Sitting of 13 May 2002

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

    Digital Television
    Kevin Brennan: What steps she will take to enhance consumer choice for premium channels on digital television. [53962]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): The draft Communications Bill and associated documents set out a proposed framework for the regulation of communications, which is intended to broaden choice of and access to modern communication technologies, and to make markets work better. Where there is consumer demand—for example, for premium channels—that should improve choice.
    Kevin Brennan: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that, given the demise of ITV Digital, it is important to ensure that the Government are committed to retaining premium subscription programming on digital terrestrial television? In addition, did he note that the demise of ITV Digital had at least one minor benefit in that it allowed viewers to watch for free the first division play-offs yesterday at Cardiff's magnificent millennium stadium, proving once again that a new Wembley stadium is not needed?
    Dr. Howells: It was a great game in a magnificent stadium—even though I am from Pontypridd and cannot stand the place.
    It is not for the Government to give those assurances. Indeed, I understand that the administrator will soon be informing customers of their rights. Currently, there are rules to protect the payments made by subscribers since the beginning of administration and the subscriptions have been placed in a specific account. If the customers lose their pay services, relevant pro rata payments, per day, will be given back to them. For the time being, consumers will keep at least all the public services, which constitute 14 channels.
    Nick Harvey: What is the Government's attitude to the suggestion that there should be a free-to-air digital terrestrial platform? If that comes about, will they ensure that those who have been able to take subscription
    486
    channels through ITV Digital in the past are still able to do so as an add-on to that free-to-air service? If another company takes up ITV Digital's multiplex, what confidence can it have that the Government will protect it from the sort of abuse that the Competition Commissioner appeared to consider that Sky had shown towards ITV Digital?
    Dr. Howells: The Independent Television Commission is responsible for the award of the licences under the Broadcasting Act 1996. In this case, the commission has adopted an accelerated procedure. I understand that potential applicants have to submit to the ITC a confidential expression of interest by 16 May 2002 and full applications by 30 May. It is up to the ITC to give guarantees and assurances or, indeed, to decide under what terms the process will be conducted. The ITC will publish the programme proposals of the applications and will invite representations, which should be received by 6 June. The commission expects to announce the award of licences on 13 June 2002. I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts it is not useful to speculate at this stage. Speculation will be largely groundless until the ITC has made its decisions.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: Does the Minister agree that in analogue we have a public sector broadcaster called the BBC, but in digital there is no public sector broadcaster—especially not the BBC? Given the demise of the digital terrestrial platform, does my hon. Friend agree that the BBC should take the senior role in delivering a public service television network on digital terrestrial?
    Dr. Howells: I know that the BBC is concerned that its new digital services should have a proper platform and good coverage throughout the country, so I am sure it will be interested in determining the outcome. However, I do not intend to speculate from this Dispatch Box on what part the BBC will play.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Following the collapse of ITV Digital, does the Minister understand that there is not the remotest chance of achieving digital switchover by the Government's target date of 2010 unless Ministers start to give a stronger lead? Will he therefore publish a timetable setting out how and when the digital terrestrial television signal will be increased, and mount a public information campaign so that consumers are no longer misled into buying equipment that the Government's own plans will make obsolete in a short space of time?
    Dr. Howells: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that it was his Government who privatised the transmission services. He will also understand that the decision was taken before the Labour Government came into power that the signal for digital services would be interleaved among the existing analogue services. To believe that we can turn up the power shows his ignorance of the technology. He should do as I have done and go to Croydon—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour Croydon!"]—and talk to the transmitters—[HON. MEMBERS: "Transmitters?"] The hon. Gentleman should go to Labour Croydon and talk to the transmission companies; he would then realise that it is not easy to increase the signal in that way. The signal has already been turned up by 3 decibels, which is a

    487
    considerable amount. To turn it up further would interfere with analogue signals. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to tell his constituents how wonderful it would be if the great majority of them could not watch analogue on their television sets at home.

    Terrestrial Television
    Mr. Jim Cousins: What her policy is on ownership of terrestrial television channels by media conglomerates. [53963]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): As my hon. Friend knows, proposals for the reform of media ownership rules were published last week, alongside the draft Communications Bill. Our proposals mean that there will be at least three public service television broadcasters in separate ownership. We are clear that competition rules will be our main policy lever for influencing the ownership of media, but with specific additional rules for the ownership of terrestrial television. Those rules follow from the basic principle that the media, more than any other industry, underpin our democracy and the culture of debates in this country. They will mean that the owners of the largest newspaper groups—those with more than a 20 per cent. share of the national circulation—cannot buy an ITV licence or acquire a large stake in any ITV company. That will prevent a single owner from owning too large a share of the nation's democratic debate. ITV currently has more than a quarter of the share of television viewing, is universally available, and has substantial public service broadcasting obligations.
    Mr. Cousins: I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer, but she will, of course, appreciate that British terrestrial television has been financially weakened by recent events, that Rupert Murdoch is now the gatekeeper to the digital age, and that her proposals weaken ownership controls and open up British television to those whose tax is paid—if it is paid at all—and whose policy is set from outside the United Kingdom. Under those circumstances, will the power to vary licences be robust enough to protect Britain's cultural identity and the cultural identity of its nations and regions, and will that power be used robustly?
    Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It does not matter where a company is based: if it buys into British television, it will be subject to UK regulation, both in relation to the terms of licences and the regulation of content. It is important to be clear about the extent to which content regulation will accompany the great liberalisation and deregulation of the proposals that we published last week: the content board of Ofcom; the general public service remit, which will be held by Ofcom; the definition of public service broadcasting; the definition of the regional character of local services; the nominated news provider; the insistence on adequate funding of Channel 3 news; Ofcom's role in relation to overseeing the local content of local radio services; and Ofcom's role in relation to ensuring the accuracy and impartiality of news. The combination of deregulation will bring new inward
    488
    investment to the British media industry, but the quintessential nature of British broadcasting will be protected by tough content regulation.
    Mr. Nicholas SoamesWould the Government be content to see the pornographer and part-time political party financier, Mr. Richard Desmond, own a television station?
    Tessa Jowell: As I made perfectly clear a moment or two ago, our rules are proprietor-neutral.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Given the wide range of free-to-air and pay television channels now available on terrestrial television, why do we need a special regime to control ownership? Why cannot we simply leave ownership to existing competition law? Is not the maintenance of a special regime merely both confusing and a device for the Government to extract either political favours or financial donations?
    Tessa Jowell: Frankly, the hon. Gentleman's final remarks demean him. I hope he will think very carefully about withdrawing them. The proposals are, under any scrutiny, proprietor-neutral. They have the single purpose of opening the British media market to much-needed investment from anywhere in the world, subject to the clear regulation that I set out to the House a few moments ago and last week.
    The hon. Gentleman asks why we do not deregulate even further. We do not intend to deregulate further because—for the reasons that I set out a moment ago—the media are different from other industries. It is critical that we maintain the robustness of our democratic debate. Although competition law alone can certainly promote dispersed ownership and has lowered barriers to entry, there is no guarantee that competition law alone will deliver the degree of plurality on which our democracy depends.

    Digital Television
    Mr. David Amess: What discussions she has had with Carlton and Granada since 26 April on digital television. [53964]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): Since 26 April, Ministers and officials in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have continued our regular contacts with Carlton and Granada, which are members of the ITV network and digital television stakeholders through ITV's interest in the Digital 3 and 4 licence.
    Mr. Amess: Is the Minister aware that a hard pressed club such as Southend United stands to face a shortfall of £238,000 over the next two years as a result of the collapse of digital television? Is he further aware that clubs such as Southend United feel that Carlton and Granada have some responsibility in the matter? Will he please clarify the situation and do everything that he can to help Southend United football club even if it means playing for it?
    Dr. Howells: Did the hon. Gentleman say, "Even if it is painful"?

    489
    My right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport has been very active in trying to broker new arrangements and new talks to ensure that football clubs do not suffer overly as a result of the contracts that they signed with ITV Digital.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Does my hon. Friend recognise that even a club such as Burnley now faces a £;3 million gap in its funding and has had to put all its policies for progress on hold until the position is clarified? Will he not accept that the House should clearly condemn Carlton and Granada? Even if they do not have a legal responsibility, they have a moral responsibility and they should get on and sort out the problems for the sake of football in this country.
    Dr. Howells: Whatever I may think about the morality or otherwise of the contract that was entered into, it was a commercial contract between two sets of companies. We must treat it as such.
    Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister confirm that, under the terms of the draft Communications Bill, Carlton and Granada would be able to combine and form, in effect, one ITV company? Why then is the Minister happy to see a situation whereby another pornographer, Silvio Berlusconi, could be allowed to take over ITV whereas Rupert Murdoch would not be allowed to? Will the Minister not accept that the large penetration of digital television in the United Kingdom has occurred as a direct result of News Corporation and Sky and not of companies such as ITV Digital?
    Dr. Howells: I do not accept that the situation is vastly different after the publication of the Bill. Silvio Berlusconi could, of course, have made a bid before now. However, the hon. Gentleman has highlighted a basic anomaly in the existing rules, and it is quite proper to remove the rules that preclude someone who is not from the European Union from owning a television station here.
    Mr. Clive Betts: I am sure that many in football would like to thank my right hon. Friends for the considerable efforts that they have made to sort out the mess of ITV Digital, but ITV Digital has now collapsed, putting at risk the future of many Football League clubs. Does my hon. Friend agree that there must be something wrong when Carlton and Granada—companies that are, on the one hand, joint owners of ITV Digital and, on the other, making millions of pounds from the so-called digital dividend—can walk away from their obligations to 72 Football League clubs and try to pretend that they have nothing at all to do with the matter? Must we not keep the pressure on those companies and tell them that they have a moral obligation and that football generally expects something to be done?
    Dr. Howells: I understand that both parties have hired expensive lawyers. No doubt the matter will become a question for the courts, and in the end the only people who will make money out of it will be very expensive QCs.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister take the opportunity today to assure the House that there will continue to be a viable future for all forms of digital television—terrestrial, cable and satellite—bearing in mind the precarious position in which some of
    490
    the cable companies find themselves? Will he also clarify precisely the regime that will operate under the new Ofcom, and whether the Office of Fair Trading or Ofcom will be the competition authority? Although the Secretary of State said that the regime will be proprietor-neutral, there will be a reference to the competition authority if a newspaper proprietor expresses interest in owning a share of ITV.
    Dr. Howells: Sophisticated and well-tested arrangements already exist between sectoral regulators and the Director General of Fair Trading and the OFT. I hope that they can be replicated and improved under Ofcom—indeed, I have every confidence that they will be. The regulator, Ofcom, will judge competition cases in the first instance, but it will operate alongside and in conjunction with the Director General of Fair Trading, who has responsibility for implementing the terms of the Competition Act 1998.

    Tousrism
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: If she will make a statement on the prospects for the tourism industry. 153965]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): Some 2.6 million domestic tourism trips were taken in England over Easter, and visitors spent £400 million. That marks a return to pre-foot and mouth disease levels and is no doubt a cause for celebration on both sides of the House.
    To support that recovery and to advance my programme of modernisation, radical change to the English Tourism Council will be necessary. A new public-private coalition focusing on domestic marketing and e-tourism is now the basis for discussion with the industry. Regional development agencies will in future play a stronger part in the strategic leadership of tourism, and regional tourist boards are the natural delivery partners for the RDAs.
    That is an announcement to the House of progress so far. Further and final findings will be announced in the summer.
    Mr. Waterson: Is the Secretary of State aware of the thousands of jobs in towns such as Eastbourne that depend on tourism? Will she explain why it has taken the Government so long to recognise that the English Tourism Council should have a marketing role? When will it get that marketing role? Why is England always the poor relation compared with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?
    Tessa Jowell: That is absolutely typical of the Opposition. An announcement of recovery in tourism, which will benefit many businesses in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and the constituencies of hon. Members on both sides of the House, is a cause for celebration. However, so that the recovery can be sustained, I am convinced that the English Tourism Council needs to be overhauled so that it can assume a marketing function on a par with the marketing functions in respect of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I have announced that decision to the House today, and work will now be started to ensure that the outcome follows.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the work that she is doing to promote tourism throughout the United Kingdom? However, I ask her seriously to consider the facilities that are available for tourists on inland waterways, where there is much potential. There are many who work voluntarily to sustain our waterways. It would be in everyone's interest if my right hon. Friend would give further consideration to support the waterways in the interests of tourism throughout the United Kingdom.
    Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he does to promote the interests and the role in tourism of the waterway authorities. My hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting has had two meetings with the relevant authorities in the United Kingdom, particularly in Scotland. Lottery investment is bringing some of our more neglected waterways back to life, and back to the standard that will make them the tourism attractions that they deserve to be.
    David Burnside: I am sure that the Secretary of State, like me, is an avid reader of The Guardian. She will have been saddened by the newspaper's flawed editorial policy this year, which predicted that the royal family was an out-dated organisation and institution. Events-some of them extremely sad, this year-have proved that the royal family is a popular institution, nationally and internationally.
    Is the right hon. Lady able to give the House a progress report from Lord Sterling's Committee? What has been done by the trendy, lefty marketing people in tourism to increase the appeal of the royal family and the jubilee events that are taking place round the United Kingdom? For example, today the Queen is in Northern Ireland. There is great potential for tourism-what is being done about it?
    Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman is right to underline the benefits to tourism of the jubilee year. The evidence is that throughout the country, as the Queen said recently, the modest and pragmatic British people will be celebrating the jubilee in their own way.
    The target for the number of beacons committed to be lit over the central weekend was about 500. In 1997, in fact, there were slightly more than 100. This year, 1,500 beacons will be lit. That is a measure of the level of enthusiasm that there is throughout the country for celebrating the jubilee. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) is not, uncustomarily, talking down the efforts of all those who are involved in organising the jubilee, or talking down the celebration that will bring the country together. The jubilee will be an opportunity for people, whether republican, monarchist or nothing in particular, to celebrate in their own way.
    Mrs. Ann Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend's Department consider ways of giving publicity to groups of tourist attractions to promote a particular area, such as Keighley? We have the Bronte parsonage museum, which is wonderful. However, would people travel all the way from London to see only that museum? If they knew that in the same area they would find the Keighley and Worth Valley railway preservation society,
    492
    a bus museum and East Riddlesden hall, which is owned by the National Trust, and trips on the Leeds-Liverpool canal, they might make it a long weekend.
    Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend has provided some real tasters for those who are planning their jubilee holidays. A further attraction this summer will be the Commonwealth games and the advertising part of the million visitor campaign, which is focused especially on reclaiming visitors from America, who have stayed away since 11 September. We wish to encourage them to join the pageantry and celebration throughout the country, including Keighley, during this jubilee year.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: The Opposition welcome the overdue recognition that the Government's removal of the marketing role of the English Tourism Council's predecessor was a complete disaster for the industry, exacerbating the damage done by the Government's gross mismanagement of the foot and mouth epidemic, the enormous burden of red tape and regulation inflicted on the industry, and the latest imposition of extra employers' national insurance contributions on many small businesses that can ill afford them. Will the Secretary of State make sure that when that marketing role is restored to the English Tourism Council, it will reflect the views of the industry itself and that, if those conflict with the Government's obsession with a regional agenda, the industry's views will prevail?
    Tessa Jowell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman found his monthly rant therapeutic; he had a good one this month. On the structure of the marketing function taken on by the English Tourism Council, it will build very much on the million visitor campaign and operate as a public-private coalition. However, as hon. Members have made clear, a tremendous amount of tourism development, investment and advocacy is done regionally, so it would be ridiculous to cut the regions out of the important role that they play in marketing their regions and bringing visitors to their part of the country.
    Mr. David Clelland: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the north-east has much to offer tourism, from the beauty and history of Northumberland and Durham and the industrial heritage of Tyne and Wear and Teesside to the cultural renaissance on the banks of the Tyne? Does she agree that prospects for tourism in the north-east would be greatly and deservedly enhanced by the awarding of city of culture 2008 to the Newcastle and Gateshead partnership?
    Tessa Jowell: I am greatly looking forward to visiting the north-east and meeting everyone associated with the capital of culture bid. I am assured that it is a strong bid, alongside many other strong bids. The Minister for the Arts and I intend to visit as many of the bidding cities as possible, and certainly all those that are shortlisted. However, my hon. Friend makes an important point about the role of culture in regeneration and the way it builds a sense of regional identity and pride. I pay tribute to the efforts of the north-east in doing just that.

