridiculous that, while local government chases one Government target after another, measures that would make a real difference are inserted in the Bill and then taken out again. Now we are having to debate them yet again.
      A fortnight ago, I visited a council house in my constituency. I was shown crumbling windows where people had put newspapers in the cracks to keep the warmth inside. Students line roof vents with newspaper, which causes a huge fire hazard. These people are among the poorest.
      I asked the council's chief executive why the council was planning to have the windows painted. As they were falling apart, it would simply be throwing good money after bad. What, I asked, had happened to the window replacement scheme, which would have been of real benefit? The chief executive said, "We were going to do that, but we had to think again because the Government gave us a different set of targets." Eminently sensible schemes have been junked. The council will paint the crumbling windows, and people will go on lining them with newspaper. The newspaper may be painted at the same time for all I know.
      Mr. Chris Bryant: So far, the hon. Lady has talked exclusively about local government housing. My constituency is in a former mining area and is very poor. It falls between two stools in that it is not quite rural and not quite metropolitan. Eighty-six per cent. of my constituents are home owners, and they suffer from exactly the same problems of fuel poverty. Is not the best way of helping people to rescue themselves from fuel poverty ensuring that they have more money in their pockets?
      Sue Doughty: That is certainly fundamental to ending the problem, but housing standards must be improved so that the money that people have in their pockets can be used wisely.
      If we are to deal with fuel poverty, we must give local government the tools that it needs. The inhabitants of houses in multiple occupation are often among the poorest people in society. They are the least able to deal with the properties that they occupy, especially when those properties are rented, because they cannot afford to do so. Someone must work on their behalf, and part 3 of the Bill is essential in that regard.

      417
      The Bill's structure is strong. Its purpose is the elimination of fuel poverty, the measurement of targets along the way, and the identification of households that should qualify for the energy conservation scheme. I pay tribute to the Government for the warm homes scheme, and the work of the Energy Saving Trust. I have attended meetings held by the trust in Surrey, which have brought together HECA officers—HECA stands for Home Energy Conservation Act—community health workers and a range of other people to share ideas, suggest innovations and consider the different ways of ending fuel poverty. The experience has been exciting and rewarding, but all those people still say the same thing: if they are to be empowered, they must be empowered by Government.
      We are suffering some desperate disappointments. We are trying to support the sensible measures in the Bill, but the rug keeps sliding from under our feet. How do we know when we will meet our targets? We must pinpoint the failures and introduce measures to ensure that we meet the targets. Otherwise, in 2010 or 2020 we shall be saying, "We will not quite meet this or that environmental target", and claiming that the figures, or other factors, have changed.
      We must take positive action. We cannot just tell people, "Do this; we do not mind how you do it". If we are to hold up our heads when we visit places such as Johannesburg, ostensibly leading the way on environmental issues, we must deliver on our own doorstep, and we cannot do that unless we enact the Bill in its original form.
      Mr. Meacher: Let me say something about amendments Nos. 5 and 6. Amendment No. 5 removes the existing fuel poverty clause from the Bill. I have worked closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) on a new fuel poverty clause that better meets our joint aims of ending fuel poverty. Amendment No. 6 would establish a commencement date for the fuel poverty clause—12 months after the passing of the Act—bringing it into line with the deadline for the energy-efficiency provisions.
      I never cease to be stunned by the brass neck of the Tory party, and especially by that of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed). As I said in Committee, poverty, and fuel poverty, trebled during the 18 years of Conservative government. In 1997 we inherited a situation in which, depending on the definition used, there were between 4 million and 5 million fuel poor. I will take no lessons from him or the Tory party about dealing with fuel poverty because the Tories massively exacerbated it. We are addressing it, reducing it and seeking to eliminate it by 2010.
      The hon. Gentleman said that we could have used our time better. I do not think that we could have used it better than by the implementation of the home energy efficiency scheme, the warm front scheme and the energy efficiency commitment. Those three massive programmes require a huge amount of Government funding together with a significant upgrading of local authority stock to decent standards. We all want the Bill to succeed, and if it does, its success will overwhelmingly be due to existing components of the Government's programme.
      418
      The hon. Gentleman also said that we could have done better in promoting energy efficiency. He is probably unaware that the energy efficiency best practice programme operated by my Department reckons that it saves several hundred million pounds a year primarily at the industrial level, but also at the domestic level. We constantly promote energy efficiency to the fullest possible extent.
      Finally, the hon. Gentleman suggested that we had somehow massaged the figures by changing the definitions. He completely misses the point that I have made repeatedly: whichever definition we use, whether it is based on gross or net income, we will achieve our target in respect of the main categories of fuel poverty—elderly people who are fuel poor, the long-term sick and disabled and low-income families with children—by taking them out of fuel poverty by 2010.
      The hon. Gentleman's remarks are not only grudging and curmudgeonly, but unreasonable. I am glad to support this important Bill. It builds on the foundation of Government policy which is overwhelmingly driving in that direction, contrary to the record of the previous Government.
      Dr. Desmond Turner: This morning is about private Members' legislation, where traditionally the party divides are a little less obvious, so I shall not get involved in the spat across the Front Benches. It is all too easy to get bogged down in statistics and lose sight of the basic truths. However, there are two simple truths: first, whatever statistical definition is used, we all agree that there are still too many people in fuel poverty; secondly, the Government are working hard to address fuel poverty and investing heavily to that end. The new clause helps to focus that investment at a local level to make sure that it delivers most effectively. In that respect local authorities can do a more effective job than a national organisation. They know their areas, they know where the people with the greatest problems are and they can point strategy in the right direction. We all want to end fuel poverty, and the new clause expresses the original intentions of the Bill by requiring local authorities to play their role in doing so.
      10.15 am
      I point out to the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) that we are building on the provisions of the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, because the fuel poverty strategy was a requirement of that Act. The Government have delivered the fuel poverty strategy, but it needs to be implemented physically. Unfortunately, that Act, which was an excellent private Member's Bill, did not have any statutory teeth in respect of local authorities and placed no statutory burden on them. This Bill does and new clause I sets it firmly in the centre of the Bill. It may not be all that everybody wants and I do not pretend that it is, but it represents a considerable and significant advance. On the basis of moving towards the achievement of an aim for which we are all striving, I commend the new clause to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 2

      REVIEW OF SCHEMES NOT CONFORMING TO MODEL SCHEME
      `After section 349 of the Housing Act 1985 there is inserted—
      "349A Review of schemes not conforming to model scheme

      (1) This section applies to a registration scheme ("the scheme") made by a local housing authority which—

      (a) at the time it came into force did not conform to the model registration scheme, and

      (b) has not been subsequently varied so as to conform to the model scheme.

      (2) Every five years after the coming into force of the scheme the authority shall decide whether or not to vary the scheme so that it conforms to the model scheme.

      (3) At least six months before the time at which a decision under subsection (2) is required the authority shall publish a notice which—

      (a) states whether or not they intend to vary the scheme so that it conforms to the model scheme, and

      (b) invites persons to make written representations in relation to that intention within the period of three months beginning with the day the notice is published.

      (4) In making the decision under subsection (2) the authority shall take into account any written representations which are made to them within that period.

      (5) If the authority decide not to vary the scheme so that it conforms to the model scheme, they shall publish a notice of that decision.

      (6) In this section "publish" means publish in one or more newspapers circulating in the district of the local housing authority concerned."!.—[Dr. Desmond Turner.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Dr. Desmond Turner: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 10.
      Dr. Turner: Again, I am happy to endorse the new clause. It amends the provisions on houses in multiple occupation and seeks to address some of the concerns expressed by landlords. If anyone thinks that we are out to clobber landlords for the sake of it, it shows that we are not. Indeed we have been listening to their concerns, putting them to the Government and, I am pleased to say, getting a positive response, which is illustrated in the new clause.
      The National Federation of Residential Landlords considers that licensing is a mistake from a policy point of view. We would expect that because nobody wants to be licensed if they can avoid it. However, they also find that the basis now proposed is
      "reasonably palatable, provided the scheme is reasonably implemented."
      That is a reasonable point and it is precisely where new clause 2 comes in.
      The Bill provides for the Secretary of state to prepare model registration schemes. There is, however, the possibility that local housing authorities may depart from model schemes. In certain areas, existing schemes may not conform to the Secretary of State's model and
      420
      landlords may well consider some of the provisions and demands of the scheme unreasonably onerous. I will not try to pretend that genuine problems will not arise.
      New clause 2 would ensure that schemes that do not conform to the Secretary of State's model are reviewed after five years of operation, that there is public consultation and that the results of that public consultation are taken into account in deciding whether the scheme should continue in its existing form or be modified.
      The new clause is intended to address landlords' very reasonable fears and provide a mechanism for doing so. That is the simple rationale behind it and I commend it to the House.
      Mr. Meacher: I am glad to endorse what my hon. Friend has rightly said, and to join him in supporting new clause 2. Local authorities that use their discretionary powers to extend the licensing of HMOs to properties not covered by mandatory national registration will need to report, and consult, on their local schemes after five years. We do not propose that the Secretary of State should have to approve every local authority scheme after five years, because that would create a sizeable bureaucratic logjam. However, it is right that, in the context of local housing policies, local variations should be subject to local consultation after a reasonable period. I am happy to go into more detail if hon. Members wish, but that is the basis of the provision.
      In taking this opportunity to discuss Government amendment No. 10, I should point out that, according to the terms of amendment No. 9, regulations under clause 3 will involve the potentially time-consuming process of seeking the affirmative resolution of both Houses. The Bill prescribes a deadline of two months for its coming into force, and Government amendment No. 10 will extend that period by four months, to six months. The Bill prescribes a deadline of 12 months, after its coming into force for local authorities to have in place registration schemes. The amendment will therefore allow up to 18 months for the putting in place of regulations to define the HMOs that local authorities must register. That will follow a period of public consultation and debate in both Houses. On that basis, I commend both amendments to the House.
      Mr. Sayeed: I had intended to confine the majority of my remarks on HMOs to the third group of amendments, but given what the Minister has just said about Government amendment No. 10, I shall mention some of them now.
      We have no particular difficulty with new clause 2. We acknowledge that the Government have recognised, and sought to address, several of the worries that we expressed in Committee and the on Second Reading. However, my understanding was that all regulations subsequent to the Bill's enactment will be reviewed in Parliament by affirmative resolution, and that amendment No. 9, to which the Minister referred, will apply only to HMOs. I ask the Minister to confirm that it will apply to regulations that define a "prescribed relationship", and to regulations "prescribing descriptions of buildings". Why will regulations dealing with registration schemes after the Bill's enactment not be reviewed in Parliament by affirmative resolution? That would at least ensure that we can debate them. For the avoidance of doubt, I will also

      421
      ask the Minister to confirm various other points that we raised in Committee, but they would be best discussed when we consider the fourth group of amendments.
      I am slightly worried by the Minister's comments. I understand his point about time scales, but the fact is that, although the Bill was published some eight months ago, the Government decided to table amendments to it just 24 hours before today's debate. I fear that the explanation is that ill-thought out legislation, drafted by civil servants, has been pushed past Ministers without their understanding its implications. Unless we in this House can scrutinise new proposals, I fear that we will end up with thoroughly bad regulations—a point on which I shall expand later.
      Although we support new clause 2, which addresses a number of questions that we raised on Second Reading and in Committee, we expect the Minister to explain why all regulations subsequent to the Bill's enactment will not be reviewed by Parliament through affirmative resolution.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) on introducing this Bill, and I am honoured to be a sponsor of it. I fear that it has been somewhat emasculated, but we are all adults, and we know the practicalities involved in getting legislation on to the statute book. However, having listened to and participated in the debates on new clause 2 in Committee, I say in support of the hon. Gentleman and the Minister that this constitutes a much better way to get the legislation on to the statute book. The original measure was seen by private landlords, at least, as far too inflexible and draconian, but the Bill before us strikes a better balance. I conclude by reiterating my support for new clause 2, and for Government amendment No. 10.
      Mr. Meacher: The complaint raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) is unreasonable. He seems to want to extend the proposal in amendment No. 9 so that regulations under clause 3 are made by affirmative, rather than negative, resolution, but that would also extend the requirement to other regulations. If we went down that route, the Government would not only need to seek Parliament's affirmative approval for regulations defining properties classified as HMOs but regulations prescribing the form of registration, the model scheme and control provisions would also require debate in both Houses. That would involve significant parliamentary time.
      Regulations prescribing the form of registration will seek to define the number of storeys of buildings covered by the definition—a significant aspect of that definition. However, the key point is that, in general, matters that are not envisaged as being subject to affirmative resolution are those that are not currently subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I believe that we have struck the right balance between an appropriate use of parliamentary time and ensuring that measures that are subject to parliamentary scrutiny are indeed so scrutinised. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are certainly not trying to pass legislation through this House without proper scrutiny.
      Dr. Desmond Turner: Happily, I have not heard any serious opposition to new clause 2, so I hope that it is acceptable to the House. The debate has ranged on to
      422
      amendment No. 9 and other amendments that some hon. Members, including myself, would have liked to see and, indeed, expected.
      10.30 am
      Mr. Sayeed: The hon. Gentleman mentioned amendments that he had expected. Did he mean that he had expected that more regulations to be made subsequent to the passing of the Act would be considered by Parliament under the positive resolution procedure?
      Dr. Turner: That was what I meant. I was as surprised as the hon. Gentleman to find only one amendment to clause 3 to that effect on the amendment paper when it was published yesterday, when it was of course too late to correct that by tabling further amendments. However, depending on Mr. Speaker's ruling, we may be able to return to that point later this morning. I hope that the House will endorse new clause 2.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Clause 1

      TARGETS FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS
      Dr. Desmond Turner: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 1, line 4, leave out from beginning to end of line 17 on page 2 and insert—
      '(1) After section 2 of the principal Act there is inserted—
      "2A Energy efficiency reports

      (1) Where a target applies for the time being to an energy conservation authority in England and Wales, the authority shall prepare a report in accordance with this section.

      (2) The report shall set out the energy conservation measures that the authority considers practicable, cost-effective and likely to result in the target being met.

      (3) An energy conservation authority in England and Wales shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, implement so as to meet the target any report which it has prepared in accordance with this section and published.

      (4) In this section a target means a requirement to achieve an improvement (which may be expressed as a percentage) in the energy efficiency of residential accommodation in the authority's area within a specified time.

      (5) A target applies to an authority at any time when—

      (a) the Secretary of State, after consulting the Local Government Association of England and Wales, has made a determination specifying the target and providing for it to apply to the authority or to authorities including the authority, and

      (b) the target has been published in any manner the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

      (6) The Secretary of State may by a further determination made after consultation with the association and so published vary any previous determination and any target shall have effect accordingly.

      (7) Subsections (3) to (7) of section 2 apply for the purposes of this section.

      (8) On the application to an authority of a target under this section, this Act so far as it relates to reports under section 2 ceases to apply in relation to the authority".

      (2) In sections 3 (functions of Secretary of State) and 5(1) (modification) of the principal Act, after each mention of "section 2" there is inserted "or 2A", and—
      (a) at the end of section 4(2) there is inserted "for the purposes of reports under section 2",

      423
      (b) after section 4(2) there is inserted
      "(2A) The Secretary of State may give energy conservation authorities in England and Wales such guidance as he considers appropriate in relation to the exercise of their functions under section 2A and (so far as relating to that section) section 3(2)(a).",
      (c) in section 5(2), for "subsections (2) to (6) of section 2" there is substituted "sections 2 and 2A".
      (3) In section 6 of the principal Act (supplementary), after subsection (2)there is inserted—
      "(3) An energy conservation authority in England and Wales must—

      (a) at all reasonable times keep a copy of any report under section 2 or 2A, and of any report sent to the Secretary of State under section 3(2)(a), available for inspection by members of the public free of charge, and

      (b) provide reasonable facilities for members of the public to obtain copies of such reports on payment of a reasonable charge.

      (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument require registered social landlords to provide each energy conservation authority in England and Wales within whose area they have residential accommodation with prescribed information, in the prescribed form, as to the levels of performance achieved by them in relation to the energy efficiency of the accommodation.
      (5) A registered social landlord who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a requirement imposed by regulations under subsection (4) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
      Proceedings for an offence under this subsection may only be brought by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
      (5) In this section, "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations under subsection (4) and "registered social landlord" has the same meaning as in the Housing Act 1996; and a statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (4) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, in line 1, at beginning insert—
      (A1) The appropriate Minister shall in exercising any functions under this section or under the principal Act, and in considering whether or not to exercise those functions, have as a principal aim the achievement of an improvement in energy efficiency in residential accommodation of at least 30 per cent. by the end of 2010, taking 1st January 1996 as the base line date.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 12 and 8.
      Dr. Turner: I think that all hon. Members agree that targets are an essential part of delivering the energy efficiency and the fuel poverty components of the Bill. To some extent, I share the disappointment of other hon. Members that the Bill contains no specific targets, in terms of percentages. However, more importantly, Government amendment No. 11 contains a mechanism to make energy conservation a statutory burden on local authorities. At present, it is an optional activity that some authorities pursue with more vigour than others.
      Mr. Don Foster: I also join hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Gentleman on promoting this important Bill. He mentioned concerns about non-statutory requirements, but does he share my concern that the amendment will mean that it will no longer be a
      424
      statutory requirement on the Government to set targets in that area, even at a level that meets the performance and innovation unit recommendations?
      Dr. Turner: I do not in practice share the hon. Gentleman's concern, because whether we are talking about the HECA target or the PIU target, they mean the same in practice. They will deliver the same total quantity of energy conservation if they are achieved. No one disputes the desirability of achieving that target or the consequences of not doing so. Anyone who set out to try to achieve a lesser overall target would, rightly, be scorned. That is not going to happen. It is unthinkable.
      The 20 per cent. PIU target and the 30 per cent. HECA target may not be formal Government policy, but they are the centrepiece of everyone's thinking on energy conservation. They have effectively been endorsed by Ministers from all the Departments concerned, so it is inconceivable that they would not form the working aim. I wanted to put it in the Bill that the Secretary of State should have the PIU target as his aim. I chose the PIU target, but the Liberal Democrats have tabled an amendment, in the same words as my original amendment, that refers to the HECA target. They come to the same thing.
      I know that it is psychologically important to have one of those targets in the Bill and I would have preferred that to be the case. However, British Governments, whether Tory or Labour—probably even Liberal, back in the dim and distant days when we had such things—will not allow figures to appear in Bills. I find that extraordinary, but it is true. The only examples of Governments being prepared to put figures in a Bill are Finance Bills, which obviously would not mean much without them. In reality, those targets are the principle aim of everybody involved and will inform the targets set by the Secretary of State to achieve that aim.
      Amendment No. 11 makes provision for setting targets as necessary, according to the local authority. Some authorities have done outstandingly well in energy conservation, and that is not necessarily correlated directly to their political complexion. There are good Conservative-controlled authorities, good Labour-controlled authorities and, probably, good Liberal-controlled authorities. There are also bad examples of authorities of all three political colours. It depends on how the local authorities set their political priorities.
      Mr. Bryant: I accept the broad thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks. However, some local authorities, including mine, face a further challenge. If 86 per cent. of the population are home owners living in properties that do not meet any of the necessary criteria, it is difficult for local authorities to make significant headway.
      Dr. Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention because it enables me to point out how local authorities in that position can make progress towards the targets. HECA officers, in good authorities, have an excellent record of effectiveness. They lever in funds for the purpose that amount to 10 times more than their employers need to put into the operation, because funds—not only from Government schemes, but from the energy industry—are available.

      425
      Those funds can be directed at owner-occupiers of limited means. They are not excluded from the Government's energy-saving, energy-efficient schemes. That is an important point. Private home owners who are poor can receive substantial grant assistance. Enthusiastic HECA officers have proved themselves good, adept and successful in co-ordinating and directing such funds to where they can do the most good. I submit to my hon. Friend that his constituency has precisely the sort of local authority where these measures can make a difference.
      My main point is that the really significant provision to be included in the Bill is not the national overall target, because that is so clearly understood., but the fact that it sets in place the mechanism for giving the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, which we all applaud, a statutory responsibility for implementation of those targets at a local level on local energy authorities. That provision does not exist at present. If it were not for the Bill, the Government would, sooner or later, have to do something similar. Otherwise, my supporters and I are certain that we will not achieve either the HECA or the PIU target. We estimate that we will fall short of them by about a quarter. That represents a hell of a lot of tonnes of CO, that should not be omitted and a lot of homes using and wasting a lot more energy than they should. By dint of these provisions, we will be able to plug that gap. I count that as a truly significant gain—pretty reasonable for a private Member's Bill, if the House accepts it.
      The amendment also brings into the scope of legislation the energy conservation activities of registered social landlords, a point that has been made by colleagues, people outside the House and private landlords. Registered social landlords would be brought into the net under the amendment.
      I have said all that I intend to say in support of the amendment. Let me say to the Members who have put their names to amendment (a) that I totally empathise with its intentions. In the greater interest of ensuring that the Bill becomes law, I respectfully ask them not to press their amendment to the vote. However, the point in the amendment is very well made. I hope that the House will accept amendment No. 11 and that it will not have to make a decision about amendment (a).
      Mr. Meacher: Amendment No. 11 is the heart of the Bill—the key issue—and I am glad to support it. It effectively replaces clause 1, as agreed in Committee, with the exception of clause 1(7). It sets out the Bill's key provisions in relation to improving domestic energy efficiency. It amends the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, making it more effective and giving it more teeth. That is something that we all want, and I am pleased that we can use the Bill to do it.
      10.45 am
      Before I consider each of the amendment's proposals in detail, I shall explain why, in the Government's view, it is necessary to amend the Bill in this way. It would be an understatement to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) and I have considered this amendment at great length. I sometimes felt as though I had been in continuous session. The amendment is the outcome of many hours of discussion, deliberation and hard work.
      Hon. Members will recall that the Committee agreed an amendment that put targets into the Bill. At the time, I made it clear that I could not support it. It went further
      426
      than I was able to go without knowing fully what the financial implications of such a duty would be for local authorities.
      Amendment No. 11 would introduce, in effect, a new HECA regime. Authorities would be required to prepare and implement new, more rigorous reports so as to achieve statutory targets. These targets would be set by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in England and the National Assembly for Wales, following consultation with local authority representatives. However, because the Government would not place a new burden on authorities without offering the funding to meet it in full, targets would not be set until the necessary funding could be made available. Until such time as targets were set, no new duties would be imposed on authorities.
      Mr. Colin Challen: On the financial cost of targets, I was very grateful to my right hon. Friend for writing to me in March about the possibility of including targets in the Bill. He referred to the 600,000 home insulation grants that the Government were funding, at a possible cost of £2,000 each. Has any assessment been made of the impact of those grants over the next three years on possible targets under an HECA regime?
      Mr. Meacher: As I indicated in my remarks on new clause 1, that is, in effect, an essential part of the Government's commitment to the fuel strategy target of eliminating fuel poverty by 2010. Because, under the warm front team, it is a response to demand—in other words, it is for householders, social workers, doctors or others in the locality to make an application for the work to be undertaken—it is impossible to make a precise calculation of the overall effect, particularly over a 10-year period. However, there is no doubt that the majority of what remains to be done in meeting the fuel poverty strategy and improving home energy efficiency will be achieved by the warm front team and the energy efficiency commitment, as well as by upgrading local authority stock. I cannot give the exact figure, but it is certainly a major part of the cost.
      The potential cost of the Bill to authorities is critical. There is an accepted principle in Government that local authorities must be fully funded for any new burdens imposed on them. A new burden on local authorities is defined as any policy or initiative that increases the cost of providing local authority services. So, for example, when new legislation creates extra responsibilities on councils, the Government fund those responsibilities.
      Under this procedure, an overall policy objective can usually be met by securing appropriate funding within the spending review process. Crucially, however, when a new burden is introduced between reviews—as in this case—a transfer of funds needs to be made within existing totals to ensure that local authorities are properly funded.
      For each initiative, an identifiable Department is in the lead. Where an initiative emanates solely from one Department, that will be the lead Department. In this case, my Department is responsible for any new burdens that will be imposed on local authorities as a result of new domestic energy efficiency and fuel poverty duties.
      I wholly understand that some Members may take the view that the reasons for implementing the Bill are so important that local authorities should implement its

      427
      provisions within existing resources. That argument was played out in Committee. In other words, the matter should be prioritised. However, we must not consider general efficiency savings—however desirable they may be—within local authorities as an available source of funding for new burdens. Nor should we assume that authorities can absorb the cost of a new burden through reduced expenditure on existing functions.
      In the context of the Bill, unless action is taken that clearly reduces local authority costs in other matters concerned with energy efficiency targets, I am responsible for finding the budget to reimburse all their costs. Without that funding, local authorities will have to secure provision from other budget hits. Many of them will simply say that that is not acceptable.
      Mr. Sayeed: It has been suggested that the extra burden on local authorities will be about £29 million. Does the Minister confirm that figure? Does he agree that it is about right? Is he saying that he does not have access to that amount to reimburse local authorities?
      Mr. Meacher: I do not confirm the figure of £29 million. Several rough and ready estimates have been produced, for example by the Local Government Association and the Association for the Conservation of Energy, for which we are grateful: the possible costs range between £29 million and £1 billion. That is an enormous range, so one can hardly give credence to £29 million. Even if the figure were £29 million, however, everything that I have said continues to apply. I should have to find a way of reducing expenditure for local authorities by that amount, especially in the energy efficiency field. I repeat that no one has suggested how that can be done fairly or properly, or, indeed, that it would be right to do it.
      Dr. Brian Iddon: I am a little confused. The Government set a target of 30 per cent. by 2010. My right hon. Friend has made the criticism that local authorities have not been meeting that target. Is he saying that the Government have not made available the money to meet that target?
      Mr. Meacher: I am saying that the Government did not set the target of achieving a 30 per cent. improvement in energy efficiency in domestic housing stock. That target was set by the last Conservative Government as an aim, not a statutory requirement, and they provided no money with which to achieve it. That is the situation that we inherited and we have to confront it. Are we serious about the issue? I do not think that the last Government were serious. We are trying to confront the situation. We believe that there needs to be an improvement in energy efficiency, especially among the laggard local authorities—those who have achieved hardly anything. Some have obtained good results, but many have not. If we are to make those improvements, we have to find the extra money. That is the problem.
      The Government provide money through the spending review. We are currently in the third year of the 2000 spending review, and there will soon be an announcement—presumably in the summer—about the 2002 spending review. Those reviews are carefully prepared and a private Member's Bill, such as this one,
      428
      would insert a requirement for an unspecified sum, perhaps between £29 million and £1 billion. That is where the problem lies.
      Peter Bottomley: The House understands that on money matters, the Minister can say only what the Treasury authorises him to say, so if we argue with him we are really arguing with the Treasury and we are actually on his side. We hope that he will be successful. Can he tell us, in plain language, whether the Government have that aim, or not?
      Mr. Meacher: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the aim of a 30 per cent. improvement in home energy efficiency, I repeat that that aim was set by the previous—[Interruption.] Let me answer in my own way. That aim was set by the previous Government, but they did not provide the money for it. If I am to take over that aim, I have to explain to local authorities where the money is to come from. It is an aspiration. I should love to have an improvement of 30 per cent., but I cannot simply declare it with a wave of the wand, and say that the Government accept the target unless I can say where the money will come from. The proposition in the amendment is that we shall make the best endeavours to achieve that aim, but only when I have the money available for the improvement. That is the only possible way forward.
      I am not resiling in any way from an improvement of something in the order of 30 per cent. but there is no point in pretending that one can pluck a figure from the air unless one can say where the money will come from. It is not a quarrel with the Treasury: the Government are united in the view that if we commit to something, we have to say how it will be achieved and where the money will come from.
      Peter Bottomley rose—
      Mr. Meacher: I am being extremely generous to the hon. Gentleman, as I hope he realises.
      Peter Bottomley: I accept that.
      As I made plain, I am not making a personal attack on the Minister, but are the Government saying that the aim of the previous Conservative Government is not currently their aim?
      Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman has heard me say in words of one syllable that that is not the case. I am saying that no responsible Government—and I think that the previous Government were irresponsible on this point—[Interruption.] It is not right for the Government to set a target, and to give guidance to local authorities drawing up their energy efficiency reports by mentioning a figure of 30 per cent., without saying where the money is to come from. That is not responsible. All I am saying is that this Government are not going to do that.
      I want a big improvement in energy efficiency. We are already massively committed to that, through the home energy efficiency scheme, the energy efficiency commitment and the upgrading of local authority housing stock. That will have a massive effect, so any suggestion that we need to be prompted to accept a 30 per cent. target is beside the point. We are going far in that direction, but if I am to give a commitment that by a certain date we

      429
      shall have achieved exactly that target, I repeat—for the last time—that I have to say where the money will come from, and when we are between spending reviews, I am not in a position to do that.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Sayeed: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Meacher: I warn hon. Members that my speech is very long, so this must be the last intervention. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Sayeed: What the right hon. Gentleman has just said leaves me, as well as some of my hon. Friends and others, perplexed. In paragraph 3 of a letter of 18 September 2001 to the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), the Minister said that the Government
      "asked authorities to prepare strategies for making at least substantial progress towards a 30 per cent. improvement in 10 years from 1 April 1996".
      That sounds a bit like a target. In the penultimate paragraph of the same letter, the right hon. Gentleman talks about making the 30 per cent. target more robust. Clearly, for some months, the right hon. Gentleman has been asking local authorities not only to set themselves targets but to fulfil them. So what has changed?
      11 am
      Mr. Meacher: That is exactly what the HECA was designed to do. It asked, not required, local authorities to make substantial improvements in energy efficiency. The previous Conservative Government set a 30 per cent. target, but did not provide the funding to implement it. That letter of September 2001 is exactly within the parameters of the HECA. This Bill goes further than that and requires the achievement of particular targets, which I am all in favour of if I can fund it.
      Since taking office, we have provided good grant increases. In the main, councils have used that money to improve services in our priority areas of education and social services, but any unfunded new burdens will result in local authorities looking to other areas of their services. The environmental protection and cultural services block of the revenue support grant, which covers many of the areas for which my Department is responsible, such as waste management, is often viewed as a source of provision which is raided to pay for pressures that councils face.
      When I put on another hat and debate waste management legislation, many hon. Members rightly complain about our low recycling achievement. Local authorities say that we require them to achieve a doubling or trebling of recycling targets—as I do—and they in turn expect us to fund that, and that is exactly what we did do. In the third year of the spending review 2000, the current year, the increase in the EPCS block is £1.1 billion, which is large. It deals with much more than environmental issues and waste management. But if one suggests taking money from that in order to achieve the Bill's target, there will be complaints that local authorities are not adequately funded for waste management. We cannot have it both ways. If hon. Members want this as devoutly as I want it, they must explain where the money will come from.
      430
      In order to establish the likely costs that the Bill, agreed in Committee, would impose, my Department commissioned an independent study. As I have already said, that produced wildly different results—somewhere between £29 million and £1 billion—so it is difficult to put much reliance on any figure.
      If the Bill had been part of the Government's programme—a key point—its funding would have been an integral part of policy development and included in the spending review process, but that is not the case for a private Member's Bill. The Bill's essence is that a private Member, with the best motives, which I strongly support and for which I respect my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown, seeks to insert a demand for a significant stream of Government expenditure, of an unspecified total, in between what the Government have already planned for in their spending review. That is the problem.
      If DEFRA had to find the money for the Bill, it could be done only by reducing expenditure on other energy efficiency programmes. I do not believe that any hon. Member would think that that was the right way to proceed. There would then be no resultant gain in energy efficiency because other programmes would have to be reduced so that this one could grow. That is not the way to proceed.
      In accordance with the local government White Paper, our priorities and the policy areas where we want to set targets for local government will be brokered through the spending review and the national public service agreement for local government, not locked in through legislation. That is the central point. The approach set out in the amendment achieves that aim. Once full funding is available, we will set statutory targets for local authorities, which they will have to meet by given deadlines. That is the significance of this Bill over the HECA. Local authorities will be given the funding and support that they need to undertake the new task, and that is what my hon. Friend, I and other supporters of the Bill hoped that it would achieve from the outset. It will achieve that. I undertake to start discussions with the Local Government Association as soon as resources are available. I can also say that targets will help to ensure that every authority makes a contribution to conserving natural resources and reducing greenhouse gases and fuel poverty.
      Once a target had been set for an authority, that authority would be under a new duty to prepare an energy efficiency report. That would set out measures that the authority considers practicable, cost-effective and likely to result in the target being met. That differs from the energy conservation reports prepared under the old HECA, which did not require the achievement of any given target. That is the crucial point. Instead, they had to set out measures likely to result in significant improvement in energy efficiency, hence my letter of September 2001. The Bill would move away from that imprecise requirement to a much stronger statutory duty to have a report that will achieve a given percentage improvement in domestic energy efficiency by a given date.
      Most of the improvement will in fact be made, as I keep on saying, through non-local authority programmes, such as the energy efficiency commitment and warm front, as well as action by millions of individual householders. The role of authorities is to facilitate and encourage take-up of those programmes and activities as

      431
      far as they can, and to take action with regard to their own stock. They do not have to achieve the whole target on their own. I fully realise that, but it is difficult to establish the residual amount that will be needed to achieve a 30 per cent. target, if that is what we would like to achieve, after warm front, the energy efficiency commitment and the upgrading of local authority stock have been fully implemented. That is why the requirement would be to achieve the target as far as is reasonably practicable.
      The amendment requires the Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly for Wales to consult the Local Government Association in England and in Wales when setting domestic energy efficiency targets for energy conservation authorities. Those targets would include a date by which the given improvements were to be made and could be varied. That means requiring a bigger improvement from those authorities that have done the least up to now.
      We all know of authorities that have decided that improving domestic efficiency should be a priority in their area. In that respect, they are good local authorities. They recognise that that can bring about social, economic and environmental benefits for their community. The Bill is not aimed primarily at those authorities. Nor is it aimed at those authorities that have tried hard to make improvements but, because of local conditions, have not been as successful as they hoped. No; it is aimed primarily at authorities that have not even prepared an energy conservation report, and there are some of those. It is aimed at those authorities that have not set a target. There are more of those. It is also aimed at those authorities that have set targets without doing anything to achieve them. It is certainly aimed at them.
      Strictly speaking, all those things were allowed under the HECA. That was not the wish of the Act's promoter, but the way in which it was drafted allowed local authorities that gave low priority to such measures to do so with impunity. That was one of the faults of the Act. However, I recognise that it is not in the spirit of the Act, nor does it provide communities with the leadership and the services that one would expect from local authorities.
      I do not want anyone to think that the Bill is an excuse to stop doing anything until the targets are set. That is an important point. We shall be pursuing local authorities, as we already are, under the HECA. This Bill is not a laggard's charter. Authorities should continue to work towards their existing targets until new targets are agreed, and we shall be chasing them to ensure that that happens. This Bill sends clear signals to authorities currently not taking their responsibilities seriously that this is not acceptable. Authorities that have made little progress to date will have considerably more to do in the future.
      I do not accept the argument that authorities do not have the resources to improve energy efficiency now. Some authorities have been able to make considerable improvements through proactive and imaginative use of existing financial provision. It is important to remember that authorities will not have to meet the full cost of improvements—far from it. The gas and electricity suppliers and warm front will maximise the improvement of energy efficiency in their area.
      431
      A further important element of the proposed approach to target setting is that the targets should be established in consultation with representatives of local government. There are a number of reasons for that. The first is that merely imposing targets on local authorities from above is not compatible with the Government's view of the desirable relationship between central and local government. It is crucial that local authorities take ownership of the targets. The active participation of local authority representatives in developing them will help to achieve that aim, and to ensure that we get robust and stretching targets that deliver the improvements that we all want.
      Variation is another important aspect. Targets can be varied as necessary. 'The need to improve domestic energy efficiency will not suddenly stop in 2010. Authorities should not rest on their laurels once they have met their targets. Some authorities have attained 20 per cent. improvements, so they are already well on their way. The amendment will allow the targets to be revised as necessary, following the same consultative approach. That will make the HECA a more flexible tool to help to deliver national objectives. For example, under the climate change programme we will systematically have to move from the Kyoto protocol target of 5 per cent. or the United Kingdom's commitment to 12.5 per cent. towards 40, 50, 60 or 70 per cent. over the next few decades, and energy efficiency is a key part of achieving that.
      In addition to introducing a new HECA regime once targets are set, the amendment also makes changes to two provisions agreed in Committee.
      Dr. Iddon: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Meacher: I shall finish this rather technical little section, and then I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
      Clause 1(6) requires authorities to keep a copy of any report available for inspection by the public. Clause 1(4) deals with the duty on registered social landlords to provide information to local authorities to help with their HECA reporting. It was agreed in Committee that it would be good practice for authorities to keep a copy of any HECA report available for inspection by the public free of charge. Under the 1995 Act, authorities are already obliged to publish their reports, but that is not to say that they are always readily accessible to interested members of the public. That point was made in Committee, and I agree with it. It would be in the interests of local accountability and access to information for those documents to be open to public inspection.
      On further reflection, we agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown that it would be good practice for authorities to allow members of the public to make copies of reports. They can be quite lengthy and detailed, and it is not always possible for the public to find all they want from the reports at one sitting. They may also want to compare different authorities' reports, and that can be done only if they can take away copies of the reports. Rather than allowing them to be taken away, which runs the risk of their not being returned, it seems sensible for the authority to provide copies if required.
      It is important to balance these interests against the potential additional burden on authorities of meeting this new requirement. No one would want authorities to be faced with demands for high numbers of copies at their

      433
      own expense. It is only right for authorities to be able to make a reasonable charge to cover the cost of providing copying facilities. I stress the word "reasonable", because this should not turn into an important source of income. It is meant merely to cover their costs, and no more. It would be for authorities to determine their own arrangements.
      I am sorry that it has taken so long to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon).
      11.15 am
      Dr. Iddon: I am concerned about paragraph (5) of the amendment. Listening to my right hon. Friend, I get the impression that each local authority will be allowed to negotiate its own target. Is that the case, or will the Local Government Association, in liaison with its local authority members, set a national target that all local authorities will be expected to meet? If they do not meet the target, what sanctions can the Government apply?
      Mr. Meacher: I know that there has been concern that, by inserting a requirement that there should be consultation with the LGA in England and Wales, individual local authorities or the LGA might have a veto. I do not for one second believe that that would be the case. Under the amendment, the proposal is to provide an income stream so that local authorities are able to achieve this improvement in energy efficiency, which will reduce the cost of keeping their housing stock warm. I do not think that there is any question of a veto.
      The target will be set not by the LGA, but by the Secretary of State in consultation with the LGA. The key point is that the measure will be funded, so it will be a statutory requirement. Like every statutory requirement, local authorities will be obliged to achieve it. So long as funding is available, I see no reason why they should not achieve it.
      Mr. Challen: Is it conceivable that a local authority or the LGA could set a target higher than 30 per cent. by 2010 and expect the funding for it?
      Mr. Meacher: The target will be set by the Secretary of State, whose primary concern will be to achieve an improvement in the energy efficiency of local authorities that up till now have had a poor record—anything from 0 to 5 per cent. is a poor record, given that the Act came into force six years ago.
      I think I can say without fear of refutation that the Secretary of State will not, at this stage, set targets beyond 30 per cent. However, as we begin to move in that direction across the country, targets can be varied. If it is the intention after 2010 to go significantly further—I can well believe that it will be—a target may well be set beyond 30 per cent., but we are a long way from achieving that. Achievement towards the 30 per cent. target after six years is about 6 per cent. on average, with some local authorities achieving 20 per cent. If they get up to 30 per cent., there is no reason why they should not, for their own good reasons, go beyond that, but that is different from the Government setting that as a target.
      The amendment would enable the appropriate Minister to require registered social landlords—which is the phrase used to describe housing associations—to copy to the
      434
      local authority information relating to the energy efficiency of their housing stock in the area. The proposed amendment achieves the objectives of clause 1(4) as agreed in Committee, but more simply and straightforwardly.
      As currently drafted, clause 1(4) links the duty of registered social landlords to provide information to local authorities with section 35 of the Housing Act 1996 and the information provided to the Housing Corporation under that section on a number of aspects of performance, including energy efficiency. More specifically, as currently drafted, clause 1(4) links the duty of registered social landlords to provide information to local authorities with the power in section 35(2) for the corporation to issue a direction to registered social landlords to provide information. Local authorities need this to assist with their duty under the HECA to draw up progress reports in relation to the residential accommodation in their areas. By providing for local authorities to receive copies of information already provided by registered social landlords to the Housing Corporation, we believe the burden on registered social landlords will be lessened.
      Some registered social landlords work across a number of local authority boundaries and will be required to disaggregate the information about their stock at local authority level. However, we aim to mitigate the burden of this as far as possible by providing for the appropriate Minister to prescribe in secondary legislation the information to be provided by registered social landlords, in what form, the timing and so on. We will be consulting representatives of local authorities and registered social landlords on all of these details.
      After that lengthy comment on amendment No. 11, I shall now respond to amendment (a) to amendment No. 11. This amendment would have the effect of including a statement in the Bill that it is a "principal aim" of Government to achieve an improvement in domestic energy efficiency of at least 30 per cent. by the end of 2010. The persistent interventions by the hon. Member for Woolwich—
      Peter Bottomley: Worthing.
      Mr. Meacher: I am going back several elections. His interventions may be the answer. I cannot accept the amendment. My first reason is that it would lead to odd legislation. It is not appropriate to make general statements about aims or principles in legislation. I recognise that that is not without precedent, but a principal aim is not binding on the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales. The whole point of the Bill is to have binding commitments. The measure would be simply presentational; there is nothing wrong with that, but that is all it would be. Nor do the Secretary of State or the National Assembly need powers to make statements of general principle. I wonder what useful purpose that would serve, other than a presentational one.
      There are also difficulties in terms of policy. It would be premature for the Government to make a statement of principle about the target we hope to achieve in relation to improving domestic energy efficiency at this stage. My Department is currently preparing our domestic energy efficiency strategy. This is in response to the performance and innovation unit's energy review, which recommended that the Government should develop a long-term framework. I am sure that that is right.