    School Sports
    Mr. David Kidney: If she will ensure that new opportunities fund money contributes to greater community use of school's sports facilities. [53968]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): The facilities funded by the new opportunities fund through new opportunities for PE and sport will be a resource for the whole community. Funding is available through that programme to support the development and promotion of facilities for wider community use.
    Mr. Kidney: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Does he agree that the scheme provides a brilliant opportunity for opening up school facilities for community use? Does he agree that the new opportunities fund is right to focus on community use as an important part of the bid criteria? Is he aware that Staffordshire's bid majors on community use of school facilities? Can he let me into a secret and confirm that Staffordshire will be a major beneficiary of the fund?
    Mr. Caborn: I think that Staffordshire has received just under -6 million. However, my hon. Friend is right; the scheme is an element of the funding needed to start establishing links between schools and communities and to strengthen amateur sports clubs. Some 70 per cent. of young people who leave school and go into the world of work or further and higher education never go back into active sport. We have got to look at structural weaknesses, including facilities, so the Government are investing probably the greatest amount of money for a long time-£0.75 billion, including £;580 million in England-to start addressing that problem.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Although I welcome the greater use of school sports facilities by the community, does the Minister share my concern that children spend more than twice as much time watching television or playing computer games as they spend doing sport or physical education? Has the right hon. Gentleman had any recent discussions with his counterparts in the Department for Education and Skills to try to reverse his Government's ridiculous decision to take sport out of the core curriculum for all schoolchildren?
    Mr. Caborn: The hon. Gentleman might like to know that we have a monthly meeting with colleagues not just from the Department for Education and Skills, but from the Department of Health, the Home Office and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, to encourage sport, which is a powerful tool for delivering many of the Government's policies. We discuss how we can develop within the education structure-in which there is now massive investment-sports colleges, school sports co-ordinators, sports opportunities in all primary schools, and the commitment to two hours a week of quality physical education or sport for every child throughout their school life. The investment referred to in the question shows the Government's commitment to use sport as a tool to deliver many agendas.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), will the Minister confirm that a
    494
    recent report indicated an increase in the number of overweight and obese children, at a time when primary schools at least are cutting the time devoted to physical education? Is it not, therefore, of the utmost priority not only that school sports facilities should be used more by schools, but that sport should have a higher place on the agenda in the school curriculum?
    Mr. Caborn: Sport should have a higher place on society's programme, if I may say so. Because of obesity, £2 billion is being lost to our economy, and the cost to the health service is £;500 million. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments about young people, who are being affected by obesity and diabetes because of lack of physical activity. That is a worrying sign. We are addressing the problem through the new opportunities fund investment of £750 million, through the sports colleges and sports co-ordinators, and right from the primary schools, through the commitment to a minimum of two hours of PE or sport for every child each week throughout their school life.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the importance of the link identified by the Sports Council for Wales and other bodies between community sports organisations and schools? The time when youngsters move away from physical activity and active sport is when they leave school. The structure of formal clubs working with the schools is vital. What is my right hon. Friend doing to ensure that that is promoted?
    Mr. Caborn: We certainly recognise the importance of that link. As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the charitable status of amateur sports clubs will be strengthened. If all the clubs apply, that could inject £40 million into them. My right hon. Friend also took cognisance of the representations that had been made and gave amateur clubs certain tax breaks. There is a clear commitment from the Government to strengthen the link between schools, communities and sports clubs. We must address the fundamental weakness in sport, which results in almost 70 per cent. of our young people not going back into active sport once they leave school. Wales gets £48.75 million from the new opportunities fund for facilities in Wales.

    Seaside Towns (Marketing)
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: What proposals she has for including seaside and coastal towns in generic marketing activity by the English Tourism Council. [53969]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): The new body that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a few minutes ago will have a remit to set the strategy for all tourism marketing in England. Seaside and coastal resorts are some of our most important tourist attractions. To communicate our determination to work with local authorities, development agencies and everyone else involved in regeneration, during the coming months I

    495
    shall visit seaside towns and resorts in the north-west, East Anglia, the north-east, Yorkshire and Humberside, Lincolnshire and the south-west.
    Mr. Marsden: Notwithstanding the churlish response of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, will my hon. Friend accept that my conversations with those involved in the tourism industry in Blackpool and with others in seaside and coastal resorts show that they warmly welcome the restoration of the marketing role of the English Tourism Council? I also welcome the fact that he, in his inimitable style, intends to do some on-the-spot investigation in such resorts. As he does so, will he take on board the need for the generic marketing of seaside towns to include promoting their use as hubs so that more visitors will stay nights in our seaside towns and see the coastal and rural hinterlands as well?
    Dr. Howells: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and his great work on behalf of coastal towns and resorts, including Blackpool. He is right to highlight the importance of coastal towns and resorts having a working relationship with their hinterlands. There are now some very good examples of such relationships. I have been especially impressed by the north Devon partnership and by the way in which Bournemouth and the New Forest have been working together to develop new sorts of holidays. Often, these are niche holidays in which people can have a traditional break at a seaside resort, but also go cycling or engage in other activities in the hinterland. That is a good way forward for resorts and their hinterlands.
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: We heard a lot of bluster from the Secretary of State today about the creation of the English Tourism Council. Will the Minister show a little humility and explain to the House the reason for the welcome re-creation of the English Tourism Council, which is that the changes made by his Government to the structure of tourism councils in England in the early part of their term in office have been an absolute disaster?
    Dr. Howells: No, the changes have not been a disaster. The way in which the industry was tested in 2001 certainly showed up weaknesses in the structure of support from public funds. We have taken cognisance of that fact and tried to learn from it. I should have thought that, rather than taking such a churlish approach, the hon. Lady would welcome this development and contribute by suggesting how it could be made even better. That would avoid the yah-boo nonsense that we so often get in the Chamber and help the Government to ensure that the lessons that were learned—or that should have been learned—during 2001 mean that we will come out of what happened with a stronger tourism industry, not a weaker one.

    Women's Football
    Mr. John Grogan: What plans she has to encourage the development of women's football. [53970]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): I am pleased to say that women's football is now the fastest growing sport in England. The development of women's football is the responsibility of the Football Association
    496
    and a major component of its five-year development strategy. My officials are working very closely with the football authorities and other sporting organisations to raise the profile of women's sports. Probably one of the greatest boosts to women's football has been given by the film "Bend It Like Beckham", which I understand is bringing hundreds of young girls and women into football.
    Mr. Grogan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should welcome the first ever terrestrial television coverage of the women's FA cup final on BBC 1 last week—even though sadly, on this occasion, the pride of Yorkshire, the Doncaster Belles, were beaten by a London team, Fulham? Does he agree that such coverage, and indeed films such as "Bend It Like Beckham", can only encourage participation in the sport, especially among girls in their teenage years?
    Mr. Caborn: Absolutely. If I may give a little advertisement, England are playing Germany in a world cup qualifier on 19 May at Selhurst Park. The match will be broadcast on Sky Television, but nevertheless, England are doing extremely well. Our concern about the lack of young people going from school into sport, which I mentioned earlier, is even more pronounced in relation to younger ladies leaving school. Anything that we can do to encourage such participation must be welcome. I hope that the FA will continue its good work and that we can capitalise on the fact that 2 million people have now seen "Bend It Like Beckham".
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: In welcoming the terrific success of women's football in this country, is it not a great pity that both the women's cup final and the international match will not be played at a national stadium in England? Is it not about time that we realised that Wembley will not work, and instead allowed the Birmingham site to proceed—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is out of order; those matters do not relate to the question.
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend accept that women's football UK-wide, London-wide, and particularly in north-west London, would benefit enormously from a new national stadium, especially one based at Wembley?
    Hon. Members: Order.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is also out of order. Hon. Members on both sides are out of order.

    UKOK
    Mr. Hugo Swire: If she will make a statement on the UKOK campaign. [53971]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): The British Tourist Authority's £5 million UKOK campaign was launched in January and continues to run in a number of markets. The campaign has been successful in reassuring potential visitors about

    497
    the safety of travelling to Britain. The BTA is now building on that work with the £40 million "million visitor" campaign.
    Mr. Swire: Given that the Government were able quickly to find £;5 million for the UKOK campaign, and given that the Minister, in a debate on south-west tourism in Westminster Hall on 1 May, admitted that abandoning the marketing role of the English tourist board had been a mistake, may I suggest that it is not okay to delay funding any further, especially for areas such as the south-west that have suffered so badly in the wake of foot and mouth? Will he give a commitment, as regards the figures that come out at the end of the summer, to do something to redress the imbalance of the £;28 million and the £22 million allocated this year to the Scottish tourist board and the Wales tourist board?
    Dr. Howells: I cannot answer for the Scots and the Welsh—they have their own decision-making powers and can allocate whatever funds they see fit. The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand devolution. It has occurred, it is there and he had better realise it.
    The British Tourist Authority has done a tremendous job in persuading overseas visitors to come to this country. Last year, there was a big fall-away in numbers of in-bound tourists. This year, so far, there has been a very small decrease in year-on-year terms. The south-west tourist board has done a magnificent job in getting visitors back in. It had a record autumn and has good forward bookings. At the moment everything looks extremely good, and I am very optimistic about the future of tourism.
    I say to the hon. Gentleman, as I said to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), that this is not the place to decry the tremendous efforts made by the tourism authorities to recover from the most difficult year that the tourism industry has ever experienced. I hope that he will continue to support the south-west tourist board.

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

    Archbishopric of Canterbury
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What the annual cost was of maintaining the Archbishopric of Canterbury in 2001. [53992]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Detailed figures on the costs of running the office of Archbishop of Canterbury for 2001 are in preparation. Published figures for 2000 totalled approximately £1.2 million.
    Mr. Prentice: A total of £;1.2 million. Given the great wealth of the Church of England, is it not a disgrace that the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is retiring this year, will have to get by on a pension of £;17,000, and that the 110 bishops in the Church of England—who are all men—will be on £;15,000, and the clergy on less than £10,000, when they retire? However, my question is this. What about the vicar of Dibley? What about the women
    498
    of the cloth, who are consistently discriminated against? Will they get a top-up pension, and if not, why not? Is the Archbishops Council reviewing the matter?
    Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend has more time to watch television than I have, and therefore knows more about "The Vicar of Dibley" than I do.
    Out of the total of £1.2 million, the main elements of the archbishop's costs are staffing costs of £800,000 and office costs of £150,000. My hon. Friend referred to the archbishop's imminent retirement, and this would be an appropriate moment for the Church Commissioners to thank him for all the work, seen and unseen, that he has done on behalf of the Church. and to wish him and his wife Eileen a very happy and long retirement.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: I echo the hon. Gentleman's words about the archbishop. Does he agree that the archbishop has been incredibly good value for money and that we should look to expanding rather than reducing the budget?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He will know of the report of Lord Hurd of Westwell, which suggested that the archbishop, as a national and international figure, has less assistance at his disposal than anyone else who serves in a similar capacity. To take up the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), it is worth considering the matter, perhaps taking inflation into account and making adjustments accordingly.
    Simon Hughes: Because it is always less embarrassing to review, change and possibly increase the budget for someone such as an archbishop when the individual is not in post, are there plans for a review before the announcement of the new archbishop's appointment? Now that we know that Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss has been appointed to chair the selection panel, what is the timetable and when do we expect an announcement?
    Mr. Bell: I anticipated that question and I am happy to say that the Church Commissioners have no role in choosing the archbishop. On the timetable, gossip has it that the selection will take place in late rather than early summer.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to possible talks between the current archbishop and his successor. He will know of the report of Lord Hurd of Westwell, which will be discussed by the archbishop and his successor before the latter takes up his office.

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

    State Funding (Political Parties)
    Kevin Brennan: What recent discussions he has had with the Electoral Commission on state funding of political parties. [53993]
    Mr. A. J. Beith (representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission): Mr. Speaker, your Committee has approved the commission's corporate plan for the next five years. It includes provision for making policy development grants to political parties under section 12 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. It also includes a commitment to conduct a review of the case for a cap on political donations and the related issue of state funding of political parties.
    Kevin Brennan: Given that Short money is state funding of party political activity and that it has increased by 300 per cent. since 1997, is not it time to consider extending the scope of state funding of political parties, especially to overcome the sort of smears made by the Opposition over the weekend? Is not it worth reminding the public that we do not know the source of Conservative party money when it was in office because the information is locked away in files in Smith square, unless it has had Andersen in to shred it?
    Mr. Beith: The commission monitors the system whereby political donations are recorded and publicised. It continues that work. The hon. Gentleman's wider points recognise that the system has been extended to include policy development funding and incorporate the fact that the commission will look into the matter.
    Tony Wright: When we asked the previous Government whether they would refer funding of political parties to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, they routinely refused. When we came to office, we referred the matter to the Committee and we believed that its recommendations, for which we have legislated, provided the transparency that would solve the problem. Transparency has clearly not solved it, and the funding problem remains. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Electoral Commission gets stuck in and that we have a proper, comprehensive review of funding of political parties?
    Mr. Beith: Yes.

    Elections (People with Disabilities)
    Mr. Simon Thomas: What training is being provided for electoral officers on ensuring the full participation of people with disabilities in the electoral process. [53994]
    Mr. A. J. Beith (representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission): The commission will fund the development and provision of training for electoral services staff in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland before next year's elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales. The training programme is expected to deal with methods of ensuring access for people with disabilities to the electoral process. Later this year, the commission will also publish a series a good practice handbooks, which include advice on the matter.
    Mr. Thomas: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply and emphasise that it is welcome that the
    500
    commission is taking the issue seriously and engaging in training before the elections in Wales and Scotland. What lessons have been learned from the English local elections? Did postal voting encourage more disabled people to participate? What elements of training to encourage people with disabilities to take up alternative ways of voting do the commission propose?
    Mr. Beith: I hope that information on this will emerge from the evaluation that the commission is carrying out into the various experiments and pilots that were conducted at the local elections. I know that the commission is keen to work with organisations such as Scope, the Royal National Institute for the Blind and the Disability Rights Commission to develop policies in this area, and to identify the issues that need to be tackled.

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

    Bishops
    Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on the work of the archbishops' review group on bishops' needs and resources. [53995]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The archbishops' review group published a report last year, "Resourcing Bishops", which the archbishops commended for reflection and debate. It concluded that the range of resources made available to bishops is broadly right, but recommended changes in how they are provided.
    Michael Fabricant: I have the document here, and it is interesting to note that its foreword states:
    "Readers will find that the report reveals no financial scandal, no profligate waste".
    That makes a pleasant change.
    The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the burden on archbishops, and in particular of the worldwide role of the Archbishop of Canterbury. What further consideration is being given to the future of the archbishops of the United Kingdom? The hon. Gentleman will know that in the eighth century, there was a third archbishopric, based in Lichfield. There needs to be more than one archbishop based in the United Kingdom while another spends much of his time looking after the interests of the Anglican dioceses abroad. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that, if there is to be a third archbishopric, there is a precedent, and it is Lichfield?
    Mr. Bell: There was a television catch phrase years ago, "Give us a job!", and that might apply to the bishopric to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I am grateful to him for pointing out that the report states that there is neither waste nor profligacy in the Church Commissioners' books or in the Church of England. He will also be aware that Lord Hurd of Westwell's report on the work of the Archbishop of Canterbury found that the archbishop had no fewer than six major national and international roles; Lord Hurd made a number of

    501
    recommendations on archbishoprics. He did not recommend a third archbishopric, but I shall be glad to add my own tuppence on that.

    Ordination (Church of England)
    Mr. Chris Bryant: How many (a) men and (b) women the Church of England has ordained in the last year. [53996]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Two hundred and eighty two men and 214 women were ordained as deacons during 2001.
    Mr. Bryant: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, last year, one third of the curates employed by the Church were women, that one in 20 vicars were women and that only one in 110 archdeacons were women? When does he think that the Church of England will manage to achieve parity between men and women in its employment practices, and when does he expect the first female Archbishop of Canterbury to be appointed?
    Mr. Bell: As I have already said, the choice of the future Archbishop is not—God be praised—in the gift of the Church Commissioners. On my hon. Friend's important wider point, the gender of candidates is not an issue when they are considered for ordination. However, the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993 contains provisions for those in the Church of England who have objections on the grounds of theology and conscience to accepting the priestly ministry of women.