      435
      The PIU has suggested that the framework include an aspirational target, not a binding target. It is also a report to, and not by, Government. The aspirational target is for a 20 per cent. improvement by 2010 and a further 20 per cent. improvement by 2020. That is desirable, if we can achieve it. However, before the Government respond, we have to decide how that will be funded. For those reasons, I do not support the amendment.
      Another reason is the impact the amendment would have on the consultative process. As I have said, the Government will have to consult the LGA on the targets, which will also have to be commensurate with the funding available. It would be odd to dictate, as the amendment suggests, by an overarching statement in this way, prior to the funding being available. That might undermine the consultative approach to target setting.
      I wish to speak finally to Government amendment No. 12, which deals with a relatively technical matter. The purpose of this amendment is to delete lines 19 to 22 of clause 1. These define various terms used in the Bill, as agreed in Committee. The definitions are not necessary, since the Bill would amend the original HECA legislation and these terms are already defined there.
      Government amendment No. 8 is a technical amendment to the long title of the Bill. It is more appropriate to use the broader term "residential accommodation", as defined in the HECA. This reflects the fact that the Bill also covers houses in multiple occupation, caravans and houseboats.
      That is not exactly a ringing declaration on which to end a speech on what I genuinely think is an important part of the Bill, which I hope has widespread support. It will provide for the first time the basis for the setting of statutory targets that local authorities will be obliged to achieve in terms of improving energy efficiency within a given guideline. As soon as the Government have the finance to do that—I am very keen that we have that finance—we will implement this important part of the Bill.
      Mr. Gregory Barker: I rise to support amendment (a) to amendment No. 11, tabled in my name and supported by numerous colleagues. I also wish to make a number of direct points about amendment No. 11, tabled in the Minister's name.
      I hope that amendment (a) will win widespread support; it deserves to. Its origins lie not with me, but with the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), the promoter of the Bill. I pay full and warm tribute to the hon. Gentleman for all he has done to bring the Bill through the House, but I cannot agree with his sad conclusions about this crucial clause.
      There has been a very large degree of cross-party consensus on this Bill. Its aims have found vocal support right across the Chamber; indeed, among its earliest supporters was the Minister. But if the Government will not accept my amendment, all the hard work that has gone into the Bill, and all the hopes and aspirations invested in it, will have been totally and utterly wasted.
      We all want a step change in Britain's energy efficiency, and we all want to end fuel poverty, but it is simply no good to will the end if you refuse to will the
      436
      means. Mouthing the mantra is simply not good enough. Without amendment (a), the Bill is a toothless sham and the Minister knows it. The difference between amendment No. 11, in the Minister's name, and amendment (a) in mine is like the difference between black and white: it could not be starker.
      If passed, amendment No. 11 will gut this Bill. It will allow the Secretary of State to set targets for local authorities entirely at his or her discretion. It does not require him or her to set any specific target; we are all left just hoping the Minister will set one. Amendment No. 11 allows the Minister to set any target or none. There is no mandatory benchmark or statutory commitment.
      The Government amendment dilutes this Bill into wishy-washy good intentions, totally reliant on ministerial discretion. Amendment (a) by contrast, would set a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to set meaningful targets. He would still have the freedom to set different targets for different authorities, but the amendment would require him to have a "principal aim " of a 30 per cent. improvement between 1996 and 2010; exactly what the Government guidance already calls for.
      11.30 am
      The drafting of amendment (a) also allows the Secretary of State to increase the scale of central programmes, perhaps under the warm homes strategy, and reflect that in the targets that he sets, over which, under amendment (a), he would still have huge flexibility and discretion. Without amendment (a), I would have grave doubts over whether amendment No. 11 will in any way improve local authorities' performance under the 1995 Act.
      The Minister's amendment effectively rewrites part 1, and does so in such a way that if the Secretary of State does nothing at all, he or she will not be in breach of the legislation. That is the Government's wrecking amendment in a nutshell: the Minister may do nothing—absolutely nothing at all—and still not be in breach of the Bill. Is that truly what Members on both sides of the House have worked so hard for?
      I know that the Minister will want to assure us that he will not take that route, that he intends to act and that arch sceptics who doubt him are simply being unfair. I fully accept that he is personally committed to environmental protection, including energy efficiency, yet when the House passes a law, we should not, in my view, leave so much discretion to the Executive, whatever their political complexion. A law that says, "You can do this or not do it—it's entirely up to you," is not much of a law. In fact, its passage through the House would be a complete waste of time.
      Mr. Challen: As a fellow member of the Environmental Audit Committee, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares my healthy scepticism about the meaning of targets. Our meeting on Wednesday went into that point in great depth. If he is asking the House to agree to his amendment, he should give some idea of its financial cost. It would also help me, as one who is genuinely torn on the subject, to hear his assessment of how much progress has been made in the seven years since the 1995 Act was passed.
      Mr. Barker: I shall certainly come to the progress, but I cannot give any further indications, other than the

      437
      £29 million to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) referred. As colleagues on the Environmental Audit Committee, we saw how the Minister shies away from meaningful targets when we quizzed him on the meaning of life indicators. On that, I believe, the House should hold him to account.
      In the Standing Committee, the Minister began by recognising the flaws in the HECA, which the Bill is intended to address:
      "The Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 is groundbreaking. As all hon. Members recognise, it is flawed in important respects, especially in terms of targets, enforcements and time scales."
      He continued by offering his support in solving these flaws:
      "I enter unreservedly into the spirit of trying to achieve worthwhile targets and the enforcement mechanisms to ensure that they are met … it is important to ensure that the target that we set has a target date and that there are mechanisms in place to give plausibility to the belief that the target will be met in time. I accept that."
      Terrific words, Minister, yet amendment No. 11 sets no statutory target and no statutory target date, and includes no statutory mechanism whatever to ensure that targets are met.
      The Minister told the Committee he would
      "much prefer to set a target and just fail to reach it, yet make a serious attempt, than to avoid setting a target and produce a wet and feeble response. "—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 24 January 2002; c. 16–18.]
      What on earth has happened? If this is not a "wet and feeble" legislative response, then I do not know what is. If the Government crush amendment (a) and in so doing completely fillet the Bill, it will look to the entire outside world as though the Government's greenest Minister has been nobbled.
      Of course, the House needs to be certain that the principal aim of a 30 per cent. improvement is realistic and achievable. It is, but let me remind the House of several points. First, the 30 per cent. target that I recommend has been in Government guidance since the HECA was passed and implemented. Although local authorities have set slightly varying targets, 30 per cent. is the average in their strategies. Plainly, central Government think the target achievable, or they would not have guided councils to meet it. Equally plainly, the vast majority of local authorities have plans to meet the target—it must be achievable.
      Furthermore, the recent performance and innovation unit report, which the Minister referred to, calls for a 20 per cent. improvement in energy efficiency by 2010 from current levels. While at first glance that appears to be a smaller target, the PIU is calling for it to be achieved in just eight years, as it expects an improvement from current levels. The 30 per cent. target required by amendment (a) and in HECA guidance is based on a 1996 baseline, giving 14 years for it to be reached. With some progress already made, effectively the two targets are identical.
      There are controversial points in the PIU report, but the energy efficiency targets have not been regarded as controversial. The Environmental Audit Committee thought those targets pretty tame. By supporting amendment (a) the Government would show that they were taking the energy report seriously; opposing ambitious statutory targets would suggest that the report was a waste of time.
      438
      Since 14 April, 211 hon. Members have signed early-day motion 1136, which was tabled by the promoter of the Bill. Indeed, 146 Labour MPs have signed up to a motion that welcomes the 30 per cent. target and calls for the Bill to
      "make the targets statutory thus ensuring that they are met".
      That is the crux of my amendment—giving the Bill the teeth it was always intended to have. I hope and trust that all colleagues right across the House will make good their public support, and support amendment (a).
      Alan Simpson: I begin with praise and some thank-yous. Despite all the areas that we need to address and which may be contentious, we ought to recognise how much has gone into bringing before the House a Bill that it is important to pass. In recognising how we have reached this point, we must pay tribute to the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), who has sweated blood to get the legislation here in any form. The whole House owes him great praise and credit for that.
      I also put on record my praise for the Minister. All the way through, he has been a stalwart campaigner on our objectives of eradicating fuel poverty and addressing the climate change targets which the Government have already set for themselves. It would be wrong to dress this up in any way as an act of last-minute betrayal by, I think, probably the best Environment Minister that the House has ever had.
      While I am singing praises, it would be remiss not to recognise the contributions made by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, during proceedings in Committee and work done in the all-party warm homes group, which I have the genuine privilege to chair, towards building a huge cross-party consensus on supporting our shared objective of ending fuel poverty in Britain. It has not been an issue where we have fallen out on party lines.
      The question that we have sought to deal with over the 10 years that I have been in Parliament, moving it on year by year, stage by stage, has been whether we can set the objective of eradicating fuel poverty and, now that we have, trying to be clear about the mechanisms for doing so.
      Every part of the political process in the House has played a constructive part, as have many organisations outside, which have given us amazing backing. The Local Government Association, the National Federation of Housing Associations, environmental groups, poverty groups and responsible landlords have, in bringing this Bill back before the House, played constructive parts. With or without the shortcomings of amendment No. 11, it is important to recognise that there are massive gains in passing a Bill that specifically refers to fuel poverty and that does something specific about what is arguably the hardest sector of housing for fuel poverty: houses in multiple occupation. I do not intend to speak on those proposals, but I wanted to say how important they are as benchmarks of achievement.
      The central issue is about targets and time scale. Last night my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown thanked Members who had helped him to bring the Bill this far. I am sure that he will not mind me telling the House that he thanked them for the individual parts that they had played in giving him what he described

      439
      as a genuinely life-shortening experience. The life-shortening part has been the frustration of negotiations about the adequacy and accuracy of clauses that were to be included in the Bill. It has been a mind-bogglingly frustrating experience, but it is still possible for us to improve what is a worthwhile Bill to make it a genuine tribute to the whole House.
      Whether they are dealt with in the Bill or not, the issues surrounding targets and time scale will be the ones that dog us in the debate about the elimination of fuel poverty. They will dog us in every constituency, in every debate and in every Government policy. Unless and until we deal with them, we will not be perceived as credibly committed to delivering what we say we are committed to on paper and within our legal framework.
      The original intention of the Bill was to try to fill a gap. At one stage, when my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown was looking at the gaps that the Bill was trying to fill, he told us that we were currently committed to the eradication of fuel poverty in Britain within 15 years. Thanks to the case that Friends of the Earth brought before the High Court, we now know that that is the eradication of all fuel poverty—not some, a lot or the majority, but all. We have a legal duty to deliver on that target.
      We also know the Government have made commitments on climate change obligations and the Kyoto targets, and that part of the legacy of the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 was the ministerial guidance notes that said clearly that we were committed to 30 per cent. improvements in energy efficiency by 2010. Those guidance notes remain in place and continue to be the ones that local authorities across the land attempt to work to. The Minister is right that many of those local authorities have not only taken those guidelines seriously, but attempted to deliver on them. We should not malign local authorities by saying that they treat the guidance as disposable. Many of the best local authorities have given a lead that the House should pay tribute to and feel proud of.
      11.45 am
      In the course of pulling those points together and putting targets in the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown once said to me in the midst of negotiations that appeared to be going nowhere, "Listen. I am only trying to be helpful, damn it." He has been damnably helpful throughout the process in trying to put those targets in the Bill. So why should we impale ourselves on proposals that fail to refer to targets or time scale?
      As the Minister said, in part, the argument is about money. It is also about whether the particular Ministry concerned has the power to set that target in its Bill. However, there is great confusion in the arguments that have been presented to the Minister. Whether or not he or his Cabinet colleagues will be convinced of them when they have had greater time to scrutinise them is another matter.
      Sue Doughty: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that, during the passage of the Bill, the Minister and his Ministry seemed to query how much the proposal
      440
      would cost and then pick out of the air the figure that they liked best—up to £1 billion? Had we behaved like that in previous lives and adopted such weak management techniques in trying to establish the cost of a programme, we would have been out of the door fairly quickly. I am curious to know how the Department did not know the cost of implementation during the passage of the Bill.
      Alan Simpson: That is a fair question. It is important to recognise that the figures have often been used in a somewhat vicarious fashion. If it suits to have a low figure, a low figure has been proposed. If it suits to have an exorbitantly high figure, that has been thrown in to block the idea that it is a meetable target. We may be frightened by the wildest target of £1 billion, but it will not be too long before we have a duty as a House to reflect on who will meet the £80 billion residual costs of public liability that we propose to relieve British Nuclear Fuels of. Whose budget will that come from, or does the Minister have it in his? I am not sure whether he has the answer tucked in his pocket somewhere, but my point shows that we can make commitments in principle, even though we do not know entirely where the costs will be met from. However, it is right to do so.
      My worry about new clause 1 is that it probably takes us further back from, and weakens, HECA. New section 2A(1) of amendment No. 11 states:
      "Where a target applies for the time being"
      it should be the duty of—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing amendment (a) and amendment No. 11, not new clause 1.
      Alan Simpson: I am grateful for that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wanted the House to be aware of the gaps that the amendment will seek to cover.
      We have signed up to a change of wording that no longer requires authorities by law to produce a report. We have now said to them, "Where you do produce a report, for the time being, you shall have a duty." So authorities that no longer produce reports do not have a duty. Only measures that are likely to result in the target being met are then required.
      What if an authority sets a target of zero? It will not fall foul of the new requirements. It will not be possible to write guidance that says, "Where are you in respect of the 30 per cent. targets?" What if they set the Maldon target? Maldon is often cited as an authority that has done very little to meet the targets set out in the guidance notes. What would happen if Maldon said that its target was to deliver not very much and that its progress report would say only that it was doing so not very quickly'? That approach would be compliant with the Bill as amended.
      The saving grace was always the provision that allows the Minister or Secretary of State the power to intervene. If it stated that this particular Minister for the Environment had power to intervene, I would be happy, as I have inordinate confidence in his inclination to intervene in entirely beneficial and laudable ways, but the Bill leaves things much more open and the amendment seeks to narrow that provision in important ways. It does not narrow it as much as I would like, but I shall deal with that point in a moment.

      441
      I am worried that the Minister appears to have been told that he needed to change the Bill that has returned to the Floor of the House because of the provision in clause 1 stating that energy conservation authorities
      "shall take all … steps as are reasonably practicable to implement the measures set out in any energy conservation report prepared by the authority."
      That was the position under HECA and the provision was intended simply to make it statutory. I think that the Minister was told that he could not introduce such provision, however, as he would fall foul of the "new burdens obligations" that have mysteriously entered into the language of governance.
      The suggestion about telling authorities that they will not be required to do what they are supposed to be doing and about the risk of incurring extra costs is a strange notion. My question is: why are they not already doing what they are supposed to be doing? It seems bizarre to talk about an existing responsibility not being incorporated in the framework of all the programmes that the Government have presented to the energy conservation authorities and on which many of them have indeed delivered. I find bizarre the reinterpretation of that requirement as a new burden.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: The hon. Gentleman's knowledge about energy efficiency and all the matters under discussion is instanced by the fact that he is chairman of the all-party group on warm homes. Will he confirm that of about 360 relevant authorities, some 350 have agreed targets? Only about 10 or a dozen do not have such targets. If the amendment were accepted, the 350 with targets would be completely let off the hook and there would be no possibility of requiring the recalcitrant 10 or a dozen authorities to set targets.
      Alan Simpson: I am not certain about that. Worryingly, it appears that a new loophole might be introduced by including in the Bill the phrase
      "where a target applies for the time being".
      The provision leaves it open to the 350 energy conservation authorities that already have targets to say that they will stop their work to achieve them. What action can be taken if there are no targets for the time being? There is great confusion about the meaning of the wording that has been presented to the Minister to be tabled in his name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown at half-past the eleventh hour.
      That is one of my great complaints about the overall process. By and large, although Ministers may not be the last to see the amendments that are tabled in their names, they may see them only just before the rest of us get to do so and are asked to approve them. That is a very poor way of exercising a parliamentary duty of scrutiny in delivering good legislation. I am deeply worried about the quality of the advice that is being given to Ministers and which the House is being asked to endorse. My concern is based not only on the technical quality of the advice, but on whether there is a sub-agenda about which the House should be even more concerned. We are told about the problem of obligations that introduce new burdens, but I think that we are caught between a misunderstanding of responsibilities and an uncomfortable reality—a misunderstanding of what the new burdens obligation might mean and the stronger reality of the no-burdens inclination of those who advise the Government.
      442
      When the original HECA reports were scrutinised by Ministers and other hon. Members, a huge discrepancy was clearly evident; many authorities had failed to deliver very much at all. In response, the Minister for the Environment said in opening the consultation that he would be looking for a more robust set of targets, which reflected the fact that the worst had to be required to catch up with the rest.
      It was in that context that the Minister was subsequently advised that he could not take such action because of the new burdens obligation. The consultations with local authorities and other organisations overwhelmingly favoured the introduction of tougher targets. Local government, communities and those campaigning on fuel poverty all wanted such targets. However, it was suggested by civil servants in his Department that, rather than strengthen the targets, we should do away with them altogether. It was argued that targets got in the way, which flew in the face of the remit that he had set for the consultation process.
      It is sad that the same civil service rewording of that inclination has returned to the House in the form of amendment No. 11. What has happened may be the result of a bizarre sense of self-protection, on the basis that the departmental record of implementing the 1995 Act shows that very little has been done to monitor the reporting that should have taken place. The requirement was one of those reluctant obligations that have only latterly been taken on board. When the Minister began to see just how wide the disparities in performance were, he was the one who said that the regime had to be toughened up. Institutionally, however, if he had not driven the requirement, it would not have gone anywhere.
      As I said, the consultations related more to ways in which targets could be avoided than to how they could be delivered. Furthermore, I think that they were underpinned by a bizarre presumption that civil servants can best protect Ministers by giving them the fewest possible obligations. It is presumed that that approach will protect Ministers' backs against criticism; how can one be criticised for not delivering something to which one was not committed? That is an interesting notion of survival, but a poor way of giving the answers that the public want from us in terms of delivering an end to fuel poverty.
      Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman has talked about commitment. The Minister for Industry and Energy told the Environmental Audit Committee last week that, with commitment, the 30 per cent. target could be achieved. The argument of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) leaves us wondering whether the Treasury has lost the will to realise the Government's commitment. The point about whether it should be specified in the Bill is underpinned by the question whether the Government have the commitment that, according to the Minister for Industry and Energy last week, is needed to achieve the target. Without the commitment, how can the target be achieved?
      Alan Simpson: I do not believe that the Treasury has lost the will or that the Minister has lost a battle with the Treasury. I do not believe that a battle has taken place. There is a different, legitimate problem of confusion about how modernised government works. I shall consider that shortly because it is an important obstacle that we must tackle, not only in the Home Energy Conservation Bill but in others.

      443
      I am worried that the use of parliamentary counsel and the drafting and timing of amendments has worked to the serious disadvantage and disempowerment of Parliament and Ministers. That is why I speak in favour of amendment (a), which is a good amendment. I know that because my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown drafted it. Apart from a change of wording to provide for the original HECA targets rather than those set out by the performance and innovation unit—they are pretty indistinguishable—amendment (a) is almost exactly the same as the amendment that my hon. Friend drafted through parliamentary counsel.
      The amendment was not dreamt up on the back of a cigarette packet. My hon. Friend had the wit and wisdom to assume the right to go to parliamentary counsel to get amendments drafted to ensure that they were good. We were fortunate in having someone who had been a parliamentary counsel for more than 20 years and drafted Treasury Bills to produce the wording that we are considering. It is therefore not fly-by-night wording; it was produced by parliamentary counsel in good time, circulated for consultation, and not rushed at the last minute. That is the opposite of using parliamentary counsel to undertake a last-minute hijack of Ministers and Members of Parliament.
      However, if we are considering overcoming the problem of not being able to tackle targets because they are connected to budgets, let us do a reality check with other Government commitments. We are committed to ending child poverty in the decade, we have a legal commitment to end fuel poverty in 15 years and it is Government policy to meet the Kyoto targets. None of the moneys for those commitments is currently in the budget of the Minister for the Environment or that of anyone else, but that does not stop us making them. They are commitments in principle to deliver an outcome. The timetable will be measured against the outcome.
      The most important reason for accepting the amendment is that it is wrong to say that a commitment cannot be made in principle because the money is not in a single Department's budget or because we would fall foul of the new burdens obligation if we did otherwise. There are many ways in which the costs can be met. Proposals in part 3 to introduce a national licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation will, through regulation, make massive contributions towards the 30 per cent. improvement in energy efficiency. The money will not have to come out of the Minister's budget but be found as a result of Government legislation.
      Stock transfers have already taken place. The Minister spoke about requiring the Housing Corporation to account to local authorities. The same duties will be placed on housing associations and the Housing Corporation. They welcome that because the money will come from their finances and commitments.
      Most important, we know from the consultations of the warm homes group that the private sector is desperately keen for us to set targets and time scales. Through its energy efficiency contributions, it is an active and willing partner of local authorities in the energy partnerships that it is constructing. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) asked how, in areas where 80 per cent. of the worst properties are privately owned, we
      444
      persuade or put an arm lock on people from the private or public sector to do something that they have no legal duty to do. The answer is probably to use the same methods as under the Clean Air Act 1956, which provided for statutory duties.
      The energy industry has said that if we provide the targets and timetable, it will not have to cajole people into being more energy conscious; it can offer solutions. Unless we offer targets and timetables, the industry is perceived as bullying to sell its products. That is hopeless. The industry has asked for the targets so that it can help to foot the bill.
      I should like the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) to be right that amendment (a) will put an arm lock on the Government and teeth into otherwise toothless legislation.
      12 noon
      In truth, however, the amendment being proposed is much more modest and limited than I would wish it to be. It talks only about a "principal aim", not about a statutory duty. The idea of putting a principal aim on the face of the Bill was, in fact, undertaken by the Government in 1995—the same year the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 was passed—in the Environment Act 1995. Section 4(1) of the Environment Act states:
      "It shall be the principal aim of the Agency …—
      the Environment Agency—
      "so to protect or enhance the environment … as to make the contribution towards attaining the objective of achieving sustainable development".
      A principal aim is set out in that Act, and that is all that this amendment would achieve. It would not compel a Minister to say or do anything at any particular time. It would simply make a requirement that, when the Secretary of State chose to say anything about energy efficiency targets, it would be against the benchmark measure of meeting
      "an improvement in energy efficiency in residential accommodation of at least 30 per cent. by the end of 2010, taking 1st January 1996 as the base line date."
      That is not a draconian power. It simply asks the Minister to accept the duty to say something useful, when he chooses to say something. It suggests, to echo a phrase from the Clinton campaign, that we put on our ministerial or parliamentary wall a plaque that says, "It's targets and time scales, stupid." That is what the public expect us to do, it is what the amendment asks us to do, and I hope that the House will have the sense to do it.
      Malcolm Bruce: I rise to support amendment (a), which puts back into the Bill a measure that reflected the prime purpose of the Bill in the first place. While I understand the Minister saying that he has good intentions, and that if he could find the money, he would want to meet the targets—I think that we all agree that he, personally, means that—we would need a piece of legislation to achieve that, as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) has pointed out.
      Indeed, it is often ministerial practice to resist amendments by saying, "I give you my assurance that the Government are committed to this." The purpose of legislation is to commit every Government—and, of

      445
      course, local authorities—to achieving objectives, and we need legislation to be specific. As has been said, the Minister for Industry and Energy has suggested that the target that is, for all practical purposes, contained in this amendment is achievable in the time scale, "with commitment". Obviously, the matter for concern here is whether that commitment exists in the Government to deliver on that target.
      I can understand the reticence of Ministers in relation to targets. I can specifically understand the reticence of this Minister in that respect. He is probably responsible for more targets than anyone else, many of them imposed from the EU and elsewhere, and he is finding it difficult to produce answers to demonstrate that those targets are being met. I say that in good faith. Targets being missed, however, are not the same as targets being irrelevant. Targets are there to be hit, but, sometimes, underachieving does not mean that we are not making progress. So long as there is a genuine drive to achieve the targets and a policy to ensure real movement towards them, a substantial percentage of what we are trying to achieve will be delivered. Not having targets, however, leaves us wondering why we are all here.
      This is another issue on which the Minister is unable to provide any useful figures. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) has suggested that, in any case, even at the global top end of the figures quoted, they would not all be from central Government. There would also be private sector figures, and figures from local authorities with different budgets. So, even at the top end, the figure is not terrifying. The data are also spread over a substantial period of time.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has suggested, there never seems to be any constraint when we need to go to war. The Government like to talk about a war on poverty. Indeed, the Minister's Department has spent billions of pounds dealing with BSE and foot and mouth disease; that was not budgeted for.
      Mr. Meacher:And fridges.
      Malcolm Bruce: Fridges have not yet cost billions, although millions have certainly had to be found to deal with the problem.
      There is a serious point here. I am entirely unconvinced that the money constraint is legitimate. I believe that the amount we are discussing is achievable, and would enable us to give the authorities responsible for reducing fuel poverty the further momentum that they need, while also inspiring those suffering from fuel poverty with the hope that there is a real will to end it.
      I represent a Scottish constituency. The Bill applies only to England and Wales, but for that very reason I consider the amendment exceptionally helpful. If legislation for England and Wales sets a target, Scotland and Northern Ireland can hardly ignore the implications of that signal. I am not suggesting that they do not want to deal with fuel poverty.
      This is a United Kingdom problem. Scotland and Northern Ireland are experiencing some of the worst climatic conditions in the UK, and have some of the worst-insulated houses. They have a real stake in the momentum behind the campaign. 1 do not think that the Bill is relevant only to England and Wales.
      446
      As I said on Second Reading, I am depressed to note that, after the more than 20 years that I have been involved in, and campaigning on, energy and fuel-poverty issues, we seem to be just as engaged with the severity of a problem that we should have solved years ago. It appears to be a peculiarly British problem. Other countries with climates just as severe as ours seem to have managed, partly through good building design and partly by taking measures to insulate homes, to provide the necessary protection against wasteful, inefficient and expensive forms of heating that poor people cannot afford. It is deeply disappointing that, having gone this far down the road with a Minister who we all agree has a genuine dedication to the cause, the Government seem unable to accept a commitment that would make the Bill meaningful.
      As the hon. Member for Nottingham, South said, there is a real danger that if the amendment is not passed, it will be assumed that we can ease up on the pressure we are already applying. Nothing could be worse than our passing legislation that put us into reverse. Let me tell the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) that, of course I want the Bill, of course I want the declarations of good intent, and of course I note the Minister's assurance that he will come up with targets and will find the money. I am sure that the Minister means that, but—I mean no disrespect to him—he may not be the Minister this time next year. He may well have been replaced by someone who does not have his commitment.
      I do not want to be too sensitive about this, but the difficulties that we sometimes experience with the Minister are caused not by him, but by his inability to translate his will into practical action because of those around and above him. He is not well served by his Department or by his ministerial colleagues—I name no names. That has resulted in the present position.
      The hon. Member for Nottingham, South almost provoked me into saying that the creation of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has taken us less than 12 months, while the campaign to abolish the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food took many years. The campaign to abolish DEFRA is already in full cry. The Department should never have been created: it does not work, it is a shambles, and it needs to be abolished as soon as possible.
      The environment, and the commitment to deliver policies that will make a real difference to people's lives, require a Minister of the standard of the Minister we have, with a Department behind him that is willing to make that happen. If the House is serious about what it is trying to do, it will support amendment (a).
      12.15 pm
      Dr. Iddon: Like the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), for several decades I have been surprised by the slowness with which successive Governments have addressed the difficult subject of fuel poverty and energy efficiency. They appear to have been dragged kicking and screaming into the new century. Most of the progress in these matters has been made by the introduction of private Member's Bills in 1995 and 2000 and now in 2002. I endorse everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) said about my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, for whom I have a great deal of respect.

      447
      I always find it surprising that Governments have not grasped this issue and published a Government Bill dealing with all energy policy, including the branch that we are addressing today. We should bear in mind the fact that the Bill has the support of more than 100 local authorities, including my own. Not one of those local authorities has expressed the view that the targets that were originally set out in the Bill are unachievable.
      I am concerned by what my right hon. Friend the Minister said this morning, as it will send the wrong signals to people out there who are involved in this policy area. The figure of 30 per cent. by 2010 was set by the Conservative Government in 1996. Earlier in the debate, my right hon. Friend said that the Conservatives did nothing about that target and made no money available. However they had just one year—1996–97. We have had a Labour Government for the past five years, so my right hon. Friend's criticism of the Conservative Government went a bit over the top and was an implicit criticism of our own Government, who have not made sufficient progress. My right hon. Friend has admitted that by his criticism of the targets.
      Throughout the process, the 30 per cent. figure has been highlighted. It has been in the headlines and the literature; it has been pushed to local authorities and mentioned in debates in the House. I was not a member of the Standing Committee, although I understand that there was some backing off there, but this is the first time on the Floor of the House that the Government have backed off from the 30 per cent. target, which I still think is achievable.
      I am torn between the two amendments. My heart tells me to support amendment (a) to amendment No. 11. I signed early-day motion 1136, which referred to the target of 30 per cent. as achievable. I am firmly behind the target and I thought that the Government were too.
      We have been reminded today that it is not a target, but an aim. I certainly saw it as an achievable target, but now the word "aim" is being used. I am concerned that today's debate is sending the wrong signal to all the people who have been struggling to achieve the 30 per cent. target, whether or not we are now behind in terms of achieving it.
      I have to ask my right hon. Friend where the money has gone. He will no doubt remind us that for two years we continued to operate the Conservative budget; but we have had our own budget for three years now. The comprehensive spending review is currently under discussion and the results will be published this summer. If we are behind the target, I must ask my right hon. Friend—I am sure that he has done this—whether he has put up a vigorous argument to the effect that we must put money behind our political will to deliver the target of 30 per cent. by 2010.
      Like others, I am concerned that if we accept amendment No. 11 the figure of 30 per cent. will no longer be in the Bill. What does my right hon. Friend propose to do to avoid sending out the wrong signals today? Is he going to campaign vigorously for a figure of at least 30 per cent., or do I detect a change of policy? Are the Government backing off from that figure? The Minister must be categorical about the matter, otherwise many outside the House will be very disappointed with his comments. That said, I genuinely believe that he is committed to delivering on the environment, and 1 have a great deal of respect for him.
      448
      In conclusion, there is one thought that might persuade me to vote for amendment (a): if we have a Conservative Government by 2010, it is they who will be stuck with the 30 per cent. figure.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: I should point out to the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) that it was a Conservative Government who introduced the target. However, I agree that, if that Government were still in power today and had not made financial provisions to promote the target, the Minister's criticism would be correct. The reality is, however, that the Minister was being a little unfair.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker), who introduced amendment (a)—of which I am a sponsor—has virtually said it all, and the hon. Members for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), and for Bolton, South East have said the rest. I shall sum up by making three points. First, the amendment would reintroduce a provision that was included in the original Bill. Secondly, although we could have watered down the phrase to "an aim", the correct phrase is "principal aim", given that the aim is indeed principal to the Bill. Having said that, I would have preferred the phrase "statutory duty". Thirdly, Government policies are littered with targets—from the promotion of health care to the Kyoto commitment—and I see no reason why Government policy should require them to resist amendment (a).
      The Minister has rightly been praised for his record on matters environmental, but if he cannot accept this modest amendment, I am afraid that just a small blot will appear on his otherwise luminous green escutcheon.
      Mr. Sayeed: I begin with a little consensus. Her Majesty's loyal Opposition are happy to accept Government amendments Nos. 12 and 8. Here endeth the consensus.
      The Minister's reaction to any form of justified criticism is outraged bombast. I must warn him that my remarks will raise his blood pressure, so I hope that he has his tablets with him. First, I offer particular congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker), who has done this House a considerable service by speaking extremely cogently to amendment (a) to amendment No. 11, and by persuading Members on both sides of the House of the merits of his case.
      One person whom my hon. Friend did not have to persuade, however, was the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson). He has been an extraordinarily doughty fighter in the warm homes group, which owes him a considerable debt of gratitude. He has generously praised my party for doing its level best to support the Bill in every way through all its stages, and in doing so to improve it, and I thank him for that.
      The Bill was first published on 18 July 2001. It received its Second Reading on 30 November 2001. Despite the fact that it was published some eight months ago, it was only some 26 hours ago, on Thursday morning—at the last moment possible—that substantial amendments to the Bill, tabled by the Government, were published. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South touched on the question of why it has taken so long for the Department to produce substantial amendments.

      449
      I know that discussion has to take place between interested parties, but it is a disgrace that the amendments have been tabled in a way that makes it almost impossible to ensure proper understanding of them or to table subsequent amendments. It is a shabby abuse and misuse of parliamentary procedure. It is designed to stifle dissent, inhibit comment and curtail debate. The Minister should have dealt robustly with those civil servants and other Ministers who have brought him to this pass.
      The Government have acted in that way because they do not dare to be seen to kill a Bill that seeks to promote energy conservation, to eradicate fuel poverty and to drive out bad landlords. The Minister has permitted the Bill to be gutted of much of its meaning. I am deeply disappointed by the Minister. He knows that in Committee—on which the Labour party had a substantial majority—the Government's proposals were defeated by 12 votes to two. So on Report the Government have tabled amendments that strip out much of the meaning of the Bill.
      The evidence is clear. We rightly wanted the Bill to contain statutory, enforceable targets with stipulated time scales. Indeed, we were led to believe that that is what the Minister wanted. After all, it was the Minister who tabled a new clause that said:
      "Every energy conservation authority shall take all such steps as are reasonably practicable to implement the measures set out in any energy conservation report prepared by the authority."
      In speaking to that amendment in Committee, the Minister said:
      "There is a good reason for tabling such an amendment. The original Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 did not contain targets. In setting targets, we need to take into account the fact that the performance of local authorities across the country varies enormously."
      I agree. Some have announced that they have achieved a 15 per cent. reduction, but others have improved energy conservation by only 0.003 per cent. Others have not even bothered to report at all, so the Minister was right.
      The right hon. Gentleman also said that the amendment
      "represents a considerable step forward from the current HECA requirements. As hon. Members will know, the 1995 Act places a duty on authorities only to prepare energy conservation reports and then report progress. It does not provide a clear legal duty to implement any measures in their reports, which means, paradoxically, that they can make virtually no improvements yet still comply with the legislation. That is clearly nonsense and the amendment is designed to put that right." —[0fficial Report, Standing Committee C, 5 February 2002; c. 25-26.]
      Those were the Minister's words. He inserted that provision because he thought that without it, the Bill was clearly nonsense. The fact is that he is now stripping out that provision by this amendment.
      12.30 pm
      I could go on: I could give many other examples of occasions when the Minister demanded that targets be used. He talks about targets being the "linchpin of the Bill". He said:
      "I would much prefer to set a target and just fail to reach it, yet make a serious attempt, than to avoid setting a target and produce a wet and feeble response."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 24 January 2002; c. 18.]
      There were many other occasions on which the Minister assured us that targets were fundamental and deeply important. Yet, under the Bill, they will be meaningless unless amendment (a) is accepted.
      450
      Why has the Minister changed his mind? I am not sure that he has. I think that his environmental heart is in the right place. I think that he has, however, been overruled by his civil servants and by the Minister for Local Government. So the Minister may huff and puff about the environment, but, as the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) said, other Departments always seem to blow him down. The Minister has become an environmental fig leaf for the Government because, by their actions, they have shown that they do not give a fig for the environment.
      Finally, I should like to read out a letter sent to the Minister on 4 February 2002 by HECA Partnership for 30 Per Cent. It says:
      "Dear Michael … We are writing to you as the organisations that form this Partnership to promote the achievement of HECA targets. This is an aim that we all believe you subscribe to—indeed we were heartened to note your comments to Nigel Griffiths MP last September that although local authorities performance under HECA was 'wholly inadequate' you were interested not simply in condemnation but also in seeing that targets were made 'more robust' and also, importantly, in giving local authorities the tools with which to deliver them.
      This is a view we share—and it is for this reason that we support the Home Energy Conservation Bill, which makes the targets a duty rather than a discretion … Your amendments remove all of these provisions. We are deeply saddened by them—all the more so because we know you to be a friend and an ally."
      That letter was signed by Andrew Warren, the director of the Association for the Conservation of Energy, William Gillis, the director of National Energy Action, Charles Secrett, the director of Friends of the Earth, Michael King, the chairman of the National Right to Fuel Campaign, Mervyn Kohler, head of public affairs for Help the Aged, Andrew Cooper, the UK HECA forum representative, Baroness Maddock, the promoter of HECA 1995, Dick Barry of Unison, Stephen Hale of the Socialist Environmental Resources Association, Penny Kemp, the chair of the executive of the Green party, Duncan Borrowman of the Green Liberal Democrats and Nick Wood-Dow, chairman of the Tory Green Initiative.
      If these able and knowledgeable people were deeply saddened by what the Minister proposed then, they would be furious at what the Government are doing now. They would be right to be furious, because the Government are gutting the Bill.
      Mr. Meacher: I have not heard so much arrant nonsense for a long time—even from the hon. Gentleman. To suggest that the Government are gutting the Bill is not only parliamentary exaggeration; it is utterly ridiculous. The Government have got behind the Bill; we are putting in a statutory requirement for local authorities to meet a significant improvement in the HECA record on energy efficiency, and supplying the money—when it is available—to do so. That is the only responsible action for any Government and we are taking it.
      Under the Conservative Government, there was a complete dereliction of such action during 18 years. They did nothing of the kind, and fuel poverty increased. There is no point in Conservative Members shaking their heads—we all know their record.
      We heard some colourful language from the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker), who described the Bill as wishy-washy, toothless and a waste of time. That is utter rubbish. For the purposes of his

      451
      speech, the hon. Gentleman used language for which there is not the slightest justification. Anyone who has considered the Bill or who listened to my lengthy speech introducing amendment No. 11 will know that.
      The hon. Gentleman's point is that if amendment (a) is accepted, we would not be gutting the Bill; it would no longer be wishy-washy, toothless and a waste of time. What utter balderdash! There is no logic in that at all. The amendment would provide no statutory requirement whatever. In my opening remarks, I pointed out that the amendment was purely presentational—and it is.
      The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that the Government are gutting the Bill and that the insertion of amendment (a) would change that. It would do nothing of the kind. We are not gutting the Bill. As a result of the Government's support, the Bill is substantive. There is no profound objection to the amendment but, for the reasons that I gave earlier, it is not appropriate. It certainly would not provide a statutory requirement; it would not add force to the Bill.
      I have listened to the comments of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. No one—with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce)—has addressed the question of finance. There is no difference between us as to what we should like to do—we all want a substantial improvement on the gradual improvements that have been made under the HECA. However, the only certain way to secure that improvement is through statutory means, and that has to be funded. That is the central question. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle did not mention that.
      In opposition, it is easy to make great claims, to set fantasy objectives and to throw confetti goals around the Chamber and tell the Government that they are not going for them. Everyone knows that it is different in government. In government, the buck stops here. If we make a commitment, it has to be responsible and we must be able to justify it with the income stream necessary to deliver it. That is the difference. It is utterly irresponsible to come to the House and make grandiose and grandiloquent gestures without backing them up with the one thing that matters—the money to achieve them.
      Mr. Barker: I am sorry to hear the Minister go on so intemperately. Is he aware of the newly published independent research carried out by the Association for the Conservation of Energy which shows that the cost would be £29 million, but that if the Government spent that amount it would be ratcheted up more than 10 times by other moneys from the private sector? Has the Minister actually seen that research? Has he spent any time examining it?
      Mr. Meacher: Of course I have seen it. I cannot remember whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when I made my opening speech, but I referred to it at some length. I said two things about it. One was that that estimate is at the bottom end of the range of estimates that has been produced. It is, as the authors will recognise, a fairly rough and ready estimate for the second reason that I am about to come on to. The top figure of the range is £1 billion. It may well be that the real figure is towards the lower rather than the higher end-—I suspect
      452
      that it is—but if the accurate figure is of the order of £100 million to £200 million, which is perfectly plausible, the question is where that money will come from.
      My second point was this, and it is important. The hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) asked why the Government could not come up with a figure that they were sure about. The answer is, to use a phrase sometimes heard in universities, that the figure is a residual variable; it is the cost that will remain when all the other costed programmes have been carried through.
      Until we have seen the results of the home energy efficiency scheme over a period of 10 years and the effect of the energy efficiency commitment between 2002–05, which will probably be extended although the Government have yet to take that decision, and until we have seen the results of the upgrading of local authority stock, which obviously improves energy efficiency within those buildings, it is impossible to be clear, beyond a fairly wide margin of error, how much will still remain to be done to meet a given target of, say, 30 per cent. We cannot know for certain how much will remain undone, and to be done under the Bill. I certainly believe that the cost will be significant, but I cannot put a figure on it. However, whatever the figure, even if it is only £29 million—I believe it would be more than that—where will that money come from?
      The hon. Member for Gordon rightly drew attention to the fact that the Government can, under pressure, produce money rapidly when they have to. For example, in the event of unpredicted disasters, such as the outbreaks of BSE and foot and mouth, of course the Government must provide funding, but that is completely different from funding a desirable objective. All Departments and Ministers have their shopping list of desirables, but the Treasury and the Chancellor would rightly say that there must be firm prioritisation in terms of the Government's overall accounting.
      There is pressure from my Department to ensure that we have more money for energy efficiency, and that is why I am in no way foreclosing on the possibility that we can make some progress, possibly fairly quickly, although I do not know. We certainly want to. However, what I cannot do is tell the House today that I have the money in my back pocket so that I can, with assurance and certainty, back a Bill that will cost at least £29 million and possibly £100 million or £200 million. I simply cannot do that. I appeal to all hon. Members to recognise the constraints under which Ministers act.
      Mr. Jim Cousins: If an aspirational target were included in the Bill, would that help or hinder the Minister in his arguments about funding?
      Mr. Meacher: To put an aspiration in the Bill does not alter the position one way or the other, as I have already said. An aspiration is not a statutory requirement. It could be construed as constraining the fixing of targets over the period. It is not a requirement; it merely sets the backdrop against which those targets might be measured and assessed. It does no more, but I suppose no less, than that.
      The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle made the fair point that, if the Secretary of State were to do nothing, absolutely nothing would happen and there would be no advance under the Bill. In a technical, legal sense that is

      453
      perfectly true. However, Governments do not responsibly commit themselves to such a Bill—as I have on behalf of this Government—and make it clear that they will move as soon as they have the money, but then completely neglect to do so. Governments do not do that, and we will not do that.
      12.45 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) made a fair and balanced speech, and I am grateful as always for the generous things he said about me. He raised the issue of new burdens, as if this is a new doctrine that has come down from the heavens and descended on Government and we are beholden to it. I do not think that it is all that new, although it has been sharpened under the Government. The view taken by previous Tory Governments was that they could place extra obligations on certain bodies, such as local authorities, but did not need to provide extra funds as the necessary measures would be funded by efficiency savings. There is some truth in that, but to continue to impose such obligations, as they did repeatedly, was nonsense, and was recognised as such. We have tried to correct that. Local authorities have pressed us to accept that if we want them to do something, they are prepared to do it but we must provide the funding. That is a perfectly fair doctrine.
      We could continue with the HECA as it is, under which improvements have been made. Some authorities have done extremely well, and have achieved improvements of up to 20 per cent. They have done so voluntarily, because they have made that their priority. I am sure that we will continue with that, and that there will be further improvements whatever the Government do and whether or not this Bill goes through.
      The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) referred to authorities that have achieved only a 0.003 per cent. improvement. Some have not even produced a report; some have produced a report but have done nothing about it; and some have produced a report with a tiny target and that is all they have achieved. Those are the authorities that we should aim at, which is why we need a statutory requirement, and I fully accept that. If it is a statutory requirement, it is also an obligation, which is not currently the case. If we are to require local authorities to do something over and above what they are already doing, which is the purpose of the Bill, they must be funded. It is as simple as that.
      The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) asked whether we were letting 350 of the 360-odd local authorities off the hook. No, we are not. We are concerned about the large proportion of them—a quarter to a half—that have done miserably. But it is not just those that have hardly done anything or have not produced a report: we are concerned about laggard local authorities that are nowhere near the level of the best and are not performing adequately to achieve the target set by the Tory Government in their 1996 guidance.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South unfairly drew attention to the quality of advice that I have received. He said that the drafting of amendment No. 11 was therefore very late. The reason that it was produced so late was that there was endless negotiation with the promoters of the Bill over changes. At least three times I thought that agreement had been reached, but then there
      454
      were further discussions and more changes. It was only when the Bill came into play that instructions to parliamentary counsel were finally drawn up, and as a result amendment No. 11 was produced. I am sorry that it was late, but that was because of the constant pressures and demands for further changes to the Bill.
      Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. So far in this small debate, the Minister has spoken for 58 minutes. We know that the Government do not like the Pensions Annuities (Amendment) Bill, but for the Minister to talk for so long is unfair to all those pensioners and others who are relying on that Bill making progress.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): That is not a point of order.
      Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is concerned purely with reaching another Bill. I will say nothing about its merits or otherwise. He is uninterested in this Bill and sees it as something he has to step over to get to his preferred alternative. That is contemptible. His Front-Bench colleagues have repeatedly told the House how incredibly important this Bill is and how the Government are failing to carry out important objectives. We now see the other face of the Tory party, which wants to get rid of the Bill and move on to the real business of the Pensions Annuities (Amendment) Bill. That is despicable.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South said that the advice I get is simply to minimise my commitments so that I will be held to the least account. That is not fair. My civil servants know extremely well that I am keen to advance the environmental agenda and, where necessary, to set targets and commitments. They know that perfectly well, and I believe that the advice I get is proper and balanced in order to enable me to reach the right conclusions, not to minimise my commitments.
      On funding, I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Gordon. The money is being found to deal with child poverty, fuel poverty, climate change and the Kyoto targets precisely because they are Government targets that are part of our policy development process. They have been planned over years and years and written into spending reviews to meet policy programmes and objectives.
      The difference here, as I have tried to explain, is that this is a private Member's Bill—it is meritorious and worthy, and has entirely proper objectives—that is being inserted between spending reviews when there has been no planning for it within Government at all. It could be financed only by reducing other commitments—presumably in energy efficiency but maybe in other areas—by the same amount as the measure costs. That is not a proper or desirable way to legislate.
      Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister accept that the Bill is one of a series that have come to the House over many years with all-party support? All sides of the House are telling him that there is an overwhelming demand that the Government have that target. By accepting the Bill, they would have.
      Mr. Meacher: I accept the Bill; I make that clear. I am seeking support from across the House for putting it

      455
      through today. What has emerged clearly today is that there is support from both sides of the House for a marked and substantial improvement in energy efficiency. I say to all Members that the way to achieve that is to support the Bill as it stands, so that what all Members want is achieved.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) asked if I was backing off the 30 per cent. target. The 30 per cent. figure was never a statutory target. It was set by the previous Government in the guidance that they gave to local authorities in terms of drawing up reports about how local authorities should improve energy efficiency in their areas. It has never been a statutory requirement. I am keen to have the highest targets that I can fund and that I can therefore justify. I repeat that I do not have the funding at this point to justify setting a target at 30 per cent. That does not mean that I would not like to reach it or that the Government do not want to achieve it, but I must have the funding before I can commit to a particular target.
      The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire rightly said—I think we agree—that we want enforceable targets and time scales. However, all I would say to him, if he is responsible and if he aspires to government, is that it is also necessary to have the funding that will deliver the agreed objective—a statutory requirement in a certain time scale. He must accept that.
      The hon. Gentleman also referred, very generously, to my being overruled. That is absolutely not the case. I repeat: the problem is not other Ministers, who want the Bill as much as I do—there is no doubt that all Ministers want it, including those at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions—but the funding, which he never speaks about and gratuitously avoided. It has nothing to do with being overruled.
      The hon. Gentleman also made generous comments about my being an environmental fig leaf. Well, this pretty good environmental fig leaf has produced the climate change programme, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, the home energy efficiency scheme, the energy efficiency commitment and a commitment to end fuel poverty within 10 years. Those are enormously powerful objectives and if that is being a fig leaf, I am extremely happy so to be.
      On that basis, I commend amendment No. 11 and ask for support from across the House, as I believe that it is the heart of the Bill and that it will deliver exactly what all Members on both sides want.
      Dr. Desmond Turner: On some Friday mornings, it is a pity that we cannot keep the Front Benchers quiet, because they cannot resist shooting at each other and that obscures what we are trying to achieve through a private Member's Bill.
      I fear that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) is wrong to suggest that amendment (a) would give the Bill teeth—it would do no such thing. I should know because, as he rightly said, he cribbed the words from an amendment that I did not pursue. He
      456
      changed the PIU target of 20 per cent. between now and 2010 to the HECA target of 30 per cent. between 1996 and 2010. That is the only change.
      Hon. Members also pointed out that that is window dressing. They are absolutely right, and I should know that too, because I was responsible for it. The proposal was intended as window dressing—constructive window dressing, but window dressing none the less. It has no statutory meaning whatever. I have just taken advice from a learned Queen's counsel colleague, who confirms that that is the case. It is also the opinion of the independent parliamentary counsel who drew up the words.
      I appeal to all Members of all parties on both sides who want the Bill, and I say to the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) that accepting amendment No. 11 would constitute not a reversal, but a massive step forward. It is the means by which we shall reach the targets that we all want and achieve energy conservation and safety standards in houses in multiple occupation, which is a long-standing, treasured ambition of all in the House. It is the means by which we will make further inroads into fuel poverty. In all earnestness, I ask the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle and his supporters not to press amendment (a) to amendment No. 11. If they do, I ask all hon. Members who really want what this Bill has got—and it has got a hell of a lot—not to vote for that amendment. If they do, they will be walking into a trap. That is my appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
      Amendment proposed to the proposed amendment: (a), in line 1, at beginning insert—
      '(A1) The appropriate Minister shall in exercising any functions under this section or under the principal Act, and in considering whether or not to exercise those functions, have as a principal aim the achievement of an improvement in energy efficiency in residential accommodation of at least 30 per cent. by the end of 2010, taking 1st January 1996 as the base line date.'.—[Mr. Barker.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
      The House having divided: Ayes 87, Noes 62.

      Division No. 234]

      [1 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Doughty, Sue

      Austin, John

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Barker, Gregory

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      Barnes, Harry

      Edwards, Huw

      Best, Harold

      Efford, Clive

      Blunt, Crispin

      Fabricant, Michael

      Boswell, Tim

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Flight, Howard

      Brazier, Julian

      Flook, Adrian

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Burns, Simon

      Garnier, Edward

      Burstow, Paul

      Gray, James

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Grayling, Chris

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Clappison, James

      Grieve, Dominic

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hammond, Philip

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hayes, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Heald, Oliver

      Cousins, Jim

      Heath, David

      457

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hendry, Charles

      Prisk, Mark

      Holmes, Paul

      Randall, John

      Horam, John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Kidney, David

      Selous, Andrew

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Skinner, Dennis

      Lansley, Andrew

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

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Spring, Richard

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Swayne, Desmond

      Lloyd, Tony

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Luff, Peter

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      McDonnell, John

      Viggers, Peter

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Waterson, Nigel

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Watkinson, Angela

      Maples, John

      Wilkinson, John

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Willets, David

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Wilshire, David

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Paice, James

      Sir Sydney Chapman and

      Paterson, Owen

      Alan Simpson.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Jamieson, David

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      (Swansea E)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Kelly, Ruth

      Bailey, Adrian

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Berry, Roger

      Lepper, David

      Blackman, Liz

      Levitt, Tom

      Challen, Colin

      Linton, Martin

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      McCabe, Stephen

      Cohen, Harry

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Cranston, Ross

      McNulty, Tony

      Cruddas, Jon

      McWilliam, John

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Mole, Chris

      Dismore, Andrew

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Dowd, Jim

      Pond, Chris

      Eagle, Maria (L' pool Garston)

      Purnell, James

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Follett, Barbara

      Ross, Ernie

      Gapes, Mike

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Gerrard, Neil

      Soley, Clive

      Gilroy, Linda

      Squire, Rachel

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Timms, Stephen

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Hendrick, Mark

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Heppell, John

      Jim Fitzpatrick and

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Angela Smith.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Amendment No. 11, as amended, agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 12, in page 2, leave out lines 19 to 22.—[Mr. Meacher.]

    Clause 2
      GUIDANCE ON ERADICATION OF FUEL POVERTY
      Amendment made: No. 5, in page 2, line 26, leave out Clause 2,—[Mr. Meacher.]
    Clause 3

      MEANING OF "HOUSE IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION"
      1.15 pm
      Dr. Desmond Turner: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 3, line 31, leave out from "provision;" to end of line 34 and insert—
      '(c) shall be made by statutory instrument; and
      (d) shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.".'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 4, in page 4, leave out lines 8 to 10 and insert—
      '(3) But a registration scheme must apply to every house in multiple occupation in the authority's district, which

      (a) consists of more than two storeys, for which purpose an attic or basement shall be considered a storey unless used solely for purposes other than accommodation, or

      (b) is occupied by more than four adults.'. In addition, I must advise the House that, following representations by the Member in charge of the Bill and the Members who have tabled the amendments, Mr. Speaker has agreed that the following starred amendments should also be taken with this group: No. 17, in clause 4, page 4, leave out lines 21 to 23 and insert—

      '(6) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.
      No. 18, in clause 5, page 5, leave out lines 26 to 28 and insert—
      '(9) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.
      No. 19, in clause 6, page 6, leave out lines 4 to 6 and insert—
      '(1D) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.
      Dr. Turner: It has always been our intention in dealing with the section of the Bill relating to houses in multiple occupation to be as transparent as possible. To that end, the Second Reading version of the Bill referred to regulations needing to be made by positive resolution. That was changed by Government amendments in Committee to resolution by annulment, which we felt did not give adequate opportunity for scrutiny, given that serious issues were involved. After all, I am sure that we have all sat on enough statutory instrument Committees and participated in attempts to break the four-minute meeting barrier to know that the normal method of resolution by annulment results in very little scrutiny indeed, whereas if it is done by positive resolution, it is open to inspection and proper scrutiny by the whole House.
      Given the weight of legislation that these regulations will cover, we felt that this proposal was fair to landlords, to tenants who live in houses in multiple occupation and to Parliament. I am happy to say that, when I asked in Committee whether the Government would consider implementing the regulations by positive resolution, the response was sympathetic. Indeed, amendment No. 9

      459
      already provides for the regulations concerning clause 3, which deals with the definition of houses in multiple occupation, to be dealt with by affirmative resolution.
      I had anticipated that there would be similar amendments to go with clauses 4, 5 and 6. Clause 4, in particular, concerns the level at which mandatory registration starts to bite. Amendment No. 4 replicates the words in our Second Reading draft defining the level at which, and above which, registration is mandatory—three or four more floors in occupation, and five or more tenants. That will now be subject to regulation rather than being dealt with in the Bill, but, along with many of my colleagues, I think that it should be subject to affirmative resolution, and open to scrutiny by the whole House.
      The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) has tabled starred amendments to replace amendments to clauses 4, 5 and 6 that I had expected to be tabled but which unfortunately were not. I do not think it was a conspiracy—I always prefer the cock-up to the conspiracy theory. It was just one of those things, probably due to a genuine error or misunderstanding. Mr. Speaker has graciously allowed the starred amendments to be discussed, and I am happy to support them—as, I expect, will many other Members. I understand that the Department is content to follow the will of the House.
      I urge the House to accept amendment No. 9, and amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19. I ask the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) not to press her amendments. I expect the issue to be taken up very firmly now that, hopefully, affirmative resolutions will apply to the regulations—and it is still my clear understanding that the level I have mentioned is the level at which mandatory registration starts to bite.
      Sue Doughty: We pressed for the content of amendment No. 4 in Committee. We are very concerned about houses that are built vertically, and present a greater fire risk. However, we accept what we have been told about further consideration, and I intend to withdraw the amendment.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19 are intended to rectify an accidental omission. Their wording is identical to some of the wording of amendment No. 9, which refers to clause 3. My amendments refer to clauses 4, 5 and 6.
      The regulations will affect the interests of thousands of landlords and tenants. We think they should he subject to affirmative resolution, so that the House will have a chance to debate key matters—as opposed to matters of detail, which should be subject to negative resolution.
      If I understand the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) correctly, I fully support his amendment, as he appears to be supporting mine.
      Mr. Meacher: Once again I am glad to support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown.
      On amendment No. 9, the Government propose that regulations under clause 3 should be made by affirmative rather than by negative resolution. I shall deal later in my speech with the point made by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) about regulations under clauses 4 to 6.
      460
      The effect of the change proposed in amendment No. 9 will be that both Houses would need to debate and vote on regulations prescribing the following definitions: what an HMO is in terms of the type of properties covered or excluded; what an HMO is in terms of those who occupy it—the number of households or family or other relationships involved; what is meant by "occupy" and such other matters as may need to be prescribed.
      A power to make regulations is needed to define HMOs according to the types of properties to be included or excluded and the number of occupants and their relationships. We debated that extensively in Committee. The power in clause 3(3) is one of the means of ensuring consistency across registration schemes. At present there is not only uncertainty as to how the current definition based on households works, but—and we intend to address this—there is no flexibility in the law to ensure that adjustments can be made to achieve a legal definition that works. So in prescribing what an HMO is and what it is not, we need to define which types of property are judged to be HMOs and which are specifically excluded. The definition also has to have regard to those who occupy the properties. Definitions based on the concept of household and family relationships have been used in primary legislation, but they have not been without their critics. There is therefore a need for the flexibility in establishing definitions that secondary legislation provides.
      A power such as that in clause 3 for the Secretary of State to say which HMOs must be included in any registration scheme is crucial to the operation of the registration scheme. It is not unreasonable that after public consultation on what is proposed by way of regulation Parliament should have its say.
      Following representations in Committee, where there were extensive discussions, the Government decided to table an amendment that would make regulations under clause 3 subject to affirmative resolution. However it is not intended that regulations under clauses 4, 5 and 6 should be subject to affirmative resolution and, in answer to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, I shall make clear why.
      Affirmative resolution procedure is rarely used. It is a special provision for a special case. The regulations to be made under section 345 of the Housing Act 1985 are of fundamental importance because they determine the scope of the legislation in order to avoid undue complexity. They allow a substantial amount of discretion to the Secretary of State in determining what an HMO is as well as in conferring exemptions. In our view, other regulation-making powers in part 3 of the Bill are not comparable as they relate to matters which are not subject to any such procedure in the current legislation. For instance, the drawing of the line between properties that can be made subject to registration—with and without confirmation by the Secretary of State—is not, under section 346B of the 1985 Act, currently a matter for parliamentary scrutiny in any form. In fact, the Bill extends the scope of parliamentary scrutiny by making the drawing of that line subject to the negative resolution procedure. Regulations will be put before both Houses, and if prayed against, a debate can take place.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) is satisfied with that explanation. The Government have to strike a balance between the correct use of parliamentary time, and ensuring adequate

      461
      and proper parliamentary accountability. The Government are concerned that an undue amount of parliamentary time should not be expended debating highly detailed regulations that prescribe the regime for the registration of HMOs. The amendments would bring within parliamentary scrutiny matters not currently considered by Parliament. The negative resolution procedure allows regulations to be prayed against by the Opposition or by any hon. Member, and then debated, and we believe that to be adequate.
      Following representations made in Committee, the Government have decided to propose in new clause 2, which we have already debated, that regulations under clause 3 be subject to affirmative resolution. We do not believe that a good case exists for regulations under clauses 4, 5 and 6 being so subject, but as was rightly pointed out, I am prepared to listen to the view of the House on this matter, and to other representations. It is a question not of defeating the Government, but of Parliament deciding in a mature and sensible way how much detail it wants to go into in insisting that a parliamentary debate take place.
      On amendment No. 4, the Government are most concerned about HMOs that constitute a clear risk to the health and safety of their occupants. As I said in Committee, properties with three or more storeys, and which are occupied by more than four adults, present the greatest risks, particularly in terms of fire and overcrowding. Past Government-commissioned research found that multiple occupancy of two-storey properties involved no greater risk of fire than did occupancy by a single family. As I also said in Committee, the Government intend that local authorities will be responsible for ensuring that the most vulnerable HMOs in their district meet basic health, safety and management standards. We will prescribe those HMOs to which that duty will apply, but we also intend that local authorities will have discretionary powers to register HMOs in their district that do not fall within the scope of this mandatory scheme.
      The matter was raised in Committee and debated thoroughly, and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable)—he is not here today—withdrew his amendment. If accepted. it would have had the same effect as Government amendment No. 9, which is why we are debating that amendment today. The English house condition survey and the Entec report, commissioned in 1998, clearly showed that houses occupied by more than four people, and which consist of three or more storeys, are at greatest risk from poor standards, overcrowding and fire. Smaller, two-storey houses in multiple occupation tend not to be in any worse a condition than those in single occupation. We intend to allow local authorities to extend registration to smaller HMOs if they see fit, but we do not believe that a pressing need exists for mandatory registration of such properties. For those reasons, I hope that the House will reject the relevant amendments.
      Mr. Sayeed: I intend to be brief, because the next Bill is the Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire). I am anxious to make progress on that valuable Bill, so I shall write to the Minister on some of the points that I had intended to raise on the operation of HMOs and the effect on private landlords.
      462
      We need the positive resolution procedure for the powers in clauses 4, 5 and 6, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) proposed. I hope that, given all the voices that have supported that aim, the Minister will eventually feel able also to support it. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) that he does not intend to press the matter to a Division, so that we can make progress.
      Mr. Andrew Dismore: My right hon. Friend the Minister has his approach to affirmative and negative resolutions back to front. I object to his view of the need for affirmative resolution in relation to clause 3, but not for clause 5. The meat of the Bill is not so much the definition of HMOs but the registration scheme that will police them. It is bizarre that, if my right hon. Friend gets his way, we will have an affirmative resolution to define an HMO, but not to define what should be in the scheme. In the end, the scheme could include far less than the definition. He is trying to have his cake and eat it.
      A better approach would be to look at the issue the other way round. Indeed, I feel so strongly about that that I shall seek to divide the House on the point. My right hon. Friend said that the affirmative procedure is rarely used and should be used only in special cases. In this case. the special case is not the definition of an HMO but the scheme of registration, because the whole policing of the Bill will revolve around that. It is much more important to get that right than to get the global definition right. The definition in the registration scheme may be more restrictive than the overall definition under clause 3.
      I shall illustrate my argument with reference to amendment No. 4, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, although I understand that they will not press that amendment. When my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) spoke on amendment No. 9, he said that the regulations would follow the lines set out in amendment No.4, which causes me some concern. Before becoming a Member of Parliament, I was a personal injury lawyer. I suppose that I still am, in that I have a practice certificate, although I am not taking any cases. For some 17 years, I was the solicitor for the Fire Brigades Union and I came across many cases involving HMOs. I am concerned that the definition proposed in amendment No. 4 is too restrictive and easily avoidable by unscrupulous landlords.
      Amendment No. 4 gives a definition of an HMO that includes the words:
      "unless used solely for purposes other than accommodation".
      I fear that that phrase means that when an unscrupulous landlord knows that the local authority inspector is coming round, he can easily take the bed out and put a load of old furniture into the basement or loft. After the inspector goes, the furniture is brought back and the bed comes out again. Indeed, there might even be a folding bed that goes into a wardrobe and is therefore disguised.
      I am also concerned about the reference to four adults in amendment No. 4. A small house with more than one storey—or more than the two storeys referred to in the amendment—could have three bedsits. If there are four adults or two couples in a house, that is fair enough, but what happens when the adults live separately in bedsits,

      463
      often in extremely poor accommodation? That is why we need to consider the whole issue of HMOs and not just in the context of home energy conservation.
      Mr. Stephen McCabe: Is the essence of my hon. Friend's argument that unless the point is clearly defined by the Secretary of State, it will be left to the discretion of local authorities and, although they will appear to be constrained by a property having two storeys, including a basement or an attic, there will be no provision for other types of accommodation? There was a recent example in Birmingham—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is embarking on a speech rather than making an intervention. [Interruption.] Order.
      Mr. Dismore: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I disagree with him and hope to explain why later in my remarks. It is important to preserve the discretion of local authorities, yet within an overall framework. There needs to be a degree of regulation of houses in multiple occupation, but I suspect that a Bill such as this is not the best way of protecting people living in HMOs. It is in that context that I make my remarks.
      Amendment No. 4, which I understand will not be pressed to a vote, is far too restrictive. Effectively, no other registration scheme would be permissible. I very much hope that the amendment will not be pressed, because it is important for the Secretary of State to have the discretion to describe properties in regulations.
      On the affirmative and negative resolution procedure, I take exception again to amendment No. 17. I am concerned that if we become too prescriptive, perhaps through the affirmative resolution procedure, we could end up removing the discretion of local authorities to make provision for the housing in their area. I imagine that the sort of scenario that I have described would be of no concern in certain areas of the country but of great concern in others. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will accept that regulations must be as flexible as possible to allow local authorities to have discretion to meet the circumstances in their area.
      Of course, in some local authorities, the question of HMOs does not arise because there are very few, and those that exist are luxury accommodation. However, in parts of the inner city and, indeed, in parts of my constituency, HMOs are important in providing accommodation. Because of the large amount of work they create, they are a headache for the various enforcement authorities—the fire service, local authorities and anyone to do with the administration of housing welfare rights.
      I am afraid that I am not with the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) on amendment No. 17. I agree with my right hon. Friend that it would be far more suitable for that proposal to be dealt with through the negative resolution procedure.
      1.45 pm
      However, I think that the hon. Gentleman is right about clause 5 and that my right hon. Friend is wrong. The meat of the measure is in the registration scheme that will be
      464
      administered by local authorities. Clause 5 deals with model schemes and their confirmation. It is important that those schemes be properly debated because they will form the template from which local authorities will work.
      The local authorities will have to start from somewhere, and I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the debate should be not about trying to take away their discretion but about setting an acceptable framework that has been properly considered by Parliament. The same point applies to the confirmation of the schemes. I think that he may have his affirmatives and negatives the wrong way round.
      I agree in part with the proposals of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet—50 per cent., but 50 per cent. opposition. We should not invoke the affirmative resolution procedure for clauses 3 and 4, but there is a case for it on clause 5. That would achieve the best balance by ensuring that the basic template for local authorities is fully debated and discussed in the House, while allowing local authorities to make their own schemes without too much interference from this place. I am a great believer in allowing local authorities to get on with the job and I am concerned that the Government's approach would prevent that.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I find myself in some difficulty. I genuinely did not intend to open up a disagreement between Government Front and Back Benchers, but I am persuaded by the Minister's comments. The telling point is that the issues raised by my amendments could be debated by the House on a negative resolution, so I shall not press them to a vote.
      Amendment No. 18 apparently meets with the approbation of the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). He is my near neighbour and I want to live in comfort with him, so I shall leave that spat between him and the Minister. I shall not press amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19.
      Mr. Meacher: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to some of the interesting points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). He makes a strong argument for further consideration and it is unfortunate that there is not more time to go into the question of the registration of HMOs under part 3. Perhaps we shall be able to do so at a later stage.
      Amendment No. 4 raises the issue of whether registration should apply to two or three-storey buildings with at least four occupants. Much depends on the condition of the buildings and the risks involved. As I said earlier, the English house condition survey revealed that 20 per cent. of bedsit and self-contained, flat-type HMOs failed to meet minimum standards of fitness for human habitation. Those standards require that the property should be structurally sound, free from disrepair and damp, have adequate heating, lighting and ventilation, and have satisfactory cooking, washing and toilet facilities.
      Many properties failed to meet the test because they were in disrepair or lacked satisfactory heating. Those basic standards apply to all dwellings and the Government consider it unacceptable that a large proportion of the private rented sector does not even meet the minimum requirements.

      465
      Additional risks to health and safety arise from the multiple occupation of properties. One of them is, obviously, the risk from fire. The survey revealed that a staggering and worrying 80 per cent. of houses occupied as bedsits lacked adequate means of escape from fire and other fire precautions.
      Following that survey, the Department commissioned Entec Ltd. to research the risk from fire in HMOs. That is relevant to the thrust of amendment No. 4 and whether registration should apply to two-storey buildings, or indeed one-storey buildings. That report was published in 1998 and it identified several factors which influenced the risk from fire in such properties. Those included the number of occupants of the building, as I have already said, and the number of storeys—HMOs of three or more pose a significantly higher risk, as do properties housing dependent and vulnerable people.
      The internal design and layout of HMOs can also significantly increase the risk, such as the degree of self-containment, the units of accommodation and the number of escapes and their precise location. The quality of management standards was also found to be an important factor in determining the significance of the risk.
      The Government took into account the Entec survey and the earlier 1998 survey in deciding their response to amendment No. 4.
      Mr. Dismore: My right hon. Friend is going into considerable detail about the sort of buildings concerned. Is he suggesting that that level of detail is appropriate for the affirmative resolution procedure?
      Mr. Meacher: The affirmative resolution procedure is another matter. I was addressing my remarks to amendment No. 4, which concerns whether registration should apply only to three and four-storey buildings that have at least four occupants or to two-storey buildings that have at least four occupants. There is no authoritative way of deciding that, except by looking at the design of HMOs, their distribution, the number of particular kinds and the number of occupants—the information that we have according to the number of storeys. I am sorry if I gave the impression of going into a lot of detail, but that is why I did so.
      The risk of death or injury from fire varies significantly, as all the factors interact differently in each case. However, Entec concluded that in several types of HMOs, the risk of death or injury from fire was significantly higher than in houses of single occupation, which is probably hardly surprising. It found, for example, that an occupant in a house comprised of bedsits was six times more likely to die as a result of fire than adults living in an ordinary house. That raises the question dealt with by amendment No. 4 as to whether registration should also apply to two-storey buildings, which may well contain a number of bedsits.
      I am sure that hon. Members will agree that that state of affairs is not simply unacceptable but a matter of great concern. However, other problems are associated with multi-occupation. Often those properties are overcrowded because they have inadequate facilities to meet the health and welfare of their occupants, and it is not uncommon in shared houses and bedsit-type HMOs to find up to 10 people sharing one bath, one WC and one kitchen.
      466
      The English house condition survey revealed that more than 40 per cent. of houses occupied as bedsits had inadequate facilities for the occupants. It referred to a lack of adequate cooking, bathing and toilet facilities.
      Overcrowding is a major problem in some HMOs. Rooms often do not meet minimum space standards for human habitation, and in areas of high demand for housing it is not uncommon for three or more people to live, cook and sleep in a single room. I agree that we should take firm action to ensure that people are properly protected, and that the registration system is adequate for the purpose.
      Mr. McCabe: I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive my ignorance, but could he explain to me what would happen in the case of single-storey extensions where there is multiple occupation? I am thinking of a garage that has been extended and used for accommodation.
      Mr. Meacher: That is the type of problem that I mean. Unfortunately, HMOs are extremely varied. There are variations in the number of storeys, the number of occupants and the design. My hon. Friend gave one example. How can we ensure adequate protection for people who live, eat and sleep in buildings such as he referred to through the registration of HMOs? My concern is about whether amendment No. 4 will be adequate for that purpose.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) have raised the important issue of enforcement. Many HMOs have transient populations, and they may be licensed for a certain level of occupation, but as soon as the local authority officer has granted a licence, the previous over-occupancy persists. How will these regulations, excellent though they are, be enforced?
      Mr. Meacher: I am pleased to respond to that important point, because that is what part 3 and these amendments are about. The hon. Gentleman was not on the Committee. His hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) was eloquent on this issue. He made it perfectly clear that he was speaking on behalf of landlords. Of course, their interests must be properly reflected.
      I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) that the first and prime requirement must be the health and safety of occupants, and the regulations must be effectively enforceable. There is no simple answer to his question about how to deal with a transient population, and ensure that people who are there one day and leave a few nights later are adequately protected. We can only ensure that the building that they occupy falls within the registration system, and that it is regulated by the local authority, so that even if there is a transient population, any persons who occupy that building or those rooms are properly protected from fire, overcrowding and any other risks.
      We believe that the pressing need for the better regulation of HMOs will be achieved by the mandatory licensing of such properties. We are committed to introducing such a scheme as soon as parliamentary time is available to produce legislation to achieve that.