    Spending Plans
    Sir Sydney Chapman: If he will make a statement on the Church Commissioners' spending plans for 2002 to 2004. [53998]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): As a result of the commissioners' good long-term investment performance, they have been able to increase the level of their ongoing non-pension support for the Church's work to £;60 million in 2002, rising to £63 million in 2004. This includes an additional one-off commitment of £10 million to parish ministry and mission over the period in question.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that proper asset management is crucial if the Church Commissioners are to meet the Church's needs? In spite of the figures that he has just given, will he confirm that the commissioners propose to allocate £160 million a year over the next three years, more than 60 per cent. of which will go to meet clergy and widows' pensions?
    Mr. Bell: I confirm the points made by the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful to him for allowing me to say that the administration of the Church Commissioners is in excellent hands, and has achieved an excellent record over many years. He will be aware that the needs of
    502
    today's Church are great indeed, and demand greater flexibility in the use of the commissioners' funds. We are grateful for his question. There will be flexibility in the allocation of our funds, and we also take into account the need to pay the clergy and to pay the pensions.

  The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission was asked—
  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    Public-Private Partnerships
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: What assessment he has made of the resources the National Audit Office would need to enable it to conduct pre-contractual analysis of PPP proposals. [53999]
    Mr. Alan Williams (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): In the past four years, the NAO has reported on the value for money achieved by more than 25 public-private partnership projects. The resources made available to the NAO will continue to include provision to enable it to continue its work in that important area, but the NAO does not envisage conducting pre-contractual analysis of PPP proposals. That would involve it in departmental decision-making processes and compromise its independence.
    Mr. Marsden: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but it is a pity that the NAO is not prepared to reconsider, not least in view of the welcome statement of the future head of the civil service on openness in that area. Does my right hon. Friend think that there would be value in the NAO being involved in that ongoing monitoring with the civil service? That might, on occasion, enable doors to be shut before rather than after the horse has bolted?
    Mr. Williams: That view is based on a misunderstanding of the NAO's role. The NAO's independent status is guaranteed by its non-involvement in policy. If it were to be involved in policy, that would be against its remit and would deprive it of its impartiality in carrying out its audit and value for money functions. Statutorily, the NAO is not allowed to do what my hon. Friend asks.
    Mr. David Rendel: Although the NAO will not look into bodies such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden), extra-Executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies will have to be audited by it. What further resources will the NAO have for that?
    Mr. Williams: In fact, as a result of the Government accepting the Sharman committee report, which makes all quangos susceptible to NAO audit, I have invited the NAO to submit a supplementary programme to me for us to consider in June or July so that we can increase the monitoring of quangos and Government companies.

Potters Bar Derailment
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Stephen Byers): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the tragic rail derailment at Potters Bar on Friday 10 May, when coaches of the West Anglia Great Northern 12.45 train from London King's Cross to King's Lynn came away from the tracks immediately to the south of Potters Bar station when travelling between 80 and 90 mph.
I understand from the police that the train was carrying about 150 people. Seven were killed as a result of the derailment, and about 40 injured. Two remain on the critical list. At a time like this, our thoughts must be with the families and close friends of those who lost their lives. I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing our condolences to the bereaved and in wishing a speedy recovery to those who were injured.
Once again, the bravery, courage and professionalism demonstrated by our emergency services—fire, police, medical and health and safety staff—were outstanding. The reaction of the emergency services and the railway staff concerned was the product of constant training and planning, enabling them to perform in a way that the whole nation can be proud of.
His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales visited the injured and staff in Barnet and Chase Farm hospitals on Saturday, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is visiting the same hospitals this afternoon. I am grateful that the local Member—the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison)—was able to join me when I visited the scene on Saturday. We also visited the local fire station to thank members of the fire service who attended the crash.
Potters Bar station is in the centre of the town, and a notable feature of this appalling event is the reaction of local people who came rushing to aid those involved in the crash. In the midst of horror, their selfless behaviour, care and compassion were remarkable. The people of Potters Bar can take pride in their response. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in paying tribute to them all.
The investigation into the cause of the crash began immediately. British Transport police and Hertfordshire police are working in partnership with Her Majesty's railway inspectorate from the Health and Safety Executive. Early indications are that a set of points south of the station were the cause of the derailment.
The railways inspectorate believes that the points in question moved as the rear of the third carriage of the train passed over them, and as a result deflected the fourth and final carriage towards the left. That happened because nuts on two stretcher bars were detached. The locking bar connecting the tips of the points was then subject to forces normally shared by the stretchers, and it broke. The rear carriage derailed and slewed sideways, detaching from the rest of the train. It skidded along the track, passing over a bridge and came to rest on its side, wedged under the station canopy. The rear bogie was torn off by the collision with the bridge superstructure, and came to rest on the down slow line, causing severe damage.
The investigation is now pursuing the question of the circumstances surrounding the nuts being detached from the two stretcher bars, causing the points to fail. The nuts
504
that were detached have now been removed for forensic investigation, and a major portion of the points is also being removed for examination by the Health and Safety Executive.
The HSE will publish its interim report in the next few days, and we must await its findings. That interim report will be made public. In addition, I can inform the House that, exercising powers under section 14(2)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission will tomorrow recommend that the commission direct the Health and Safety Executive to conduct an immediate formal investigation into the circumstances of the train derailment. A report will be made public as soon as possible. The Health and Safety Executive intends to announce further details of the scope and arrangements of the investigation in due course.
Railtrack acted quickly to inspect 800 sets of points across the country and found no similar defects. Her Majesty's railway inspectorate has since examined other points in the Potters Bar area. It, too, has found no similar defects. I have been advised by the railway inspectorate that there are no indications so far of any problem that would require speed or other restrictions elsewhere on the network.
Railtrack's chief executive told me this morning that, although the company's initial investigation had led it to believe that the points in question had been replaced in December, it now knows that to be incorrect. Railtrack now confirms that the points are in fact about eight years old. It has also informed me that the normal lifespan of a set of points on this type of track is between 20 and 25 years.
Gauge corner cracking had been identified on rails in the vicinity in September 2001, and as a result a temporary speed restriction had been put in place until grinding to treat the gauge corner cracking had been completed. The speed restriction was lifted on 24 December. Neither Railtrack nor the Health and Safety Executive has any reason to believe at present that gauge corner cracking is linked to the causes of this accident.
The response to this incident by the emergency services, the industry and the railway inspectorate has been marked by the closest possible co-operation between all concerned. That co-operation continues as the focus shifts to recovery of services and investigation of the points failure. It is clearly essential that the on-site investigation be undertaken as quickly as possible, provided that it is concluded with complete thoroughness.
Clearance of the site has begun. Once the investigation of the site has been completed—it is hoped that that can be done over the next few days—it can be handed over to Railtrack for repairs to be completed. At this stage, it is impossible to say precisely when the entire site will be returned to normal use, but in the meantime the train operators are putting in place alternative services. The rest of the network is unaffected.
In this tragic incident, lives have been lost, and we must not forget those who survived but who will be mentally and physically scarred for the rest of their lives. That is why it is vital that we discover not just what happened at Potters Bar but how it happened. We owe a responsibility to all involved in the Potters Bar derailment—

505
a responsibility to identify exactly what took place and then to take the necessary steps in response. That is a responsibility that we will discharge.
Mrs. Theresa May: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. On behalf of the official Opposition, I join him in sending my deepest sympathy to all the relatives of those who died in the train crash at Potters Bar. We also send our best wishes for a speedy and full recovery to all those who were injured.
We are united across the House in our shock and sorrow at what has happened. Lives have been shattered by the crash, and we in the House owe people our commitment to ensure as best we can that an accident of this nature does not happen again. My hon. Friends the Members for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), whose constituency covers Potters Bar, and for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) visited the crash site on Friday hours after the accident. They have told me of the extraordinary commitment and hard work of those in the emergency services called to the site.
Yesterday, I visited the crash site myself. Among those I spoke to were two members of the crew of one of the first ambulances on the scene. They described to me what they had faced. Terrible though the scene had been, they had a job to do and they did it. Their dedication and professionalism shone through, as it did from all those in the emergency services to whom I spoke. We owe our emergency services a great debt of gratitude for all that they did and continue to do to respond to the crash. Our thanks must also go to those in the national health service who are caring for the injured; as the Secretary of State said, to the members of the local Potters Bar community, who rushed to the scene to help; and to those who are continuing to provide support locally as work on the site continues.
I was also struck yesterday by the meticulous way in which the British Transport police and the Health and Safety Executive were carrying out their investigation. It is essential that we find out exactly what caused the crash, so that any necessary lessons may be learned and action taken to ensure the safety of our rail network.
Many people who travel by train day in and day out will understandably be concerned about the safety of the network. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, despite the appalling tragedy that occurred at Potters Bar and the other rail tragedies of the past few years, compared with other forms of transport, our railways are still safe—and indeed that safety has been steadily improving?
The Secretary of State is reported as describing the accident as a one-off, isolated incident. That implies that there are no lessons to be learned from the accident, yet all the reported possible causes of the loosening of the holding nuts on the points—vandalism, sabotage or poor maintenance—would suggest that there are lessons that should be learned, and that describing the accident as a one-off event before the right hon. Gentleman was in receipt of the report from the Health and Safety Executive was premature. Will he confirm that if this proves to be more than a freak accident from which there are absolutely no lessons to be learned, a public inquiry will be set up?
In the Secretary of State's statement, he reported that 800 sets of points across the whole network had been inspected following the accident. What form of inspection
506
was undertaken on those points? Was it the same type of inspection as took place the day before the accident on the points at Potters Bar?
Is the Secretary of State aware of local concern about security at Potters Bar station, which led to a meeting between the train operating company, the local police, British Transport police and local representatives in late April?
Finally, I do not want to pursue this line of questioning too far—I am sure the Secretary of State will appreciate why—but is it true that the cause of the accident lay not just in an act of omission, in removing holding nuts from bolts, but in an act of commission, in tightening one of the bars on the points, thus making an accident more likely? Given the record of vandalism on points across the country and their vulnerability to sabotage, does he still stand by his statement that this is a one-off, unique event from which there are no lessons to be learned? Will he assure the House that, given the possible cause of this accident, regular and additional inspection of points will be made?
This was an appalling tragedy and our thoughts and prayers remain with the bereaved and injured. I can assure the Secretary of State that the Opposition stand ready to support the Government in taking the actions necessary to ensuring the safety of our rail network.
Mr. Byers: I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) recognises that the House is united in our response to the tragedy and to the individuals involved, their families and the community of Potters Bar.
I should put the record straight right at the beginning. Whether deliberately or inadvertently, the hon. Lady has misquoted what I said. At no stage have I said that there are no lessons to be learned. I said clearly on Saturday that there is a difference between what might be a one-off incident and a generic problem with the railway network. That is an important distinction to make.
In the light of the briefing that I had before I made any public comments—this is now being confirmed publicly—I said that there were certain events and actions that had taken place in relation to the set of points that meant that we could look at the incident in isolation from the rest of the railway network. That point is important, because we know from Hatfield that sometimes there can be generic problems affecting the railway network that have to be dealt with.
For the record, at no time have I said that there are no lessons to be learned; there are lessons that can be learned from any accident. Safety is so good—whether on our railways or elsewhere—because we learn from the accidents that happen, just as I am sure we will learn from this incident.
The hon. Lady raises a number of specific points. On the question of a public inquiry, at the moment the right way forward is to consider the outcome of the investigations that are now taking place, particularly the formal investigation that will be commenced tomorrow by the Health and Safety Executive. We should await the outcome of the investigations before deciding whether or not a public inquiry is appropriate. That is the right step to take.
In terms of the checks made of the 800 points and whether they were checked in the same way as in previous inspections that may have taken place of the set of points

507
in question, for reasons the House will understand it would be inappropriate for me to comment on what inspections may or may not have been made of those points. I do know that the work carried out by Railtrack on the 800 points has not identified similar defects. The railway inspectorate has audited the work carried out by Railtrack. It has not done so on all 800 points yet, but it is in the process of making sure that the procedures we used were appropriate in the circumstances.
Security at the station, and whether this was an act of omission or commission are, rightly, matters for the investigations themselves and I would not want to pre-empt their outcome. On the question of safety on our railways, it is difficult in the immediate aftermath of an incident such as the derailment at Potters Bar to say, "Our railways are safe." We get criticised in newspapers if we say that. But if one looks at the long-term trend, it is true that, per passenger-mile travelled, railway travel is getting safer. The facts bear that out and I am pleased that the hon. Lady recognises that.
One reason why railway travel is getting safer—this is an important point—is that we learn lessons from incidents—whether Hatfield, Ladbroke Grove, Southall, Clapham or Potters Bar. Lessons will be learned and the appropriate changes will be put in place. We owe that to the people involved in the incident at Potters Bar, and that is what we will do.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: While adding my deepest sympathy to the family and friends of all who died, I wish to mention in particular a young student, Jonael Schickler—a PhD student at Queen's college in my constituency—who, tragically, was one of those who died on Friday.
In endorsing my right hon. Friend's comments on the valuable work done by the emergency services, I commend the action of the train driver, Andy Gibson, who went beyond the call of duty in helping those who were trapped and injured. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, at this sensitive time, it is particularly important that we, as Members of this House, continue to support the rail industry? I travel on the line in question twice weekly, and I shall continue to do so.
Mr. Byers: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a tragedy when anybody loses their life, particularly someone who—like the student she mentioned—had their whole future ahead of them. She is right to commend the action of the train driver, Andy Gibson, who gave immediate assistance to those injured, and to point out that we should support the rail network. Like her, I have travelled on that line many times, when visiting friends in Cambridge. A personal knowledge of the service in question brings home the difficulties that can be created. We need to acknowledge that point—I, too, travelled by train on Saturday—but we must recognise that our railway network provides one of the safest forms of travel. We must not be complacent, however, but vigilant to ensure that we retain that position.
Tom Brake: I echo the condolences expressed by the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) to the families affected, and their supportive statements about the
508
emergency services. The Secretary of State said that this is a one-off incident, but we need to await the Health and Safety Executive's comments. What is clear, however, is that signals were apparently not involved. I wonder whether he is considering reviewing the use of SPADs—signals passed at danger—as the key safety performance indicator.
If this incident is shown to be linked to the management of contractors—a key concern in the leaked, overdue Hatfield report, and in the Cullen report—or to contractors' ability to obtain the necessary skilled staff, or to the inconsistent safety standards that the Cullen report also highlighted, would the Secretary of State agree that the incident perhaps constitutes not a one-off, but one of several such incidents? Will the Secretary of State confirm when he intends to introduce safety legislation to deal with such issues, and will he use that as an opportunity to update the House on the progress that is being made on the different recommendations emerging from the Hatfield report, Lord Cullen's inquiry, and Professor Uff's inquiry?
Finally, does the Secretary of State now have confidence in the information provided to him by Railtrack concerning this particular set of points? He said that gauge corner cracking was present in the vicinity of the relevant section of track, but can he confirm whether it was present on that particular section?
Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman raises several points. In terms of judging safety, SPADs have been regarded as effective, but I am always open to suggestions on the ways in which safety might be improved. An important part of learning lessons on improving safety is always to reflect on what might offer the best performance indicator.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned concerns about contractors. Without expressing a view on what the investigation may reveal in this case, I agree with him that the Cullen report made some clear recommendations about contractors, and I am concerned that not enough progress is being made on their implementation. On 1 May, I wrote to the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission, asking him to report to me by the end of May on the progress made on Cullen's recommendations—a point that I reinforced when I met him this morning. This is a crucial issue, irrespective of what the investigations into this case might discover. Progress must be made on the Cullen report's recommendations.
We regard the safety Bill as a priority, but I cannot pre-empt what might appear in the Queen's Speech later this year. The hon. Gentleman raised specific points about whether gauge corner cracking was present on that particular site. I refer him back to my statement, because that contained the latest information that I received from Railtrack, just 40 minutes before I came into the Chamber. It said that gauge corner cracking had been identified on rails in the vicinity in September 2001. I will be more than happy to inform the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Maidenhead and other right hon. and hon. Members about the exact location of gauge corner cracking when I receive further information, but neither Railtrack nor the railway inspectorate believes that it was a factor in the incident.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will be aware that this latest dreadful