      467
      The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), made it clear that the Government had in mind a much wider Bill along those lines, and that they regarded part 3 of this Bill as a useful paving measure that would lead the way towards a much more detailed licensing system for landlords and for the better registration of HMOs. We believe that the existing powers available to local authorities to register HMOs, and in what circumstance, need to be amended. There is a pressing need to review the definition of HMOs, which is what the Bill will achieve.
      2 pm
      Local authorities already have a wide range of powers available to them to tackle and control standards of HMOs—the exact point made by the hon. Member for Cotswold—through part 11 of the Housing Act 1985 and the regulations made under it. However—the hon. Gentleman was quite right to raise this point—experience has shown that these powers have not always been fully effective in ensuring that acceptable standards are met or maintained. Much of that is because the legislation dates back many years and reflects the conditions and technology prevailing at the time. Many of the buildings go back to Victorian times.
      The legislation sets detailed and prescriptive requirements, but fails to provide the flexibility required to deal with other problems because building design and technologies have changed dramatically over the past 50 or 100 years. That has inevitably hampered local authorities in performing their duties under the legislation.
      I accept that the Bill is not the correct vehicle for addressing these defects. The Government regard this as a useful paving measure for a much more dedicated and targeted measure that the DTLR intends to introduce. Obviously that will require a much more complex and detailed set of measures than can be accommodated in a private Member's Bill, and it can be covered by Government legislation. However, it is important that we get the Bill right, and that it is consistent with the Government's wider intentions along these lines.
      Mr. Sayeed: So far, the Minister has spoken for 109 minutes during this debate. The only particular change taking place is the introduction of amendment (a) to amendment No. 11, which the Minister described as window dressing. Is it the Minister's intention to talk out this Bill because of what he described as only a piece of window dressing?
      Mr. Meacher: That is a bit ripe coming from the hon. Gentleman, who indicated that, having succeeded in the vote, he wanted to be rid of this Bill and move on to others. He was dissimilating enough to suggest that the reason for wishing to dismiss the Bill was to provide time for my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermdine, West (Rachel Squire), whereas it is clear from the intervention of the Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), that the Opposition's intention is to dismiss this Bill in order to have as much time as possible on the Pension Annuities (Amendment) Bill.
      468
      My concern is to ensure that the Bill is properly debated. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, contrary to his Back-Bench colleagues, does not seem to regard the registration of houses of multiple occupation and the risks to many vulnerable and defenceless people in them to be a matter for careful consideration. If he had applied himself to this matter and asked some serious questions, it would be another matter. He has just sat there twiddling his thumbs, waiting to get on to the next Bill. That is not a worthy way to present himself.
      Mr. McCabe rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Minister gives way to his hon. Friend, I ask him to concentrate on responding to the debate, rather than covering wider ground.
      Mr. McCabe: I urge my hon. Friend not to stop debating the Bill and not to submit to the pressure. I want to know why he thinks that the affirmative resolution is necessary, particularly in relation to clause 3.
      Mr. Meacher: On clause 3, I said that proposing the affirmative resolution procedure, which is used only rarely, is justified on a matter of sufficient importance, but not on one of a detailed or technical kind. I listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon said, but perhaps it is the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) who has his affirmatives and negatives the wrong way round. I think that he is partly right and partly wrong.
      It is justified for clause 3, which raises the more general and serious issues, to be subject to the affirmative procedure, but it is reasonable to discuss to what parliamentary scrutiny the more detailed and technical issues under clauses 4 to 6 should be subject. Currently, they are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny at all, so proposing the negative resolution procedure gives the Opposition or any Member of the House, the opportunity for a debate. That is a fair balance between the two.
      Mr. Dismore rose—
      Mr. Meacher: Does my hon. Friend disagree?
      Mr. Dismore: I am concerned, because the registration scheme ultimately polices the Bill. People could face sanctions if they do not comply with it properly. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Turner) but that issue is far more important than the vague and woolly general definitions in clause 3. We must have proper scrutiny, as people may face penalties.
      Mr. Meacher: I am not disagreeing about the importance of the penalties and sanctions that may rightly be brought to bear when landlords fail to meet standards. The issue is whether the matter should take up parliamentary time, because detailed scrutiny in both Houses would be required. Is that merited? I am suggesting not that there should not be adequate penalties, but that if there is a desire to discuss these matters, the House should have the opportunity to make such a demand. However, to lay that down as a requirement seems to us to go further than is strictly necessary. I hope

      469
      that my hon. Friend accepts that, although I take his point. I am prepared, without prejudice, to have another look at the matter.
      Mr. Barry Gardiner: My right hon. Friend has alluded to section 11 of the Housing Act 1985 and to the powers of local authorities under that Act in relation to HMOs. He also alluded to the inadequacy of those powers. Will he recount for the House why the powers need to be superseded and why clauses 3 and 4 may be inadequate for that, thereby requiring further wide-scale legislation?
      Mr. Meacher: The answer is that section 11 does not adequately deal with several issues relating to the registration and control of HMOs. For years if not decades, that has not been properly regulated. Obviously, there are powers under previous legislation that enable local authorities to go so far, but we believe that a major legislative overhaul is required. The Government propose to introduce such legislation, but that has been pre-empted—if that is the right word—by the Bill.
      After discussions with the Bill's supporters, we made an agreement on part 3 that we believe to be consistent with our wider purposes, and we are happy for it to proceed on that basis. However, section 11 is an inadequate instrument for what is a very complex and difficult area.
      The Bill would make one important change in respect of standards by amending section 348 of the 1985 Act so that a condition of the registration of a house will be that it meets minimum prescribed standards, including those relating to safety, energy efficiency and standards of fixtures, fittings and furnishings. If a house does not meet those standards, a local authority will be able to refuse to register it, unless steps are taken to require it to meet those standards. Therefore, the measure gives substantial powers to local authorities.
      Another difficulty with the current legislation is that the control regime is based largely on local authority discretionary powers, a matter that is raised in regard to amendment No. 4. The existing power to require HMOs to be registered is discretionary, as is the power on the categories of HMOs to which a registration scheme will apply.
      As a result, enforcement and the standards applied vary significantly across the country, a point to which the hon. Member for Cotswold rightly drew our attention. The Bill will deal with those anomalies by requiring all local authorities in England and Wales to adopt a registration scheme with control provisions for those HMOs most at risk.
      The Bill provides that regulations will prescribe which HMOs will be covered by the mandatory registration scheme. Should we include two-storey buildings, or should we restrict the provision to three and four-storey buildings which have at least four occupants? We will informally consult on which descriptions of HMOs will be subject to mandatory legislation, but as I indicated in Committee, HMOs that are of three or more storeys and that are occupied by more than four people exhibit the characteristics with which we are most concerned, such as fire risk and overcrowding. That is the basis for amendment No. 4. That is where the greatest risk applies. The question for the House is whether it applies to
      470
      two-storey buildings with four people, or whether it is possible to draw a sensible dividing line between two and three storeys.
      The Bill provides that local authorities will, at their discretion, be able to register smaller HMOs if they consider that necessary. Therefore, whatever the House may decide today, there would still be a discretion where a local authority believed that a two-storey building should be brought within the controls.
      The Bill also provides that local authorities must adopt model and therefore uniform registration schemes in their districts. Again, that is important. If an authority wishes to vary the model scheme, it will only be able to do so with the approval of the Secretary of State. We believe that the use of model schemes will provide consistency across local authorities, which again is important. We do not think that there should be varying standards when one is talking about health and safety and overcrowding. That should apply in both the application of standards and their enforcement. We want to see even, balanced and proper enforcement across the country.
      The measure will also reduce the amount of paperwork and ensure that fees are kept to a minimum. That is a less important issue but not a negligible one.
      The existing definition of an HMO has been the subject of many debates; we had many in Committee. A number of grey areas have arisen. That has resulted in some properties that exhibit the characteristics of HMO accommodation not being within the definition. Precisely such a building configuration has been referred to.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is again straying rather wide of the amendments before the House. I would be grateful if he returned to them.
      Mr. Meacher: I understand that point. I wanted to make it absolutely clear that the significance of the issue behind amendment No. 4 was understood. With your patience and kindness, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have managed to spell it out in full. I am glad to leave the case there.
      Mr. Gardiner rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have covered the amendment very fully and the Minister has responded to the debate at great length, so I do not think that it would be appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to speak at this time.
      2.15 pm
      Dr. Desmond Turner: The Minister outlined many of the reasons why use of the affirmative resolution procedure, as set out in the amendment, is so important. It is also extremely important to adopt starred amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19, to which the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) spoke, to provide for positive resolutions in respect of the issues covered in clauses 4, 5 and 6.
      We all know that houses in multiple occupation are an extremely complex matter. The question of definition alone has kept lawyers fat for years. It is important to have a definition that is not only foolproof as far as lawyers are concerned, but fair to landlords and tenants, so that everybody understands where they are. The question now

      471
      boils down to what constitutes a household; it has changed since Second Reading, when, as hon. Members will remember, it was based on there being more than two families. Households are the basis of the current definition.
      We all know that problems have arisen in the courts because of unscrupulous landlords who are prepared to claim that a disparate group of people who have no mutual relationship whatever constitutes a single household. Thus, they will pretend that a four-storey Victorian tenement occupied by 12 students is a single household. Of course, that is blatant nonsense, but that is how the matter currently stands in the courts, which is unacceptable from everybody's point of view.
      It is essential to ensure proper scrutiny of associated regulations. I pointed out to the Department the weakness on definition and said, "You'll have to define households, or you'll be back in the mire again." It must prescribe the relationships that constitute a household. As we all know, that is potentially a very sensitive issue. In relation to a married couple with children, the circumstances are clear, but the relationships of unmarried couples, same-sex couples and so on in cohabitation might be less so. Those matters need to be considered very carefully. They are potentially very sensitive.
      Mr. Gardiner: I hope that my hon. Friend will take on board a point that I had hoped to make at greater length about an issue that is important in constituencies such as mine. In relation to an extended family nexus of asylum seekers, disproportionate work would be required of local authorities under the proposals for registration of households. Difficulties can arise when there is a tremendous influx of asylum seekers who are included in loose family configurations and often live in multiple occupation households. The turnover and mobility of such families can be so tremendously fast that a local authority would require far greater resources than are currently available to keep pace with the situation. Will my hon. Friend comment on that issue, although I am forbidden to do so at greater length?
      Dr. Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which emphasises the problem of the definition of an extended family and where to set its limits. It is only right and proper that such sensitive issues are scrutinised by the House.
      Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) made an important point about minority communities. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) envisage that resolutions, whether affirmative or negative, would include, for example, a requirement on local authorities to ensure that the regulations are published in languages other than English so that minority communities can understand them?
      Dr. Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which underlines a point that is likely to be overlooked in an ordinary statutory instrument Committee, operating by resolution through annulment. Nine times out of 10, such Committees are trying to break the four-minute meeting record. Instead of scrutinising,
      472
      Committee members assume that officials have done it all. We are considering a range of issues that are too sensitive to be left to officials to bring to a Committee that will simply rubber-stamp them so that its members can get out of the Room as quickly as possible.
      We have talked about problems that are associated with definition. They could keep lawyers going for a long time, but I do not want to dwell on that. However, definition is vital; my hon. Friends' interventions have shown that admirably.
      Mr. McCabe: I want to make the same point, but with specific reference to clause 3(4). I am worried about the way in which the regulations will operate. I am conscious that they may involve safety issues for local authority officers. There must be massive scope for misunderstanding, especially in the case of asylum seekers, who may be subject to pressure from unscrupulous landlords. I wonder whether my hon. Friend has given any thought to ensuring that local authority officers are safeguarded and that accurate, reliable information on which the law can operate is uncovered.
      Dr. Turner: That underlines the need for positive resolution so that we have clear regulations that protect the interests of everyone involved—landlords, tenants or local authority officers, who must enforce them.
      We have shown the potential sensitivity and complexity of definition. The Government have agreed that relationships will be prescribed by positive resolution. Many of the same considerations about relationships apply to the other three major HMO clauses—4, 5 and 6. Genuine questions could be asked about the registration level, which is controversial. There is fairly wide agreement in the House that three storeys or more and five or more tenants constitute a reasonable level at which to start mandatory registration.
      Mr. Crispin Blunt: I am the promoter of a Bill that is lower down on the list. Why is the hon. Gentleman damaging the prospects for his Bill's progress by continuing to speak now?
      Hon. Members: He is talking it out.
      Dr. Turner: On the contrary; that is not my intention.
      I was considering the apparently reasonable definition about which many hon. Members agree. However, some hon. Members want the minimum number of tenants to be reduced. Student organisations are concerned about the condition of many student houses, which do not necessarily have three storeys, and which often consist of only four tenants—a two-storey family house might be let to students, for example. Those organisations want such houses to be covered by the Bill.
      There is a considerable level of complexity involved in dealing with these regulations, and it needs the full and open scrutiny of Parliament. I therefore strongly support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Chipping Campden—
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Chipping Barnet. Chipping Campden is in my constituency.
      Dr. Turner: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. Have I got it wrong? I often do. I hope that the House will forgive me. The hon. Gentleman knows who I mean.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) referred to the fact that the regulations would be accompanied by penalties. There will be criminal offences associated with this legislation for landlords and others who commit major transgressions of the regulations. Although we are not necessarily going to bang people up for doing wrong under the regulations, they may be subject to a considerable fine. We therefore need to be very clear about what measures they are being required to conform to, and that those measures are reasonable. The positive resolution procedure in the House is a transparent and fair way of achieving that.
      Mr. McCabe: My hon. Friend has just told the House that there will be penalties for landlords "and others" who transgress. Which others would be subject to penalties, and what kind of penalties would they be?
      Dr. Turner: That is slightly speculative. Clear responsibilities will be placed not only on landlords but on tenants. We all know that antisocial behaviour occurs mainly in rented accommodation but, I regret, sometimes in owner-occupied accommodation as well. That is a fact of life. We have all, unless we live in very plush suburban lands, experienced cases of it in our constituencies, and they are extremely hard to deal with.
      Mr. Gardiner: Freeholders are often at arm's length in these situations, as they employ managing agents to manage the property on their behalf. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the penalties to which he has referred would apply also to the managers who have hands-on responsibility for the administration of the building and for the people living in it?
      Dr. Turner: My hon. Friend's point is absolutely correct.
      Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Dr. Turner: I will give way again in a moment.
      If my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) had been privy to the original Bill that we drafted, which set out to replace de novo section 11 of the Housing Act 1985, and which covered all these points of detail, he would know that this was a real issue that had to be addressed. It is an issue that the control provisions to be laid under regulations under the Bill will have to address. This emphasises the need for clear, transparent scrutiny.
      Mr. Robathan: This is a Bill which I support, and which the hon. Gentleman has promoted. Will he explain why he is talking it out? Why is he talking out his own Bill?
      Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
      Dr. Turner: I am not talking out my Bill. [Interruption.] I am trying to preserve it, contrary to the impression that the hon. Gentleman may have. Had there not been what can only be described as a wrecking amendment from his side of the Chamber, this Bill would now have been passed and we could have started discussing the Bill that all the Conservative Members are interested in. If Conservative Members want to know—
      It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Debate to be resumed on Friday 21 June.

  Remaining Private Members' Bills

    COPYRIGHT (VISUALLY IMPAIRED PERSONS) BILL
    Order read for consideration as amended (in the Standing Committee).
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be considered on Friday 21 June.

    PENSIONS ANNUITIES (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [12 April], proposed on further consideration of Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee).
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Debate further adjourned till Friday 19 July.

    RELATIONSHIPS (CIVIL REGISTRATION) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 19 July.

    HEALTH (AIR TRAVELLERS) BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [25 January].
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Debate further adjourned till Friday 19 July.

    ROAD SAFETY AND SPEED BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 19 July.

    TRESPASSERS ON LAND (LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE AND EVICTION) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 19 July.
    Mr. Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will take points of order afterwards.

    RIGHT TO SELF-EMPLOYMENT BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 19 July.

    RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND REMEDIES BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 19 July.

    PATIENTS WITHOUT LEGAL CAPACITY (SAFEGUARDS) BILL
    Order read for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 21 June.

    COMPULSORY VOTING BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 21 June.

    PATENTS ACT 1977 (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 19 July.

    DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 21 June.

    AGE DISCRIMINATION (No. 2) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 19 July.
    Mr. Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it possible for the record to show that it was the Government Whips who objected to my Bill? I happen to know that the Bill has cross-party support, and it is a great pity that the issues with which it deals cannot be debated in Committee following its Second Reading. Do the procedures of the House allow it to be made plain that it was the Government Whips who prevented further progress?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The simple fact is that an objection to the Bill was made, and that is not a matter for the Chair.

  Point of Order
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may or may not be aware of breaking news that there has been a serious rail crash just outside London in Hertfordshire. It appears that there may have been serious injuries and I am sure that the House would wish to express its sympathies with the victims and their families and the hope that the crash is not as serious as is being indicated on the wires.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): If matters are as the hon. Gentleman says they are, it is a matter of seriousness and sadness for the whole House. All I can say at the moment is that we hope that things are not too bad.

  Drug Rape
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
  2.35 pm
  Vera Baird (Redcar): It was a few days before Christmas in a local pub that Natalie aged 21 first set eyes on the man who probably raped her. She will never know for sure. She said:
  "I was out with a friend … We'd noticed this man in a couple of pubs and later he showed up in the club. He kept offering us drinks and I said no."
  When a friend gave her a vodka and coke, Natalie drank it without suspicion. Only afterwards did she learn that the drink had come from the persistent stranger. Twenty minutes later she was unconscious:
  "At first it felt like I was drunk, even though I hadn't had much alcohol. I couldn't find my friends, and went outside to look for them. It was freaky. Everything was distorted. The traffic was really loud and I felt as if everyone was shouting at me. Then I remember feeling my legs go and someone was taking my arm and started walking me saying that everything would be OK. I was grateful … The next thing I remember I was in a filthy bedsit with the man lying on top of me. I couldn't move. Everything was unreal. Later I woke again. I had my hair pinned up … my head banged against the headboard and the pin pierced my skin. The pain shot through me and this gave me a surge of power."
  This enabled her to push him off, pick up her clothes and flee. She felt violated, confused and uncertain, unable to remember his face, where she had been and what had happened during those lost hours. She wondered whether the attack had really taken place.
  "You think you've been raped; you know something has happened to you, but you don't quite remember."
  Pat, a 49-year-old secretary, comes from much nearer my constituency of Redcar. She does not remember being raped. The drug that had been used to spike her drink eventually caused her to black out. It was only the following morning when she woke up in her underwear with bruises round her waist and thighs that she realised that something terrible had happened. She believed that her boyfriend spiked her drink at the firm's Christmas party and with her boss took her upstairs and raped her.
  "There are about two hours I just can't account for."
  She said:
  "The room went very dark. I had the most horrendous tunnel vision; people who were standing just a few feet away from me seemed like they were only five inches tall. I couldn't hear people's conversations properly. It was as if I was going deaf. Even if I'd known what was going on, I couldn't have done anything about it. I was totally powerless."
  These stories are so horrible that I should say at once that the numbers to whom this happens are small, though apparently increasing.
  The only comprehensive research into drug rape is the Sturman report of 2000 by Chief Inspector Peter Sturman of the Metropolitan police. That year, 1,002 people contacted the Drug Rape Trust, the support trust set up by Mr. Sturman. I should declare an interest as a patron of that trust. It is, of course, an unpaid position.
  Last year., 2,016 similar people contacted the trust—twice as many as in the previous year. Although I shall describe victims as "she", I should say that 11 per cent. of complainants are men.

  479
  The Belfast Rape Crisis Centre reported eight drug rapes in 1998 and there are now 350 each year. This is due in part to an increase in offending and in part to increased awareness.
  Eighteen types of drugs have been used in the UK. The most frequently used is GHB, which is recognisable in some of the symptoms reported by the victims in my stories. Like ecstasy, it is a rave drug, and because it is dangerous rather than because of its use in rape, it is now a controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, so its possession is unlawful.
  The drug Rohypnol has been associated by the media with drug rape, but it has never been found in the UK. The Sturman view is that it is not a hazard.
  Roche, the company that manufactures it has also asked me to make that clear. I do so in particular because with impressive responsibility since the association was made between the drug and drug rape, Roche has reconstituted the tablet so that it floats and fizzes and gives off an indigo dye as it dissolves, so it is useless for spiking a drink. I commend that excellent precedent to the Government, which they should impose on commercial manufacturers of other drugs. However, GHB is easily made domestically from simple substances, and many internet websites give recipes for it.
  Only seven people have been convicted of drug rape in this country. The law is clear: rape is an offence, and section 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 makes it an offence to administer a drug in order to stupefy, or to overpower, a person to enable sex. The offence incurs a two-year maximum sentence, which should perhaps be increased. I shall discuss later some possible legal changes, but the problem is not so much the law as the evidence required to prove drug rape.
  The drugs pass through the system quickly—taking between two and eight hours—and leave the victim confused. She will hesitate to tell anyone, and by the time she overcomes the after-effects, the drugs are gone, leaving no evidential trace. The confusion that they cause is itself a barrier to complaining, let alone to giving evidence. What can she say? What can she be sure of? Often, she will have been drinking. She may feel guilt at having had too much, or fear that having had any amount will make the authorities judgmental. Traumatised, she may not want to be treated as if she brought this horrible experience on herself. She may just stay at home.
  The perpetrators we know little about. Self-evidently, this is an evil, premeditated, predatory offence that is recklessly dangerous. It can be the utter ruin of the victim, for presumably transient pleasure. However, according to the Rape Crisis Federation, in the main the offence is perpetrated by professional gangs, and the things done to the victims are filmed, to be sold on as pornography.
  This is not a new issue; Cosmopolitan, Elle, The Observer, and—nearer home, in Redcar—The Northern Echo, have all run recent features on it, but it has not attracted sufficient Government attention. Given that only seven convictions have been secured, the problem must look tiny, but numerically it is far bigger than that. The potentially catastrophic damage to individuals makes the offence important beyond the numbers affected, as does the fear that it casts over the lives of sociable people.
  480
  I have seen a letter from the Government suggesting that the incidence of drug rape is exaggerated, and by implication that, because information about it is available on websites and it is against the law, nothing else needs to be done. I hope that the Minister is not of that point of view. What kind of Government attention should drug rape attract? The Government should fund wider publicity. Of course, it is completely inappropriate to generate panic—I repeat that the numbers involved are small—but that is not a reason to avoid publicising the risk. That would allow the risk to continue, and add to the isolation of drug rape victims. It is for professional public relations experts to plan how best to make the message clear without frightening people.
  The same awareness-raising campaign ought to set out simple preventive or protective steps that people can take without spoiling their pleasure. The task is to incorporate them into people's ordinary behaviour—just as people lock their car and switch on the alarm. Such behaviour does not mean that people live in fear of car theft; it is a simple and obvious precaution, and a fairly successful crime prevention measure that is simply part of what people now do.
  The Drug Rape Trust has launched a campaign—"Be aware and take care"—that features a pocket-sized plastic card, containing tips such as "Don't leave your drink unattended." The theme is that it could happen to anyone, and that we must all watch out for each other. That is rather clever, as it does not put the onus wholly on to the potential victim, who might otherwise feel oppressed. However, a small charity cannot propagate its campaign widely enough, and the Government ought to take the lead.
  The Drug Rape Trust has been working with the Department of Trade and Industry and Government chemists for two years to develop a swizzle stick that indicates when a rape drug is in a drink, and a prototype has been tested. The plan is that a swizzle stick will automatically be put into any drink served by bar staff. Soliciting the support of breweries, pub owners and club owners will obviously require Government help. The plan does contain elements of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but given the grave consequences of drug rape, it would be a simple step to take. It is not possible simply to issue swizzle sticks to people. There is nothing funny about this issue, but accepting a drink from an amiable companion, only to test it for drugs with a swizzle stick, is hardly the way to progress a new relationship. That is simply not practical.
  I should emphasise that no such product is available yet. Certain products claim to be able to test comprehensively for such drugs, which is another reason why the Government must get involved. They must exclude the inevitable profit-chasing charlatans by taking responsibility themselves for verifying preventive products.
  The offence is of course one of rape. The publication on 10 April of the thematic report by the inspectorates of constabulary and of the Crown Prosecution Service on how rape is investigated and prosecuted shows that standards are very low. One criticism raised there and brought into sharper focus by drug rape is the need for specialist medical facilities for the care of rape complainants. Often they are examined in the police station doctor's room, which is used for a range of other purposes. The doctor will be a forensic medical examiner

  481
  unconnected with the complainant. Such doctors vary in sympathy. As the inspectors found out, both men and women rape complainants prefer to be examined by a female. Although 35 per cent. of GPs are women, only 18 per cent. of forensic medical examiners are women, making the prospect of getting what one wants a poor one.
  Not everybody wants to make a complaint to the police but they might want to be treated and to give samples to keep their options open. It is important, therefore, that facilities be at hospitals and not at police stations. There are centres of excellence, notably the St. Mary's centre in Manchester, which has existed for 14 years and was praised by the inspectors. The doctors there have specific expertise. They have dealt with hundreds of thousands of upset and traumatised men and women at all times of the day and night. They are sympathetic and detached, and knowledgeable enough often to be able to give expert evidence that is capable of being supporting evidence. As the inspectors found, complainants who are supported and given good care from the start are more likely to find the resources to sustain a complaint through the criminal justice system. In order to try to improve the all-time low 7.3 per cent conviction rate for rape, such facilities are urgently needed.
  In July 2000, the Home Office sex offences review recommended changes to the law, in particular the legal redefinition of rape as having sex without free agreement rather than having sex without consent. The review also suggested a non-exhaustive list of examples of when a person does not give free agreement. One item on the list was if a person was too affected by drink or drugs to give free agreement. As with most rape in which the parties are known to each other, however fleetingly, the defence of a drug rape perpetrator, if prosecuted, will be consent. If there is evidence of drug use, a consent defence will have to be accompanied by an assertion that she took the drug herself. In that case, having excess drugs or drink on a list of factors that vitiate consent could be helpful.
  Drug rape is rape. The defence of consent is almost invariably coupled with the defence that if the woman did not consent, the perpetrator thought she had. Rape is having sex knowing, or being reckless as to whether, a woman consented. So if a man genuinely thinks the woman consented, even if in fact she did not, he will not be guilty. I say briefly now what I said at greater length a week ago—because I have been fortunate enough to have two Adjournment debates on aspects of rape in the last fortnight. The defence that the man believed that the woman was consenting is usually accompanied by an application to cross-examine her about her sexual conduct in the past—her previous sexual history. Its relevance is often difficult to see. It is highly prejudicial. It is also cross-examination so intimate that it can undermine a witness's confidence. It plays a well known and massive role in discouraging women from making and sustaining complaints.
  The Government legislated in 1999 to prevent the use of previous sexual history to support a defence of consent. However, that did not exclude the use of previous sexual history for the defence that the man believed that the woman was consenting. Because the defences are run together in the same trial, when previous sexual history is admitted for that defence it has those undesirable effects on the defence of consent as well, despite the Government's intentions. There are contentious issues around how the law should be recast to deal with that
  482
  issue, and I do not raise them now. However, I ask the Minister when we may discuss them. That is to say, when will the Government bring forward legislation based on the sex offences review and will it cover the two aspects to which I have referred today?
  Returning to the specific offence of drug rape, I can think of no complete solution, but I hope that the Minister will take to heart the fact that drug rape engenders widespread fear and has profound consequences for its victims. Will my hon. Friend take action now to raise awareness and to prescribe measures of self-protection so that women and men can be as safe as possible when enjoying their social lives? The two examples that I gave at the beginning of my speech have both happened since the Sturman report made those recommendations two years ago.
  2.49 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) on securing a second debate on this general issue so soon after the first.
  Rape in all its forms is a serious and abhorrent crime. The enormity of the effect on victims and the fear of crime that it engenders among women is very damaging. Society needs to recognise that rape is a serious crime, and that there can be no qualification or lessening of that.
  As my hon. and learned Friend acknowledged, the law is clear about the use of any substance to assist in the commission of this crime by incapacitating the victim, which is a particularly sinister and repellent act. When it takes place in a social context, such as a pub or a club and when the victim knows or is acquainted with the perpetrator, the betrayal of trust that that involves further impacts upon the victim.
  Owing to the relative infrequency of this type of crime and the difficulty of obtaining specific data, it is hard to assess whether it is on the increase. Current police recording methods do not routinely identify that specific sexual offence. In common with other sexual offences, it would be reasonable to assume that any count of incidents significantly underestimates the size of the problem.
  I am pleased to say that the Home Office has taken steps to address the problem of insufficient data. The latest British crime survey will attempt to measure the involvement of drugs in serious sexual offences. The results will be known when the next survey is published later in the year. However, as with all rape and sexual offences, we need more incidents to be reported to the police.
  As my hon. and learned Friend knows, we have taken steps in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to ensure that victims of rape can be provided with protection if cases reach court. Section 41 of the Act was the subject of an Adjournment debate on 24 April. The provisions of the section limit the questions that rape victims can be asked under cross-examination about their previous sexual history so that they do not have to go through that distressing and unnecessary ordeal. I have taken on board what my hon. and learned Friend says about the way in which that is effectively being circumvented, and will come back to her as soon as I can with further thoughts on whether we can protect against that happening.

  483
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), in replying to my hon. and learned Friend's previous Adjournment debate, said that we were planning a research project to evaluate the impact of section 41, particularly in the light of the recent House of Lords decision. We are also aware of the need to improve the conviction rate in rape offences generally.
  A working group on rape is being established by the Home Office. It will work with the police and other Government Departments to devise a plan to implement the recommendations of the recent joint inspectorate review. These include using specialist lawyers for rape cases, ensuring that offensive and seemingly irrelevant questioning of victims is challenged and issuing guidance to prosecutors on the review and handling of cases. The report also recommends the improvement of existing training for lawyers and police officers.
  Among the existing good practice identified in the report is the provision in some areas of specialist medical examination facilities and the equipping of first response staff with sample kits to prevent loss of evidence. My hon. and learned Friend commended one institution; I would like to mention the Haven in south London, which is another good example of a specialist medical resource for victims of sexual offences. It is jointly funded by the Metropolitan police and the national health service. The service deals with approximately 10 per cent. of all rape referrals in England and Wales.
  There is little firm evidence to indicate how often drugs are used to facilitate rape, or which drugs are being used. The forensic science service analyses samples from victims in suspected drug rape cases and has been collating data on possible drug-facilitated rape and sexual assault. It investigates about 450 cases of alleged drug-assisted rape each year, and positive drug identifications—those where the presence of an unexplained sedative drug has been detected—are made in only 1 to 2 per cent. of such cases.
  Benzodiazepine drugs are controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as class C drugs but, until recently, were exempted from controls on their possession. Following advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, the Government have introduced additional controls on their import, export and possession. Those further controls should help to reduce the availability of the benzodiazepine drugs on the illicit drugs market and their use in cases of rape.
  As my hon. and learned Friend said, there have been media reports that the drug GHB—gamma hydroxybutyrate—is often used in drug rape. We take that very seriously and have been monitoring the situation to see whether further controls are needed, based on the scientific and medical evidence. Last year, the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs decided to control GHB under the UN convention on psychotropic substances.
  At its meeting last November, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs recommended that GHB should be controlled as a class C drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The Government have accepted that recommendation in principle, in view of the drug's misuse. Under that classification, possession of the drug
  484
  would be illegal but, as my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, its precursors are easily available, so there are great difficulties in dealing with that issue and they will have to be explored further.
  I think that my hon. and learned Friend is also aware that the Government are working to develop a practical device to enable the detection of a range of different drugs in drinks. Only last week, I met representatives of the drinks industry and we were given a presentation on the latest developments in that project. There is much potential, but we are still a long way off. There are public health difficulties and the research has revealed major problems.
  The cost of a workable device would have to be represented as a multiple in the value of the drinks themselves. To make progress in devising an effective and suitable product the costs would have to be reduced, so that the device could be supplied with drinks on all occasions. The public health considerations would also have to be taken into account.
  I was encouraged—as were the people who were undertaking the research on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry—by the reaction of some of the trade representatives. They readily said that they were prepared to assist in the trials of the devices to try to further the research so that we could develop a usable product as quickly as possible.
  It is also important that we have laws that provide clear and coherent offences to protect all victims of sexual offences, with penalties that enable the appropriate punishment of offenders. To that end, the Government set up the sex offences review in January 1999.
  On drug rape, my hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the Sexual Offences Act 1956 includes an offence of administering drugs to obtain or facilitate intercourse, and the review proposes an increase in the sentence for that crime from two years to seven years. When the review's recommendations have been considered, we intend to introduce a coherent package of new and amended sexual offences as soon as parliamentary time allows.
  I assure my hon. and learned Friend and the rest of the House that we are determined further to improve the support offered to victims by both the criminal justice system and the community as a whole. Since last October, we have given many victims the opportunity to make a personal statement about how the crime has affected their lives. That will ensure that they can be offered the right level of protection and support, and that their needs are taken into account at every stage in the process. Later this year, we shall announce detailed plans for a Bill of Rights for victims and for a victims commissioner, who I am sure would have a great impact in this area of criminality.
  I hope that I have been able to assure my hon. and learned Friend that we are actively considering rape in its wider context and the various ways in which we can help, and that drug rape is being taken seriously. I am sure that she will continue to monitor the situation and to push for an effective framework in all the different areas necessary to deal with the problem.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Three o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Human Rights Act
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 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.[45059]

  Mr. Morley
  We do not collect 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 5 cases to date.

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

  Bovine TB
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the recently diagnosed cases of bovine TB in herds in Denbighshire, Powys and Monmouthshire; and what steps her Department is taking to control further spread of mycobacterium bovis infection. [53204]

  Mr. Morley
  Powys and Monmouthshire have suffered a number of TB incidents in recent years. In the first three months of this year raw data show there were 37 new incidents in Powys, 20 of which are provisionally confirmed as due to bovine TB.

  Raw data show that in Monmouthshire some 36 new incidents were disclosed in the first three months of the year, of which 19 are provisionally confirmed as bovine TB.

  One new confirmed bovine TB incident was recently disclosed in a herd in Denbighshire. Investigations into the origin of this incident are still ongoing.

  The State Veterinary Service in Wales, in close consultation with the Welsh Assembly Government, is working to clear the TB test backlog, to restrict the movement of cattle off herds with suspected TB and to target resources effectively.

  The causes of bovine TB are complex and the Government is seeking to proceed on the basis of sound science drawn from independent scientific and veterinary experts. A wide-ranging research programme has been put in place on advice from the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISG). The programme extends to the
  358
  pathogenesis of TB in cattle, improved diagnostic techniques, vaccine development, the badger field trial, risks to cattle from wildlife other than badgers and a study looking at TB in newly formed herds following restocking after foot and mouth disease.

  European Commission
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) formal and (b) informal meetings her Department has undertaken with the European Commission since 1 January; and if she will make a statement. [54487]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and her Ministerial colleagues meet the relevant Commissioners at meetings of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Environment Councils. In addition, the Secretary of State has met bilaterally with Commissioners Fischler (twice), Byrne, Wallstrom, Kinnock and Patten. I have met Fischler once during the period mentioned. The number of contacts between officials of the Department and representatives of the Commission, in the wide range of fora where they meet, could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Flooding
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by what criteria flood defences are graded in terms of being(a) maintained at their current level or (b) in need of enhancement. [54234]

  Mr. Morley
  Operational responsibility for planning, design, construction, maintenance, inspection and operation of flood defence measures rests with local operating authorities (the Environment Agency, Local Authorities and Internal Drainage Boards). The operating authorities determine which flood defences should be maintained at their current level and which are in need of enhancement. Efforts are being made to collate such information on a National Flood and Coastal Defence Database.