509
accident has shaken the confidence of the public in what is manifestly a safe rail system. It therefore behoves the House of Commons to ensure that we take urgent action to restore that confidence. Is he prepared to call together Railtrack, the companies, the Health and Safety Executive and the railway inspectorate to ensure that the whole system of employment of contractors is looked at urgently, because there have been constant rumours about the time taken to obtain classification and qualifications, as well as about the employment of unskilled labour? If the rail system is to be returned to its proper safety level, the public demand is for clear accountability. We should no longer have to wait for reports from accident inspectors, and from those concerned with day-to-day maintenance of safety on the railways, before urgent action is taken.
Mr. Byers: I understand the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend and her Select Committee has drawn our attention to those points in relation to the maintenance of the railway network. There are real concerns about the use of contractors and, in some cases, sub-contracted labour. We do not know the particular circumstances in relation to Potters Bar, but I have just been handed a letter that has been faxed to me by the company secretary of Jarvis, a Mr. Mason, in which he says that all the inspections of those particular points
"were carried out by Jarvis employees. No sub contract labour was involved. Each of the Jarvis staff involved is fully experienced and qualified and holds all requisite training certification."
Clearly, the matter will need to be investigated, but that is a direct quotation from a letter that I have just received from the company secretary of Jarvis.
Irrespective of the outcome of the investigations and what happened in this case, Cullen identified an issue in relation to the use of contract staff. As I say, I have asked the chair of the Health and Safety Commission to report to me by the end of this month on procedures that he will put in place with the industry. I met him this morning and reinforced that point. Genuine concerns exist and must be addressed, irrespective of the outcome of the investigations of this derailment.
Mr. James Clappison: I thank the Secretary of State for his invitation on Saturday and for the co-operation of his office. As the Member of Parliament most directly affected, I join him in extending condolences to all those who have lost loved ones in the accident. Our thoughts must he with them at this time.
I also join the Secretary of State in the tribute he paid to the railway staff, including those stationed at Potters Bar railway station, and to the emergency services—the Hertfordshire police, ambulance and fire services, as well as other members of the services—who attended so promptly and skilfully, and so professionally. Their skill has been commended by all who witnessed the terrible sights at Potters Bar. I also join in his tribute to the members of the public who helped in the moments immediately after the accident. People in the vicinity of the station, on the platform and in local shops and businesses did everything they could to help. The emergency services were also supported and helped by members of the local voluntary services.
Will the Secretary of State bear it in mind that, in the midst of their sorrow, people in Potters Bar and other
510
users of that extremely busy line are naturally concerned that this tragic incident took place close to the site of another tragic incident at Hatfield? They now want a high degree of reassurance. Does the Secretary of State agree that such reassurance can best be provided by the fullest possible answers to the questions how and why that tragic incident came about? It has left my constituents with the sorry spectacle of that carriage lodged in the middle of their railway station after it had travelled down the platform. My constituents never want to see such a sight again—in Potters Bar or anywhere else—and hope that every possible lesson can be learned from this incident.
Mr. Byers: Once again, may I say how grateful I was that the hon. Gentleman was able to join me in both visiting the scene on Saturday and meeting members of the local fire service who carried out such heroic work? We were both amazed at the modesty of individual firemen, who saw such work as part of their job. Having seen the scale of what happened, it is a remarkable compliment to them that they see such work as part of what they do. The hon. Gentleman is also right to point out the important role of the voluntary services in such situations.
I fully understand the concerns felt by people in Potters Bar, which is just a few miles south of Hatfield. The situation is different, however; Hatfield was a generic problem as regards the network. All the information available thus far is that that is not the case on this occasion.
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that people will want answers to the question: how did this occur? It is now becoming clear how the incident occurred, but we do not know why. The investigation will now have to focus on that aspect. The hon. Gentleman is also right to point out that if we are to regain the confidence of the travelling public, they will want answers to those clear and appropriate questions.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been universal acclaim on both sides of the House for the efforts of those public services, in Potters Bar and elsewhere, that managed to save lives and help the families of those who lost people in that horrific accident? Is not it time—especially after this Secretary of State's action on Railtrack, which caused fury among the Opposition—that there were more people in the public services? That would be wonderful. As a start, perhaps when the inquiry has been held, the Secretary of State might consider taking over the infrastructure of Railtrack and all the rest of it—together with the maintenance—and getting rid of Jarvis and all the subcontractors, who, without doubt, probably played a part in the matter.
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is right to express the support shared by all Members for the way in which, once again, the emergency services and the public services more generally, discharged their responsibilities on Friday and during the weekend in relation to the accident at Potters Bar.
The whole question of the industry's infrastructure and its safety was addressed by Lord Cullen's second report. The Government have accepted all those recommendations and we are now seeing their implementation. That will mean changes in the way in which safety is dealt with in the

511
industry. In my view, that will make real improvements, but it is paramount that there is speedy implementation of all those recommendations, including those about the use of contractors. The best way forward is to consider in the round the proposals that came out of Cullen two and ensure their speedy implementation.
Sir Sydney Chapman: The Secretary of State has referred to the fact that the accident took place just outside my constituency in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) but that a number of the seriously injured were sent to Barnet general hospital, Chase Farm hospital and two other hospitals. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that after news of the accident broke, an accident and emergency unit—which had undertaken many practices—was immediately activated and that the response, not only between the emergency services but within each service, was magnificent.
The incident took place near a county boundary and I refer to the co-operation between two ambulance trusts, between the Hertfordshire police and the Metropolitan police, and between local hospitals in Barnet and the nationally renowned neurosurgical unit at the Royal Free. Will he accept that, to local people, the community response was magnificent? We are particularly grateful that the Prince of Wales visited Barnet general and Chase Farm hospitals on Saturday morning, and that the Secretary of State for Health completed a visit to those two hospitals today.
Mr. Byers: The way in which emergency procedures went into place on Friday is a real commendation to those who have been planning for the worst. We saw on Friday how effective they were at putting in place those procedures. There are always concerns, when people are working across boundaries, that bureaucratic layers will get in the way of response. What is notable about Friday, however, is that that did not happen at all. People put aside all those constraints and got on with the job, irrespective of boundaries or budgets. That is exactly how it should be.
I join the hon. Gentleman in thanking the Prince of Wales for his visit on Saturday, which was a great boost to the injured and to the staff in the two hospitals—Barnet general and Chase Farm. He is also right to say that the Royal Free, which we have not mentioned and which is my local hospital, played an important role with some of the most seriously injured people. I am sure that we are all praying that those people who are fighting for their lives are successful in doing so.
There are lessons to be learned, and part of that is the way in which emergency services can act in a co-ordinated and responsive way. They did themselves proud on Friday, and we all owe them a debt of gratitude.
Lawrie Quinn: Will my right hon. Friend confirm whether, in his earlier meeting with representatives from the railway inspectorate and the Health and Safety Executive, they indicated that any investigation into the tragedy at Potters Bar would include not only a review of the methodology and frequency of track inspections, which are varied and many, but a review and an audit of enforcement action that may result
512
from such track investigations? That point will be of great interest to those who want to say that they still have full confidence in our railway industry.
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend has a wealth of experience in these areas from his occupation before he was elected to the House. In my meeting with the railway inspectorate and the Health and Safety Executive, it was made clear to me that there will be a thorough and full investigation. Such an investigation will want to take into account all those relevant matters in relation to what happened at the point south of Potters Bar, and that is appropriate in the circumstances.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the Secretary of State accept that, in my constituency, which has five stations on the affected line and thousands of commuters, there is deep concern about this crash? May I express my and my constituents' condolences to the families of the bereaved and our best wishes to those who are seeking to recover in hospital at present? Does the Secretary of State understand that, after Hatfield, my constituents endured many months of delays on the line caused by speed restrictions and engineering works? It was thought that that was to ensure that there would not be another significant crash. Yet, months later, we face this dreadful crash. Does he understand that there is a need for great reassurance among my constituents about the safety of this line in the future? What reassurance can he give them today, based on the briefings that he has had?
Mr. Byers: I fully understand the concerns of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. It is an absolutely natural reaction to what happened on Friday. As I said in my statement, Railtrack has checked about 800 points and they have not been found to have similar defects. The railway inspectorate has specifically looked at points near to those at Potters Bar to check whether there was a particular problem with maintenance there and it has not identified any similar defects. The fact that the railway inspectorate has not imposed any speed restrictions as a result of this accident is a clear indication that it, as the independent safety expert, believes the network to be safe. I think that we are looking at a particular set of circumstances affecting a particular set of points. If the investigation shows that that is the case, we need to find out the reason for what happened. However, that is something for the investigation and we will have to await the reports and recommendations that we receive as a result of the inquiries and investigations that are now taking place.
John McDonnell: Will my right hon. Friend secure the publication of the representations that the railway trade unions have made over the past year to Railtrack, the Health and Safety Executive, his Department and the railway inspectorate about the safety of track generally? Will he review the mechanism by which the views on safety issues of workers within the industry are heard and listened to?
Mr. Byers: The views of the trade unions and those with day-to-day experience of the network are important and need to be taken into account. Although I do not wish to draw conclusions about this incident, such people are often able to identify quickly and at first hand any

513
particular problems or deficiencies that might exist. A sensible procedure needs to be put in place whereby individual employees can raise concerns with their employer and with the industry. I would have thought that that would be one of the issues that will need to be considered in the light of the investigations that are taking place.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: The Secretary of State will be aware that my constituents were among those killed and injured in this terrible tragedy. I wish to take this opportunity to express on behalf of my constituents our condolences to those who suffered bereavement and our deepest sympathy to those who were injured and to their families. Along with other Members of the House, I also wish to express our appreciation to the emergency services, the hospital services and the people of Potters Bar for the support and help that they gave in tending to the injured.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) have said, there is a sense of shock among those who use this railway line regularly. They suffered lengthy delays after the Hatfield crash and they thought that they were doing so in pursuance of a safer railway. Notwithstanding the outcome of the investigation into this incident, is it not right that an account is given to them of how safety has been secured on this line and how it will he maintained in the future? There should be the fullest possible disclosure of all relevant information about the safety features of this railway.
Mr. Byers: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I fully understand the shock that must be felt by his constituents and all those who use the line regularly given that the incident took place so close to the one in Hatfield. He is right to say that people need to account for what happened. I have made it clear since Friday—over the weekend and, indeed, again today—that all the relevant parties will have to make a full disclosure of exactly what happened and about the issues for which they have responsibility. Confidence will be re-established only if people receive a proper and coherent explanation of exactly what took place. All the bodies involved recognise the importance for the industry of doing precisely that. There is now probably a greater acknowledgment in the railway industry that, if it is to secure the confidence of the travelling public, openness and transparency will be key factors.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: To revert to the line of thought of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on contractors, is it not true that, in the time of unity of the rail industry, inquiry was really a matter of getting the truth? Now, with the fragmentation of the industry and with so many contractors involved, is my right hon. Friend at all worried that we live in a culture of blame that could obscure the truth because people might want to blame others because of legal obligations?
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but so far in the wake of the derailment at Potters Bar we have not seen the sort of finger-pointing and blame that we saw after Hatfield and Ladbroke Grove. There is a clear difference. There is a recognition within the industry
514
that it does the industry a disservice if people do not take responsibility for their part of the railway industry's operations. That has been a noticeable factor in events since the derailment at Potters Bar.
We need to discover the precise details of what happened, and the investigations are making good progress. I hope that the interim report, for which I asked the Health and Safety Commission on Friday, will be available in the next couple of days, because that would reassure the travelling public about what took place, even if it might not be able to tell us why it took place.
Ms Diane Abbott: We must all await the findings of the Health and Safety Executive's inquiry, but once again there is debate about standards of maintenance and the use of unqualified subcontractors in the fragmented privatised British Rail. Does the Secretary of State understand that that can only deepen the concern with which Londoners view the coming of the public-private partnership to London Underground—a measure that the Government appear to be committed to forcing through in the teeth of all informed opinion, including that of the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions?
Mr. Byers: We have always said that if the modernisation of the tube is to go ahead, it will have to satisfy the safety case. The Health and Safety Executive must be sure that a proper safety regime is in place. We have established a clear condition on the proposal: if the HSE is not convinced that the safety case is made, the modernisation of the underground will not go ahead. If that condition is not met, we will not proceed. Safety will not be compromised in respect of the modernisation of the tube.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: As the Secretary of State knows, the train that derailed was on its way to my constituency. Many of my constituents are regular users of that train, as am I. In fact, I came quite close to catching that train, and would have done so had I been present for the early part of Friday's business. As it happened, I took an earlier train, but some of my constituents were on the train that derailed. One was in the fourth carriage manning the refreshment trolley, and he was fortunate to escape with his life. King's Lynn has been in a state of shock, as this is the first time in 100 years that it has been directly involved in a rail tragedy of this nature.
The Secretary of State has expressed his hope that the causes of the accident will become known in the near future, but we can conclude that it was the result of either maintenance failure or malicious interference. If the former, I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that we should carefully examine the whole nature of contracting and subcontracting, especially in the light of the fact that Railtrack's spot checks have revealed that one in 20 of the engineers who work on tracks do not have full safety certification. In that light alone, to restore public confidence in the rail network, as we all want, will require a full public inquiry.
Mr. Byers: I can understand the concerns of the hon. Gentleman's constituents in King's Lynn and North-West Norfolk. The scale of the accident is such that it must cause concern to those who travel on that line.
It is too early to jump to precise conclusions. Although we now know what happened, we simply do not know how it happened; that is a matter for the investigations. It is premature to announce a public inquiry. It is better to let the interim investigation take place. The formal investigation by the Health and Safety Executive is to commence tomorrow. When we have the HSE's conclusions, we will be able to take a decision on whether a public inquiry is the appropriate way to proceed.
Mr. Simon Thomas: On behalf of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party, I wish to be associated with the sympathies and condolences extended to those who have suffered in the tragedy, and with the thanks to all those who gave assistance on the day and afterwards.
The Secretary of State mentioned that Railtrack has undertaken 800 checks on points since the accident. Will he confirm that it is the self-same contractors who have carried out those safety checks? Is he totally happy with that obtuse way of monitoring the state of our track and maintaining it? Precisely why has it taken so long to implement the recommendations of the key Cullen inquiry? If it transpires that maintenance and monitoring played some part in the accident, who will take responsibility?
Mr. Byers: Shortly before I came into the House, Railtrack informed me of the 800 checks on points that had been carried out. I do not know the details of who will have done that. All I know is that the Health and Safety Executive is auditing the way in which the checks were carried out. The railway inspectorate has undertaken its own checks on the points in the Potters Bar area to ensure that there was not a problem with the way in which that section of line was being maintained. It has found no similar defects. The HSE is double checking the work that has been carried out by Railtrack.
As for responsibility, we must first find out what happened. There is the danger that we might run ahead of ourselves. We are all anxious to ascertain exactly what happened and who was responsible, and that is understandable. Let us reach conclusions after a proper investigation. We can then have the debate about what action should be taken.
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the vital implementation of the recommendations of the Cullen report in respect of contractors. I may have mentioned earlier my concern that not enough progress was being made. That is why, on 1 May, I wrote to Bill Callaghan, the chair of the Health and Safety Commission, to tell him that I wanted to know by the end of this month what action was being taken to implement the recommendations speedily. I wrote that it was a vital area that must be addressed urgently.

House of Lords Reform
4.21 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Government's proposals for taking forward reform of the House of Lords.
The Government began the process of Lords reform with the removal of the great majority of hereditary peers in 1999. We are committed to further reform of the House of Lords, to remove the remaining hereditary peers and to provide Parliament with a modern, effective second Chamber.
We have listened carefully to the wide range of views expressed in the recent debates on Lords reform in both Houses of Parliament, and to the responses to the White Paper. We have taken account of the report of the Public Administration Select Committee. We have also considered statements from all parties that this issue should be considered further by a Joint Committee of both Houses. I hope, therefore, that the way forward that I am announcing today will be welcomed and supported on both sides of the House.
On this vital constitutional issue, which concerns not only the composition of the House of Lords but also the role of Parliament as a whole and the relations between the two Houses, we have decided that it would be right to invite the two Houses to establish a Joint Committee, in the hope that we can forge the broadest possible parliamentary consensus on the way forward. We hope that the Houses will be able to proceed with the establishment of the Joint Committee as soon as possible.
We have noted the recent joint statement of the two main Opposition parties that such a Joint Committee would help reconcile differences and seek a principled consensus on the way forward. We look forward to their co-operation in setting up the Joint Committee as soon as possible and making a success of its work.
Reform of the second Chamber has implications for the future of Parliament as a whole, and in particular for the relations between the two Chambers. It is right that Parliament itself should record its views on the composition of the second Chamber. For this we believe that a Joint Committee alone is insufficient. We therefore intend to ask the Joint Committee, as the first phase of its work, to report on options for the composition and powers of the House of Lords once reform has been completed. This will define options for composition, to include a fully nominated or a fully elected House, and intermediate options. Both Houses will then be asked to record their views on these options in free votes.
In the second phase of its work, on which the Committee will report, it will define in greater detail the proposed composition, role and powers of the reformed second Chamber, taking account of the opinions expressed by the two Houses. It should also recommend the transitional strategy for transforming the existing House of Lords into its fully reformed state, which will be particularly important if the recommendation were for a significantly smaller House. The Government's intention would then be to introduce legislation in the light of the report of the Joint Committee and the opinions of both Houses expressed in those free votes. As both the

517
royal commission, chaired by the noble Lord Wakeham, and the Government's White Paper made clear, any proposals on the powers and composition of the House of Lords must flow from a clear understanding of its role and functions.
The issues to be considered by the Joint Committee therefore will include, first, the role and authority intended for the second Chamber within the context of Parliament as a whole. There is, we believe, a consensus that its main role should continue to be that of a revising, scrutinising and deliberative assembly, with the power to delay, but not to seek to veto, legislation.
The second issue to be considered is the impact of that role and authority on the existing supremacy of the House of Commons and relations with the Executive. There is, we believe, broad agreement that the Commons should retain its role as the pre-eminent Chamber and that the test for any Government should continue to be whether it can command a majority in the House of Commons. The third issue to be considered is the composition and powers of the second Chamber best suited to give effect to the role and authority intended for that House. That consideration should include the implications of a House composed of more than one "class" of Member and also the experience and expertise which the House of Lords in its present form brings to its function as a revising Chamber.
It will also be necessary to consider the most appropriate and effective legal and constitutional means to give effect to any new parliamentary settlement, including any mechanisms required for resolving conflicts between the two Houses. To inform the Joint Committee's deliberations, the Government are today publishing the full results of the consultation on their White Paper. We received over 1,000 responses, and the full analysis is now available in the Vote Office and on the Lord Chancellor's Department website.
The Government have a major record of constitutional reform. Since 1997, we have created a Scottish Parliament and Assemblies for Wales and Northern Ireland. We passed the first House of Lords Act 1999, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. We have given the Bank of England independence in the setting of interest rates. Last week, the Deputy Prime Minister set out our plans to allow the creation of regional assemblies in those regions of England that vote for them. We have enhanced the role of the Select Committees, including the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that he will be the first Prime Minister ever to appear before the Liaison Committee. We are modernising the working practices of both Chambers. Taken together, that is the most substantial programme of constitutional reform for over a century and will stand as one of the Government's historic achievements.
Today's announcement is another step towards ensuring that reform of the House of Lords ranks alongside those achievements. We must not allow a repeat of history in which reform has been delayed because those who wanted it could not agree and therefore left the field to those who opposed it. Our objective is to secure a second Chamber that is broadly representative of Britain today; a Chamber that will complement the Commons by reinforcing Parliament's ability to conduct scrutiny and hold the Executive to account, thereby increasing the respect of the public for Parliament. The way forward that
518
I have outlined puts responsibility in the hands of Parliament itself in free votes. I urge Members on both sides of the House to respond not as party politicians but as parliamentarians committed to a strong Parliament within a modern democracy.
Mr. Eric Forth: I thank the Leader of the House for the generous notice that he gave me of his statement which, however, I can only characterise as Laurel and Hardy or perhaps Robin and Derry—"A fine mess you've got us into now". Or, if we wanted a one-word title for the statement, it would have to be "mañana". In April 1997, the Labour party published a manifesto.
It put forward a number of proposals to reform the House of Lords. Among those, it stated:
"This"—
the expulsion of all hereditary peers—
"will be the first stage in a process of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative."
The 1997 manifesto went on:
"A committee of both Houses of Parliament will be appointed to undertake a wide-ranging review of possible further change and then to bring forward proposals for reform."
Things moved on, and Labour's 2001 general election manifesto announced:
"We are committed to completing House of Lords reform, including removal of the remaining hereditary peers, to make it more representative and democratic, while maintaining the House of Commons' traditional primacy. We have given our support to the report and conclusions of the Wakeham Commission, and will seek to implement them in the most effective way possible."
Then, in "Completing the Reform", the White Paper of November 2001, the Prime Minister wrote in his foreword:
"The Government is determined to proceed with this wider reform of the House of Lords. The Royal Commission offered an excellent way forward and the Government has a clear electoral mandate to undertake it … A reformed second chamber has an indispensable role to play, and this White Paper prepares the way for its introduction."
In other words, we have waited five years since the original Labour party manifesto pledge, one year since Labour's second manifesto pledge and six months since the Prime Minister's pledge of action. We now we have indefinite postponement.
Nevertheless, I welcome the establishment of the Joint Committee, not least because in January, in response to the consultation, my noble Friend Lord Strathclyde and I stated:
"We therefore call on the government … to establish a Joint Committee of both Houses to review further change, including the question of composition, and then bring forward proposals for reform."
My noble Friend said in another place in the debate on the Queen's Speech in June 2001:
"There are huge issues which need to be debated and resolved as we move to create a stronger House: for example, issues relating to the size of the House; what limits to set on that size; how long Peers should stay; how we all get here and so on."—[0fficial Report, House of Lords, 21 June 2001; Vol. 626, c. 51.]
We saw clearly some time ago that a joint parliamentary approach would be needed. We therefore welcome the statement from the Leader of the House,

519
however belatedly it has been made. I pledge that we will play our full and positive part in the deliberations of the Joint Committee.
May I ask the Leader two rather obvious questions? First, he has outlined what he chooses to call phase 1, which will be a broad look at composition and powers. Will he give me some idea of the time scale for that? For example, will it go well into 2003? Then there is to be consultation of both Houses of Parliament, followed by phase 2, in which there will be detailed examination of the results of the parliamentary deliberations.
Does the Leader of the House envisage that we might run out of parliamentary time in this Parliament before anything further can be done, or can he give me an undertaking now, which will hold more water than the previous undertakings, that the Government believe that they will be in a position to bring forward proposals during this Parliament? It is important that we understand that at this stage of the process.
Secondly, speaking of the consultation of both Houses that is to be undertaken and which I welcome, and the Government's commitment to free votes on the matter, can the Leader tell me what he believes will happen if the two Houses find themselves in conflict? Supposing the House of Commons concluded that there should be a large element of elected Members in the new upper House, and that the House of Lords reached the opposite conclusion—that there should be a small element or no element at all of elected Members. How does the Leader imagine that that would be resolved? Will we go through the loop again? Will it be a "Groundhog Day" procedure, whereby we revisit the issue indefinitely for the rest of our parliamentary lifetime?
Having belatedly announced a Joint Committee, the Leader owes it to us to give a much clearer idea of what is in the Government's mind in terms of time scale and commitment, so that we are not led up yet another garden path to something that lies beyond, but we know not what. So I can only refer to what the Leader of the House said and quote his own words back to him:
"We must not allow a repeat of history in which reform has been delayed because those who wanted it could not agree and therefore left the field to those who opposed it."
Amen to that.
Mr. Cook: The House will recall that, in the last sentence of my statement, I invited hon. Members in all parts of the House to respond as parliamentarians and not as party politicians. The right hon. Gentleman's opening observations fell some way short of that invitation and of the response of the Conservative party in the House of Lords. This afternoon, its Lords spokesman welcomed the statement as an "historic statement" that was "clearly welcome" and a "statesmanlike step". I fear that before right hon. Gentleman speaks about conflict between the two Houses, he should consider the conflict between the Conservative Front Benches in this Chamber and the other place.
The right hon. Gentleman recounted some of the history. Of course, that includes 18 years when his party was in power but never made a proposal for a single elected Member of the second Chamber. It also includes four years in which the Conservatives opposed every
520
single proposal that we made for reform of the second Chamber. Indeed, he said at the Dispatch Box that he had no difficulty in defending the hereditary principle for the second Chamber.
Mr. Forth: Correct.
Mr. Cook: He makes that comment, but now he wants us to believe that he is committed to ensuring that 80 per cent. of Members of the second Chamber are elected—a point for which I observe he does not have unanimous support on his Back Benches.
As recently as in the past two weeks, the Conservative party announced in a joint statement made with the Liberal Democrats that a Joint Committee is clearly "the best way forward".
Mr. Forth: No.
Mr. Cook: The statement was signed by his leader in the House of Lords. I do not expect to be thanked for agreeing to what had been called for, but neither do I expect to be savaged for doing so.
The timetable will be primarily in the hands of the members of the Joint Committee, as it should be. There is nothing new to be said about composition. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman, I and others in the House try to find something new to say about it, but the task is very challenging. I see no reason why a Joint Committee that was appointed now could not quickly move to a decision on the options on which the House should vote.
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I want to see legislation in this Parliament. I believe that what I have spelt out provides us with a route map to secure that objective.
On conflict between the two Houses, the first step is to try to find a way forward and to avoid such conflict. In the event of a disagreement in the vote, it will in the first instance be for the Joint Committee to consider the implications. I am inclined to tell the right hon. Gentleman that I anticipate far less conflict between the Labour Benches in this Chamber and in the House of Lords than I envisage between the Conservative Benches in the Commons and those in the Lords. I remind him that he has a long way to go before he will get Conservative peers to agree to Conservative party policy of 80 per cent. of Members of the House of Lords being elected. In the two days of debate on reform in January, more than half the Tory peers who spoke wanted no elected peers at all. In those circumstances, it is not we who should be worrying about conflict with the House of Lords, but the Conservative party.
Mr. Paul Tyler: It would be churlish not to congratulate the Leader of the House on his victory in Cabinet against the odds, although I refuse to identify who the odds are. My hon. Friends and I genuinely congratulate him and believe that he is right in saying—he has done so on a number of occasions since the publication of the Select Committee report—that there is a centre of gravity for reform. We believe that it is possible rapidly to make progress in the Joint Committee. I remind him that the suggestion of a Joint Committee goes back to the discussions between his party and mine

521
before the 1997 election, to which the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) referred. The idea is not new; it is just rather late in coming.
Will the Leader of the House give us a more precise indication of what timetable the Government would like? Does he recognise that this is already the longest-running Whitehall farce in more than 90 years, and that it is time we wrote the final act? Does he accept that there should be a sunset clause? The Joint Committee should be given a limited life, then disbanded if it is not making progress.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, once the two Houses have had a free vote on phase 1, it should be possible to put a draft Bill before the Joint Committee so as to make as much progress as possible on a consensual basis?
The right hon. Gentleman said that he intends to try to achieve the reforms in time for the next general election. Will he take this opportunity to dispel the mischievous rumour that the Government believe that it is impossible to take both legislation on House of Lords reform and an anti-hunting Bill through both Houses? That could be a major problem.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that even if the Joint Committee is permitted to consider transitional arrangements—he says that it will be—it will be extremely important to prevent a hiatus, because otherwise Parliament's job of scrutinising the work of the Government could fall by the wayside?
Finally, there is a dilemma in having a small and manageable Joint Committee and having one that is truly representative. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it must be of sufficient size to enable parties that are split down the middle—the Conservative party in the other place—to be fully represented?
Sir Patrick Cormack: Hear, hear.
Mr. Tyler: And perhaps in this House, too. A minimum of 18 members will be necessary to encompass all those differing views.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his more generous welcome for our proposals, and look forward to his co-operation in taking forward our strategy.
On a timetable, it would be wrong for us to predetermine a specified date by which the Joint Committee has to respond. However, this is plainly not an open-ended commitment, and we will watch and work with the Joint Committee to enable it to come to a speedy conclusion. Part of that co-operation may well include presenting it with a draft Bill. We have by no means ruled out that possibility, and look forward with interest to hearing what its members may wish to say about it during the first stage of their work.
I assure the House that the decision that I announced has nothing whatsoever to do with the Hunting Bill. If we should find it necessary to introduce both the Hunting Bill and the House of Lords reform Bill in the same Session, so be it—we will seek as business managers to see what we can do to ensure that we secure both those objectives.
On the size of the Committee, the hon. Gentleman touches on an issue that is, as he knows, difficult for the House. By definition, any Joint Committee has to be
522
divided equally between the two Chambers, and only half the membership comes from here. When we set up the Joint Committee on the Communications Bill, we discovered that that left us with such a small group that it was difficult fairly to reflect the political balance in this Chamber. I therefore said at the time that any future Joint Committee was likely to be larger, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I anticipate that its size will be of the order that he suggested.
Joyce Quin: I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. It shows, especially in the light of last week's statement on regional government, that the Government's appetite for constitutional reform remains keen and has not become jaded. I hope that progress can be made as quickly as possible.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the results of the consultation on the White Paper. Will he confirm that it showed that a majority of people favoured either a wholly or substantially elected upper House?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's comments on the Government's programme of constitutional reform. It is within that context of a programme of measures to modernise our democracy that we should view this commitment to seek a parliamentary solution to ensuring that we have a second Chamber that can work as our ally, thereby enhancing respect for Parliament.
I share my right hon. Friend's wish to make progress as rapidly as possible. Indeed, in my statement I committed the Government to setting up the Joint Committee as soon as possible.
The consultation paper is available to hon. Members in the Vote Office. As I have said before in answer to oral questions, it showed that a substantial majority support a substantially elected second Chamber. I can confirm that of those commenting on composition, 89 per cent. favoured a majority elected second Chamber.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the announcement. Does he agree that, in constitutional matters, festina lente is not a bad motto? Will he say something about the composition of the Committee? Will it be chosen through the usual channels by the usual channels? Will there be a proper opportunity for Members with a robust view, such as my friend the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and me, to serve? Will he assure the House that he will not be the Chairman, and might he consider inviting the hon. Member for Bolsover or me to chair the Committee?
Mr. Cook: To do justice to the last point, I would have to reflect on it rather than give an off-the-cuff answer. However, I can confirm that I have no wish to chair the Committee, and I think that it would be wrong for any Minister to chair it.
Mr. John Bercow: Such self-sacrifice!
Mr. Cook: I can bear to live with such a sacrifice.
I am grateful for the congratulations of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) on what I have announced. His Latin tag, make haste slowly,

523
can be applied in several circumstances, but I must depart from him on this occasion. We have waited long enough for reform. In the debate in January, I read to the House the preamble to the Parliament Act 1911, which said that the arrangement was only a holding operation until provision could be made for a more representative and democratic Chamber. I have no intention that we should wait another 90 years or 90 months but hope that we can make progress in 90 days.
Tony Wright: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his extremely positive statement, which clears the blockages in the way of the reform process. I direct him to annexe A to the report on House of Lords reform that the Public Administration Committee issued in February, in which it gave a detailed month-by-month and year-by-year timetable for the way in which reform might proceed. Under "May 2002", it said:
"Negotiations begin for establishment of Joint Parliamentary Committee."
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the chronology that we have outlined, which leads, eventually, to the first elections in June 2005 for a predominantly elected second Chamber, is the chronology that he is working to, and that from today the blockage to reform comes not from the Government but the House of Commons? From today, it is up to the House to decide whether it really wants to reform the second Chamber.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. He speaks with authority as the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, which issued a valuable report and showed that it was possible for people who wanted reform of the House of Lords but who came to the task with different perspectives to find a consensus. The task now is to ensure that we find that centre of gravity among the wider Parliament. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct that the matter is now in the hands of Parliament. The speed and radicalism with which we move is very much down to the way in which Members of Parliament proceed and subsequently vote.
I cannot promise that we will keep to the timetable outlined in the report at all intermediate stages, but I share my hon. Friend's view that reform should be implemented in time for a general election in 2005, should there be one, so that elections can take place in the same year.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, may I ask for brief, single questions, in order that I may call as many Members as possible?
Mr. Andrew MacKay: This is very long grass indeed. The right hon. Gentleman's comments confirm what many of us have always feared—that the Government were not serious about reform of the second Chamber but instead wanted to abolish the hereditary peers and replace them with the Prime Minister's cronies. They have achieved their objective.
Mr. Cook: I am not sure how I can do justice to the right hon. Gentleman's question without going back and
524
reading my statement from the top. I am not sure that he has listened to anything that has happened in the House since he came in. I have said that it will be the decision of the House—it can vote on the options. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to vote for an all-appointed second Chamber, he will be free to do so, but I doubt that many people will be in his Lobby.
Mr. David Clelland: I should like to draw to my right hon. Friend's attention early-day motions 1275 and 1276, which appear on the Order Paper for the first time today.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance that the Joint Committee will be able to consider a fully nominated second Chamber. Does he agree that the revising, scrutinising and deliberative Chamber that he has described would be able to carry out its duties most efficiently if it was made up of people who were experienced and well qualified to do so? Does he also agree that direct elections would not necessarily result in such an outcome?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his endorsement. It will not only be for the Joint Committee to consider the option of a fully appointed second Chamber; my hon. Friend and all his colleagues will also be able to argue and vote for that option when we debate the options in this Chamber. I have only one reservation about what he said. While he is perfectly right to say that any legislature must comprise well-qualified and experienced people who can bring judgment and integrity to their decisions, as Leader of the House I must say that we can find those qualities among elected Members of the House of Commons as well as among those who are appointed to the other place.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that his statement this afternoon is a most eloquent admission that the Government did not have a clue where they were going when they started reforming the House of Lords, and that, even now, after a further general election, they still have no clue about how they want to go forward? Does he also accept that their handling of this matter has been characterised by vandalism against the constitution and by vacillation in completely failing to come forward with any set plan for the future, and that he is not modernising but trying to muddle through, causing further delay without any resolution?
Mr. Cook: I congratulate the right hon. Lady on having responded to this matter not as a parliamentarian but as a single-minded party politician. I was not necessarily persuaded that my last sentence would convince her to respond to this as a parliamentarian. It is perfectly plain that she is unwilling to consider reform; she is still fighting a rearguard action against the abolition of the hereditary principle. For the avoidance of doubt, I should point out that no Labour Member believes that the hereditary principle has any place in a modern democracy.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: My right hon. Friend deserves a medal. He is a great reforming parliamentarian. May I ask him how one gets on to this Joint Committee? I think that I may have something to contribute to it. [Horn. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] My hon. Friends agree with me.