  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps are being taken to ensure(a) detailed mapping of areas at risk from flooding, (b) that insurance companies recognise the difference in flood risk within post-code areas and (c) that households are graded in accordance to direct risk. [54236]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency has published indicative flood maps and has made these available to local authorities. Copies have recently been made available to Members of Parliament in England and Wales showing the indicative flood risk areas in their constituency. Smaller scale versions are also available to the public via the Internet. The Department is in discussion with the Agency to further develop this mapping and is currently funding work that will improve the information available. Discussions continue with both the Agency and ABI to improve the information available for assessing insurance risk.

  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) homes and (b) commercial properties are at risk from

  359W
  coastal or inland flooding in (i) England, (ii) the South East and (iii) East Sussex; and what the total value of assets are. [54271]

  Mr. Morley
  The 2001 National Assessment of Assets at Risk from Flooding and Coastal Erosion, commissioned by DEFRA, estimated figures for areas at risk of flooding by regions of the Environment Agency; the Agency have provided a further breakdown for East Sussex.

  The estimated figures for the whole of England, for the Southern Region of the Environment Agency and for East Sussex are as follows:

  England

  Southern Region

  East Sussex

  Homes at risk of flooding

  1,670,000

  152,000

  23,500

  Commercial properties at risk

  128,000

  14,000

  2,100

  Estimated total value of assets at risk

  £200,000m

  £18,400 m

  £2,850 m

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to fund the repairs to flood defence systems identified as Government targets following the Bye report into the 1998 floods. [54637]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government drew up High Level Targets for Flood and Coastal Defence in 1999 in liaison with local operating authorities (the Environment Agency, Local Authorities and Internal Drainage Boards). The targets are intended to facilitate a more certain delivery of national policies and objectives for flood and coastal defence. However operational responsibility for planning, design, construction, maintenance, inspection and operation of flood defence measures rests with the local operating authorities.

  I understand that the Environment Agency has repaired flood defences damaged in the 1998 floods, has carried out some improvements and is considering other improvements where they meet the normal economic, technical and environmental criteria.

  Funding from this Department for capital works to all operating authorities has increased from an outturn of £73 million in 1998–99 to a planned £114 million in 2003–04.

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if resources will be made available to improve the accuracy of the Environment Agency's maps and website relating to flood risk assessments. [54639]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department is in discussion with the Environment Agency to further develop the indicative flood plain maps, copies of which have recently been made available to Members of Parliament in England and Wales, local authorities and, the general public (via the internet). DEFRA is currently funding work that will improve the data available. More detailed information will be available (as hardcopy and via the internet) in the Autumn.

  Trawling
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will take steps 360w
  to ensure that the National Environment Research Council fund research into deep seabed impacts by trawling. [54867]

  Mr. Morley
  The Office of Science and Technology within the Department of Trade and Industry is the responsible body within Government for the allocation of funds to the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) for scientific research, not DEFRA. Within the budget provision from OST NERC is funding a programme of research into the ecology of deep sea fish and the impact of deep-water fisheries on both commercial and non-target species. DEFRA has in the past funded research at NERC's marine laboratories on a wide range of subjects, and also liaises with NERC over the development of its thematic programmes. DEFRA is funding an extensive programme of research at the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Acquaculture Science and several other institutes into fishing impact on the seabed, but focussing on coastal rather than deep waters.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to prevent trawling damage to seabed communities. [54870]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department is currently looking to establish Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas to extend the EC Habitats and Birds Directive beyond 12 nautical miles with a view to protecting vulnerable habitats and species. One potential site is an area of coral reef off the North West coast of Scotland known as the Darwin Mounds thought to have been subject to damage by trawl gear. We will work to get the Commission to bring forward the necessary legislation to restrict fishing activity where a habitat is in need of protection but is situated in international waters. More generally, one of our priorities for the forthcoming review of the Common Fisheries Policy is the greater integration of environmental concerns into fisheries policy: this will involve action to reduce the impact of fishing on non target species and sensitive habitats.

  Rural Subsidies
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what total sums of public money, unavailable to urban areas, were paid in each of the past four years to rural areas in all forms of subsidies, compensations, concessions and reduced charges. [54827]

  Alun Michael
  It is difficult to draw an absolute line between urban and rural areas. Support for farmers will be available to farmers within a mainly urban area, for instance. It must also be remembered that these figures represent targeted funds. Other finances are targeted at purposes relating mainly or wholly to urban needs.

  The following table provides information on the total public expenditure on UK agriculture in each of the past four years.

  361W

  £ million

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–01

  2001–02

  UK Public expenditure under CAP & on national grants and subsidies

  3,482

  3,161

  3,014

  3,227

  (b) Foot and Mouth disease costs [of direct benefit to the agriculture sector]

  —

  —

  29

  2,028

  (c) Total

  3,482

  3,161

  3,043

  5,255

  In addition UK agriculture benefits from red diesel and other concessions. These are broadly estimated to be worth £300m per year.

  Beyond agriculture there are other forms of support for rural areas unavailable to urban areas. The following table provides details of public expenditure for relevant programmes for rural areas in England (as defined by the Countryside Agency definition).

  programme £million

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Rural Transport1

  2·3

  3·3

  4·6

  6·0

  Community Services

  Grant2

  —

  —

  —

  1·7

  Parish Transport2

  —

  —

  —

  0·4

  1This includes the Rural Transport Partnership and Rural Transport Development Fund, which include funds for linking rural and urban areas. In 1999 the Countryside Agency took over the role of the Rural Development Commission, which administered these funds.

  2Part of the Countryside Agency Vital Villages programme, which first reported in 2001–02.

  In addition there is rate relief for a number of rural businesses, including village shops, post offices, public houses and garages in rural communities of less than 3,000 inhabitants.

  There are a number of other programmes that have specific rural targets but are also open to urban areas. These include Parish Plans, funded by the Countryside Agency, and programmes of the Regional Development Agency and Housing Corporation.

  Pets
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to regulate the sale of(a) cats and (b) dogs in pet shops.[54694]

  Mr. Morley
  There has been a review of animal welfare legislation relating to farmed, captive and domestic animals, including the regulation of companion animal sales. A public consultation exercise ran from 2 January to 30 April. We will now evaluate the 2,400 responses we received and then decide on what changes need to be made.

  Whales and Whaling
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on the 1946 International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling. [54976]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government's policy on whaling remains unchanged. We are opposed to all forms of whaling other than some limited subsistence whaling; and we strongly support the International Whaling Commission's moratorium on commercial whaling.
  362
  I am planning to attend the next annual meeting of the Commission which takes place from 20–24 May in Shimonoseki, Japan where the UK will resist any attempts to lift the moratorium.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the natural reproduction rate is of(a) Minke whales and (b) Sperm whales; and what her Department's estimate is of the rate of change in their global populations if these whales continue to be hunted at current levels. [54975]

  Mr. Morley
  Minke whales can normally reproduce every 1—2 years and Sperm whales every 4–5 years. It is not possible to estimate the effects of current whaling activities in terms of the rate of change in global populations.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her Department's assessment is of the world's population of(a) Minke whales and (b) Sperm whales. [54977]

  Mr. Morley
  There is considerable scientific uncertainty over the numbers of whales of different species and in different geographical stocks. The International Whaling Commission (IWC), which is the primary international body responsible for the management and conservation of whales, estimated that(a) in 1995 there were approximately 149,000 Minke whales in the North Atlantic (excluding Canadian East Coast) and (b) in 1990, approximately 25,000 Minke whales in the North West Pacific and Okhotsk Sea. The IWC Scientific Committee is currently carrying out a major review of Minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere as no reliable estimate is available.

  There is no current assessment of the population of Sperm whales.

  Sheep Identification
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she intends to introduce new regulations in respect of sheep identification and traceability.[54849]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 8 May 2002]: The Interim Animal Movements Regime introduced in February 2002 makes provision for the identification and tracing of sheep and goats. We will be reviewing experience with these interim controls in the next couple of months with a view to making any necessary changes in late summer. Later in the year we will also need to consider any recommendations on identification and traceability that emerge from the independent inquiries into the foot and mouth outbreak, and possible proposals from the European Commission on identification of sheep.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to provide financial support for research into electronic means of identification of sheep. [54850]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 8 May 2002]: There are no current plans to commission research into electronic means of identifying sheep (EID) in England. However, the European Commission's Joint Research Centre has recently completed a major four-year programme of practical trials of EID in cattle, sheep and goats to test

  363W
  feasibility, including practicality and animal welfare. The UK government is working closely with the EC-Joint Research Centre to learn from this experience.

  We are also making practical use of EID technology as part of the NSP.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much money has been paid to farmers in compensation for slaughtered livestock arising from the recent foot and mouth epidemic to date; what is(a) the average amount paid to each farmer and (b) the largest payment to a single farmer; and if he will make a statement.[52545]

  Mr. Morley
  £1,050m has been paid to farmers in compensation for slaughtered livestock arising from the recent foot and mouth epidemic to date, and the average amount paid to each farmer was £124,755. The largest payment to a single farmer was £4,238,800.

  Dolphins
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the results of her Department's surveys on board UK pair trawlers to establish how many dolphins were killed per 100 net hauls; and if she will make a statement. [49282]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: Observations by the Sea Mammal Research Unit during 2000 and 2001 were as follows:—

  Target species

  No. of dolphins

  No. of hauls

  No. of days at sea

  Anchovy

  0

  3

  3

  Blue whiting

  0

  4

  8

  Herring

  0

  42

  33

  Mackerel

  0

  27

  64

  Pilchard

  0

  8

  6

  Sprats

  0

  10

  10

  Bass

  53

  116

  71

  These figures indicate a significant problem in the bass fishery off south west England but not in other fisheries sampled. Those pair trawling teams monitored in the bass fishery caught dolphins at a rate a little in excess of one every two hauls. This is a cause for serious concern, and we have drawn the attention of the EU Commissioner and the French Fisheries Minister to it.

  SMRU have also completed an initial trial in the bass fishery of special gear designed to allow dolphins to escape. Information on this will be published as soon as it is available.

  Affordable Housing
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list by category, the number of key sector workers living in affordable housing in rural areas in each of the last 10 years. [54815]

  Ms Keeble
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information is not available in this form.
  364W

WORK AND PENSIONS

  New Deal
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people living in the London Borough of Wandsworth have taken up the New Deal options. [53876]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is in the tables.

  New Deal for Young People

  Option

  Number of people in London Borough of Wandsworth taking up an Option (up to January 2002)

  Employment

  99

  Full Time Education and Training

  459

  Voluntary Sector

  157

  Environment Task Force

  85

  Total

  800

  New Deal 25 Plus (Pre-April 2001 Programme)*

  Option

  Number of people in London Borough of Wandsworth taking up an option(up to January 2002)

  Employment

  53

  Full Time Education and Training

  85

  Work Based Learning for Adults

  268

  Total

  406

  New Deal 25 Plus (Post-April 2001 Programme)*

  option

  Number of people in London Borough of Wandsworth taking up an Option (up to January 2002)

  Employment

  1

  Basic Employability Training/Basic Skills

  11

  Self Employment

  8

  Education and Training Opportunity

  0

  Work Experience/Placements

  1

  Intensive Activity Period Training

  43

  Other

  0

  Total

  64

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  * In April 2001 New Deal 25 Plus was enhanced to provide more flexible, individually-tailored help for long term unemployed people.

  Access to Work Scheme
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how Access to Work has been promoted(a) in the UK and (b) in Edinburgh East and Borders. [53043]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: Access to Work was promoted through the Employment Service. Since the start of April responsibility for promoting Access to Work passed to Jobcentre Plus. Jobcentre Plus promotes awareness of the whole range of its services, including support available to disabled people and their employers, through media such as leaflets, audio tapes, videos and the Jobcentre Plus website.

  In Scotland, the Access to Work Business Centre Manager and Access to Work Advisers take part in events with General Practitioners and at job fairs and give presentations to employers and interested organisations.

  Employment assistance schemes in Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  365W
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the(a) budget, (b) actual and (c) estimated outturn has been of the Access to Work scheme (i) in the UK and (ii) in the Edinburgh East and Borders district, in each year since creation.[53041]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: The information available is in the table.

  Budget

  Actual Spend

  Year

  England, Scotland and Wales

  Edinburgh East and Borders1

  England, Scotland and Wales

  Edinburgh East and Borders

  2000–01

  £25.7m

  Not available

  £32.4m

  £1.2m

  1999–00

  £24.3m

  Not available

  £24.4m

  £620,847

  1998–99

  £19.0m

  Not available

  £19.5m

  £379,975

  1997–98

  £19.0m

  Not available

  £14.6m

  £320,123

  1996–97

  £19.0m

  Not available

  £12.5m

  Not available2

  1995–96

  £13.4m

  Not available

  £19.9m

  Not available2

  1994–95

  £14.6m

  Not available

  £15.7m

  Not available2

  Source:

  DWP Access to Work Management Information

  1Before 2001, Access to Work was delivered through a network of Disability Service Teams in Scotland. Because of several boundary changes over the course of the last few years, these figures have not been collected separately. The information could therefore be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  2Figures on actual spend for Edinburgh East and Borders can only be provided as far back as the 1997£98 financial year.

  3Employment assistance schemes in Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

  Action Team for Jobs
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many unemployed people have received support through the Action Teams for Jobs initiative; and how many found work as a consequence of the initiative. [47927]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Action Teams for Jobs are set up to tackle the problems of endemic joblessness in the most employment deprived areas in the country. Up to the end of February 2002, Action Teams for Jobs had engaged with 62,506 eligible jobless people and helped 23,745 of them into work. The Teams have also helped a number of people living outside their areas that are not recorded in the statistics.

  Employment Lone Scheme
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people are involved in(a) stage 1 and (b) stage 2 of the Employment Zone scheme in each of the 15 Employment Zone areas. [47930]
  366w
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is in the table.

  Number of current participants (at 31 January 2002)

  Employment Zone

  Step 1

  Step 2

  Birmingham

  2,225

  2,423

  Brent

  424

  380

  Brighton

  238

  349

  Doncaster

  587

  531

  Glasgow

  776

  768

  Haringey

  935

  1,154

  Liverpool

  1,422

  2,628

  Middlesbrough

  219

  319

  Newham

  528

  825

  North West Wales

  460

  335

  Nottingham

  194

  226

  Plymouth

  166

  232

  Southwark

  682

  933

  Tower Hamlets

  347

  313

  Heads of the Valleys

  170

  356

  TOTAL

  9,373

  11,772

  Source:

  Employment Zone Management Information.

  Employment Zones vary in size and coverage.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much has been(a) budgeted and (b) spent on the Employment Zone scheme in each year since its introduction; and how much of the allocation in each year went into personal job accounts.[47929]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department does not receive information from contractors on the specific amounts spent on personal job accounts. This is because funding for the personal job account is drawn from the overall payments made to the contractors. Expenditure on personal job accounts by contractors varies according to the needs of each participant.

  In the financial year April 2000—March 2001, the Employment Zone budget was £56,374,000 and the spend was £71,950,885.

  For the financial year April 2001—March 2002 the budget was £87,026,000. Forecast expenditure will be published in the Departmental Report in May.

  Reasons for the differences between the spend on Employment Zones and budget include better than anticipated performance by Zone contractors and more participants entering the programme earlier than forecast.

  The budget for 2001–02 includes funding for those who joined Employment Zones during the year and have not yet completed Steps 1 and 2.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have been helped into sustained employment via the Employment Zone scheme(a) in each year since its introduction and (b) broken down according to each employment zone. [47928]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Between April 2000, when they were launched, and January 2002, Employment Zones have helped 20,850 people into work. Of these, 14,743 have been helped into sustained employment.
  The information on each Employment Zone is in the table.
  367W

  Employment Zone

  Number of people helped into Sustained employment (cumulative total up to 31 January 2002)

  Birmingham

  2,708

  Brent

  690

  Brighton

  859

  Doncaster

  480

  Glasgow

  1,730

  Haringey

  1,847

  Liverpool

  1,693

  Middlesbrough

  615

  Newham

  867

  North West Wales

  246

  Nottingham

  333

  Plymouth

  466

  Southwark

  1,136

  Tower Hamlets

  602

  Heads of the Valley

  471

  Source:

  Employment Zone Management Information

  Employment Zone very in size and coverage

  Pensions
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when private sector providers who wish to make combined pensions forecasts available to prospective pensioners will be able to do so; and what information on forecasts is available to them. [54239]

  Maria Eagle
  The combined pension forecasting service was launched in October 2001 at the industry's annual Pensions Show. Since that date the service has been open to all pension providers to register their interest in participating.

  The service is delivered on a voluntary basis through employers and pension scheme providers with the consent of individual customers.

  Customer Account Managers organise publicity of the service at industry conferences and seminars. Additionally, they support individual providers who have expressed an interest in joining the new service through one-to-one presentations and guide them through the formal registration process.

  Explanatory information leaflets and guides, have also been produced for distribution to providers these are: CPF—Take part in combined pension forecasting, CPF2—vA guide to combined pension forecasting and CPF3—Combined pension forecast: Technical guide.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list those employers and pension scheme providers who have participated in pilot exercises to inform the design and development of combined pensions forecasts; and if he will make sample statements available in the Library. [54238]

  Maria Eagle
  Pilot exercises were conducted with the following seven companies:

  Sainsbury' s

  Emap

  Prudential

  Axa/Sunlife

  Merseyside Pension Fund

  Department for Work and Pensions

  National Provident Institute

  368W
  A sample statement from the Prudential has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he has taken to inform employees whose employers have switched from final salary pensions to money purchase schemes about the impact of such changes. [55327]

  Maria Eagle
  Pension schemes are set up voluntarily by employers and they decide what the provisions of those schemes should be. Once a scheme is established scheme trustees are required to provide members with basic information about the scheme, including what benefits are payable and how those benefits are calculated. If employers choose to switch from a final salary to a money purchase scheme, the Government believes employers have a responsibility to make it clear to their employees if contribution rates change and what the implications of that are for their future pension provision.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Directly Elected Mayors
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much the research on Public Attitudes to Directly Elected Mayors by IFF Research Ltd. published by his Department on 14 December 2001 cost; and when the research was delivered to his Department. [53784]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The research on Public Attitudes to Directly Elected Mayors, commissioned to find out more about how the public perceived directly elected mayors and to establish the level of interest in local democracy generally, involved fieldwork by IFF Research Ltd, which cost £103,650, and analysis and publication by my Department. The survey data was delivered to my Department on 25 September 2001, and after analysis was published on 14 December, a date which was outside any period for restricting publicity prior to a mayoral referendum.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the starting salary of a fireman is in(a) London and (b) the rest of England; and when this salary will next increase. [54176]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The starting salary for a firefighter aged 18 in London is £20,111 rising to £20,897 after six months. Firefighters over 18 in London start on £20,378 rising to £21,152 after six months.

  Outside London the starting salary for a firefighter aged 18 is £16,941 rising to £17,727 after six months. For those over 18 the starting salary is £17,208 rising to £17,982 after six months.

  After four years a firefighter in London will be on £24,701 and £21,531 outside London.

  Under the national pay agreement between local authority employers and the Fire Brigades Union the operative date for pay increases for firefighting staff is 7 November.
  369W
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to increase the pay of fire service personnel. [54177]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Government has no statutory role in the determination of fire service pay. Pay arrangements are negotiated between the local authority employers and the representatives of the staff concerned.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the shortfall is in the number of firemen in the UK; and what measures he plans to introduce to increase numbers. [54178]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Based on figures taken from annual returns HM Fire Service Inspectorate, the difference between establishment and actual strength of whole-time and retained firefighters in England and Wales as at 31 March 2001, the most recent figure available, was as follows:

  Establishment

  Actual

  Shortfall

  Whole time

  33,640

  33,376

  264

  Retained

  14,940

  12,028

  2,912

  Recruitment and increases in firefighter numbers are a matter for local fire authorities.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many fire stations have(a) closed, (b) opened and (c) had improvements made to them since 1997. [54179]

  Dr. Whitehead
  This information is not collected centrally. Information on the number of fire stations in each fire authority in England and Wales at 1 January for each year from 1997 to 2002 was given in my right hon. Friend's reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. Theresa May) on 19 March 2002,Official Report, columns 239£242. On the basis of these returns, six fire stations have closed and five fire stations have opened since 1997. However, these figures may not include instances where the opening of a fire station is balanced by the closure of another in the same authority within a particular year.

  Local Authority Services
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that district authorities have the flexibility to fund and deliver high quality public services to local people. [54797]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) on 7 May 2002,Official Report, column 26W.

  Bus Workers (Safety)
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will require the Health and Safety Executive to take steps to improve the safety at work of bus workers. [54871]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Bus workers, in common with all other workers are protected by the general provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and related 370w
  legislation. The priorities for HSE are set out in the Health and safety Commission's Strategic Plan 2001–04. There are no specific plans to target the safety of bus workers at this time.

  Rural Bus Challenges
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to extend rural bus challenges to non-road transport; and what his reasons for his policy are. [55078]

  Ms Keeble
  We have no plans to extend the rural bus challenge scheme to non-road transport. The scheme's focus on buses, and other road public transport, recognises that in the overwhelming majority of cases throughout the country they will be the means of meeting public transport needs in rural areas.

  Mineral Planning Guidance
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what plans he has to issue new guidance on aggregates as a technical note to Mineral Planning Guidance Note 1; [55073]

  (2) when he plans to review the guidance in Mineral Planning Guidance Note 6; [55072]

  (3) whether minerals planning authorities may deviate from the production levels set in Mineral Planning Guidance Note 6, with particular reference to paragraph 105 of MPG 6. [55074]

  Ms Keeble
  Following public consultation on principles to be adopted in planning for the future supply of aggregates in 2001, revision of MPG6 was in progress at the time that the Government decided to proceed with the Planning Green Paper. Work on MPG6 was put into abeyance so that any new guidance could conform with decisions to be taken in the light of consultation on the Planning Green Paper. The Green Paper proposed that priority should be given to revising MPG1, dealing with guidance for all types of mineral working, and suggested that MPG6 should be replaced by a technical note in support of MPGI.

  Subject to an announcement on the conclusions of the Planning Review, work is in hand to publish a consultation draft revision of MPG 1 in the Autumn of 2002, with draft supplementary advice on aggregates following early in 2003. Meanwhile, as a matter of priority, work is proceeding to update the national and regional quantitative guidelines for aggregates provision, at present in the 1994 edition of MPG6, with a view to consulting on these in mid 2002.

  The supply guidelines in MPG6 have always been flexible. Paragraph 26 of MPG6 makes it clear that "If circumstances change, requiring a change in assumptions, the provision to be actually made can be adjusted. Consequently the figures contained in these Guidelines are not targets but are indicative figures for the purposes of preparing development plans and the administration of development control." In addition, paragraph 58 of MPG6 makes it clear that the regional guidelines "provide an indication of likely demand but the apportionment figure should not be regarded as inflexible".
  371W
  "The preparation of development plans provides an important opportunity to test the practicality and environmental acceptability at the local level of the Guidelines figure. The provision to be made in each plan will need to be justified not only in relation to this Guidance, but also in relation to all other relevant considerations affecting planning for the area". In line with paragraph 105 of MPG6, the regional guidelines should always be subject to local review and updating in the light of local circumstances. The forthcoming publication of revised forecasts and guidelines will provide a good opportunity for authorities to do this in reviewing and updating their mineral development plans.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with West Sussex County Council on the provision of new aggregate sites at(a) Funtington, (b) Oving and (c) Duncton. [55075]

  Ms Keeble
  No such discussions have taken place.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the status is of planning policy guidance and mineral planning guidance notes issued by his Department. [55071]

  Ms Keeble
  Planning Policy guidance and minerals planning guidance notes set out the Government's policies on different aspects of planning and minerals issues. Local and mineral planning authorities must take them into account, where relevant, in preparing their development plans. It has also been established that such guidance may be material to decisions on individual planning applications and appeals, depending on the circumstances of each case.

  Telephone Kiosk Advertising
  Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will announce the outcome of the consultation exercise on the future treatment of telephone kiosk glass advertising in the regime for the control of advertisements; and if he will make a statement. [56243]

  Ms Keeble
  Existing planning rules do not address telephone kiosk glass advertising, which is a relatively new form of advertising. The issue raises a wide range of considerations including visual amenity, highway safety, public safety and crime, and the cost and other resource implications of formal regulation. The consultation paper which we issued on 11 July 2001 invited views on possible options for clarifying the position. 1 am grateful to all those who took the trouble to respond.

  We have carefully considered the responses received and the range of factors involved. We have concluded that kiosk glass advertising should benefit from deemed consent but subject to certain conditions and limitations. This will mean that, subject to meeting conditions and limitations relating to geographical coverage, illumination and size of advertisement, such advertisements may be displayed without the express approval of the local planning authority. The siting of kiosk glass advertisements in conservation areas, areas of outstanding natural beauty, National Parks and the Broads will require the express consent of the local planning authority, as will advertising on more than one face of a kiosk.
  372w
  We believe that this approach strikes a strikes a fair balance between the need to preserve and where possible enhance the character of the environment and the public realm, the need to ensure public safety, and the business needs of industry, including payphone providers and advertisers. It is designed to resolve the current uncertainty, and promote a consistent approach, by providing an appropriate degree of control but without excessive and burdensome statutory regulation.

  Provisions to give effect to these changes will be set out in the new Advertisement Control Regulations due to come into force in the Summer.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will bring into force the new homelessness legislation in the report "More than a Roof"; and what resources will be provided to ensure its effective implementation. [56244]

  Ms Keeble
  The homelessness report, "More than a roof', was published on 13 March. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out his response to that report on 13 March in the reply he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan,Official Report, column 1091 W. Together, those documents set out a new approach to tackling homelessness, one that focuses as much on people and the problems they face, as on the places in which they live. New legislation is a key part of this new approach.

  The Homelessness Act 2002 received Royal Assent on 26 February. The Act will strengthen the safety net which local authorities provide for people who are homeless, or threatened with homelessness. It will, for the first time, place a new duty on local authorities to conduct a review of homelessness and develop, in consultation, a strategy to meet the housing and support needs of all homeless people in their district. It will also ensure that people are given greater choice in applying for social housing.

  We will be making an Order later this Session to bring the main homelessness provisions of the Act into force in July.

  We will also be laying an Order for approval by Parliament to extend the groups of people who have a priority need for accommodation under the homelessness legislation. This will ensure that vulnerable homeless people leaving institutions, young people including those leaving care, and people fleeing domestic, racial and other forms of violence get the help they need. We intend, subject to Parliament's approval, to bring these changes into force in July, at the same time as the main provisions of the Homelessness Act 2002.

  We will also issue revised statutory guidance on homelessness in June, up-dated to reflect the new legislation.

  Section 8 of the Homelessness Act 2002, which provides for applicants to seek a review of the suitability of accommodation offered by a local authority as a settled solution to homelessness, and paragraphs 3 and 7 of Schedule 1 of the Act, came into force on 26 February. Interim statutory guidance has been issued to housing authorities in respect of these provisions.
  373W
  We will also be issuing in the next few weeks a draft of the code of guidance on allocation of accommodation for a twelve week consultation period. Following that consultation, we plan to issue the revised statutory code in the Autumn, with the provisions on allocations in the Homelessness Act 2002 coming into force from January 2003.

  In order to help local authorities and other agencies to implement these changes effectively, the Government has increased the resources available for housing, homelessness and support services.

  In addition to this increased investment, an extra £8 million has been added to local authorities' Revenue Support Grant settlement from 2001£02 to cover the additional duties imposed by the new homelessness legislation.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his response to "More than a roof" that we would provide additional resources to enable local authorities to deliver the new Priority Needs Order. I can confirm today that we will be providing £10 million for this purpose in 2002–03, from a total of —125 million being provided specifically to tackle homelessness. The extra —10 million will be allocated to local authorities by the new Homelessness Directorate in my department following consultation with the Local Government Association on the most appropriate method of distribution.

  The Homelessness Directorate is working with local authorities and other key agencies to ensure that the new legislation—and the Government's new approach to tackling homelessness—is implemented efficiently and effectively to make a real difference to the lives of homeless people.

  Housing Definitions
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what definition he uses of the terms affordable housing and social housing; and if he will make a statement. [55304]

  Ms Keeble
  Social housing normally refers to subsidised housing provided by local authorities or registered social landlords for rent. For the purposes of securing affordable housing through the planning system, affordable housing encompasses low-cost market and subsidised housing, whether for rent or shared ownership, that will be available to people who cannot afford to rent or buy houses generally available on the open market. Local authorities are expected to define in their local plans what they consider to be affordable in the plan area, in terms of the relationship between local income levels and house prices or rents for different types of households.

  Key Worker Housing
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will set out his definition of key workers in the public services for the purposes of providing Government land for pre-fabricated key worker housing; [55321]

  (2) what proportion of the housebuilding targets in each county will be provided by prefabricated key worker housing; [55324]
  374W
  (3) if the named planning rules will apply to the development of pre-fabricated key worker housing; [55316]

  (4) if the public land to be made available for the provision of pre-fabricated key worker housing will include land owned by (a) Government departments, (b) local authorities and (c) Government agencies; [55319]

  (5) if he will list those organisations to whom free public land will be made available for the provison of pre-fabricated key worker housing; [55323]

  (6) if he will list the sites of Government land that will be made available for the provision of pre-fabricated key worker housing. [55322]

  Mr. Byers
  The Government recognises that there is an urgent and growing need to assist the number of keyworkers and others on intermediate incomes who cannot afford to rent or buy in high demand areas where house prices have risen sharply over the last few years. We are looking at a number of options for helping overcome this problem, including the potential to increase housing supply by using surplus public sector land of all types for affordable housing and by using modular unit construction techniques as illustrated by the Peabody Trust scheme at Murray Grove, Hackney. These techniques offer significant time savings and potential cost reduction. Normal planning rules have applied to recent modular developments.

DEFENCE

  Depleted Uranium
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the UK sites where armour piercing and hard target penetrating warheads containing depleted uranium have been used, indicating the numbers used on each site in each year since 1990. [43414]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since 1990, Depleted Uranium (DU) has been fired on the ranges at Kirkudbright, Eskmeals and West Freugh.

  Details of the amount of DU fired are as follows. Because of the way in which data was collected at each establishment the figures for Kirkudbright and West Freugh are given in terms of numbers of rounds fired whereas the Eskmeals data is quoted in mass (Kg) of DU:

  Kirkudbright

  Year

  Rounds

  1990

  783

  1991

  666

  1992

  781

  1993

  682

  1994

  458

  1995

  286

  1996

  105

  1997

  734

  1998

  134

  1999

  136

  2000

  270

  2001

  126

  TOTAL

  4,378

  375W

  Eskmeals

  Year

  Mass Kg

  1990

  1,520

  1991

  640

  1992

  1,076

  1993

  917

  1994

  512

  1995

  520

  1996

  0

  1997

  0

  1998

  0

  1999

  0

  2000

  0

  2001

  0

  TOTAL

  5,170

  West Freugh

  Approximately 215 rounds of the Phalanx weapons system were fired in 1990, all of which entered the sea 2km below low-water mark. There have been no DU firings since.

  Errors have unfortunately been identified in the figures for DU projectiles fired at the Kirkudbright Training Area given in the responses on 5 December 2001, Official Report, column 342W, to the hon. Member for Galloway & Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) and on 14 June 2000, Official Report, column 644W, and 19 June 2000, Official Report, column 27W, to the then hon. Member for Galloway & Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan). It is unclear how these inconsistencies occurred but it is possible the source figures came from data for planned firings rather than actual firings or there may have been a simple miscalculation. The above figures correct these errors.

  Colchester Garrison
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the development of the new Colchester Garrison. [52449]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 7 May 2002,Official Report, column 40W, to the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin).

  Helicopters
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress with trials of the Army's Apache AH Mk 1 attack helicopter. [53517]

  Dr. Moonie
  Trials of the Apache WAH64 Attack Helicopter are progressing satisfactorily. Delivery of an initial operational capability to the army, consisting of the first operational Apache Squadron, is expected in August 2004.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what savings accrued to the Defence Budget from the reduction in the planned order of Merlin helicopters. [54903]

  Dr. Moonie
  There have been no reductions in planned orders of Merlin since the Strategic Defence Review.
  376w

  West Freugh Airfield
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many air traffic movements were reported at West Freugh airfield in each of the last 12 months. [54251]

  Dr. Moonie
  The following aircraft movements took place at West Freugh in each of the last 12 months.

  Year

  Number

  April 2001

  300

  May 2001

  470

  June 2001

  256

  July 2001

  391

  August 2001

  310

  September 2001

  231

  October 2001

  166

  November 2001

  276

  December 2001

  633

  January 2002

  143

  February 2002

  232

  March 2002

  367

  These figures do not include overflights or range runs.

  Deployments
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many service personnel are serving with(a) BDLS Washington and (b) BATUS Suffield, broken down by service;[53778]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 16 April, Official Report, column 825W, on deployment, what account was taken of army personnel serving with (a) BATUS Suffield and (b) BDLS Washington. [53801]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: The answer my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Ingram) gave on 16 April 2002, Official Report, column 825W, showed the total number and location of armed forces personnel deployed overseas on military tasks and operations only.

  No account was taken of army personnel serving with (a) BATUS Suffield and (b) BDS Washington as neither of these are military tasks or operations.

  The figures for those currently serving with BATUS Suffield are as follows:

  Permanent Staff

  207

  Temporary Staff (summer training staff)

  180

  Canadian Military Staff

  103

  Total Personnel*

  490

  * All Army Personnel.

  The figures for those currently serving with BDS Washington are as follows:

  Naval Service

  18

  Army

  16

  RAF

  12

  Total Personnel

  46

  These figures reflect service personnel serving in the British Defence Staff at the British Embassy in Washington (including Attaches). They do not include

  377W
  service personnel in exchange, liaison or project staff appointments. In organisational terms BDLS Washington no longer exists and is replaced by BDS Washington.

  Gibraltar
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military personnel were stationed in Gibraltar in(a) October 2000, (b) April 2001, (c) October 2001 and (d) April 2002. [54355]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: The number of military personnel stationed in Gibraltar is as follows:

  Year

  Personnel

  October 2000

  585

  April 2001

  591

  October 2001

  600

  April 2002

  564

  These figures include UK-based military personnel stationed on Gibraltar and regular members of the Royal Gibraltar Regiment.

  Medical Downgrading
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the reason underlying the number of service personnel who are medically downgraded; and if he will make a statement. [54128]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: There are many reasons for Service personnel being medically downgraded on either a temporary or permanent basis. Personnel who are temporarily downgraded have incurred an injury or developed a medical condition for which they are receiving or awaiting treatment or are recuperating. Servicewomen who are pregnant or have recently given birth are also temporarily medically downgraded. Personnel who have a long term medical condition which prevents them from undertaking their full range of duties, but which allows them to be retained with limited employability, are placed in a permanently downgraded category.

  Work is currently in hand in the Ministry of Defence to develop improved analysis of the causes of medical downgrading. This will enable us to ensure that we are adopting the most effective means of prevention and treatment wherever these are appropriate.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Royal Navy are in the medical categories(a) baby, (b) PO, (c) P2, (d) P2X, (e) P2U3, (f) P2L3, (g) P3R, (h) P3P, (i) P7RA, (j) P7RB, (k) P7RC, (l) P7RD and (m) P8; in each case what percentage of (i) establishment and (ii) actual manning this represents; and if he will make a statement. [54130]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to my letter of 19 April, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House. The Royal Navy only has figures for the total number of medically downgraded personnel, and a comparison with the Establishment, which includes only trained posts, would not be valid. "Baby" is not a medical category but an administrative one used when a woman declares her
  378w
  pregnancy; she is then included in the P3R Medical Category. P2L3 and P2U3 are administrative categories used in training, and personnel in these categories are fit for service world-wide.

  The number of personnel in the Medical Categories listed and the percentage they represent of the Total Strength is set out on the following table:

  Medical Category

  Total

  Per cent of Total Strength

  PO

  119

  0·28

  P2

  38,346

  90·41

  P2X

  9

  0·02

  P3P

  383

  0·90

  P3R (including "Baby")

  354

  0·83

  P7RA

  298

  0·70

  P7RB

  66

  0·15

  P7RC

  62

  0·14

  P7RD

  1,525

  3·59

  P8

  68

  0·16

  Medical Category

  Total

  Per cent of Total Strength

  P2L3

  844

  1·99

  P2U3

  56

  0·13

  ASRAAM
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what savings to the Defence Budget accrued from the delay in the delivery of the ASRAAM missile. [54902]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 1 February 2002,Official Report, column 601W, when I informed the House that the delay in the ASRAAM In-Service Date had cost the Ministry of Defence approximately £7 million. The MOD has collected liquidated damages from the contractor, on the basis of terms agreed at the time of contract signature. Liquidated damages are paid to the MOD in respect of the loss and damage caused by the late delivery of the missiles; this includes both the MOD's additional costs and the loss of capability. Accordingly, although the amount of liquidated damages received from the company exceeds £7 million, the MOD does not regard this as a saving.