525
I want to return to the question posed by the shadow Leader of the House and other colleagues about the possibility of gridlock between the two Houses. The consultation document shows that all those who responded were in favour—to one extent or another—of an elected second Chamber, except the peers. They were the only group who preferred a House with a less than 50 per cent. elected membership. The issue of gridlock is one that must be addressed.
Mr. Cook: I shall, of course, take note of my hon. Friend's bid for membership of the Joint Committee. expect that I shall get a number of competing approaches from other hon. Members. I am not sure quite how big the Committee will be, and I cannot, therefore, guarantee that all who wish to be on it will be able to be on it.
It will not necessarily be a disaster or a surprise if the two Chambers vote in different ways. After all, this is a democracy, and we pride ourselves on the fact that the two Chambers can come to independent conclusions. We should not regard it with dismay if they did so. I would suggest that the best thing that we can all do in the next two months is to ensure that we find a way forward that establishes a centre of gravity that can be supported in both Chambers. If we find that there is a difference in the other Chamber, the Joint Committee can consider the implications. We can also consider it ourselves if we wish to do so when we consider the measure to bring these measures into being, which will start in this Chamber.
Mr. John Maples: We are all used to Secretaries of State coming to the House and kicking for touch, but this one has gone right out of the stadium. Presumably the Leader of the House is hoping that nobody will find it and throw it back before the next election.
After five years of a Labour Government, they are clearly showing their inability to agree on what they want to do. The Prime Minister wants a minimal number of elected peers, while all his Back Benchers want the maximum number, so forgive me if I cannot take this Joint Committee very seriously. The idea that the Government have suddenly woken up to the idea of consulting this House on important issues is a novelty to which it is difficult to give any degree of credibility; it is all part of their playing for time.
We all know what the conclusions of the Joint Committee will be. A large number of people will want a high number of elected Members—like most of the Labour party—whereas others will want none or only a minimal number, and the ball is going to end up back in the Government's court. Would it not be better if the Government decided now what they wanted to do, and put that proposal to Parliament?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman condemns us for having committed the issue to the long grass, but the statement made less than two weeks ago by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat leaders in the House of Lords says:
"An early move to establish a Joint Committee … would be the best way forward."
There is no point in senior Conservative party figures inviting us to take a course as the best way forward, only for the Conservative party to denounce it when we agree
526
with their advice. Far from committing this to the long grass, I have just said to the House that I want to make progress in this Parliament, and I want to make progress for implementation by the next general election. Frankly, it is not credible for anyone to expect a timetable clearer or shorter than that, but of course, if we had had the Conservative party's 18 years in government we might not be having this argument five years later.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has my right hon. Friend warned the Conservative peers in particular that if they vote against the abolition of foxhunting there will be scores if not hundreds of Labour MPs in this Chamber who will vote for the third way—namely, to abolish the House of Lords altogether? Will he bear it in mind that if we are not able to achieve that, the important thing to remember in respect of gridlock is that we have to cut the teeth of that second Chamber? They should not be allowed to filibuster ad nauseam. We should make sure that they have a guillotine, as we have in this House, and that this House reigns supreme over any policy issue.
Mr. Cook: The White Paper and my statement today make it perfectly plain that the Government are firmly committed to the principle that the House of Commons must remain the pre-eminent Chamber, and I have not heard anybody in the Chamber argue with what I believe is a universal point of consensus here. I did not become Leader of the House of Commons to give away the standing of the House of Commons relative to the other Chamber.
My hon. Friend suggests a definition of the third way that I am not sure will command that same universal consensus, but I note his interest in abolition. Whether the motions can be tabled in such a way that he can make such an amendment is, of course, a matter for consideration.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Could we not make progress on this very complex issue if the Government and Opposition Front Benchers accepted that having elected peers might undermine our democracy, and more so than at present? Will the Leader of the House bear in mind the fact that the public are fed up with the number of elections, and they are going on strike? Is he not aware that only a quarter voted in the European elections? Even in Rochford, where we had the highest swing to the Conservative party in England, only 29 per cent. voted? Is he not aware of the danger that having even more elections will make the public fed up to the back teeth and undermine democracy further?
Mr. Cook: Although I fully understand the immense trauma undergone by the Conservatives at the last two general elections, I urge them, but not on the basis of that, not to give up supporting elections. If they go to the nation saying that they have lost all faith in elections, they will get a very loud raspberry from the electorate, who will be inclined to give them another landslide defeat third time round.
David Hamilton: May I try to help the Leader of the House? I appreciate that there is to be a free vote, but it may be best not to have a Committee, and the best way to do that is not to have a second Chamber. I am one who believes that we should vote against any second

527
Chamber. That is the right way forward. He asks us to put our point of view as individuals. The vast majority of people out there do not agree that we should have two Chambers, and they think that there is an issue of over-governance. When the Committee goes ahead, as I suppose it will, will it consider regional government as proposed for England? When England gets that, it will find, as we find in Scotland, that a second Chamber is not needed.
Mr. Skinner: I have two tellers.
Mr. Cook: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the advance that he is making from a minimalist base.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton) that I fully understand that some people hold the view that we do not require a second Chamber, but I would not want that to be confused with the concept of over-governance. The second Chamber is not in itself part of the Government. It is a mechanism—a forum—by which the Government can be held to account.
The powers and role that we set out for the second Chamber in the White Paper included the scrutiny and revision of Government legislation, the ability to hold the Executive to account, and the opportunity to float novel ideas and new policy initiatives that the Executive can take on board. It is not a question of Government, but accountability of Government, and for that we need a modern second Chamber that has the legitimacy of being appointed or elected on a basis that commands consensus support.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Joint Committee be nominated by the Committee of Nomination?
Mr. Cook: To be frank, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an answer until I know how the House votes tomorrow. I will commend the Committee of Nomination to the House to ensure that we have fair and appropriate appointments to the Select Committees. The Committee of Nomination is primarily designed for the Select Committees of this House, but I believe that it will be possible for us to find a way forward in which we can ensure that those appointed from this Chamber to the Joint Committee are representative of this House and command the confidence of their parties. That is why we will have to have a rather larger Joint Committee.
David Winnick: Will not future generations find it difficult to understand how hereditary peers lasted throughout the 20th century, and would have lasted even longer had we not been returned to office? Does my right hon. Friend accept that many Labour Members have reservations about a fully elected second Chamber? Opinion seems to be going towards a second Chamber with nominated and elected peers, which would safeguard this House to a large extent. A fully elected second Chamber, which may not he popular among Labour Members at the moment, would in many respects pose a danger to the supremacy of the House of Commons.
Mr. Cook: I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend's point. He may recall that, when we debated this
528
matter in January, much of my speech was taken up with spelling out the risks to the Commons of a fully elected second Chamber. I urge him not to be too defeatist about the degree of support for our perspective. If he looks at the table in the report of the Select Committee on Public Administration, he will see that the largest body of opinion among MPs is for a mainly elected second Chamber. That number was greater than the number of those who support a wholly elected second Chamber.
Mr. Michael Weir: Unfortunately, the prospect of abolition does not seem to be on the table. In trying to find a role for a revised House of Lords, will the right hon. Gentleman give us a guarantee that any revising function in relation to Scotland and Wales will relate to matters reserved to this House only, and no attempt will be made to extend the powers of the House of Lords to revise Acts of the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales?
Mr. Cook: I have no difficulty whatever giving the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Indeed, it would be ultra vires and illegal for either House to attempt to revise legislation on which we have devolved administration to the Scottish Parliament. We are talking only about reserved matters, and those are the only matters that either House is competent to consider.
Fiona Mactaggart: Can the Leader of the House please assure us that he will shortly announce the membership of the Select Committee? When does he think that may happen? That may reassure those people who are unfairly denigrating this proposal as a kick into the long grass. Will he also assure us that, if the Joint Committee comes up with a timely analysis of the options on composition, which as he said have been extensively rehearsed and do not need a great deal of thinking about, he will make time for this House to reach a decision about its view on composition before the summer recess?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for wishing us to make all possible speed. It is important that we maintain the momentum for reform that we have established in the past two years. A number of decisions must be reached before we can appoint the Joint Committee. We must reach agreement on the size of the Committee and on whether the Chair should come from this Chamber or from the other Chamber, and we must identify those who should be appointed to it. That cannot be done overnight, but I assure my hon. Friend that I want to make all possible speed, which is why I said in my statement that the Committee should be established as soon as possible. A vote before the summer recess is certainly possible if the Joint Committee gets down to work quickly, and presents us with the options in good time. It is difficult to see what new matter needs to be examined, and I hope that the Joint Committee will co-operate with us in making that speed.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I broadly welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement, not least because it gives us a chance to reflect further on what is currently proposed by the vast majority in the Chamber. Is it not the case that this is the elected Chamber and that we do not need yet more elected politicians, especially following the announcement about regional government

529
last Thursday? Is it not the case that, if the Lords becomes an elected House, that will drive out those who are not attracted to the hustings but who have genuine extensive experience to add to our legislative processes?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman identifies one of the strengths of the present House of Lords: there is a route of entry to it through the process of independent appointment for people who are distinguished in science, the arts, business and community life. For that reason, we propose to have an independent statutory body to choose the independent peers, without any political interference. The case for a mixed solution, in which there is room for that means of entry to the second Chamber, does not preclude others in that Chamber from being elected. If those who are appointed to that Chamber are to be Members of a Chamber with authority, it is important that the Chamber have legitimacy. In the modern world, it is very difficult to identify a more legitimate approach than the democratic ballot in order to provide elected Members of the second Chamber. Whether all hon. Members wish to live in that modern world is something I cannot help them with, but if we want to be legitimate we have to accept democracy.
Mr. Win Griffiths: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the statement, which will enable us to make a decision before the next general election. Can he confirm that, given the primacy of this House and the view already expressed that a substantial number of those in the upper House should be elected, if a mediaeval minority seek to block the proposal, the modernising majority of the House of Commons will prevail?
Mr. Cook: I am always in favour of the modern age triumphing over the mediaeval age.
David Burnside: Historically, the only criteria any Ulster Unionist uses in judging constitutional reform are: does it strengthen or weaken the Union, and does it make Government more or less accountable? On the make-up of the Joint Committee, although the Labour party has considerable representation in England, Scotland and Wales, it has none in Northern Ireland, and the Conservative party is almost non-existent in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales in terms of Members of the House. Can he ensure that the minority parties, including the Ulster Unionists and Welsh and Scots nationalists, have some representation on the Joint Committee because it will affect the future of the Union?
Mr. Cook: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. He will be aware that we have sought to be as helpful as we can to the minority parties to ensure that there is fair representation. I think that the new arrangements are working rather better in that respect. A Committee that drew so large a membership from the Commons that it provided for a pro rata place for the minority parties would result in a very large Joint Committee indeed. One would be looking at a membership of more than 30 when one aggregated those nominated from the House of Lords. I cannot promise a Committee that large. With a smaller Committee, some painful and difficult choices will have to be made.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: I welcome my right hon. Friend's efforts to find a way
530
forward but seek an assurance that in balancing the membership of the Joint Committee, he will find space for the sceptical views on the Labour Benches as well—those people who are sceptical about a directly elected second Chamber and the need for more elections.
Mr. Cook: I have no difficulty in giving my hon. Friend that assurance. It is important that the representation from this Chamber is balanced, and that the minority view that he describes should be represented both from the Labour Benches and no doubt from other Benches. At the same time, we must ensure that the majority view is also well represented on a proportional basis.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and commend him for his bravery in allowing the House to come to a conclusion on this very important issue, but some valuable work has been done already by my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee in locating a centre of gravity of the opinions of the House. Does my right hon. Friend not consider that that presents an ideal opportunity for the Joint Committee, when appointed, to move forward with some speed?
Mr. Cook: I have already said that I welcome the report of the Public Administration Committee as a valuable contribution to the debate. I very much hope that the Joint Committee will take account of its recommendations when it comes to its decisions. I also hope that some of those on the Select Committee may themselves be members of the Joint Committee. I would not want to pre-empt the options that may be recommended by the Joint Committee but, plainly, the consensus that was established in the Select Committee at around 60 per cent. is an issue that will have to weigh with it.
Mr. Eric Joyce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that even a substantially elected component of the House of Lords would place considerable pressure on the primacy of this House? That is precisely the reason for the damascene conversion of the Conservative party, which knows that it will not hold the reins of power in Parliament for many years to come.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend may be right about the motivation of Conservative Front Benchers, although I note that, as yet, they have not achieved the same conversion among many of their Back Benchers. However, I do not agree with his premise: we cannot hope to maintain the supremacy of this Chamber on the basis of keeping the second Chamber illegitimate. If we are serious about maintaining our own pre-eminence, we must do so with confidence. We must not be afraid of providing for a legitimate second Chamber, which cannot act as a rival to us but can act as an ally in making sure that we have modern and effective means of scrutiny.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, particularly his decision to have a Joint Committee of both Houses and a free vote in both Houses. Surely the constitution is a matter on which we, as parliamentarians, ought to try to transcend our partisanship and seek consensus. If there turns out to be disagreement between this House and the

531
other House, will my right hon. Friend recall the point that he made earlier; that, in both Houses, there seems near unanimity that this House ought to have primacy? If there is a disagreement, logically we ought to have primacy in finding a decision.
Mr. Cook: It is certainly the case that there is broad agreement across a range of issues and the debates on composition—understandable, necessary and central—should not divert us from the fact that there is broad agreement outside that one narrow case. My hon. Friend referred to some of the party political responses and urged colleagues, as I have done, to respond as parliamentarians. I have been in this House long enough to know that it loves a cockpit of debate and rough and frank exchanges. It was necessary for us to go through the catharsis of this statement and the response to it. I hope that, having got that off their chest, the Opposition will now get down to work with us to find a way forward, because it is in the interests of this place and the whole of Parliament that we find the best consensus on that way forward.
Kevin Brennan: Given that all that the Joint Committee has to consider is the option of an appointed House, a fully elected House or the intermediate version, does my right hon. Friend agree that if it were meeting right now, it could have the options ready for consideration by about seven o'clock this evening and the House could be ready to vote on them? In other words, there is no need for the delay. There could be one meeting and we could have a vote before the summer. There should be no problem with that whatsoever.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend has spoken with great wisdom and authority. Were I to be locked in my room for five minutes, I could probably produce the options rather more quickly than by seven o'clock tonight. But it is the nature of democracy that we have to take other people with us and fully explore other perspectives. The Joint Committee will need to do that. I agree with my hon. Friend that even while doing that, there is no need for undue delay in coming back to the House with the options.
Mr. Chris Bryant: As one of the 304 Back-Bench Members of this House who supports a wholly or substantially elected second Chamber, I wholeheartedly welcome everything that the Leader of the House has said, particularly the idea that we shall hold a free vote. It is strange; one waits for a free vote for months, and then three come in a row.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Like the number 24 bus.
Mr. Bryant: Indeed. It is very exciting.
I urge my right hon. Friend not to allow any bishops to sit on the Joint Committee. There should not be any bishops in the House of Lords and there should not be any on the Joint Committee either.
Mr. Cook: Because of my hon. Friend's previous profession, he speaks with unusual authority about
532
bishops, and when we have discussions with them, I think that I shall recommend that he speak on behalf of Labour Members.
This is a classic case in which it is right to proceed by a free vote. Different views exist on both sides of the Chamber, so it would be wrong to try to proceed on a party political basis, with the Whip applied. It is right that both sides be able to cast their votes freely, so that we can establish where the centre of gravity lies.
Julie Morgan: I, too, would like to offer a warm welcome to my right hon. Friend's statement, which constitutes a great step forward. I particularly welcome the free vote, given that the matter is one for Parliament. I also ask what some of my hon. Friends have asked: is there any reason why the Joint Committee should not be set up immediately, and why the options—we already know what they are likely to be—cannot be reported to the House immediately, so that we can get this part of the process over before the summer recess?
Mr. Cook: I agree that we need to proceed with the Joint Committee with all possible speed. As I have pointed out, specific questions need to be addressed and we need first to reach agreement on them, but I hope that they will not become obstacles to progress. Hon. Members have taken the opportunity in the past hour to air their own prejudices on the matter of composition, and it is already clear that the battle lines are well-established. The cases for and against a substantially elected second House have been well argued and aired, and I agree with my hon. Friend that the Joint Committee need not spend too long on the first phase of its work, although there will be much to be addressed in the second phase.
Paul Flynn: Will my right hon. Friend forgive the almost universally sour response from Opposition Members? The Conservatives find it difficult to cope with two features of his statement that are entirely alien to them: its precise response to the consultation process, and his offering a free vote in this House on an issue of substance—something that never happened in 18 years of Conservative Government. When consideration is given to who will chair the Joint Committee, will my right hon. Friend look to my hon. Friends the Members for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), and for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who live in the 21st century, rather than the self-nominated Members of the Opposition, whose spiritual home is the 17th century? Is it not right that this generation of parliamentarians anticipates with relish the undertaking of reforms during this Parliament which are centuries overdue?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations, and it is certainly true that I do not recall a response to consultation during 18 years of Conservative Government that accepted the need for a fresh approach. Indeed, I do not recall much consultation at all during those years. If there had been, we might have been spared the poll tax, for a start.
My hon. Friend mentions the fact that I have not commanded universal support from those on the Conservative Benches. I fear that I have had to carry that burden through most of my years in this House, and doubtless I will have to continue to do so. However, I am

533
comforted by the warm and unanimous support that my statement has received from those on the Government Benches.

Orders of the Day

  National Insurance Contributions Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I should point out that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  5.18 pm
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  There is a simple reason for supporting the Bill: it supports an NHS that is collectively funded, comprehensively available and free at the point of need, and which is the best insurance policy in the world. We are building on the Beveridge principles by raising resources to help fund the cost of the national health service through national insurance contributions. The Bill will raise resources to enable record extra investment to be made in a reformed NHS.
  The question is not whether we need increased investment, but how to raise the money for that investment, and the Bill points the way forward. We have examined alternative health care systems and found them wanting. The Wanless report identified the flaws in alternative models. Social insurance schemes are complex; the tax base is narrower and administration costs escalate. In France the typical employer pays £60 a week per employee.
  Charging for clinical services means patients paying rising bills for individual operations and treatments. Basing our health care system on medical charges would mean that those who are ill would have to pay more for being ill. Private funding mechanisms tend to be inequitable and regressive, they have weak incentives for cost control, they have high administration costs, and they can deter appropriate use. In the United States, family premiums average about £100 per week and are set to rise next year by £13 a week.
  An independent study of health care systems in eight countries, prepared by the European Observatory of Health Care Systems, was published alongside the Budget. We are open to new ideas. Where there are lessons to be learned we will learn them. We have examined the alternatives, but the principle remains: funding through national insurance and general taxation is simply the most equitable, stable and efficient means of raising money for the national health service.
  Mr. Michael Fallon: The Chief Secretary says that national insurance contributions are the most equitable method of funding, but how does he square that with the pre-Budget report of 1999, in which the Government said, in relation to the climate change levy and the reduction in employers' NI contributions:
  "This is consistent with the Government's policy of switching the burden of taxation from 'goods' like labour"?
  Mr. Smith: That is perfectly consistent, on the basis that I have already explained. We are acting in conformity with the Beveridge principles and the well established

  535
  practice whereby contributions made through national insurance by people when they are in work, and by their employers, are used to provide cover for when they are unable to work. A contribution is also made from general taxation. Moreover, the way in which we are introducing the changes in the Bill is equitable and fair. It is also supported by the people of this country.
  Phil Hope: My right hon. Friend is right. I have spoken to employers from businesses in my community and they are well aware that many people are off work ill and waiting for hospital treatment. Those employers are more than prepared to contribute to the NHS through the NI system, as employers have done for decades, because they recognise the benefits it brings to their businesses to have shorter waiting times or for people to see their general practitioner sooner. Employers want to see investment in the NHS and they know the benefits that this Bill will bring to their businesses.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. That has been my experience, too, when meeting business groups in my constituency and elsewhere. It was, after all, the Confederation of British Industry that pointed out that the cost of ill health to business was some £10 billion a year. Employers as well as employees will benefit from the investment that we are making in the NHS. Anthony Goldstone, the president of the British Chambers of Commerce, said:
  "Any of us in business know that we get what we pay for. If we want a world-class health service in the UK we need to pay more."
  Mr. John Maples rose—
  Mr. Smith: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he will tell us how he would pay more.
  Mr. Maples: I wish to take the Chief Secretary up on a point that he made earlier. The NHS system may be the best way to fund health care, but when he talked about social insurance and what happens in the United States, he set up a couple of men of straw. Much of the funding in the US comes through health maintenance organisations—and even if the premium is £100 a week, that is less than a family of four will pay when the Government have increased spending on health to £100 billion a year. A family of four will then pay some £7,500 a year for health care. The fact is that if we did not finance the health care system through taxation but in some other way, people's taxes would be lower. In this instance, that would more than compensate for the charges.
  Mr. Smith: I take it from the hon. Gentleman's intervention that he advocates abandoning the NHS—
  Mr. Maples indicated dissent.
  Mr. Smith: Yes, from what the hon. Gentleman has said, it seems that he would cut taxation to make health care dependent on charges through insurance or individual charges for treatment. We should not forget that people in the US often have to pay supplements, on top of the insurance premiums that they have already paid, to get the operations that they need.
  536
  An NHS free to all at the point of need has been the consensus in this country for 50 years. It was our hope that we could renew that national consensus on NHS funding, and we believe that the Bill is the vehicle for that. Before the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), left the Chamber, I wanted to remind him—perhaps he saw it coming—that until the last general election, that was Conservative policy, too.
  I also remind Conservative Members of the promise that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made in his election leaflet. He said:
  "There will be no charges. Do not believe the lies which are being spread by our opponents. Conservatives will retain a free and comprehensive National Health Service."
  That is what the shadow Chancellor said in his general election communication last year—but of course he and his right hon. and hon. Friends refuse to give that commitment at present.
  While the Opposition are abandoning their promise and their commitment to the NHS, we are delivering on ours.
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the US examples, let us not forget that in the US, people on low incomes have to rely on other types of health care, because there is in essence a two-tier system. Did he see a recent television programme in which pharmaceutical companies were providing routine health checks for poorer people in the US? There was an interview with a lady in late middle age who said that that was the first time in her life that she had received a routine health check. Is that the sort of health care that the Opposition are promoting?
  Mr. Smith: That is precisely the sort of system that the Opposition would head us towards. My hon. Friend gives a telling example.
  Mr. Michael Weir: When the right hon. Gentleman referred to the CBI, he mentioned the savings to business if fewer people were off sick, and we would probably all agree about that. However, does he agree that there is a difference between companies that have the trade-off of lower corporation tax, and unincorporated businesses that receive no such trade-off? Even at this late stage, will he consider a mechanism for helping small unincorporated businesses?
  Mr. Smith: We are already acting to help those businesses. Of course I understand the differences between their position and that of incorporated companies. However, the Budget proposals for VAT simplification will benefit those businesses—as will our measures concerning capital allowances and our creation of a general environment in which business can prosper. That is why there are now so many more small businesses than when we came into office. I think that 345,000 started up last year alone. We really are delivering for small business.
  I have yet to hear from any representative of such a business that they are against extra resources for the national health service, or that they believe that our proposals are not an equitable way to provide those resources. We do not pretend that we can get something for nothing. It is right and proper that we set out transparently how we shall raise those resources.

  537
  Employees and the self-employed will pay an extra 1 per cent. in national insurance on all their earnings above £89 a week. For example, a single person on the median income of £410 a week will pay £3.70 more in real terms as a result of the income tax and national insurance changes. Those on higher incomes will pay more, while those on lower incomes will pay less. That is only fair.
  Mr. Steve Webb: I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would give us some clarification of the position of people in Scotland who pay national insurance contributions. Will their extra 1 per cent. eventually find its way back to the Scottish Parliament, which will not be obliged to spend that money on the health service? Can people in Scotland be sure that every penny of their national insurance contribution will go to the health service—or is there no guarantee of that under devolution?
  Mr. Smith: The national insurance system is UK-wide. Scotland benefits enormously from that through the Barnett consequentials. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this is a matter for the Scottish Executive. I understand that the Executive have given a commitment that the extra money will be invested in the health service in Scotland—(Interruption.]—as indeed has the Welsh Assembly. That point that I was coming to was that half of all families with children will pay less overall because of the interaction of these changes with the introduction of the child tax credit and the working tax credit.
  As we know, both the British Chambers of Commerce and the Confederation of British Industry recognise that employers have a strong interest in a healthy and productive work force. They recognise that there is an economic rationale as well as a social and moral imperative underpinning our proposals. It is clear to me that the British people already draw a sharp contrast between the clarity, fairness and dynamism of our proposals, and the vacuous evasive manoeuvring of the shadow Chancellor and his colleagues. In public they say that they do not know what their policy is, while in private they say that charges—or, in the shadow Health Secretary's words, a "self-pay" system—are the way forward.
  Clause 1 proposes how primary class 1 contributions are to be calculated. From April next year, the new employee contribution will consist of two elements: the main primary rate of 11 per cent., instead of the current 10 per cent., on earnings between the primary threshold and the upper earnings limit, and an additional primary rate of 1 per cent. on all earnings that exceed the upper earnings limit. In response to concerns raised by the Select Committee on the Treasury and others, I can confirm that the Bill does not provide any power for the new 1 per cent. rate to be changed by secondary legislation.
  Clause 2 amends the current secondary class 1 contribution from 11.8 per cent. to 12.8 per cent. for employers so that they, too, will make an equivalent additional contribution. The rates paid by employers on benefits in kind and pay-as-you-earn settlement agreements—classes 1 A and 1B—are also increased to 12.8 per cent.
  Clause 3 proposes how class 4 contributions from the self-employed are to be calculated. Through this Bill they will pay an extra 1 per cent. on their profits or gains above
  538
  £4,615 a year. From April next year, the new Class 4 contribution will also consist of two elements: the main class 4 rate of 8 per cent. on earnings between the lower and upper profits limits, and an additional class 4 rate of 1 per cent. on all earnings that exceed the upper profits limit. That new additional class 4 rate will not be amendable by secondary legislation, either.
  As I have said, the measures in the Bill, and what we are doing overall to match investment in the national health service with reform, are the fairest and most efficient means of raising money for the national health service. It is interesting that, according to The Sunday Telegraph poll, more Conservative voters agree with us on this matter than agree with Conservative Front-Bench Members and their colleagues. I think that 54 per cent. of Conservative supporters backed our proposals for raising money to fund the NHS.
  Dr. Evan Harris: The right hon. Gentleman says that this is the fairest way, but would he concede that some forms of taxation, particularly some forms of income taxation, would be even fairer, to use his terms, than the rise in national insurance contributions, which does not, for example, tax very wealthy people who have unearned income and are not in work?
  Mr. Smith: It is perhaps a consequence of debating these matters four times in two weeks that no points have so far been raised that have not already been exhaustively explored. The answer to that question is that because we are raising the money through national insurance contributions, many pensioners on fixed incomes will not have to make the additional contribution. Equally, raising the money through income tax would have hit and penalised savers. The hon. Gentleman points to rich people, and a very complex system might have exempted the other groups, but we decided that this measure was a fair, efficient, widely and appropriately based means of raising the money. My experience, my hon. Friends' experience in their constituencies and the evidence of the polls show that the public overwhelmingly understand and support what we are doing.
  These measures, along with the Budget, have enabled the Government to announce the largest ever increase in investment in the NHS, raising spending on average by 7.4 per cent. in real terms each year. That is an annual cash increase of 10 per cent, and it is not just for three years but for five years, creating the stable platform necessary for long-term investment. With the year-on-year rises, UK health spending will grow from £65.4 billion this year to £105.6 billion in 2007-08. Even allowing for inflation, that is a rise of 43 per cent. over five years. Since 1997 there has been a real-terms doubling in health service investment. UK health spending will rise from 6.7 per cent. of national income in 1997, and 7.7 per cent. of national income this year, to 9.4 per cent. by 2007-08, and that investment is being matched by reform.
  First, on accountability, there will be independent audit, inspection and scrutiny of patient complaints, with a duty to account for money spent and standards achieved, and report to the public. In future, an annual report to Parliament will be prepared by the new independent auditor, accounting for the money allocated to the NHS, where it has been spent and the results that have been achieved. That will be matched by a local report from

  539
  every primary care trust that will spell out to each household in its locality the services available and the value for money that is being achieved.
  The second principle of reform is devolution. As the Secretary of State for Health has already announced, there will be vital new reforms. They will include new financial incentives for hospital performance, greater freedoms for high-performing hospitals and trusts, powers and resources that are devolved to front-line staff and primary care trusts, reform of social services care for the elderly, and a series of measures increasing choice for patients.
  Patient choice will help to drive the reformed system. Money will follow the patient, so resources will be tied to performance. The NHS will treat more patients more quickly and to a higher standard.
  Let me give some examples of what the extra investment will mean in constituencies throughout the country. There will be 35,000 more nurses, midwives and health visitors, 15,000 more doctors and consultants, and 42 major hospital schemes. That is the difference: more nurses, more doctors, more hospitals, more care centres and better treatment. That is what the Bill is about-investment in the nation's health and investment in the future.
  Throughout the whole debate, the dividing line has not just been between those who support raising national insurance and those who do not. It is between those who support an NHS comprehensively available and free at the point of need and those who would abandon it. There is a very clear choice before us all. Do we want a high quality national health service to meet the needs of the British people and funded through general taxation, or a system in which families are forced to take out private insurance and have to pay more for their treatment through charges? That is the real choice. We choose the NHS, whereas the Conservative party chooses charges.
  We are providing record new investment combined with reform. Money and change together will deliver results as we reaffirm the basic principle of the NHS—that health care should be available on the basis of need, not of ability to pay. To vote for the Bill is to back the NHS that the British people want and deserve. I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.38 pm
  Mr. John Bercow: I beg to move, To leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the National Insurance Contributions Bill because its provisions fail to reflect the need for change and improvement in the NHS to match additional resources, will hamper job creation and further increase the burdens on business, and will impose additional taxes on employees, including those on whom the public services rely."
  I begin by drawing the House's attention to my declaration in the Register of Members' Interests—specifically, that I do occasional work on staff communication skills with employees of J. P. Morgan and Deutsche Bank.
  If Ministers' statements were to be believed—a mighty if, it has to be acknowledged—this is the Bill that was
  540
  never to be. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister told the Daily Express—I quote for the delectation of the House—
  "We are not going to clobber people on higher incomes. We are not going back to 1992 and the shadow Budget. We have not the slightest intention of hammering people on £30,000 and £35.000 and the higher income brackets."
  Not to be outdone, the Chancellor, on 23 May 2001, described suggestions that he would raise the national insurance ceiling as a Tory smear, which, he said, "I utterly repudiate." Speaking on the "Powerhouse" programme on 29 May last year, the current Secretary of State for Trade and Industry insisted:
  "We've got no plans to raise the ceiling on national insurance contributions",
  adding unwisely:
  "It is not going to happen."
  Less than 72 hours before polling day, the hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill) declared:
  "Gordon Brown has made it perfectly clear that we have absolutely no plans to raise the ceiling on national insurance".
  The hon. Gentleman got his reward: no longer a junior underling at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, he is now the Government's Deputy Chief Whip.
  "To Byers" could be the new verb that describes the contagious disease of misinformation that rampages through the Government.
  Phil Hope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: In a moment. I will not accuse Ministers of lying. Suffice it to say that they are in a class of their own in giving credence to untruths.
  The changes outlined in the Bill that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has commended to the House today will help to raise £8.6 billion in 2003-04 and similar sums in years thereafter. It is notable, although the right hon. Gentleman did not mention it, that the 1 per cent. increase in the rate of primary class 1 national insurance contributions represents a proportionately bigger increase to those married women who took up the option—prior to its withdrawal—to pay national insurance contributions at a reduced rate, earning no entitlement to contributory national insurance benefits as a result of those contributions. That reduced rate is currently 3.85 per cent; it will rise to 4.85 per cent. in April 2003.
  Phil Hope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: I can resist the hon. Gentleman's soothing bromides not a moment longer. I give way.
  Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman is practising his communication skills most eloquently this evening. I have a couple of questions for him. Given that they are to vote against the Bill tonight, have the Opposition given up on the NHS and its principle of treatment according to need, not ability to pay? If they intend to match the spending on the NHS that we have pledged, how will they pay for it? Will they make the sick pay for being sick?
  Mr. Bercow: No, we are certainly not going to do that. I am indebted to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the