  Retention
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average length of service by new recruits in each regiment since 1990; and if he will provide a breakdown of the results of exit interviews with personnel over the most recent period for which figures are available.[55168]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 9 May 2002]: The average length of service on Outflow for trained Officers and soldiers since Financial Year 1990—1991 is detailed in the following table:
  379W

  Officers

  Financial Year

  Mean Length of Service on Outflow

  1990–1991

  12 Years 9 Months

  1991–1992

  10 Years 2 Months

  1992–1993

  15 Years 10 Months

  1993–1994

  13 Years 10 Months

  1994–1995

  13 Years 2 Months

  1995–1996

  11 Years 11 Months

  1996–1997

  12 Years 1 Month

  1997–1998

  13 Years 2 Months

  1998–1999

  13 Years 9 Months

  1999–2000

  14 Years 10 Months

  2000–2001

  14 Years 10 Months

  2001–2002

  15 Years 10 Months

  Soldiers

  Financial Year

  Mean Length of Service on Outflow

  1990–1991

  8 Years 8 Months

  1991–1992

  8 Years 11 Months

  1992–1993

  10 Years 9 Months

  1993–1994

  11 Years 10 Months

  1994–1995

  10 Years 9 Months

  1995–1996

  9 Years 3 Months

  1996–1997

  8 Years 10 Month

  1997–1998

  9 Years 9 Months

  1998–1999

  9 Years 9 Months

  1999–2000

  10 Years

  2000–2001

  9 Years 10 Months

  2001–2002

  9 Years 8 Months

  The above information is not restricted to new recruits as to do so would provide no meaningful information. New recruits would obviously have a shorter reckonable service than those that joined in 1990 as, by definition, they will have had less time to accumulate service. The information provided allows for a valid time series comparison to be made. To provide a breakdown of this information by Regiment could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Information gathered at exit interviews is recorded on the Continuous Attitude Survey; however, the Survey is anonymous so it is not possible to attribute information to any particular Regiment or individual. The last full leavers survey conducted covered the period July-December 1999; questionnaires are still being returned for the latest Survey so data has not yet been analysed.

  The main reasons for leaving were identified as follows:

  Lack of job satisfaction

  Amount of separation from spouse/partner

  Better civilian job opportunities outside

  Effect of Army lifestyle on marriage/relationship

  If stayed longer it would be difficult to start a new career

  Compassionate reasons.

  Hydrographic Office
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office for the financial year 2002-03. [55842]

  Dr. Moonie
  The key targets set for the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office for the Financial Year 2002-03 are as follows:380w
  Publish 100 per cent of priority safety information within the stated timescales from receipt of the original data.
  Deliver Defence specific outputs as defined in the Tasking Authorisation Forms. All agreed outputs delivered to time and quality.
  Improve completeness and delivery of orders. 90 per cent of orders shipped to schedule and 95 per cent line completeness at first despatch by year end.
  Deliver immediate and medium term change projects to ensure the long-term viability of the Office.
  Break even taking one year with another and return an average Return on Capital Employed over the Plan period of 7.5 per cent.
  Achieve efficiency measure of 5 per cent growth in "Value Added" per member of staff (based on FY 2000-01) by FY 2005-06.

  Offshore Wind Farms
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has made and to whom against proposals for offshore wind farms off(a) Cromer and (b) the coast of Lancashire; and if he will make a statement. [55578]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has made known its objections to these offshore windfarm proposals to both the Department of Trade and Industry and to the developers concerned. Discussions continue with the developers.

  London Power's proposed site off Cromer is close to the Cromer Air Defence Radar and therefore the MOD has objected because the siting of wind turbines close to such installations can produce false returns on radar screens.

  The proposed sites off Lancashire by Shell and Energie Kontor lie within 15 miles of the airfield at British Aerospace Systems Ltd Warton and give rise to similar issues of potential radar interference.

  Basic Training Costs
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost is of basic training for one enlisted recruit in the British Army. [55169]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 9 May 2002]: In the Financial Year to 31 March 2002, the estimated cost of basic training for one recruit to the British Army was £11,000.

  Drug Tests
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) drug tests, (b) positive results of drug tests and (c) subsequent dismissals there have been in the British Army, broken down by (i) regiment and (ii) division in the last five years. [55167]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 9 May 2002]: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Naval Vessel Sales
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many naval vessels have been sold in the last five years; and what records are retained. [55166]
  381W
  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 9 May 2002]: 103 surplus former Naval vessels have been sold in the last five years via the Ministry of Defence's Disposal Services Agency (DSA). This figure includes named capital ships, minor vessels and marine support vessels. Detailed records for the last five years of all surplus transactions are retained by the DSA. There was also one Upholder Submarine sold during this period. This was the responsibility of the MOD's Upholder Programme and records would be retained by that MOD branch.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 19 October 2001,Official Report, column 1394W, on asylum seekers, when he will place the letters from Merseyside Police concerning asylum seekers in Everton, Liverpool in the Library. [433001

  Angela Eagle
  Further to my Answer of 27 February 2002,Official Report, column 1397W. The letters were placed in the Library on 18 March 2002. I apologise to my hon Friend for the administrative delay that occurred.

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what performance indicators and output targets are used by the National Asylum Support Service to measure the efficiency of its service to asylum seekers and other stakeholders; and how the NASS is performing against these performance indicators and output targets. [44752]

  Angela Eagle
  The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) measures its performance against challenging targets. Targets are set for individual areas of work. Details of targets for the main areas of work are as follows:

  Area of work

  Target

  Current performance

  Response to enquiries about vouchers

  24 hours

  Met in 100 per cent of cases

  Single additional payment and replacement of HC2 certificates

  5 days in 90 per cent of cases

  Target met

  Post allocation work (including request for payment of maternity grant and inclusion of additional dependants)

  10 days in 90 per cent of cases

  Target is met in 11 of 13

  Change of circumstances i.e. request to change from subsistence only to subsistence and accommodation

  10 days in 90 per cent of cases

  Target met

  Assessment of non complex applications for support

  3 days in 90 per cent of cases

  Target met

  Turnaround time for subsistence only applications

  5 days in 90 per cent of cases

  Target met

  "Supporting Families"
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) of 4 December 2001,Official Report, column 231W, when the report on progress towards the recommendations in the Supporting Families document will be placed in the Library. [44202]
  382w
  Angela Eagle
  A progress report on the issues raised in the Supporting Families document was placed in the Library today.

  Animal Experiments
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to bring forward regulations on(a) mandatory investment by commercial companies into the development of non-animal alternatives to animal testing and (b) over-breeding of animals for experiments. [43970]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government does not believe that setting mandatory requirements for investment into research into alternatives to the use of animals in scientific procedures is either desirable or necessary.

  Nonetheless, every year the Home Office makes available to the Animal Procedures Committee (APC) a budget for research aimed at developing or promoting the use of alternatives which replace animal use, reduce the number of animals used, or refine the procedures involved to minimise suffering (the three Rs). Details of completed research projects are published in the annual Report of the Animal Procedures Committee, which is available from The Stationery Office.

  The amount made available to the Committee for 2001–02 for this specific purpose has increased to £280,000. However, this is not the only money spent by the Government on seeking to develop alternatives, as other Departments also fund such work. It is estimated that the total spent on this by the United Kingdom Government is in the region of £2 million each year. Industry also spends many millions of pounds each year on the search for and development of alternatives. To take this further on an international level, the United Kingdom Government will continue to support the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) through contributions to the European Union.

  The Animal Procedures Committee looked at the issue of the over-breeding of animals for use in scientific procedures as part of its 10-year review of the 1986 Act. The Committee defined "overbreeding" as "the production in breeding programmes of animals intended for use in scientific procedures but which prove to be unsuitable for such use or surplus to requirements". With the exception of genetically modified animals, the production of which is a regulated procedure, these animals are not recorded in the annual statistics on animal use under the 1986 Act since they are not used in regulated procedures. Estimates vary significantly as to the number of animals that may be involved. The Animal Procedures Committee concluded that although some overbreeding was unavoidable, it can and should be minimised and it recommended principles of best practice to help to achieve this. The Committee also undertook to liaise with the Laboratory Animal Science Association, which has also been considering the issue of overbreeding and how it can be minimised, to refine these principles before finalising its advice. I expect to receive the Committee's report by the summer and will carefully consider the further advice it provides.

  Non-police Personnel
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he will inform the public of the
  383W
  allocation of the power to detain and use force to non-police personnel; what the projected cost is of providing this information; and if he will make a statement. [44964]

  Mr. Denham
  Clause 35 (4) of the Police Reform Bill proposes that a police authority must include in their annual policing plan any proposals they have to employ, accredit or give powers to police support staff or members of Community Safety Accreditation Schemes. These plans are published.

  Under the Police Act 1996, police authorities are already required to issue an annual policing plan each year and, so, any additional information can be included in the plan at minimal cost.

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders were made in the West Midlands by constituency in the last 12 months. [45131]

  Mr. Denham
  From 1 June 2000 official statistics on the number of anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) issued are based on quarterly returns from Magistrates' Courts Committees (MCCs) and are not presently designed to give figures below MCC level. The latest available data covers the period to the end of September 2001. In the 12 months ending September 2001, 37 ASBOs were issued within the West Midlands MCC area.

  Project Sponsorship
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which of his Department's projects have received sponsorship since 1997, including(a) details of the sponsor, (b) the nature of the project, (c) the date of the project, (d) the total cost of the project and (e) the amount of money involved in the sponsorship deal. [48403]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 11 April 2002]: The information available on projects that have received sponsorship since 1997, including details of sponsor, nature and date of the project, total cost and the amount of money involved in the sponsorship deal is as follows:

  Project—Burglary Taskforce

  Sponsor

  Sponsorship Value£

  Total cost £

  Date

  British Gas

  30,000*

  2.25 million

  April 2000

  Electricity Association

  30,000

  British Telecom

  3,000

  Water United Kingdom

  200,000

  For further information, provided below are details for non-monetary sponsorships. The value of the sponsorship has been calculated as "added value" to the campaign. It is not cash received by the Home Office.

  Chip Pan Safety Campaign

  Sponsor

  Sponsorship Value£

  Total Cost £

  Date

  B & Q

  7,560

  305,000

  November 1997/ March 1998

  Tesco

  5,693

  Moorhouses Brewery

  6,600

  384w

  Smoke Alarm Maintenance/Education/Awareness Campaign

  Sponsor

  Sponsorship Value£

  Total Cost£

  Date

  Duracell

  309,250

  370,000

  January 1999

  E1 Electronics

  26,000

  Homebase

  16,000

  Woolworths

  6,000

  B & Q

  5,000

  Focus Do It All

  30,000

  Kidde Safety

  11,500

  National Chip Pan Campaign

  Sponsor

  Sponsorship Value£

  Total Cost£

  Date

  First Alert

  5,000

  1.33 Million

  August/September 1999

  Morphy Richards

  10,775

  Comet

  386,600

  Curry's (Dixons Group)

  27,500

  Escape Route Campaign

  Sponsor

  Sponsorship Value£

  Total Cost£

  Date

  Safestyle UK plc

  12,500

  345,000

  February 2000

  National Escape Route

  Sponsor

  Sponsorship Value£

  Total Cost£

  Date

  Comet

  41,133

  5 million

  September 2000

  First Alert

  6,774

  BBC Worldwide

  44,600

  GMTV

  450,000

  E1 Electronics

  31,390

  Homebase

  9,000

  Woolworths

  124,230

  B&Q

  52,000

  Vehicle Crime Reduction Campaign

  Sponsor

  Sponsorship Value£

  Total Cost£

  Date

  RAC Auto

  15.015 million

  July 2000 TO date

  Windscreens

  303,000

  RAC 180,000

  Lycos

  29,000

  Kwik-fit

  130,000

  Ford

  150,000

  Retainagroup

  189,500

  Tracker

  38,800

  NCP

  40,000

  AA Insurance

  180,500

  Child Protection on the Internet

  Sponsor

  Sponsorship Value£

  Total Cost£

  Date

  Bolt.com

  19,000

  1.1 million

  November 2001-March 2002

  Yahoo

  22,000

  MSN

  22,000

  Premier Services
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the service agreement aspect of the contract with Premier Services can be placed in the public domain.[53216]

  Angela Eagle
  Yes. Those parts of the contract with Premier Services that are not commercially confidential or subject to the Official Secrets Acts 1911 and 1989 will
  385W
  be made available to the public. The service aspect of the contract will in due course be published on the Home Office website and copies placed in the Library.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will to reply to the letter to him dated 30 January from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Jawad Farooqi. [53953]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 26 April 2002.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Tourism (National Insurance Contributions)
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the cost to the tourism industry of the proposed increase in employers' national insurance contributions. [52757]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: It is estimated that the changes to employers' national insurance contributions announced in the Budget will increase pay costs on average by 0.7 per cent next year.

  Homes covered (per cent)

  BBC Multiplex

  Digital 3 & 4 Multiplex

  Multiplex A

  Multiplex B

  Multiplex C

  Multiplex D

  Core

  UK (Current)

  81

  80

  78

  79

  76

  74

  68

  Scotland (Launch)

  84

  83

  82

  81

  82

  80

  78

  Wales (Launch)

  62

  60

  62

  59

  55

  55

  42

  Northern Ireland (Launch)

  72

  72

  64

  66

  72

  58

  57

  Figures provided by the Independent Television Commission (comparable information for the English regions is not available).

  I understand from the Independent Television Commission that Digital Terrestrial Television signals from the Winter Hill, Sheffield, Chesterfield, and Emley Moor transmitters are predicted to be available to some areas of the High Peak constituency. Coverage maps are available on the Digital Television Group website: www.dtg.org.uk.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures the Government will take to ensure that the quality of the analogue signal is maintained during digital roll-out; and if she will make a statement. [54618]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government are committed to ensuring that terrestrial analogue signals will be maintained until everyone who can currently get the main public service broadcasting channels in analogue form can receive them on digital systems. The Independent Television Commission (ITC) require that any changes made by the broadcasters to the digital terrestrial television transmitter network conform with the ITC Code of Practice on Changes to Transmission and Reception Arrangements. This requires the continued reception of analogue services, to an acceptable technical quality, to those viewers affected by digital terrestrial services.

  Fraud
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the estimated level of losses to fraud and corruption was in(a) her Department's Vote 1 budget and (b) her Department's Vote 2 budget for (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01.[54704]

  Dr. Howells
  In respect of the DCMS's Vote 1 budget, I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife on 14 January 2002. In respect of Vote 2, which relates to the BBC licence fee, for which the Department has responsibility to Parliament for balancing the grant voted to the BBC with the receipts received from the licence payers, there were no losses due to fraud or corruption in the years in question.

  Digital Television
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of the population in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) each United Kingdom region and (c) the High Peak constituency is able to receive a digital terrestrial television signal; and if she will make a statement. [54619]

  Dr. Howells
  The percentage of population predicted to be able to receive a digital terrestrial signal in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is as follows:

  Culture Funding
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the Government will take steps to increase funding for culture; and if she will make a statement. [55014]

  Mr. Caborn
  In the context of the 2002 Spending Review, my Department and the Treasury are looking closely at current and future spending needs across all the cultural sectors. The outcome of the Review will be announced in July.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  EU Aid Budget
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she will take to improve the performance of the EU aid budget. [54687]

  Clare Short
  My Department published a revised strategy for improving the poor performance of the European Community development programme in August 2001. I welcome the positive steps that have recently been taken, including establishment for the first time of an EC Development Policy with poverty reduction as the central objective, streamlining of procedures and improvements in financial and staff management. The Commission are
  387W
  also delegating significant new responsibilities to their offices overseas in order to improve dialogue with developing country partners and cut delays. The Government is working with other member states, the Commission and the European Parliament to ensure that these measures begin to have an impact on the ground and allow the European Community to make a much more significant contribution to achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. We are also working for agreement that a much greater share of EC aid should be allocated to low income countries where it will have the greatest impact on poverty reduction. In 2000, only 38 per cent of EC aid was spent in low income countries compared to 70 per cent in 1990. Our objective is to reverse this decline in order to secure radical improvement in the effectiveness of EC aid.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress is being made in reforming the EU aid budget. [54688]

  Clare Short
  My Department published a revised strategy for improving the poor performance of the European Community development programme in August 2001. We welcome the steps that have recently been taken, including establishment for the first time of an EC Development Policy with poverty reduction as the central objective, streamlining of procedures and improvements in financial and staff management. The Commission are also delegating significant new responsibilities to their offices overseas in order to improve dialogue with developing country partners and cut delays. The Government is working with other member states, the Commission and the European Parliament to ensure that these measures begin to have an impact on the ground and allow the European Community to make a much more significant contribution to achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. We are also working for agreement that a much greater share of EC aid should be allocated to low income countries where it will have the greatest impact on poverty reduction. In 2000, only 38 per cent of EC aid was spent in low income countries compared to 70 per cent in 1990. Our objective is to reverse this decline in order to secure radical improvement in the effectiveness of EC aid.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress is being made on debt relief for poor countries. [54685]

  Clare Short
  So far, 26 out of a total of 42 countries have qualified for relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative, and by the autumn, Cote d'lvoire could be added to the list of countries benefiting from the Initiative. Relief of more than US $60 billion will be provided to these countries, reducing their debts by more than two-thirds on average. Of the 26 countries, 21 have reached Decision Point and are receiving interim debt relief on their "flow" of payment, and five have completed the HIPC process, and have received an irrevocable reduction in their stock of debt. We hope that a further three will reach their Completion Point this year. The prospects for the remaining eleven unsustainable countries are not good. Six—Burundi, Congo Republic, Liberia, Myanmar, Somalia and Sudan—are still affected by conflict; Togo has governance problems; Central 388w
  African Republic, DR Congo and Comoros might go through next year; and Lao PDR is undecided as to whether to opt for HIPC relief. Angola, Kenya, Vietnam and Yemen are regarded as sustainable cases, eligible for relief from the Paris Club.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the performance of the Commonwealth Development Corporation against its objectives for 2001–02. [54686]

  Clare Short
  In 2001, CDC made £134 million of new investments, and met both its Investment Policy targets. Over the last five years, 83 per cent of CDC's new investments have been in the poorer developing countries, and last year 69 per cent of the new investments were in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Private equities and emerging markets all declined sharply in 2001, and CDC's portfolio valuation was reduced by 10.3 per cent. A copy of CDC's annual review and financial statement for 2001 has been placed in the Library.

  Middle East
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations her Department has made to the Israeli Government to secure the safe access of the Palestinian civilian population to(a) clean water supplies, (b) working sanitation and (c) medical care; and if she will make a statement. [55171]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to my Answer of 1 May 2002,Official Report, column 859W.

  Zimbabwe
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact of the political instability in Zimbabwe on regional security. [54260]

  Mr. MacShane
  I have been asked to reply.

  The situation in Zimbabwe is having a negative impact on Southern Africa. The crisis has increased levels of illegal immigration from Zimbabwe into neighbouring countries, created economic imbalances in border areas and, more generally, reduced investor confidence in the region. All of these threaten the stability and security of Southern Africa. Regional governments will need to remain closely involved in helping to secure a lasting solution to the crisis.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Official Visits
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) if he will list the official visits to(a) Paris and (b) Brussels made by each Minister in his Department in 2001 and the mode of travel used; and what guidance is provided to Ministers in his Department on the choice of mode of travel for such visits; [38157]
  389W
  (2) if he will list the official visits within the UK outside London made by each Minister in his Department in 2001, giving for each (a) the origin and destination and (b) the mode of travel used; and what guidance is provided to Ministers in his Department on choice of mode of travel for official visits. [38193]

  Mr. Wills
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 6 March (Hansard column reference 421W).

  Census Online
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the 1901 Census Online facility will be reinstated at the designated regional service centres. [52754]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  QinetiQ Ltd. is continuing to work on the technical enhancements. Once configuring of the technical enhancements is complete, rigorous testing will be undertaken on all aspects of the system. These enhancements are intended to make the site sufficiently robust to permit general Internet access, and are being done with a sense of urgency. Before the full Internet service is restored, it will be relaunched at the service centres as part of the testing programme; details of the relaunch will be available in due course.

  Human Rights
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the terms of reference are for the quarterly plenary of human rights contacts in each department of Government; and if he will list the members of the body. [53772]

  Mr. Wills
  These are informal meetings of human rights contacts in all the main Whitehall Departments. Our aims are to:collect systematically examples of the impact of the Act on policy and practice in public authorities, in particular Government departments;
  to disseminate and promote good practice and raise awareness amongst public authorities; and
  to maintain and update a list of "notable cases" which illustrate important themes.

  There are currently 26 contacts, all of whom are invited to the quarterly meetings.

  Criminal Courts
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent steps the Government have taken to renovate the criminal courts. [54206]

  Mr. Wills
  The Court Service is currently undertaking a major Courts and Tribunals Modernisation Programme, an important part of which is aimed at improving the use of technology in the criminal courts. This includes the introduction of digital audio recording of court proceedings, expansion of TV links for vulnerable witnesses and links to local prisons, and the installation of IT equipment in court for the electronic presentation of evidence.
  390W
  The Court Service undertakes general improvements to the criminal courts as part of major maintenance schemes according to priorities and funding. At the moment it is also in the second year of a three-year programme of improvement works to comply with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act (1995).

  Renovations and modernisation initiatives in the magistrates' courts are bid for by individual Magistrates' Court Committees and Local Authorities and are funded from the Department's Capital Grant allocation.

  Magistrates' Court Service
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what budget was of the Magistrates' Court Service in each year since 1997. [54207]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor's Department provides separate grants for revenue and capital (buildings and IT) to local authorities for magistrates' courts costs. Grant is paid at 80 per cent of the costs, with the remaining 20 per cent met by local authorities. The total revenue and capital grant budget made available to the Magistrates' Courts Service since 1997, including the local authorities' 20 per cent contribution, is as follows:

  £ million

  1997–98

  340·70

  1998–99

  354·40

  1999–00

  361·90

  2000–01

  362·24

  2001–2

  405·54

  2002–03

  419·89

  Unpaid Fines
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the level of unpaid fines is at Merseyside Magistrates Courts. [54855]

  Mr. Wills
  Magistrates' Courts Committees have responsibility for the collection of a range of debts imposed through the courts, including not only fines but also fees, compensation, confiscation orders, legal aid contributions and some maintenance orders. It is not possible to separate out just the fines from the total.

  The total amount of money owed to the Merseyside courts at the end of December 2001 was £25,799,445. This figure includes impositions where deferred payment was allowed and where instalments were not yet due.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans his Department has to reduce the number of unpaid fines in England and Wales. [54856]

  Mr. Wills
  Lead responsibility for execution of financial penalty warrants was transferred from the police to the Magistrates' Courts Committees on 1 April 2001. No targets were set for execution of these warrants during the first year of operation to enable baseline data to be collected.

  On 28 February the Lord Chancellor announced challenging targets for Magistrates' Courts Committees for 2002–03 for enforcement of both financial and non-financial penalties. I refer the hon. Member to the

  391W
  Reply which I gave on that day to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), Official Report, column 1554W.

  Public Records
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if her policy not to release into the public domain records which may embarrass living persons also applies to the impact of such releases on institutions. [54672]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Records may be closed longer than thirty years under section 5(1) of the Public Records Act 1958 (as amended in 1967) with the permission of the Lord Chancellor. If records are to remain closed, they must satisfy the criteria for extended closure set out in the Open Government White Paper (Cm2290, July 1993). This does not allow for records to be closed if they may cause embarrassment, whether to an individual or an institution.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures the Government have taken since 1997 to reduce regulations affecting small and medium enterprises. [54192]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Among the actions being taken to relieve the burden of regulation on SMEs are:Measures to simplify the VAT regime for 700,000 businesses.
  Measures to exempt up to 30,000 small shops from the new EU unit pricing requirements.
  Measures to relieve up to 150,000 small firms from the burden of statutory audit, saving small companies up to £180 million a year.
  A 12 weeks period between regulations being agreed and implemented, allowing SMEs time to adapt to the new regulations.
  Measures to exempt employers with 4 or fewer employees from the requirements to provide access to stakeholder pensions and deduct pension contributions.
  Measures to ensure that the view of small business influenced Patrick Carter's review of payroll administration, a copy of which is in the Libraries of the House.
  In addition the Business Link Website is now attracting 80,000 users per month—and businesses can register to receive alerts about regulation automatically.
  Measures through Business Links to assist and support 6000 individuals wanting to start and grow a business and helped a further 6000 with mentoring advice.

  Middle East
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what favourable trading terms accrue to Israel through its agreements with the European Union. [54728]

  Ms Hewitt
  There is reciprocal free trade under the EU/Israel Association Agreement. Subject to the terms of that Agreement, manufactured goods may be traded in each direction free of duties and quotas and there are also preferences on agricultural products.
  392W
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what trading benefits accrue to(a) Israeli settlers in the occupied territories and (b) the Palestinian Authority through agreements with the European Union. [54729]

  Ms Hewitt
  The trading benefits of the EU/Israel Association Agreement apply to goods originating in the European Union and the State of Israel. The UK, along with the rest of our EU partners and the wider international community, does not consider the Occupied Territories to be covered by the EU-Israel Association Agreement. The EU has insisted in its discussions with the Israeli authorities that the territorial scope of the EU-Israel Association Agreement must be respected. In this respect, the European Commission published in November 2001 a notice to importers in the Official Journal of the European Communities alerting EU importers to the ineligibility of products originating in the Occupied Territories for the preferences provided under the EU-Israel Association Agreement.

  Under the terms of the 1997 Interim Association Agreement between the EU and the Palestine Liberation Organisation for the benefit of the Palestinian Authority, industrial goods from the territory of the Palestinian Authority enter the EU duty and quota free. There are also preferences on agricultural products. Unlike the arrangements with Israel however there is no requirement for the Palestinian Authority to offer reciprocal market access for EU goods.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which United Kingdom companies the ECGD(a) is supporting or (b) has previously supported regarding (i) the Manban power plant and (ii) the transmission networks associated with the Manban power plant in the Philippines. [55057]

  Ms Hewitt
  ECGD has not provided any support nor has it received any applications or enquiries from any UK company in respect of the Manban power plant and/or the associated transmission networks.

  Engineering
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what meetings her Department has had with senior officers of engineering institutions since January 2000. [56052]

  Alan Johnson
  The information is not held centrally and therefore could only be collected at a disproportionate cost.

  Mobile Phone Shields
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the report on mobile phone shields will be published. [56246]

  Mr. Alexander
  Following the Government response to the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones chaired by Sir William Stewart in May 2000, the Department commissioned independent tests on mobile phone shielding devices. A copy of the test report has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Employment Law
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received from small businesses regarding the implementation of employment law introduced since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [55906]

  Alan Johnson
  Ministers regularly meet small firms and their representatives to discuss a range of issues, including employment law.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Zimbabwe
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contingency plans have been made to rescue British passport holders who may flee over the borders of Zimbabwe in the event of a humanitarian crisis. [44935]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There are approximately 26,000 British nationals registered with the British High commission in Harrare. We have a civil contingency plan for Zimbabwe, as we do for many other countries. This is kept under constant review. Any evacuation would be a last resort and by whatever means available at that time.

  Data Protection Act
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library copies of each version of the internal guidance which have been drawn up by his Department since 1 January 1999 to assist staff in his Department to answer subject access requests under the Data Protection Act 1998. [53360]

  Mr. MacShane
  Since 1 January 1999, two versions of internal guidance have been drawn up by the FCO. A booklet, "A Guide to The Data Protection Act 1998" was issued in June 2000. This has been superseded by guidance made available to staff in December 2001. Section 3 of this guidance deals with answers to subject access requests. I have arranged for a copy of both the booklet and Section 3 of the guidance to be placed in the House Library. A revised version of the guidance will be prepared for inclusion in the FCO's Publication Scheme, which is required by the Freedom of Information Act to be in place in November 2002.

  Taiwan
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives from Taiwan; and what was discussed. [53635]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had no official meetings with representatives of Taiwan.

  Kashmir
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent meetings he has 394W
  held relating to the conflict in Kashmir; and if he will make a statement on UN resolutions in respect of Kashmir. [53792]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs discussed Kashmir with his Pakistani counterpart Abdul Sattar on 19 April, and his Indian counterpart Jaswant Singh on 16 April. EU Foreign Ministers also discussed Kashmir on 13 April. It is possible for both India and Pakistan to claim the support of various international and bilateral agreements. The crucial point is that the issue can be resolved only by bilateral negotiations between India and Pakistan.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many First Secretaries (Immigration) he has met since 7 June. [54503]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We currently have three full time First Secretaries (Immigration): they are located in Lagos, New Delhi and Islamabad. Since taking up office on 7 June 2001 my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has met the First Secretaries (Immigration in Islamabad and New Delhi and I have met the First Secretary (Immigration) in New Delhi. Both my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I make a point of trying to meet a wide cross-section of staff working in our overseas posts. As Minister responsible for entry clearance I try to visit Visa Sections wherever possible and meet UK based and locally engaged staff working in them.

  Middle East
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he(a) has taken and (b) plans to take on the Middle East crisis with his European partners. [54880]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in constant contact with his European counterparts about the crisis in the Middle East. He agreed with our EU partners that the High Representative Javier Solana would represent the EU at the Ministerial meeting of the Quartet, (the UN, the US, the EU and Russia) on 2 May. The Quartet agreed that a comprehensive approach, including security, political and economic agendas, is needed to solve the current situation, including the rebuilding of the Palestinian security sector to achieve an end to the violence, humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians affected by the conflict; and support for the institutional and economic reconstruction of the Palestinian Authority. The Quartet agreed to work together in order to convene an international conference on the Middle East in the summer. The EU is committed to the implementation of the agenda agreed by the Quartet. The Foreign Secretary will consider the Middle East with his EU counterparts at the meeting of the General Affairs Council on 13 May.

  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to ensure that Israel complies with its obligations under the 4 Geneva Convention. [54879]
  395W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The UK and EU partners reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Occupied Territories, including East Jerusalem, at the reconvened conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention in Geneva on 5 December 2001. In the Conference Declaration we called upon all parties to respect, and to ensure respect for, the Geneva Conventions in all circumstances.

  Israel, like all states, has the right to defend itself against terrorism, which the UK Government condemns absolutely. However, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made clear, Israel must respect international law, including international humanitarian law. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have raised our concerns with the Israeli Prime Minister and the Israeli Foreign Minister about extra judicial killings, the closures, the denial of access for humanitarian and medical agencies to those in need, and allegations of misconduct by IDF troops. It is in Israel's own interest to respond positively and comply with its obligations.

  Iran
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place with Russia concerning the proliferation of nuclear technology from that country to Iran; and if he will make a statement. [54813]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We continue to be concerned by reports that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons programme. We take every appropriate opportunity with the Russian Government to raise the issue of the transfer of nuclear technology and expertise to Iran.

  Belorussian Government
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Belorussian Government about the meeting between President Lukashenko and the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance of Iraq Hikmat al-Azawi in Minsk on 19 March 2001; what reports he has received about the(a) aim and (b) outcome of the meeting; and if he will make a statement. [55155]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have not received any reports about the aims or outcome of the 19 March 2001 meeting between Belarusian President Lukashenko and Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Hikmat al-Azawi. We have made clear to the Belarusian Government that we expect it to observe all international sanctions in place against Iraq.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Spanish proposal in the Brussels process that Gibraltar could have autonomous city status. [55064]

  Peter Hain
  Discussions under the Brussels Process are aimed at overcoming all the differences between the UK and Spain over Gibraltar, including on issues of sovereignty. Discussions have not included proposals that Gibraltar could have autonomous city status.
  396W
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made on the aim of resolving the status of Gibraltar before the summer. [55859]

  Peter Hain
  Talks under the Brussels Process are continuing. I met my Spanish counter part in London on 9 May. We had a friendly and constructive meeting, though substantial difficulties remain. We remain committed to reaching an agreement if possible. The Foreign Secretary will meet the Spanish Foreign Minister next week to discuss Gibraltar among other issues.

TREASURY

  Pensioners (Income Tax)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many pensioners living in England and Wales are paying income tax on their incomes. [53878]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is estimated that 4.5 million, out of 10.8 million, pensioners in the UK paid income tax on their incomes in 2001–02.

  Pensioners are defined as women aged 60 and over and men aged 65 and over. The figures are based upon the Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the 2002 Budget.

  House Sales (Revenue)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was received from house sales in the United Kingdom; and what proportion was received from rural areas in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [55303]

  Ruth Kelly
  Information on stamp duty receipts attributable to residential property transactions for the years 1991—92 to 1994–95 is given in table 15.3 of Inland Revenue Statistics 1997, and equivalent figures for 1995—96 to 2000–01 are available on the Inland Revenue website at http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/ stats/stamp_duty/sd_t02_1.htm.

  Corresponding information specifically for rural areas is not available.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimates are of take-up of tax credits underlying his figures for the effects of personal tax and benefit reforms on page 90 of the Red Book. [53530]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to paragraph 3.2 of "The Child and Working Tax Credits. Modernisation of Britain's Tax and Benefit System" (April 2002), a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.
  397W

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Chernobyl
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what land acreage is covered by restrictions imposed in 1986 following the Chernobyl accident. [54169]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  The following tables show the acreage of the restricted area, and numbers of sheep under restrictions arising from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986. The figures are presented for England, Wales and Scotland. The last restrictions in place in Northern Ireland were removed in April 2000.

  Restrictions in 1986

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  Total

  Acreage

  469,737

  1,013,110

  1,853,250

  3,336,097

  Sheep

  867,000

  2,000,000

  1,358,000

  4,225,000

  Restrictions as of January 2002

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  Total

  Acreage

  29,899

  130,963

  44,478

  205,340

  Sheep

  11,500

  180,000

  38,000

  229,500

HEALTH

  Defibrillators
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new automated defibrillators have been installed in public places. [47011]

  Yvette Cooper
  Since its launch in April 2000 the defibrillators in public places programme has seen 486 automated external defibrillator devices installed at a total of 65 sites across England, including airports, main-line railway stations, and bus and coach stations. Action is continuing to install defibrillators at further sites.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the Black Country Mental Health NHS Trust by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative [49519]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the Bucknall Hospital Psychiatric Unit for the North Staffordshire Combined Health Care NHS Trust by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49543]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for Monyhull for the South Birmingham Mental Health NHS Trust by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative. [49525]
  398w
  Yvette Cooper
  The business case justifying the individual schemes estimating the net savings in present value terms (i.e. all future costs and benefits discounted to their present values) compared with publicly funding the scheme is shown in the table.

  Annual Equivalent Costs of PSC v. PFI Option

  NHS TRUST

  PFI £000s

  Public £000s

  Savings in EAC terms £000s

  per cent Difference

  North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare

  26,608

  26,663

  55

  0·20

  South Birmingham Mental Health

  2,336

  2,364

  28

  1·18

  Black Country Mental Health

  4,099

  4,099·5

  0·5

  0·01

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the Standard Court Health Authority headquarters for the Nottingham Health Authority by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative. [49510]

  Jacqui Smith
  The business case justifying this scheme estimating the net savings in present value terms (i.e. all future costs and benefits discounted to their present values) compared with publicly funding the scheme is shown in the table.

  Net Present Costs of PSC v. PFI Option

  Scheme

  PFI £000s

  Public £000s

  Savings in net present value terms £s

  per cent Difference

  Nottingham Health Authority

  2801

  3408

  607

  17·8

  Headquarters-Standard Court

  Published guidance on public sector comparators notes that: "Accounting Officers should not rely solely on a straight comparison of a PFI bid to its PSC, which should never be regarded as a pass/fail test but instead as a quantitative way of informing judgement". (Treasury Taskforce Technical Note No. 5: How to construct a public sector comparator.)

  Mental Health
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average waiting time for a residential place with 24-hour staffing for a mental health patient in London. [48866]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department does not collect this information. However, the NHS Plan commitment to create an additional 320 24-hour staffed beds across the country by April 2001 was achieved and returns indicate that a substantial number of these were in the London Region. It is anticipated that this increase will have reduced waiting times for places.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the funding for the present year for(a) hospital and residential mental care and (b) day and community care, in mental health in London; how much funding for each category has increased since 1997; and what his

  399W
  Department estimates is the shortfall in provision in the capital, in both categories, in terms of both places and funding. [48865]

  Jacqui Smith
  Health authorities and primary care trusts receive the majority of their funding through unified allocations. Since 1997, total National Health Service expenditure has increased by almost 36 per cent in real terms, with net capital expenditure more than doubling in real terms.

  In general, funding for specific services are not identified separately, in order to allow health authorities and PCTs to be able to manage flexibly the resources available to them.

  Allocations specifically identified in Health Authority baselines for mental health since 1997 include:

  £10.6 million nationally (£3.6 million in London) from the mental health challenge fund allocated recurrently in 1997–98;

  £20 million nationally (£5 million in London) from the modernisation fund allocated recurrently in 1999–2000;

  £42 million nationally (£37 million adult mental health and £5 million child and adolescent mental health) from the modernisation fund allocated recurrently in 2000–01;

  £75 million nationally (£12.5 million in London) earmarked specifically for mental health in 2002–03.

  A detailed breakdown of funding for hospital, residential, day and community mental health care is not available in the format required for the current year or from 1997. Similarly detailed information on the provision in terms of the number of places and funding is not available.

  Myotonic Dystrophy
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the numbers of people with myotonic dystrophy; and if he will make a statement. [49921]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have made no assessment of the numbers of people with myotonic dystrophy, as information on the prevalence of individual conditions is not collected centrally. We do have some data on hospital activity as shown in the table below.

  Admissions for myotonic disorders

  NHS Hospitals, England 1996–97 to 2000–01

  1996–97

  251

  1997–98

  253

  1998–99

  301

  1999–00

  316

  2000–01

  299

  Please note that these figures are a count of in-patient admissions and therefore do not represent the number of patients. Data in this table are adjusted for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data, except for 2000–01 which are not yet adjusted for shortfalls.

  Care Standards (Older People)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many structures identifying nursing leaders with responsibility for older people have been developed as part of the milestones set out in the National Service Framework for Older People, page 172; [51529]
  400w
  (2) how many strategic and operational plans, including initial action to address identified age discrimination, he (a) has received and (b) expects to receive as part of the milestones set out in the National Service Framework for Older People, page 172; [51527]

  (3) which general hospitals have (a) submitted and (b) not submitted plans to introduce a specialised stroke unit by 2004 as part of the milestones set out in the National Service Framework for Older People; and what steps he proposes to take against those general hospitals that have failed to produce these plans; [51535]

  (4) how many (a) specialist multidisciplinary teams and (b) interfaces for care for older people throughout hospitals have been identified as part of the milestones set out in the National Service Framework for Older People, page 172. [51530]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information about progress against the April 2002 milestones set within the national service framework for older people will be available in the summer.

  Following the October 2001 milestone on the audit of age-related policies, we sought information about the results of the audits. An interim report on the results is available on the National Service Framework website (www.doh.gov.uk/nsf/olderpeople.htm). All health organisations which had identified written age-related policies without an evidence base indicated that they would be reviewing those policies.

  Severalls Hospital
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the sale of the former Severalls Hospital in Colchester. [52450]

  Yvette Cooper
  The sale of the first phase of parcels of land in Colchester, near to the Severalls Hospital has been completed. A second phase is now on the market. Further phases have been included as part of a proposed one-off sale to achieve the NHS Plan's objective of the sale of surplus property to fund the NHS modernisation programme. Offers for these later phases are due to be received shortly and it is expected their sale will be completed in autumn 2002.

  The Department's officials are continuing to work closely with the local planning authority regarding the development proposals for the site.

  Illegal Food Imports
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce public notification of proscribed foodstuffs at ports of entry into the United Kingdom. [52986]

  Yvette Cooper
  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) that existing controls under European Union harmonised legislation require prior notification to the enforcement authorities of imports of products of animal origin from third countries. Food which is not of animal origin entering the United Kingdom from third countries is not generally subject to prior notification. Food safety checks are however made under Great Britain's Imported Food Regulations 1997 and their equivalent in Northern Ireland on the basis of risk assessment by local food authorities at the point of entry
  401W
  to the UK. Local authorities can refuse entry or arrange destruction of foods that do not meet the UK's requirements. Food coming to the UK from other EU Member States is in free circulation within the EU and is not subject to routine checks at UK ports.

  The Board of the FSA has asked its officials to review the import controls on food which is not of animal origin including the question of prior notification. In doing so, the FSA will take account of the development of EU proposals to establish a Community framework for official controls on food and animal feed which may include a proposal for pre-notification of imports of food of non animal origin.

  NHS Cancer Plan
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations he undertook before adopting the two week wait target for cancer diagnosis in the NHS Cancer Plan. [53417]

  Yvette Cooper
  The White Paper "The new NHS—Modern, Dependable" published in December 1997 set the cancer specific waiting time standard that everyone with suspected cancer will be able to see a specialist within two weeks of their general practitioner (GP) deciding that they need to be seen urgently and requesting an appointment. These arrangements were guaranteed for everyone with suspected breast cancer from April 1999 and for all other suspected cancers from 2000 and was based on evidence that delays in access to cancer services is a factor in poor cancer survival rates.

  To support implementation of the standard, the Department set up a steering group of medical professionals, chaired by Professor Mike Richards. This steering group developed guidance for GPs to enable them to identify the symptoms and indications of cancer for early referral of patients with suspected cancer to a specialist.

  Respiratory Syncitial Virus
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many cases of respiratory syncitial virus requiring hospital admission there have been in the last three years in the Portsmouth Health Authority, broken down by age; and if he will make a statement; [53694]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the cost of treating infants suffering from respiratory syncitial virus infection in terms of (a) hospital stays and (b) intensive care unit stays in the Portsmouth Primary Care Trust; and if he will make a statement. [53695]

  Yvette Cooper
  Figures for respiratory diseases with a subsidiary classification of respiratory syncitial virus for patients resident in the Portsmouth health authority area were very small and cannot be released for reasons of patient confidentiality. The table below contains a count of all admissions to National Health Service hospitals in England for patients resident in the south-east region.
  402w

  Age

  0–4

  Over 4

  Total

  Year

  1998–99

  105

  0

  105

  1999–00

  32

  0

  32

  2000‒01

  32

  2

  34

  Notes:

  1. These figures do not represent the number of patients as a person may be admitted more than once during the year

  2. Data in this table are adjusted for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data, except for 2000–01 which are not yet adjusted for shortfalls.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  Costs associated with admission vary significantly with severe cases requiring paediatric intensive care, assisted ventilation and specialised interventions. Information on the cost of these admissions is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the need for guidance to be issued to parents about the risk to premature babies of respiratory syncitial virus; and if he will make a statement. [53693]

  Yvette Cooper
  Parents of premature babies that are at risk from respiratory syncitial virus infection receive guidance from their doctor before leaving hospital. General written guidance is also provided to parents before they take their baby home, on the recognition of illness, the awareness of the risks of infection in babies and contact points in the event their child appears to be unwell.

  The national service framework for children is a forthcoming comprehensive opportunity to review what guidance and information is given to parents, and parents to be, about the health of their children.

  Direct Payments Scheme
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department collates on the rate of take up of direct payments under the direct payments scheme in each local authority area. [53766]

  Jacqui Smith
  Data are collected annually from councils on the number of people receiving direct payments and the gross expenditure on those payments. The Social Services Inspectorate has obtained further information through the performance monitoring of local councils.

  Kidderminster Hospital
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will restore Kidderminster Hospital's status. [53882]

  Yvette Cooper
  A range of services, for a variety of patients, remain and continue to be developed at Kidderminster.

  In May last year my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, announced that the Government would establish an independent clinical review of future elective services at Kidderminster Hospital. The review resulted from the new opportunity presented by the planned increase in elective surgery arising from implementation of the NHS Plan. The review recommended that the hospital should carry out a wider variety of common operations, including

  403W
  tonsillectomies, gall bladder operations and more procedures on eyes, and ear, nose and throat surgery. We agreed with these conclusions and acted upon them.

  In addition, a £13 million Ambulatory Care Centre is being developed at Kidderminster Hospital which due to be completed in 2003, and Worcestershire's new £87 million acute hospital opened in April 2002 incorporating state of the art facilities benefiting patients from across Worcestershire and beyond.

  Hospital-acquired Infection
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have died as a result of hospital-acquired infection in(a) the most recent year for which figures are available and (b) each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [54154]

  Yvette Cooper
  There are no centrally held statistics on deaths caused by healthcare acquired infections (HAI), including Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).

  MRSA infection can take many forms, from trivial skin infection to pneumonia or septicaemia. Often the causative micro-organism is not specified on the death certificate. MRSA does not have a distinct code within the revision of the International Classification of Diseases used for encoding death registration data at the Office for National Statistics.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost to the NHS of hospital-acquired infection in(a) each of the last five years and (b) the most recent year for which figures are available. [54160]

  Yvette Cooper
  Tackling hospital acquired infection (HAI) underpins the priorities in the NHS plan and a number of initiatives are underway to reduce HAI. However, costs of activity to prevent HAI are impossible to assess because much of this activity is a fundamental part of the work of healthcare staff.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring is undertaken by his Department of National Health Service trusts' infection control policies; and if he will make a statement. [54116]

  Yvette Cooper
  New standards (controls assurance) on infection control were issued in 1999 (and updated in 2001). We have asked the Commission for Health Improvement to independently review and monitor compliance with the national infection control standard for acute trusts during their routine clinical governance reviews. Monitoring arrangements will be covered in the targeted action plan for healthcare associated infections that will be produced later this year as part of "Getting ahead of the curve" our strategy to combat infectious disease.

  Genetic Testing Kits
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the health consequences of the sale of genetic testing kits to the public; [54203]

  (2) what plans he has to regulate the sale of genetic testing kits; [54205]
  404w
  (3) what assessment has been made of the voluntary system of regulation for commercially available genetic testing kits. [54204]

  Yvette Cooper
  Genetic testing kits that are placed on the market and fall within the definition of an in vitro diagnostic medical device (IVD) will be regulated by the IVD Regulations (SI2000 No 1315) which came into force on 7 June 2000 and has a transition period until 7 December 2003.

  The Department has published two voluntary codes of practice and guidance for genetic tests being sold directly to the public. These set out broad requirements in areas such as: peer-reviewed evidence of value, accreditation and quality assurance in testing laboratories, consent, confidentiality, sample and information storage, and customer information.

  Under the "Code of Practice and Guidance on Human Genetic Testing Services Supplied Direct to the Public" (September 1997) suppliers notify the human genetics commission (HGC) of their proposed service and HGC publishes a statement of conformance with the Code.

  In addition, those supplying genetic paternity testing services are expected to comply with the "Code of Practice and Guidance on Genetic Paternity Testing Services" (March 2001). All Government and public bodies commissioning paternity testing services are expected, so far as is practical, to ensure that those supplying services comply with this Code.

  The HGC is the Government's strategic advisory body on how new developments in human genetics will impact on people and on health care, with a particular focus on social and ethical aspects. We have asked the HGC to conduct a thorough review of the whole issue of genetic testing services offered directly to the public, including the voluntary system of regulation, and to report with their recommendations by the end of this year.

  World Health Organisation Report
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the World Health Organisation report on macroeconomics and health, published on 20 December 2001, in respect of its implications for his Department's policies. [54803]

  Yvette Cooper
  The World Health Organisation's report of the commission on macroeconomics and health focuses mainly on low-income countries and on the poor in middle-income countries. Its key conclusions on the important linkage of health to poverty reduction, the importance of investment in health care systems and the impact of other sectors on health status are reflected in our own policy of investing in the National Health Service, and in our cross-sectoral work on tackling health inequalities.

  Working Together Safeguards Guidance
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many case reviews following serious or fatal abuse under the Working Together Safeguards Guidance have been held in each of the last five years; how many in each year involved(a) child deaths, (b) serious physical

  405W
  assaults, (c) serious sexual abuse and (d) serious neglect; and if he will indicate in each the (i) age and (ii) sex of the children concerned. [551891

  Jacqui Smith
  Complete statistical information is not currently collected centrally on the numbers or types of serious case reviews that have been carried out in accordance with Chapter 8 of Working Together to Safeguard Children (1999).

  However, many findings from serious case reviews can serve as an important source of information to inform policy and practice at both national and local levels. In recognition of this, the Department is responsible for identifying and disseminating common themes and trends across review reports, and acting on lessons for policy and practice. We will shortly be publishing an overview report drawing out the key findings of a selection of case reviews from the last two years, and their implications for policy and practice. At the same time, we have recently launched a new comprehensive database, which will in future hold information about all serious case reviews.

  Non-human Primates
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the potential health hazards posed to humans by the import and use of non-human primates in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [47999]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 10 May 2002]: There is a statutory obligation under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations placed upon employers importing and using non-human primates to assess the potential health risks of their activities to both their employees and to others who might be affected by their undertaking. The potential risks will vary according to the different purposes the primates are being used for and the origin of the primate.

  Guidance was issued in 1997 from the advisory committee on dangerous pathogens (ACDP), in consultation with the Health and Safety Executive, entitled "Working safely with research animals: Management of infection risks". This summarises the infection risks to humans posed by non-human primates most commonly used in research.

  Further supplementary guidance entitled "Working safely with simians: Management of infection risks" was issued by the ACDP in 1998 addressing the particular risks posed to those working with simians (apes and monkeys). This guidance revised and updated earlier guidance on infections associated with simians first issued by the Medical Research Council in 1985, revised in 1990.

  Cancer
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the average cost of(a) chemotherapy, (b) radiotherapy and, (c) aggregated medical costs in relation to the treatment of patients suffering brain cancers. [49800]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 16 April 2002]: This information is not available. Calculations of the average costs of radiotherapy for brain tumours range from £386 per patient to £1,605 per patient.
  406w

  National Service Frameworks
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of health service spending in 2002–03 is covered by national service frameworks. [50799]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]: This information is not available from routine data. We have estimated that the expenditure on heart disease, cancer, diabetes, renal disease, and mental health (for under 65s) is around 15 per cent of the total National Health Service and personal social services expenditure.

  Activa Brain Stimulators
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the policy of the NHS is on providing operations to implant Activa brain stimulators; and how many such operations have been performed, and where, in the last 12 months. [53292]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: Trials are underway to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of deep brain stimulation. The trials commenced in 2001 and will run for five years. In the 12 months to April 2002 there were 165 implants of Activa brain stimulators. However, approximately 10 per cent of these were replacement batteries. The hospitals where the operations were performed are as follows:

  Charing Cross, London

  King's College, London

  Royal, London

  Ninewells, Dundee

  Frenchay, Bristol

  General, Newcastle

  Queen Elizabeth, Birmingham

  Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford

  Walton Centre for Neurology and Neuorosurgery, Liverpool

  General Infirmary, Leeds

  Hope, Manchester

  Source:

  Medtronic Limited, Watford, England. Activa stimulators are made by Medtronic.

  Hepatitis C
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been diagnosed with hepatitis C in the United Kingdom in the last 12 months. [53276]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: There were 4515 antibody positive hepatitis C laboratory diagnoses in England in 2001 reported to the Public Health Laboratory Service (provisional figure). Information about hepatitis C diagnoses in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can be obtained from the respective devolved administrations.

  Scanners
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to publish details of the criteria to be used in order to make the next allocations of CT and MRI scanners. [53891]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: Consultations regarding criteria for the allocation of 50 additional computed tomography and 50 additional

  407W
  magnetic resonance imaging scanners, as outlined in the NHS Cancer Plan, have already begun involving regions and the cancer networks and are being extended to include the new strategic health authorities.

  One of the factors in establishing criteria for the allocation of additional equipment will be the relative provision of CT and MRI services to the population served. Work has already been carried out to assess this and the consultation process is now allowing these data to be verified at a local level.

  Efficiency of use of existing scanners is also a factor when considering additional allocations of equipment.

  It is expected that criteria will be published early in the summer as soon as discussions are completed, to be followed by the list of agreed allocations to individual hospitals later in the summer.

  Food Supplements
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a further statement on the proposals in the European Food Supplements Directive relating to(a) the removals of certain minerals from free sale, (b) the removal of certain nutrient forms from free sale and (c) the setting of maximum permitted levels for vitamins and minerals in food supplements. [54508]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 9 May 2002]: The coming into force of the directive will not immediately remove any products already on the UK market. Lists of permitted vitamin and mineral sources remain open pending safety assessments for additional substances. The Government intends, when implementing the directive, to take full advantage of the opportunity we have secured for EU Member States to allow continued sale for up to seven years of products containing vitamin and mineral sources not yet on permitted lists.

  During negotiations, the Food Standards Agency argued strongly that maximum permitted levels should be established on the basis of scientific risk assessment. Maximum levels will eventually be decided on the basis of recommendations made by the independent EU Scientific Committee on Food (SCF). The agency is now making strenuous efforts to forge strong links between the SCF and the UK's Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals which is already in the process of carrying out similar assessments.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Rural Awareness
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) when his Department will establish rural 408w
  targets and monitoring as part of overall rural proofing measures as set out in the Countryside Agency's report Rural Proofing in 2001–02 [54422]

  (2) when his Department will introduce measures to raise rural awareness through staff (a) training, (b) development and (c) secondments as part of overall rural proofing measures as set out in the Countryside Agency's report, Rural Proofing in 2001–02. [54414]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) on the 9 May 2002,Official report columns 273–74W.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what monitoring of recruitment and promotion within the civil service is undertaken of the(a) social and (b) educational backgrounds of successful candidates; and if he will make a statement. [52232]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Civil Service aims to attract applicants from a diverse range of candidates. It does not monitor the social or educational backgrounds of successful candidates it recruits, nor for those recruited to the Senior Civil Service.

  The Civil Service Fast Stream does, however, monitor applicants by university of first degree and this information is published annually in the Fast Stream Recruitment Report. The report is available in the library of both Houses and on the Internet at www.faststream.gov.uk. Fast Stream applicants are not monitored by social background.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the percentage increases in Civil Service pensions in(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002; and on what basis the increases are calculated. [55306]

  Mr. Leslie
  Civil Service pensions, like other public service pensions, are increased each year after the Pensions Increase (Review) Order has been laid before Parliament by HM Treasury.

  The pensions are increased by the same percentage as the increase in the additional component of the State Earnings Related Pension (SERPS) under section 59 of the Social Security Act 1975 (as amended).

  This increase is calculated by reference to the all items increase in the Retail Prices Index (RPI) in the last 12 months to September of the previous year.

  The increase is applied in April each year.

  The increases for the last three financial years are as follows:

  1.1 per cent

  3.3 per cent

  1.7 per cent

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

Dignity at Work Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Divorce (Religious Marriages) Bill
11.6 a.m.
Lord Grabiner: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to remove a serious injustice which currently arises because of the interplay between established Jewish religious law on the one hand and our own civil law rules on the other; in particular the rules concerning the grant of a divorce in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
The Bill would introduce a simple but highly effective corrective measure for the future which would enable a court exercising matrimonial jurisdiction not to make a decree of divorce absolute until the necessary formalities for dissolving the religious marriage have been fully and properly complied with.
In Jewish law, divorce, like marriage, is consensual and contractual and requires the co-operation of both parties. The process for obtaining a religious divorce is initiated by the husband. He secures from the religious court, or Beth Din, a one-page document called a get which, by himself or through the agency of the Beth Din, is then delivered to the wife. Both parties are obliged to attend in person. If, however, either of the parties fails or refuses to participate on a voluntary basis, there can be no religious divorce.
Supposing that the husband refuses to give the get—and I use the male example because it is the most likely scenario—what happens then? The wife is still entitled to a civil divorce, but because she is still married to her husband in the eyes of Jewish law, she is not entitled subsequently to remarry in an orthodox ceremony. If she is devout, that inhibition will be a source of distress and unhappiness for her and her family. There is also a nasty sting in the tail: if she is still of child-bearing age, any children she may have in the future will be
1402
illegitimate in the eyes of Jewish law. That rule operates throughout the generations which are descended from her.
The status of the wife in that example is that of a married person in Jewish law, but that of a single person in the civil law. The lawyers' shorthand description of that state of affairs is graphically captured in the expression "the limping marriage". In Jewish law, the wife is known as the agunah, which appropriately translates as "the chained wife".
The religious law is biblical in origin and therefore immutable. There are no mechanics for changing the law. There is no parliament. Rabbis are teachers and interpreters of the law; they are not legislators. They may be able to encourage or persuade the husband voluntarily to deliver the get to his wife. But they cannot force him to do so because the process would then lose its consensual quality and the get would be ineffective for its purpose.
Unfortunately, these established rules of religious law sometimes bring out the worst in people. The giving of the get on these occasions may be used as a tactical devise or blackmailing weapon in relation to the ancillary arrangements for the children of the marriage and for the financial settlement in connection with the civil divorce. Alternatively, the refusal to deliver the get may be motivated simply my malice or spite,driven in turn by jealousy or some other perhaps understandable but nevertheless objectively unreasonable purpose.
That is the background. I want now to comment on the admirably succinct Bill which we have before us. Clause I would amend the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. It would give a discretion to the court to order that the decree of divorce should not be made absolute until both parties have satisfied the court that—and I paraphrase—they have taken the steps which are necessary to dissolve the religious marriage.
The clause will specifically apply to those who,
"were married in accordance with—the usages of the Jews".
I quote from Section 10A(1)(a)(i), as it would be if the Bill were passed. However, it also has the potential to apply to other religions which could be prescribed by an order made by the Lord Chancellor. Your Lordships can see that by reading the combination of Section 10A(1)(a)(ii) together with Section 10A(6) of what the 1973 Act would look like.
My understanding is that it is unlikely to he necessary for such orders to be made. That is because, as I understand the position, no other religious group has made representations on the point. The power is there on a just-in-case basis. I understand that the issue does not give rise to a problem in English Muslim law, but having little or no expertise on the subject I stand ready to be corrected about that. However, it seems that where informal mediation has failed the United Kingdom Islamic Sharia Council may grant what is called a khula to the wife, which immediately dissolves the marriage and is effective in Islamic religious law. For unsurprising reasons, there are clear analogies

1403
between the two religions. So a satisfactory solution has been found to deal with the problem so far as concerns UK Muslims.
Clause 1(2) of the Bill would repeal Sections 9(3) and (4) of the Family Law Act 1996. The reason for that is that this Bill does everything that those provisions would have done if they had been brought into force. It is not necessary for me to go into the history of this part of the story, save to say that the principle enshrined in this Bill passed satisfactorily through the legislative process some years ago. However, for reasons which are bound up with other complex provisions in Part II of the 1996 Act, those provisions have never been brought into force. If this Bill were to become law, then those provisions would be otiose and could simply be repealed.
Perhaps I may make a few additional miscellaneous points. First, I can tell noble Lords that a similar approach to the one we are now examining has been adopted in New York State, South Africa and Canada, so there are good, directly applicable precedents drawn from very respectable jurisdictions elsewhere in the world.
Secondly, as can be seen from Clause 2(3), the Bill applies only to England and Wales. It is not intended to apply to Scotland. The reason for that is that I understand that this is a devolved subject and thus is the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament.
Thirdly, and in anticipation of a point which may be made in the course of our debate today, I hope that I have made it plain that nothing in this Bill could impact on or is in any way designed to alter or offend against Jewish religious law. The Bill is a neat procedural mechanism which would improve the inter-relationship between the operation of the civil law and the religious law to the benefit of all concerned. It is supported by the leading rabbinical figures in the Orthodox, Ashkenazi and Sephardi communities, including the Chief Rabbi, Dr Jonathan Sacks; Dayan Ehrentreu and Dayan Toledano, who are respectively the presiding judges of the two principal courts with authority in the United Kingdom. They each give their complete support to the Bill. I am also able to say from my personal knowledge that the late Lord Jakobovits, the previous Chief Rabbi, was of the same view.
I am pleased to say that the Bill is supported by the Government and that my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal will be speaking in response to explain the Government's position. Finally, I should like to pay a special tribute to my honourable friend Andrew Dismore, who is the Member of Parliament for Hendon. The Bill began its life under the 10-minute rule in another place and was introduced there by him. On 12th April, it was read a third time and passed in another place. We would not be holding this debate today were it not for the fact that Andrew Dismore has given a great deal of time and effort which will, I hope, result in the permanent improvement of people's lives and get rid of a great deal of unnecessary personal distress.
1404
I commend the Bill to your Lordships and hope that it will be supported by the whole House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Grabiner.)
11.16 a.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, this Bill contains a provision repealing two subsections of the Family Law Act 1996. Since I was responsible for taking that Bill through your Lordships' House, it might be thought that I would object to this particular provision. On the contrary, the problem dealt with by this Bill has been admirably and succinctly described by the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner. It is a problem with which those of us who are concerned with the civil law have been familiar for some time. The subsections in the Family Law Act referred to in this Bill were designed to deal with it. Therefore I had thought that we had solved the problem in 1996.
For reasons into which I need not go, that has not so far produced the fruit that I had hoped for in 1996. Noble Lords will know that legislators are often disappointed when the results of their labours do not bring forth the fruit they had expected. However, better late than never. As the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, has already pointed out, now that the Bill in its present form has passed through the House of Commons, I hope that it will now pass swiftly through this House. I hope then that finally the problem will be resolved.
I should like to add that I too had personal knowledge of the support of the late Lord Jakobovits in this matter, along with those who were in authority in the various rabbinical and courtly bodies of the time. I am glad to know that that position still obtains. So I wish the Bill every success and hope that it will pass into law very quickly.
11.18 a.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, first, if I have learnt anything over the 25 happy years that I have been privileged to spend in your Lordships' House, it is that noble Lords do not look with disfavour on short speeches.
Secondly, your Lordships do not approve of speakers who repeat arguments and thoughts that have been expressed previously in far better language by the second Peer to address the House.
If I may, I want to say only this. The advantages of the Bill in relieving suffering—I use that word advisedly—have been so succinctly expressed by my noble friend Lord Grabiner—the noble and learned Lord Mackay of Clashfern pointed that out—that it is quite unnecessary for me to repeat them.
I sit down with these words only: how pleasant it is for members of one faith to be able to assist members of another faith without in any way giving up one iota of their own beliefs.
11.20 a.m.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, I was about to begin by saying that I shall not detain your Lordships long, but having heard the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, speak for only one minute, I am afraid that I shall exceed that time by a little.
I am deeply in sympathy with the objectives of the Bill and strongly support anything that can be done to assist those unfortunate women to secure relief from husbands who can legally divorce them, yet refuse to allow them to remarry under Jewish religious law.
This is the second Private Member's Bill on the subject that the House has considered. The first was piloted through the House by my noble friend Lord Lester pretty successfully, with the support of many of your Lordships. However, that Bill was objected to in the other place for no good reason whatever. The claimed reason was that the Bill had not received adequate consideration or debate. That was palpably untrue. It is a pity that the Government cannot do anything to prevent such a frivolous objection, which was a total waste of your Lordships' time. I hope that this second Bill will be successfully passed in due course.
However, as a member of the Jewish faith, I am concerned that the learned rabbis in this country and elsewhere have failed to find a way to resolve the issue. As I understand it, the argument has always been that the Sanhedrin the religious governing body for Jews, which could change laws—ceased to exist about 2.000 years ago. Nothing has apparently replaced it. I find that explanation almost unbelievable. I therefore have a question for the Chief Rabbi, Dr Jonathan Sacks: if, for example, there had been an ancient law that when Jews died they had to be cremated and, furthermore, if a wife predeceased her husband, her husband would be cremated at the same time, are we seriously to believe that because the Sanhedrin no longer existed, the rabbis would have been unable to find a way to resolve that problem? I venture to suggest—I am sure that your Lordships will agree—that they would have resolved that issue very quickly, notwithstanding the fact that the Sanhedrin no longer exists.
There seems to be a wilful resistance by the religious authorities in Jewish communities of all countries to resolve the issue. It is for men to make the decision. If men were the sufferers, they would have found a solution. It is only because the problem does not affect men that they rely on numerous religious objections to resolve the issue. I know that Jewish religious leaders will strongly resist this explanation, but I find their explanations for being unable to do anything simply pathetic.
I am pleased that, with the Government's help, the British Parliament can pass a Bill that will, in a small way, alleviate the problem that prevents Jewish women divorced under the law remarrying without their husbands' permission. This is not a complete solution to the problem and the responsibility remains with the Jewish religious authorities to find a complete solution. They should get their act together and find one.
11.23 a.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I, too, shall be brief. I hope that it will not be considered an impertinence for someone from these Benches to comment on the Bill. I thought it might be valuable to give our support for it.
I have two brief general points to make. First, when there is an experience of human need in a particular community and when the leaders of those faith communities come to Parliament to seek some assistance, we have an obligation to respond constructively. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, that we should be careful not to intrude on the internal theological and legal debates of different religious traditions. I do not think that Parliament would be wise to enter into that area.
When we have such strong representation from our Jewish brothers, sisters and friends, we should seek to be sympathetic and helpful to help them fulfil their pastoral responsibility to their members. That is what we are being asked to do and it seems to me a proper principle for parliamentary action.
Secondly, the passing of the Bill would be timely. I support the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, about the need for the issue to be addressed, given what has happened to the legislation that he steered through Parliament. Moreover, at a moment when unpleasant forces are raising their ugly heads in European politics and in some of our own communities, causing harm and anxiety to minority communities, including our Jewish friends, a clear signal from Parliament that we are here to defend their interests and encourage their life in the community would be very welcome. I support the Bill.
11.26 a.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Grabiner for ensuring that we debate the issue today. It would be unkind if I were to omit to mention my honourable friend Andrew Dismore, Member of Parliament, who has undertaken an enormous amount of research on the Bill. I remember meeting him in his constituency at the time of the last election. Amid all the problems he had, he mentioned the possibility of introducing this Bill. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for what he has done, particularly on the Bill that he introduced some time ago, which was along much the same lines.
To my certain knowledge, the Bill rectifies a serious wrong inflicted on partners of the Jewish faith who, in the case of marital breakdown, are unable to remarry under their religious law because their spouses refuse to grant a religious divorce, known in Jewish law as a get. As I understand it, the husband is obliged to serve the get on the wife. In the absence of its delivery, she is obliged to remained chained in a union which may long have ceased practically to exist or meet her needs and which may have caused her undue suffering. A husband is able to withhold the get if bitterness, anger and jealousy have come to dominate his feelings. That refusal can become for him a potent form of emotional blackmail and can be used to impose intolerable

1407
conditions on the wife relating to finance or, even worse, to matters concerning the children of the union. That is a most important issue, although it has not been mentioned specifically today.
I underline the profoundly unfair position that women in particular have to endure. Of course a wife can remarry in a civil ceremony, but the ancient Jewish law—which, save for the enactment of this Bill, is immutable—will be unable to recognise her new status. For observant Jews, this will not be an option which is open to them. Marriage for them is a sacrament. In any event, the status of children born of the new marriage would be considered illegitimate because the marriage would be disregarded and the relationship considered adulterous.
The withholding of a get puts a recalcitrant husband in an impossibly superior position. He may not be strictly observant, but he can use the situation to his advantage and even seek to impose conditions, which he lays down, relating to finance or, possibly worse still, matters concerning their children. In this day and age women should not be placed in this predicament. That is something that the Bill recognises. In future, under the Bill a religious marriage would first have to be dissolved before a decree absolute was granted by a civil court.
As my noble friend pointed out, the Bill is welcomed by most members of the Jewish religion. In my view, it is long overdue. My noble friend is trying to equalise standards and rights, and the Bill has been specifically drafted to comply with human rights legislation. As he said, it is supported by the Chief Rabbi, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Marriage Council. They are not inviting the civil law to solve a Jewish problem but to end a serious anomaly whereby a Jewish faith marriage is also a civil one but a civil divorce may not be accompanied by a religious divorce.
I hope that a way can be found for a similar Bill to be enacted in Scotland where family law has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I understand that Jim Murphy, a Member of Parliament, is seeking to introduce procedures which could extend the provisions of this Bill over the Border. Although that is essentially for another day, I invite the Minister or my noble friend to say something about that.
Concerns have also been raised about the exclusivity of the Bill. The hope is that other faiths which may encounter similar problems for which redress is sought could use the provisions in the Bill to seek a remedy. At present, it seems that this particular difficulty applies only in the Jewish religion, where the supreme jurisdiction, the Sanhedrin, which has been referred to by many of my noble friends, was destroyed nearly 2,000 years ago. The Jewish religious laws have remained set in stone to this day.
Understandably, the Bill is not a complete cure-all—it will not be retrospective—but it will vastly ameliorate the plight of potential victims of this situation. I believe that it will be profoundly welcomed by our Jewish women citizens and the community at large.
11.35 a.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I was raised outside the Jewish religious community. I venture to intervene in support of the Bill by reason of the responsibility I formerly had in the jurisdiction to which the procedures under the Bill are vouchsafed.
In the course of those responsibilities one came across what the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, described rightly as "limping marriages". Though not in the context of the Bill, they were always liable to cause hardship and they frequently did cause hardship. In the context of this Bill they are particularly objectionable because, as the noble Lord explained in his marvellously lucid exposition, it can lead to a blackmail of the wife.
The other matter that arises from such experience that I had is the question of whether the jurisdiction is manageable. It was rightly said on the previous occasion that it would not be an easy jurisdiction to exercise. But High Court judges are not appointed to exercise easy jurisdiction. I have little doubt, particularly in these days when the judges of the Family Court have to deal with the interplay of law and ethics so frequently, that it is manageable. But it is really for the noble Baroness who is to reply, who has had more recent experience of that jurisdiction than I—and who has no doubt consulted the learned president—to say whether it is manageable. I have little doubt that it is.
A question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, on the previous occasion was whether it is desirable. Certainly it is in general undesirable that a secular tribunal should interfere to enforce sanctions on religious procedures. But this is a peculiar case. The court is not intervening to sanction religious procedures; it is asked to intervene to correct an injustice.
I submit that in general it is undesirable, even under our constitution which does not have the rigid division between Church and state that the United States has—its constitution is based on the division of power whereas ours is based on the balance of power. But it is notable that the State of New York has introduced legislation similar to that which is proposed here, as has Canada; and Israel has taken a measure which promotes the same end in a different way.
In this case, there is an overwhelming invitation from the religious authorities to Parliament to intervene. This is purely procedural, and there is a model that has already been established in Pakistan. Pakistan, like orthodox Jewry, is bound in its matrimonial law by scriptural authority. That cannot be altered. However, a procedural step was introduced to prevent that authority being harshly and unfairly operated.
Therefore, whatever the general position, I strongly support the Bill.
11.41 a.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on piloting the Bill through this House. He is performing an important service for the Jewish

1409
community and we are all grateful to him. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and Mr Dismore in another place, who have both been involved in this attempt, and in earlier attempts, to pass this legislation. This is the third time that the introduction of such a measure has been attempted. It was attempted twice previously in the form of a Private Member's Bill. I hope that this will be a case of third time lucky.
As the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, reminded us, the previous attempt failed because, in another place, the matter of divorce was considered to be an inappropriate use of the Private Member's Bill route. I agree with the noble Lord: I do not believe that it is. I supported the Private Member's Bill that came before this House about two years ago. It dealt with a specific problem relating to Jewish divorce. It was tightly drawn—the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, described it as "succinct"—but in such a way as to include other religious faiths if necessary. The argument that it deals with one faith in favour of another does not stand.
As my noble friend explained, the Bill deals with divorce within the Jewish faith. As the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, said, the argument for using the civil law to solve a religious problem is that religious law can be changed only by the Sanhedrin and, as it can meet only at the Temple, it has not met since the destruction of the Temple some 2,000 years ago. I must confess that, like the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, I, too, am slightly sceptical about this.
To carry the noble Lord's argument further, I understand that other religious laws have been modified by virtue of a dictum by a rabbi who lived in Mainz, in Germany, from 960 to 1028. His dictum said that when there was a conflict between religious law and civil law, the law of the land was the law. Its original purpose, interestingly, was to deal with the number of wives that Jewish men could have, depending on whether they lived in an Islamic country or in a Christian country. That dictum still applies.
That is why, since then, Jews have been able to live within their faith and within the law in many countries. It was a clever thing to do all those years ago. That is why chained women are entitled to ask: if the law of the land is the law, and equal rights became law in 1976 and the European Convention on Human Rights was incorporated into British law in 1999, why are they still chained? Perhaps one of the eminent lawyers present can explain that point.
Happily, the Bill is not being foisted on the Jewish community. It has the support of the religious authorities, not only from the orthodox community but also from the liberal and representative organisations in the community. As my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, reminded us, it has the support of the Jewish Marriage Council, which does excellent work in resolving difficulties in marriage and has tried to resolve disputes over the get.
Furthermore, I welcome the Bill because it puts right a wrong which applies equally to men and to women. Women are wronged because they cannot
1410
remarry within the faith without a get and the men who wish to marry such women are, of course, also wronged.
However, I have two regrets in relation to the Bill. The first is that no way could be found of making its provision retrospective. I should declare that I have attended demonstrations and other events calling on the Chief Rabbi to deal with the matter of the tied women—sometimes, I must add, in the company of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and her sister. I regret that the Bill will not put right the injustices done to the existing chained women. They fought for this legislation, and they deserve our thanks. I hope that they will get some satisfaction from the knowledge that they will be the last of the chained women in Britain. But, sadly, they will remain chained.
I also congratulate those more liberal rabbis, particularly in the United States, who have found it possible to move with the times and to gram religious annulments to chained women, enabling them to remarry within the Jewish faith. These rabbis obviously shared my second regret, which is a feeling of discomfort that the Jewish faith has had to involve the civil courts to solve a religious problem. Judaism is such a humane and practical faith that I cannot help feeling awkward that rabbis have had to resort to the civil law to resolve a matter of equal rights between men and women. It is such a basic matter.
However, these are only regrets, not objections. I welcome the Bill and wish it every success.
11.47 a.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, we on these Benches support the Bill as a necessary measure to mitigate the rigours of Jewish religious divorce law.
I am Jewish, but I am not a practising religious Jew, nor am I an expert in Jewish law. I am glad that, this time, the Bill is being steered through this House by the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, whose credentials for doing so are rather better than mine.
The Bill is of significant symbolic value and it may work successfully in some cases in mitigating the harsh effects of the archaic and unjust features of Jewish divorce law by persuading unreasonable parties that they must act reasonably when their marriages have failed.
I pay tribute, as other speakers have done, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who first introduced liberating legislation on this subject, which, unfortunately, was not able to be brought into force.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, among others, have explained, the mischief arises from the fact that a refusal by one spouse, usually the husband, to give or accept a get creates a form of "limping marriage" where there has been a civil divorce. The woman is chained to her husband; she is what is known as an agunah, aptly described by Professor Michael Freeman, a member of the Law

1411
Faculty of University College, London, as being "a hostage to a dead marriage" who can be held to ransom to secure her release.
Ever since the Marriage Act of 1836, the civil law has recognised a synagogue marriage as legally valid, and no separate civil marriage is needed. Yet in dissolving that dual bond of divorce, English law requires only the civil marriage to be revoked while leaving the religious bond intact. If one of the parties remarries, content with only a civil divorce, the other party, who may regard the religious marriage as still valid, cannot remarry until a religious divorce has been obtained.
The prevailing orthodox view is that a husband cannot be compelled to grant his wife a get, even if she finds life with husband impossible and is justified in wishing to obtain a divorce. The relevant religious law derives from Chapter 24 of the Book of Deuteronomy, which reads:
"And he shall write for her a deed of divorcement and give it in her hand".
The view of the great Jewish scholar and philosopher, Maimonides, the most influential Jewish scholar of the Middle Ages, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, has referred, was that the husband can be compelled in such a case to grant his wife a get since, in his words,
"she is not like a prisoner who has to submit to a sexual relationship with a person she finds repugnant".
But, most unfortunately, Maimonides' humane and practical view was not and is not shared by many leading orthodox Jewish jurists who adopt a literal rather than a purposive interpretation of this part of the Bible. Despite his immense authority, Maimonides' view is considered unacceptable by many orthodox rabbis. As Professor Freeman has aptly commented,
"it is a sad reflection of our times that Jewish law was interpreted more liberally in the 12th century than it is today".
I share that view.
For 1,500 years, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, has explained, ever since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the abolition of the Sanhedrin, there has been no supreme judicial authority with power to interpret Jewish law and to enact ordinances binding on the entire Jewish world. This is a major impediment to the reform of the law. But it is also true that the male orthodox rabbinate around the world has not been conspicuous in seeking to reform Jewish marriage and divorce law, praying in aid what the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, referred to as its "immutability". I—speaking for myself; I speak personally, of course—have great sympathy with the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Jacobs and the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. However, I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford that it is a matter not for Parliament but for the Jewish religious community and its leaders and, for that matter, any other religious community with similar problems.
On 26th April a fine obituary was published in The Times about the great Deputy President of the Israeli Supreme Court, Justice Haim Cohen, who was
1412
instrumental in implementing the transition of the legal system from British Mandate Palestine to the independent state of Israel in 1948. The obituary recalled Justice Cohen's clashes with the rabbinate which, under the dispensation reached with David Ben Gurion, Israel's first and highly secular Prime Minister, governed marriage. Justice Cohen challenged their rigid categorisation, calling for civil marriage, which would allow cross-religion marriages. Justice Cohen lost that important battle.
In this country, there is no such problem, because Lord Hardwicke's retrograde Marriage Act has long since been amended to allow civil and non-Christian marriages and divorces, alongside recognition of religious marriages and divorces. Like others who have spoken in this debate, as I hope I have made clear, I regret that it should be necessary for the religious and secular leaders of the orthodox Jewish community to seek the aid of Parliament to enact legislation enabling our civil courts to alleviate the injustice and misery resulting from a literal interpretation of the Bible. I hope that the enactment of this Bill will not encourage anyone to think that the underlying problems have been solved. This is a mitigating Bill, but it does not solve those problems. They will be solved if and only if the necessary leadership is found, here and elsewhere, in the orthodox community. However, as all noble Lords have said, Parliament can and should do its best to respect religious freedom and diversity in a manner compatible with fundamental human rights. The Bill goes some way in that direction, and it deserves our support.
I should like to say a few words about the position of other religions. As has been explained, the Bill provides a facility not only for orthodox Jews but for what are described as,
"any other prescribed religious usages".
That was inserted into the Bill that I introduced because the Government had obtained an opinion from Mr Rabinder Singh QC pointing out that my Bill discriminated against other religions by singling out the Jewish religion. I was given a taste of my own human rights medicine, and Mr Singh was perfectly right. That is why the option is put into this Bill to remove that inequality of treatment. The option does, however, depend on the religious community itself— whether it be Jewish. Muslim or any other religious minority—wishing to take advantage of the Bill and then asking the Lord Chancellor to prescribe the religion for that purpose.
I mention that because the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, and I have both been under the impression that there is no similar problem under British Muslim divorce law. However, as a result of a conversation that I have had with a Muslim Member of this House who may wish to take part in later debates, I simply would like to say that it is not wholly clear now that there are not similar problems for British Muslim wives who may, for example, be under great pressure to return their dowries before they can obtain a satisfactory divorce. It is not a matter for me or for any other noble Lord who has spoken because none of us is an expert or member of that great community. But

1413
I thought it right to mention that, as it has been mentioned specifically to me by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, who regretted the fact that he could not take part in t his debate.
Finally, I am glad to say that the Joint Select Commit tee on Human Rights, on which I serve, found nothing in this Bill to draw to the attention of either House as being in any way incompatible with human rights. I hope that the House will agree that the Bill is not only compatible with but advances human rights.
11.57 a.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I rise to support this Bill which has passed through the other place with support from all sides. As the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, said in introducing it so well, the Bill also has the support of the Jewish religious authorities, from the most orthodox to the most liberal, including the Chief Rabbis, the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Marriage Council.
As noble Lords may well remember—the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, certainly will—on 30th June 2000, a similar Bill received its Second Reading in this Chamber, introduced equally admirably by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. In the intervening period, I have carefully reread all the speeches made in that debate. I know that noble Lords will forgive me when I say that I have particularly scrutinised, with extra special care, my own contribution on that occasion.
I supported the aims of that Bill and certainly did not oppose its Second Reading, although I was very concerned that the orthodox Jewish religious authorities were unable to find their own solution to this problem. It is very interesting that the noble Lords, Lord Jacobs, Lord Haskel and, indeed, Lord Lester, have made that point today. I would also say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford that I doubt there is any Jew anywhere who is not grateful for the stand he is taking and that the Christian authorities are hopeful that we can now get this right.
We were not suggesting that Parliament should not interfere. We were simply saying that it is a pity that we have had to go to Parliament to find a solution when we truly believe that the religious authorities could have found one if they had truly wanted and put their minds to it. As noble Lords have said, if Maimonides thought that such a solution was okay, that solution could have been accepted. It is a question of how the authorities want to interpret matters. Nevertheless, in June 2000—I ask noble Lords again to excuse me for quoting myself—I concluded my speech by saying,
"I ask noble Lords to give the Bill a Second Reading so that we can at least take one small step in the right direction".—[Official Report, 30/06/02; col. 1255.]
Today, on behalf of these Benches, I urge noble Lords to do the same.
In opening, the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, explained the Bill's details with great clarity, and there would be absolutely no purpose in my trying to add anything more. As we know, the Bill was introduced
1414
on 23rd October 2001 by the honourable Member for Hendon, passed through all its stages in the other place, and has now arrived here. The present Bill that we are considering also replicates subsections (3) and (4) of Section 9 of the Family Law Act 1996 which were contained in Part II of that Act which, of course, has not yet been brought into effect. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern may remember that at the time that Act proceeded through the House I explained my views to him and told him what a shame it was that our religion could not sort out those matters.
This is the third time that these provisions have been brought before Parliament. There is no way that anyone can say that they have not, been properly discussed. Two noble Lords mentioned the views of Lord Jakobovits. About three or four months before Lord Jakobovits died, I had coffee with him in his lounge. I believe that this subject also came up when the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and I dined at the house of Lord Jakobovits. However, on the occasion I took coffee with Lord Jakobovits he told me that when his father was dying he told him that the only regret he had was that he had not been able to deal with this matter. Lord Jakobovits said how pleased he was that he had been able to work with my noble and learned friend and that they had got as far as they had even though the relevant measure had not been implemented.
As I said earlier, the Bill is supported on all sides of both Houses. I hope that it will be well received once again and that it will be speedily enacted.
12.1 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I say straight away what a great pleasure it is for me to respond to the debate on behalf of the Government and to find myself in such uniquely august and good company.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, among others, described the speech of my noble friend Lord Grabiner as admirable and succinct. I can do no more than agree with him. I also applaud the brevity and content of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. He gave voice to the pleasure that this debate has given and the comity which it has revealed between religions. I should very much like to follow his lead and sit down but I fear that it may be necessary to say a little more. I find myself in charity with all that has been said so well by all noble Lords.
I add my voice to those who have congratulated my honourable friend the Member for Hendon, Andrew Dismore, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and others for all the efforts they have historically made in this regard. Their efforts have not been in vain. I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, that I hope that this Bill will be the salve to the legislator's grief at not having his Bill implemented.
The Government's policy on irretrievable family breakdown is to try to reduce acrimony and conflict to a minimum, especially where children are involved. It

1415
is hard to imagine a situation where there is more acrimony and conflict than in a "limping" marriage. The Government are acutely aware of the distressing consequences for the women and children caught in those circumstances. That is why the Government wholeheartedly support this Bill.
As your Lordships will be aware, the provisions of the Bill reflect those in Section 9(3) and (4) of Part II of the Family Law Act 1996 which was incorporated into the Family Law Act following an amendment tabled in your Lordships' House by Lord Meston who now graces the Circuit Bench and, alas, no longer sits in this House. His contribution should be recognised. He is missed by the Liberal Democrat Benches and, indeed, by this House.
On 16th January last year, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor announced that—based on the evidence from pilots and concerns expressed by the judiciary and others—the Government regrettably did not intend to proceed with the implementation of Part II. I say "regrettably" because noble Lords will know that it was not possible to implement Section 9(3) and (4) independently because its provisions are procedurally linked with the other provisions of Part II.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor further announced that he proposed to invite Parliament to repeal the relevant sections of the Family Law Act when a suitable legislative opportunity was available. We remain committed to the principles set out in Part I of the Act; namely, saving saveable marriages and bringing marriages which have broken down to an end with the minimum distress to the parties and children affected. It is our belief that the Bill will greatly assist that end.
The Bill before your Lordships' House today is, therefore, a little unusual in that it seeks to re-enact provisions already passed by Parliament. However, I hope that your Lordships will agree that it is right and proper that we now make this attempt so to do.
The loss of the opportunity to bring these provisions into force was an unwanted but unavoidable consequence of the decision not to proceed with Part II. My noble friend's Bill is, therefore, the vehicle by which those sections can be implemented without the rest of Part II and takes the opportunity to repeal those sections in the Family Law Act. I hope that at least part of that will give noble Lords a great deal of pleasure.
Many have said—I should like to echo this—that leading representatives of the Jewish community, including the Chief Rabbi Dr Jonathan Sacks and members of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, have put a compelling case to the Government on the need to provide a remedy for those Jewish women who face difficulties in seeking a religious divorce. I pay particular tribute to Her Honour Judge Myrella Cohen QC and Eleanor Platt QC of the Board of Deputies of British Jews who have worked so hard for so long on behalf of "chained" women. I should also
1416
like to express my thanks to them for their help in assisting the Government to understand the complex issues involved in this difficult area.
As other noble Lords have explained, the Bill would enable the court, where it considers it appropriate, to order that a decree of divorce is not to be made absolute until a declaration is made by both parties that they have taken the necessary steps to obtain a religious divorce. This would mean that the legal divorce would not be finalised until the religious divorce had been provided. The effect of the Bill, therefore, is to place the parties on an equal footing —neither would be able to remarry until both agreed to a religious divorce. After a religious divorce both would be free to remarry in a synagogue in a religious ceremony. I very much echo what was said by my noble friend Lord Haskel; namely, that that would give real benefit and relief not just to the women who are so "chained" but also to the men who wish to marry them. I reassure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that we are confident that Her Majesty's judges will be able to deal effectively with this issue if it is entrusted to them. We do not see that that would be a difficulty.
Some have expressed concern that my noble friend's Bill seeks to legislate in what are essentially matters of religious doctrine and custom. However, I believe that the tone of the contributions made by other noble Lords has graphically illustrated that that is not the case. The Government are satisfied that my noble friend's Bill does not seek to involve the civil courts in questions of Jewish religious law. The Bill seeks only to enable the court, when dealing with an application for a civil divorce, to withhold the decree absolute until the parties have taken the necessary steps to acquire a religious divorce from a Beth Din.
The Bill will apply to Jewish religious marriages because the Jewish community has asked Parliament's help to address the problem of "limping" marriages. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, the Bill also contains provision for the Lord Chancellor to extend its provisions to other religious groups should they so wish. There is, of course, no question of the Government seeking to extend these provisions to other faith groups in the absence of any demand from them to do so.
I should like briefly to respond to the observations of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis on the position in Scotland. Family law, as noble Lords will know, is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. We understand that the Scottish Executive is drafting a family law Bill, which will include the same provisions as this Bill. Officials in our department spoke last week to Scottish Executive officials, who informed us that their Bill was unlikely to be introduced before next year's Session of the Scottish Parliament. However, the matter has been within their contemplation.
The Bill has rightly been welcomed by all of us. I wish it Godspeed and hope that it will pass swiftly into law, so that those women who currently are chained can be set free.
12.10 p.m.
Lord Grabiner: My Lords, this has been a most excellent debate in every respect. Its succinctness is high on the list of elements about it that I strongly commend. There is one downside to such a debate; that is, that we must not continue being too much in agreement with each other because we should swiftly talk ourselves out of a job.
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, which have been extremely well informed. There has been unanimity on all of the matters with which we are essentially concerned. I want to pick up a point made by the noble Lords, Lord Jacobs and Lord Lester, and by my noble friend Lord Haskel. Essentially, their point was that there are grounds for criticising rabbis for not taking a grip of the problem and dealing with it, so to speak, in a man-made way; for leaving the law set in concrete when it might well have been possible or should have been possible—there are varying degrees of view—for them to have acted. I respectfully agree with and adopt the response of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. It is not appropriate to get involved in an internecine debate on matters that give rise to genuine differences of view in relation to religious matters about which there is a great deal of debate.
It may also be worth bearing in mind the fact that the essential distinction, as I have always understood it. between Christianity and Judaism is that Christians believe that the Messiah has been and that Jews still await that day. If we have to wait for the messianic appearance of a Maimonides-type character to resolve this problem, it could take another 2,000 years. That would be a deeply unsatisfactory way of dealing with a current and practical problem. I am sure that all noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Jacobs and Lord Lester, and my noble friend Lord Haskel, will agree that there is every practical justification for the proposed legislation.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, since I brought in an identical Bill, I could hardly do other than support this Bill. Does the noble Lord agree that one of the attractive features of the Jewish community is that for every 100 Jews there are 100 different opinions?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I rise to correct the noble Lord; there are 101.
Lord Grabiner: My Lords, I was going to make much the same point. I recollect an ancient story with which all noble Lords will be familiar. Two Jews on a desert island agree that the immediate solution to their problem is to build three synagogues because there has to be one that neither of them will go to. There is more truth in that than noble Lords may imagine.
I want to deal with one other point, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Haskel. He was concerned that the Bill did not deal with his point about "retrospectivity"; in other words, it is not possible now to do anything about cases that occurred in the past. There are two problems with that, as I am sure all
1418
noble Lords realise. One is a natural inclination—rightly so—against the introduction of retrospective legislation. The other is that it would produce a direct conflict between civil and religious law. The beauty of the Bill is that it does no such thing. Although I agree with the sentiments that my noble friend expressed, I am afraid that, for practical purposes, it is simply not possible to deal with that problem. There is no point in delaying matters any longer. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Copyright, etc. and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement) Bill
12.15 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
For those who have not followed the history of this Bill, it started as a Private Member's Bill in the other place under the auspices of Dr Cable, who piloted it through the other place. It had, I believe, almost unanimous support from all quarters of the House and I very much hope that we can continue to get such cross-party support in this House. I await with interest the Minister's response to the Bill. I have had substantial help from officials in the Department for Trade and Industry in relation to the Bill. In the light of that, if the Minister is not supportive of the Bill, those officials must have been acting without his authority.
The Bill may appear to noble Lords to be somewhat long and complex. However, it is not particularly complex in practice. The concepts that lie behind it are quite simple. The underlying theme—the only underlying theme—is that of fighting crime. In considering the Bill, it is important for noble Lords to appreciate what it does not do. It does not create any new offences. Someone who is not committing an offence today will not be committing an offence in the future as a result of the Bill. For anyone who is committing an offence today, the consequences will undoubtedly be different if the Bill passes into law.
It is worth touching on the importance of the matter with which the Bill deals. People tend to talk about victimless crime but intellectual property offences and intellectual property theft can be very serious matters. The regulatory assessment that has, I believe, been placed in the Library contains the calculation that that industry—if we can call criminal activity an industry—costs about £8 billion a year.
However, it is not simply the business community that we wish to protect further through the Bill; we should also consider the obvious effect on consumers. That is a contemporary problem. I guarantee that today, following the successful launch of the latest "Star Wars" film, a significant number of counterfeit DVDs and videos will already have been sold. They will give consumers who buy them a most unsatisfactory viewing of the film that they hope to watch. That problem is not restricted to DVDs and

1419
videos. Much more serious issues are involved: cosmetics that include irritants, toys with sharp and dangerous parts and software that damages the whole PC.
The effect on jobs, including the effect at the local level in the high streets, is another area that the Bill is designed to regulate. The regulatory assessment indicates that there are proven links with organised crime. This is a very serious matter. Offences already exist to deal with the illegal activity and they are not changed by the Bill, which seeks to change the method by which those offences are enforced.
There are significant problems arising from enforcement. The purpose of the Bill is to make it more straightforward and transparent in dealing with the offences and in the way in which people committing those offences might be punished. The latter is particularly important because it is necessary to ensure that the Bill improves deterrence and that people committing offences fear that they may be caught or punished. We are all aware that that is the best way of dealing with any crime.
The Bill will have three effects. First, it will increase transparency; secondly, it will improve deterrence; and, thirdly, it will introduce fairness. In delivering these three things the Bill does nothing completely new. It copies the best existing criminal provisions in one IP area into others and so might well be called a rationalisation or harmonisation measure. It would also be fair to say that every measure in the Bill has been scrutinised in the House at some stage in the past in the context of enforcement against IP crime, although not necessarily for the particular type of IP crime for which the Bill now provides.
The current position is, therefore, that criminal provisions exist in the trade marks area on the one hand and copyright related areas on the other. We have legislated on these at different times in the past. We had trade mark legislation in 1994 and copyright legislation in 1988, but for no very clear reason significant differences have arisen. The first purpose of the Bill is to removed some of those unjustified differences.
The existing differences between IP areas do not make sense. They can confuse enforcers and mislead criminals into thinking that some IP crimes can never be as serious as others. That is obviously not the case as a copyright crime can lead to just as much money being lost by rights holders, just as many job losses, and just as many consumers being cheated in the same manner as in a trade mark crime. Both types of crime can have links to serious organised crime. It is no good just looking at what the Bill does for copyright. We need to know that that has already been effectively achieved in the trade marks area, too.
Perhaps I may summarise what the Bill seeks to do. However, I do not want to prejudge the work that we shall do in Committee. First, the Bill tackles harmonisation of maximum penalties. If theft of a trade mark and of a copyright are equally serious, they should attract the same maximum penalty. That is the
1420
first objective of the Bill. The penalty, which currently exists only for trade marks, is an unlimited fine and/or up to 10 years' imprisonment. It is not easy to see why the maximum term of imprisonment should be only two years for a copyright offence when 10 years has been set as the maximum sentence for a trade mark crime.
The second area dealt with by the Bill is catching criminals. The Bill attempts to make it easier for the police to catch what one might describe as intellectual property thieves. They need to have the right tools to look for evidence when appropriate. That is why the Bill applies more widely into the overall IP crime area the very useful search warrant provision in the copyright area. In its threats assessment published in August 2001, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, as I have already mentioned, indicated that profits from intellectual property theft can help organised crime groups to become more established and also to fund other criminal activity. So investigating intellectual property crime is undoubtedly a way for police to break up other criminal activity.
I should emphasise here that the offences to which the search warrant provisions apply are all about commercial dealing in illegal material. The offences are not strict liability offences as they involve a test of knowledge; in other words, the person who is to be prosecuted cannot have been entirely without any information suggesting that what they were doing was wrong. In addition, a justice of the peace or sheriff will need to be satisfied that there are grounds for believing that an offence has been, or may about to be, committed before granting a search warrant. So people copying material for private use and even consumers buying fakes have nothing to fear as they are not caught by the offences set out in the Bill. I am not suggesting that they should buy fakes or copy material for private use.
I understand that enforcers can already very often find a way of tackling offending behaviour in the copyright area by pursuing other offences to which a higher sentence can apply. There can even be ways around the inadequate search warrant provisions by reading intellectual property offences into offences such as conspiracy to defraud. Indeed, there is a good deal of overlap between the different intellectual property offences, as illegal material which infringes copyright often also carries an illegal trade mark. On that basis it has been said that the Bill is unnecessary. But I would argue that this only shows the need for greater transparency so that no one is left in any doubt about the consequences of an offence and how it might be tackled.
To illustrate that point I give the hypothetical example in the world of physical rather than intellectual property. Let us suppose that we had higher penalties for stealing electronic components than television sets. Would not noble Lords agree that the law has sufficient transparency if a person who breaks into a warehouse and steals a lorry load of television sets is prosecuted for stealing electronic components as that attracts a higher penalty? That is

1421
the kind of illogicality which the Bill attempts to eradicate in the intellectual rather than the physical property area.
Finally, in the Bill there are provisions on forfeiture of illegal material which appear to be somewhat intimidating because of their complexity. I shall be happy to explain them at the Committee stage and, I hope, with the continued assistance of officials. There is a great deal of necessary repetition in the way the provisions have been written out in the Bill. There is a provision for copyright offences and one for each of the related areas of performers' rights and unauthorised decoders such as smart cards and satellite television. That makes three nearly identical provisions. In each case there is a slightly different version for Scotland, making six almost identical provisions in total. The forfeiture provisions only allow the courts to order forfeiture of goods that have been seized as evidence during an investigation where the court is satisfied that the goods are illegal because they infringe copyright or a related right. These provisions are modelled on the existing provision in trade marks law.
In summary, I believe that the Bill removes some of the unhelpful inconsistencies between the different areas of intellectual property law where there are offences relating to theft of intellectual property. The Bill passed through another place without controversy. I urge noble Lords to support the Bill in this House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Razzall.)
12.28 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Razzall for an extremely clear explanation of the contents and purposes of the Bill. I should make a declaration of interest. which may be slightly longer than usual because of bitter experience. In March 2000 I introduced a copyright and trade marks Bill in this House, which I withdrew following an extremely persuasive speech by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Nothing happened for about seven or eight months. Then, one morning, I opened the Guardian to find quite the nicest photograph that it had ever printed of me, in full Lord's fig, coupled with a story that I had promoted the Bill for the benefit of Weber Shandwick clients, the public relations company which employs me.
Weber Shandwick has 3,000 clients the world over. It does not take even the investigative talents of the Guardian to find among those clients people who have an interest in a copyright and counterfeiting Bill. But the fact is—I shall say it today because I did not do so on the previous occasion—that I know of no Weber Shandwick client who has other than a general interest in this Bill. So far as I am aware, the company does no work in this area, and I am personally not involved. But that will probably still not prevent the Guardian running a story.
I have had an interest in this area since serving on the Select Committee on Trade and Industry in another place from 1979 to 1983 and then as director-general
1422
of the British Retail Consortium in the mid-1980s. The matter was, even then, a live issue. When I entered this House, I was the spokesman on trade and industry for the Liberal Democrats and was heavily lobbied on the issue by the Alliance Against Counterfeiting and Piracy and by the British Brands Group.
In that respect, perhaps I may make a plea on behalf of lobbying. Lobbying is too often associated with the sleazier side of parliamentary behaviour. Let us remember that lobbying is one of the lifebloods of a vigorous Parliament. Where there is need for reform in the law—not only this law but in many laws—good and active lobbyists can speed that along. Certainly the groups that I have mentioned have done that.
I said that I withdrew my Bill. I did so after the Minister promised that the Government would look at the cases made out in the Bill and respond to them. As my noble friend said, slightly giving the game away, although this is a Private Member's Bill, there has been some judicious support from the department in seeing it through another place and the Government have given it some encouragement. I certainly take that as the response to the promise of the Minister two years ago about the Government treating this matter seriously. Henceforward, I shall not be as cynical as I once was about promises of future action made by Ministers at the Dispatch Box. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has a fine record on this issue that will stand him in good stead in the future.
This Bill covers only part of the issues contained in the Bill that I put forward. As my noble friend outlined, it increases the penalties for copyright theft; it strengthens search warrant provisions; and it gives greater powers to allow rights owners to obtain forfeiture of infringing material. There is still work to do on other areas, including burden of proof, occasional sales, funding, and so on, but I do not want to be churlish. I believe that the Bill carries us forward and is welcomed by all those involved.
My noble friend has highlighted the importance of the industries concerned. Counterfeiting and piracy are serious problems affecting virtually every area of the country. Legitimate, hard-working businesses are being forced to close. Local, national and international organised crime is funded. And, as my noble friend indicated, consumers' lives are put at risk through exposure to shoddy, substandard and potentially dangerous merchandise.
There are also wider economic issues. If Britain is to prosper in the 21st century, we must get into the knack of producing goods and services which are at the high tech/high value-added end of the market. But if we are really to make such an economy a reality, it is not enough to encourage people to come up with good ideas. We must ensure that people who have those good ideas have them protected. The aim of this legislation must be to make counterfeiting and piracy as unacceptable as other forms of theft and to raise public and political awareness of copyright and trade mark issues so that intellectual property is highly valued by everyone.

1423
The rapid development of information technology, the globalisation of the economy and the advent of the world wide web all mean that in the 21st century the integrity of intellectual property will become ever more important. Intellectual property does matter. The industries represented by the Alliance Against Counterfeiting and Piracy account for 20 per cent of our GDP. They are our most creative and competitive industries, and the industries where, most often, we enjoy world leadership.
Therefore, intellectual property is a very important type of property. Increasingly it will be what really matters in business, especially in the creative industries, such as design. Globalisation and the information revolution mean that goods, be they plastics or packaging, CDs or CD-ROMs, can be manufactured in any one of a dozen locations anywhere around the globe.
So what will make the difference between the thriving economy and the struggling economy? I believe that the difference will be ideas—the ideas which lie behind a new book or film, a new perfume, or the packaging in which they are placed, and the skill with which they are marketed. Ideas are the currency of the 21st century. It is in new ideas that real value lies—in making something different, better and more marketable.
But what value an idea if some cheapskate or crook can simply wait for you to put in all the work and investment and then copy what you do? They rip you off rather than bother with ideas. Therefore, protecting intellectual property is the key to protecting the UK's future economic success. If someone steals the idea behind a product or design or the advertisement to sell it, he may as well have stolen the product itself. Theft is theft. It is that simple.
As noble Lords know only too well, over the years the theft of ideas has become all too commonplace. And that, in turn, has had a real impact on real people—on their jobs and on the public services they receive—by reducing the creative industries' overall contribution to the UK economy.
But counterfeiting and piracy have other negatives, too. Pirate and counterfeit products are of unpredictable quality. Thus consumers never know what they are getting for their money. For example, look-alike packaging trades off the back of the good reputation of one product, seeking to claim the attributes of another. That is not value for money, and it confuses the consumer.
At the other extreme, some pirated goods are downright dangerous. There have been instances of counterfeit engine parts and even counterfeit vaccines. Those could cost lives. Year in and year out, arrests for copyright and trade mark offences also confirm that organised crime has cottoned on to the fact that counterfeiting and piracy provide high profit, relatively low-risk vehicles for profiteering, despite the valiant efforts of enforcement agencies.
1424
In conclusion, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the Government for redeeming their promise of two years ago and giving a fair wind to the Bill. I congratulate the Alliance Against Counterfeiting and Piracy on its successful lobbying. And I congratulate my honourable friend Vince Cable in another place and my noble friend Lord Razzall on their championing of the Bill. I urge its rapid passage through this House and its successful implementation as a good piece of legislation.
12.39 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, for the very clear explanation that he gave of the Bill. I am also grateful for the Explanatory Notes that were provided by the DTI with his consent. They were very clear indeed. Credit is also due to the honourable Member for Twickenham for having used his precious space in the lottery for Private Members' Bills in the other place to introduce what is a very important piece of legislation.
The Bill received cross-party support in the other place and followed a very similar one previously introduced there before the election by the honourable Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. A copyright and trade marks Bill was also introduced by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. It received its Second Reading on 17th March 2000. The noble Lord has already spoken about that.
Perhaps I may mention the history of the present Bill. It has received cross-party support throughout the several attempts to get this piece of legislation on the statute book. The Bill and its predecessors have received welcome support and assistance from the Government. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, congratulated the Government on helping now. It is a pity that they were not able to deal with the matter in their own legislative time in order to save someone having to use precious time in a ballot. Nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said that he is satisfied, I should not be churlish and should be satisfied too.
No one will dispute the fact that the pirating of copyright and performance rights and fraudulent access to TV transmissions are nothing less than theft. Copyright theft is estimated to cost industry £9 billion a year and the Treasury £1.25 billion a year in lost tax. I assume that those figures apply to the United Kingdom alone because, according to the International Chamber of Commerce, counterfeiting accounts for a staggering 5 to 7 per cent of world trade. It also says that counterfeiting has destroyed an estimated 120,000 jobs in the USA and 100,000 jobs in Europe in each year over the past 10 years.
The United Kingdom record industry, which is a major player in the music industry—perhaps the greatest, considering the world wide popularity of some of our performers and composers—is the source of what we used to call "invisible exports" to the tune of some £4.6 billion a year. That is because British music and performers are frequently found at the top of the charts around the world. As my honourable

1425
friend, the Member for Maldon and Chelmsford East pointed out in another place, blockbuster films such as "The Full Monty" and "Harry Potter" were made in this country, as were many others which have achieved world-wide popularity even if the revenues have gone elsewhere.
In fact, in addition to the prestigious Alliance Against Counterfeiting and Piracy and the Federation against Copyright Theft, the International Chamber of Commerce has recently created its own legal bureau of law firms to help fight the problem in the courts. I sincerely hope that those three organisations will not get their wires crossed and will be able to co-operate well in fighting this international crookery.
International it is, because this Bill is not designed to cope with the trivial and technical breaches of copyright that I have no doubt some of us may have committed from time to time by photocopying a newspaper article to pass on to someone else or videoing some programme from the television to watch at a more convenient time. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, I do not suggest that trivial and technical breaches should in any way be encouraged. But the Bill is designed to catch and punish the criminals who do such acts for commercial gain. They steal from the artistes who perform on records; and from the producers of movies who invest and risk millions in producing films which are sometimes pirated before they have even appeared in the cinema. They steal from the designers of computer games and other software which themselves can cost vast sums and take months or years to develop. They steal from the owners of subscription television broadcasting channels whose signals they intercept by the use of counterfeit decoders. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, mentioned several other examples.
They will imperil the whole newly developing techniques and security of electronic banking, conveyancing and other commercial transactions by breaching the encryption techniques now being developed. Only a part of that illegal activity is conducted by small-time criminals operating a couple of high speed recorders from their garages and flogging off their products at car boot sales. It is so profitable that it has become a part of international criminals and gangs and has been said to be a source of funds to international terrorists. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, also mentioned that.
More than that, counterfeiting CDs has been carried out wholesale in the Far East either with the connivance of local governments or by their turning a blind eye to it because it is such a lucrative source of foreign currency.
The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, pointed out that one of the objectives of the Bill was to increase the penalties payable to bring them into line with those under the legislation against the fraudulent use of trade marks. In an intervention in another place during the Second Reading speech by the promoter of the Bill, his honourable friend the Member for Brent North asked him to justify the severity of the penalties to be payable after the passing of the Bill against sentences passed in
1426
recent cases of child abuse. The answer may be, although the promoter did not give it, that it is not because the penalties proposed under the Bill are too severe but that the courts do not always inflict the penalties which their powers allow in cases of child abuse and crimes of violence. One cannot compare such penalties; we are not comparing like with like.
The offences which the Bill deals with by the infliction of additional penalties and the giving of greater enforcement and investigatory powers do not involve victimless crimes. We are all victims either because we pay more for the legitimate products we buy from honest traders or because of the loss of tax revenue which, in one field alone, costs the Treasury £1.5 billion a year. How many extra hospital beds, nurses, doctors, schools, teachers or policemen would that money pay for?
The Bill will help the authorities to bear down on organised crime and international terrorists and that will protect us in many ways. As my honourable friend said in another place, the sponsors of the Bill have made a powerful case for tightening the law. We on these Benches fully support the Bill. We congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, and look forward o the Bill's early passage into law.
12.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, on bringing the Bill before the House today. As the noble Lord said, I have been here before and he has been here before. In March 2000 we discussed his Copyright and Trade Marks Bill. He accused me at that time of responding to his Bill with a dead bat Since I am not very good at sporting metaphors, I looked at my speaking notes but found no reference to any bald, mouse-like nocturnal mammals of the genus chiroptera, so I denied his accusation. However, I think that he will find a somewhat different response today.
I had indicated that we supported some part of the measures he proposed; and that we were in the process of a consultation exercise on the merits of three issues in the Bill. They appear now in a similar form in this Bill. The consultation exercise resulted in general endorsement of the rationalising measures between copyright and trade mark law which were being proposed. The Government subsequently decided that they would legislate on these matters. However, the Government have not yet brought forward their legislation in this area so we are pleased that the Bill before us presents an opportunity to put the changes of the law that we have agreed on to the statute book at an early stage. We gave the Bill full government backing in another place and that will continue for its passage through this House.
The House and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, can take credit for instigating the legislation before us today, but there are some important differences between the Bill introduced in 2000 and the present Bill. The Bill introduced in 2000 was more far-reaching in the area that it covered. The Bill before us today

1427
presents us with a realistic and sensible package of measures which will bring some rationalisation to the provisions applying to intellectual property or intellectual property crime. I am delighted to say that the reservations I expressed on the Bill introduced in 2000 do not apply to the Bill before us today.
I do not wish to talk at length about the contents of the Bill or repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, said in his excellent introductory speech. I believe that we are all convinced of the seriousness of intellectual property crime for holders of intellectual property. The industry umbrella group, the Alliance Against Counterfeiting and Piracy has left me and no doubt other Members of the House some detailed information about the effects on it and on jobs and consumers. There is also the link with serious organised crime. The noble Lord, McNally, has set that case out.
We have noted also the comments made by the National Criminal Intelligence Service, which has identified particular links with drug dealing and immigration crime. If the crime can be serious—it can be just as serious whether it is copyright being stolen or a trade mark theft, or both—we should make sure that law enforcers have the right tools to tackle that crime. There are differences between the relevant copy law on the one hand and trade mark law on the other which do not make sense. The Bill addresses that issue and has the full support of the Government in doing so. Law enforcers must be given equivalent tools to punish and investigate this offending behaviour regardless of whether it is copyright or trade mark that is being stolen.
Perhaps more importantly, equalising the sentence and enforcement tools will improve the deterrent effect so that theft of one type of intellectual property is not seen as a soft option. I should stress one important point about the Bill, or rather about a matter that is not in the Bill.
As the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, rightly said, the Bill does not change the nature of any of the intellectual property offences; it changes only the consequences for people who may in future commit those offences. We are aware of some problems with the definition of the offences in the copyright area in connection with what might be called "on-line piracy", which was the subject of the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. The right place to address any changes of law that may be necessary is as part of the implementation of the copyright directive that was adopted last year. The Government will bring forward a consultation document on implementation of that directive in due course.
Before I conclude, perhaps I may give the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, some comfort regarding her remarks on trivial infringements of copyright. There is an exception to copyright that legally allows her to copy a television programme to watch at a more convenient time. Indeed, for those of us who keep the
1428
peculiar hours of this House, that is essential if we are to watch the programmes that we like. There is no threat to that exemption.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. First, I welcome the consultation on on-line piracy. As my noble friend indicated in his speech, piracy of new films and records is a growing problem. I refer to a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller; that is, international complicity by legitimate governments. To show how long that has been around, 20 years ago, with the late Sir Donald Kaberry, I went to a number of far eastern countries on an all-party delegation to ask them to clamp down on counterfeiting taking place in those countries and coming into our markets. I wonder how much priority the Government give now to putting pressure not on organised crime but on legitimate governments which show a degree of complicity with counterfeiting within their borders.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, even if that is legitimate in their country, which we regret, it is a crime when anything is exported from those countries to this country. The answer to that is partially in what I have been saying about the European directive. Clearly, the European Union, acting collectively, has a greater bargaining power with those other countries which are being neglectful or worse in dealing with copyright crime. We use every opportunity to lobby other countries, but there are still problems.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, reminded me about the issue of on-line piracy. Perhaps I may say that there are other issues in his Bill which have not been forgotten. As regards the issue he raised today of look-alike packaging, although we think that it may be a matter of revision to passing off law rather than the subject matter of this Bill, these are still issues which need to be addressed and which we want to address.
To sum up, the Bill harmonises and brings greater transparency to enforcement provisions across copyright and related areas and trade mark laws. Our view is that this is a sensible attempt to rationalise what might otherwise be a confusing mix. As I have already indicated, we supported the Bill in another place and shall continue to do so during its passage through the House. We have taken advice and believe the Bill to be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The provisions in the Bill provide a balanced and acceptable solution to the problems of intellectual property crime.
Lord McNally: My Lords, before my noble friend responds, perhaps I may say that I consider that response to be a Botham-like sweep rather than a dead bat; much changed from last time.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not understand that.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I shall not attempt to pursue the cricketing analogy. However, without detaining the House, I want to continue the animal

1429
analogy. What has pleased me most about this debate is the dog which did not bark. When thinking about how the Bill would be received by noble Lords, one point concerned me. I thought that some noble Lords might attempt to suggest that, as all of the issues which have been raised by my noble friend Lord McNally in his previous Bill have not yet been dealt with by the Government, as the Minister indicated, therefore we should wait until they are dealt with in order to have a
1430
comprehensive reform Bill. I am delighted that no one has suggested that. Leaving those issues aside for another time, it is important that we pass this aspect of copyright and trade mark reform. Therefore, on that basis, I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at four minutes before one o'clock.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Illegal Meat Imports
  EU Enlargement: Agricultural Support
  EU Enlargement: Agricultural Support
  Fishing Vessels: Satellite Tracking System
  Fishing Vessels: Satellite Tracking System
  Ecolabelling: WTO Rules
  Ecolabelling: WTO Rules
  Shotguns: Culling of Wild Animals
  Shotguns: Culling of Wild Animals
  Hunting with Dogs
  Hunting with Dogs
  Energy Label Directives
  Energy Label Directives
  Public Services in Rural Areas
  Public Services in Rural Areas
  Scottish Parliament: Charities
  Scottish Parliament: Charities