  541
  opportunity to confirm that we believe passionately in the ideals of the national health service. However, we believe that after five years of mismanagement and ineptitude under a benighted Labour Administration we are now further away than ever before from those cherished ideals. The Opposition are committed to reform—
  Mr. Bill Rammell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: In a moment—the hon. Gentleman must contain himself with what resilience he can muster.
  The Conservatives are committed to reform. We will look at the options. We want a service that is better. Next week the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope) and I are to play alongside each other in a tennis match on behalf of the House. Let me say, in all charity, that it is to be hoped that his excellence at tennis is rather greater than his capacity to make incisive interventions in debate.
  Mr. Rammell: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's statement that he remains committed to the national health service free at the point of use. If that is the case, can he explain what the shadow Secretary of State for Health meant by "self-pay"? What does that concept mean to the Conservatives?
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman has not grasped the reality of the situation in which we find ourselves. We have a two-tier system. Last year, 250,000 people without insurance paid for their operations. It should not be necessary in the year 2002 for people to use their life savings to save their own lives. My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Health has said that people are having to pay, and he does not want that situation to become worse. He recognises the need for reform and he is considering the various options. He knows that the Government have made a mess of things. I say to the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) that my hon. Friend has probably forgotten more about the national health service than the Secretary of State knew in the first place.
  Mr. Chas Roy-Chowdhury spoke about the savage imposition on married women, as reported in the Financial Times on 3 May. He is the head of taxation at the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants. He said:
  "This extreme and disproportionate increase for those currently paying the lower rate is grossly unfair and is a case of the Government wishing to wring as much money as possible from everybody, even widows and older women. Many of these women"—
  this is hardly a laughing matter, even for the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband)—
  "are near retirement, and the last thing that they need is this tax hike to upset their finances."
  There is speaking with forked tongue, the breaking of promises and picking on the most vulnerable. It is clear that there are no depths now to which new Labour will not sink.
  John Whiting is a tax partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers and president of the Chartered Institute of Taxation. He often quizzes people as to what is the second biggest tax
  542
  after income tax. It is not value added tax, it is not corporation tax and it is not petrol duty. It is the national insurance contribution. As he said:
  "We now have a top tax rate of 41 per cent., and another hole in the fiction that national insurance contributions are anything other than a tax."
  What has been the reaction of business to what has been unveiled by the Chief Secretary and his ministerial colleagues? The CB1 says:
  "It is the worst kind of tax rise as it adds straight to the cost base and is unrelated to profits."
  The head of the Engineering Employers Federation, Martin Temple, observes:
  "£3 billion of extra costs is £3 billion less to invest."
  Nick Golding of the Forum of Private Business labels the rises
  "a further disincentive to employ."
  Ian Fletcher of the British Chambers of Commerce attacked the rise as "indiscriminate".
  Vernon Coaker: The hon. Gentleman has quoted many organisations. Will he quote ordinary people? Will he quote what individuals in our constituencies are saying about the extra investment that will go into the national health service, and how important they think that extra investment is? Does he think that to quote them would be worth more in this debate than quotations from representatives of the organisations to which he has referred?
  Mr. Bercow: I am slightly perturbed by the hon. Gentleman's intervention. The individuals to whom I have referred would find it peculiar to be described as in some way extraordinary. They have the advantage of the hon. Gentleman because they boast experience and expertise that lend authority to their pronouncements. However, the hon. Gentleman is always good at egging me on and encouraging me in debate. If he will exercise some patience, which is a virtue, he will recognise that I intend to refer to the impact of the measures set out in the Bill on the very ordinary people for whom he purports to care.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to quote the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, who may be an ordinary person? At the last general election, he said:
  "Conservatives will retain a free and comprehensive national health service."
  Will the hon. Gentleman repeat that pledge? If he cannot, why not?
  Mr. Bercow: I am disappointed in the Chief Secretary. He should know by now that my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer is an ordinary person blessed with extraordinary abilities. That should be patently apparent to all Members of this place and others well beyond. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) must contain himself; he must exercise what restraint he can muster. I know that he is a distinguished Member of this place and I believe that he is the Chairman of the relevant Select Committee. I say to him in all kindness that if he behaves himself, I will give way. If he does not, I will not. He has a simple choice, but he must allow me to deal first with the Chief Secretary, which I shall relish. My right hon. and learned

  543
  Friend the shadow Chancellor, and all my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are committed to an improved NHS which serves the people of this country instead of letting them down. I reiterate the fundamental principle that the availability of health care should be determined on the basis of need, not ability to pay.
  Mr. Kevan Jones rose—
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman must wait.
  That consideration is so strikingly clear that, as the late Enoch Powell used to say, only an extraordinarily clever person could fail to grasp so simple a point.
  Mr. David Cameron: On the impact of the increase on ordinary people, is my hon. Friend aware that the John Radcliffe hospital, which serves the Oxford, East constituency of the Chief Secretary, as well as the constituencies of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and myself, is short of 300 nurses and its vacancy rate is running at 14 per cent? Has my hon. Friend calculated the effect of increased national insurance contributions on trying to hire badly needed staff in our hospitals?
  Mr. Bercow: It is very simple; the bull-headed and short-sighted policy on which the Government seem intent will make a difficult task much more difficult.
  Mr. Webb: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: In due course; I do not want to squander the hon. Gentleman's contribution. His professorial interventions are of great value and it would be a pity to waste one just yet. If he will allow me, I shall store him up and deal with him a bit later.
  Most strikingly of all, Stephen Alambritas of the Federation of Small Businesses stressed that taxes will rise for 3 million self-employed workers. Pointing out that the average income from self-employment is just £13,890 a year, compared with an average income from employment of £21,842 a year, he rightly castigated the Government for undermining any attempt to help the low-paid. My right hon. and hon. Friends will have noticed that whenever I have spoken today about increased burdens, higher taxes and objections from business and other organisations, Government Members have been determined to throw me off the scent. They do not want to talk about damaging consequences, to focus on the realities or to acknowledge the protests that are springing up from reputable organisations and individuals the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, because they prefer to live in an ivory tower. They can try to do so, but it will not work; we shall point out the damage inflicted by their policies.
  John Mann rose—
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is a regular contributor to our debates; I anticipate eagerly what he has to say, but he will not say it just yet.
  The timing of savage tax rises could scarcely be more insensitive. In the past year, manufacturing output has fallen at its sharpest rate for a decade. Manufacturers are
  544
  struggling in a sea of tax, regulation and administrative complexity which is deeper and more hazardous than ever before. Ministers' response has been to deliver a financial body blow by jacking up the cost of employment. It is no wonder in those circumstances that representatives of no fewer than nine manufacturing industry trade associations from the plastics, rubber, coatings and associated machinery and tool-making sectors, speaking for 315,000 employees, fired off a letter of protest to the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry only last Wednesday, complaining that a staggering 78 per cent. of all the new money to be raised in 2003–04 will be grabbed from business. If the Chancellor knows that for 20 plastics companies the extra bill will be £3.4 million a year, or that 60 per cent. of them plan to meet that cost by cutting jobs, he should be ashamed. If he is ignorant of that important fact, it is frankly time he did his homework.
  Mr. Chris Bryant: Earlier, the hon. Gentleman said that the shadow Chancellor was an ordinary man of extraordinary talents; he seems to be proving this afternoon that he himself is an extraordinary man of ordinary talents. He said that the increases in national insurance contributions on both sides may be a tax on jobs. What is unemployment in his constituency, and what was it in 1997? How does he explain the fact that it has fallen by 55 per cent.?
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman really ought to do better than stick to a prepared script that ignores what I have said. I do not know about his educational attainments and other attributes, but let me explain my position in easily intelligible terms. If a tax rise has not yet taken effect, it should not be too difficult for him to grasp that the damaging employment consequence that I predict has not yet taken effect. Ordinarily, for his edification, the impact follows the policy; the policy will have an impact in due course. I am a charitable fellow, so if he is still in doubt and requires further illumination, I will happily go to any recess in the House later and give him a tutorial on that elementary point.
  Mr. Bryant rose—
  Mr. Bercow: No, the hon. Gentleman made a mess of it once; he can hardly be so unreasonable as to expect me cruelly to compound his embarrassment.
  Mr. Webb rose—
  Mr. Bercow: Of course, I shall give way to the good professor.
  Mr. Webb: The mention of tutorials got me going.
  The hon. Gentleman implied that employers' national insurance is a tax on jobs and that increasing it will damage jobs. Does he think that employers' national insurance contributions are at an optimal rate, or should they be cut?
  Mr. Bercow: That is a useful intervention. We shall set out our position on taxation levels with clarity and specificity well in advance of the next general election. The hon. Gentleman, who is a reasonable fellow, will accept the proposition that for a party which aspires to government—I cannot credibly accuse his party of that—

  545
  it does not make much sense, having lost an election 11 months ago on its last manifesto, to be expected to produce today the contents of its next one.
  Andrew Selous: Does my hon. Friend agree that the tax increase is particularly unwelcome for the plastics industry? I recently visited a plastics manufacturer in the automated components industry in my constituency. It faces the prospect of price reductions of 7 to 15 per cent. being forced on it by its customers. It is desperately trying to pare costs and is having some success, but is nevertheless confronted with a bill of an additional £70,000 to £80,000. It told me that the change is particularly unwelcome because it pays national insurance whether or not it is making a profit; I do not believe that the Government have realised that.
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is correct; the cost is incurred, regardless of whether a profit is being made. The Government's message to companies in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere can be succinctly encapsulated: "Thank you for trying to bear up under competitive pressures. Here's our solution—please pay another tax so that it is more, rather than less, expensive, for you to employ people." The National Association of Pensions Funds has warned that more companies are likely to axe final salary pension schemes to recoup the cost of the 1 per cent. rise in employers' national insurance bills. It said that the change, which will cost companies about £4,000 million a year, would drive businesses to seek out ways of cutting costs. That is the considered verdict of people at the grass roots, not the self-appointed judges on the Government Benches.
  John Mann: The hon. Gentleman has quoted various business spokesmen to support his case. The chairman of the Bassetlaw chamber of commerce, a small business man in a heavy manufacturing area, describes the Budget as fair. Why?
  Mr. Bercow: I do not know. It must be something in the water in Bassetlaw. The hon. Gentleman and I served together on Lambeth borough council from 1986 to 1990. I thought then that the hon. Gentleman was a peculiar fellow, and I have never had any reason since to revise my opinion. Quite what caused the people of Bassetlaw to vest their faith and confidence in the hon. Gentleman I do not know, but I cannot be held responsible for the results.
  Tax rises—I know that Labour Members do not want to hear about the tax rises, but they will keep hearing about them—mean that a house officer in the national health service will be £276 a year worse off. A nurse consultant will be £312 a year worse off. A specialist registrar will be £408 a year worse off. A senior house officer will be £516 a year worse off. A consultant will be £672 a year worse off. The Government are punishing the very people whom they disingenuously claim to support. The Chancellor stands exposed. Far from being a generous distributor of largesse, he is now seen in his true light as the nation's most outrageous pickpocket.
  Mr. Kevan Jones rose—
  Mr. Bercow: I want to make progress, but if the hon. Gentleman contains himself—I do not think he is about to pop like a champagne cork—I shall happily give way to him later.
  546
  Just as older women have been singled out for discriminatory treatment, so too have those on modest earnings. A self-employed person on £20,000 a year, even after allowing for the offsetting effects of tax deductibility, can expect to pay an extra £143 a year.
  Perhaps the most shaming fact of all is that those who possess the least must cough up the most. Over the past five years, tax on the poorest quintile of households rose from 38 per cent. to 41 per cent., as against a rise of only 1 per cent. for the highest quintile. The net result is that a 2 per cent. gap favouring the richest has risen to 4 per cent. since the party of Bernie Ecclestone and Lakshmi Mittal took office. [HON. MEMBERS: "And Richard Desmond."] Indeed, and Richard Desmond, as my hon. Friends helpfully advise me from their sedentary positions.
  What about the public sector? The cost of the employer increase to the police service, with just under 125,000 people, will be an extra £32 million a year. The cost to the teaching profession, with more than 361,000 staff, will be an extra £79 million a year. The cost to local government—
  Mr. Stephen Pound rose—
  Mr. Bercow: In a moment. The hon. Gentleman is spectacularly misnamed, in view of his speedy commitment to the abolition of our national currency and its replacement with another, but he is a jovial character, and I can resist him no longer.
  Mr. Pound: I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's flow, and I can understand why, on public service broadcasting in America, he is already considered something of a cult. [Interruption.] Perhaps that lost something in translation.
  May I ask the hon. Gentleman a couple of questions? Has there ever been a time in the proud and glorious mercantile history of this nation when any honest cordwainer or cooper has said, "Whacko! More taxes. I'm happy with that."? Has there ever been an occasion when people have not objected to taxation? Has there ever been a time when manufacturers in this country have not recognised that the health of the nation is essential to the productivity of the nation?
  Mr. Bercow: What people object to is paying their money and getting no value in return. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman.
  The cost to local government, which has been lumbered with more responsibilities than ever before and forced by Government to set the highest level of council tax since its inception, will be an extra £300 million a year. Perhaps the most depressing irony of all, in the context of a Bill which ostensibly is designed to bolster our national health service, is that the NHS itself will face a bill of an extra £200 million a year as a result of the increase in employers' national insurance contributions.
  Look at the care home sector. [Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant), who is chuntering to himself—a very worrying sign at this early stage in his parliamentary career—does not want to discuss this important matter, but I say to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that since 1996–97 almost 50,000 care home beds have been lost, creating personal

  547
  tragedies for thousands, owing to the blithering incompetence of Ministers. Now they seem hell-bent on strangling what remains of a sector whose margins are often slim—not infrequently, for the smallest care homes, less than 5 per cent—and whose wage bills account for about 80 per cent. of their total costs. The Registered Nursing Home Association, the National Care Homes Association and individual nursing home owners have united in a chorus of condemnation of ministerial short-sightedness.
  Yet the Chief Secretary claims that the Bill will bring about the improvements in health care that we all want to see. Of course, as my right hon. and hon. Friends are painfully aware, every year Ministers promise that reform and extra spending will go hand in hand, but every year that promise is broken. We see no reform; we see no change; we no improvement. We see only the higher taxes which are the instinctive response and the favourite sport of Labour Governments, new as well as old. Without change—
  John Mann: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman has had one opportunity. He made a frightful, blithering mess of it. He can hardly expect me to have another go at indulging him-that I will not do.
  Without change, we will not see the difference. In Scotland—
  Mr. Kevan Jones: What reforms would the hon. Gentleman propose, in line with the tax plans that he does not intend to lay out tonight? [Interruption.] I accept his point about the election, but can he give a commitment that the Conservative party is committed to health care free at the point of need?
  Mr. Bercow: I do not know how many times one has to underline one's commitment to a comprehensive national health service which is available to people on the basis of clinical need and not on the strength of ability to pay. I have said it many times before; I am saying it again. I am reiterating the commitment of the Conservative party to a fundamental, wholesale and searching review of the basis of delivery and funding of health care in this country. It could not be more explicit. It is not my fault that the intervention of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) was spoiled by the sedentary interjection of his hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound).
  Mr. Kevan Jones rose—
  Mr. Bercow: No, I will not give way again. I want to develop the arguments.
  The Chief Secretary claims that the Bill will secure improvements. As I said, every year we see no reform, no change, no improvement; we see only the higher taxes which are both the instinctive response and the favourite sport of Labour Governments, new as well as old. Without change, as I said, we will not see the difference.
  In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland spending on health is much higher than it is in England, but in key respects the service is getting worse. In Scotland over the
  548
  past five years, spending has risen by 28 per cent. in real terms, but over exactly the same period the average waiting time for an out-patient appointment has risen by 25 per cent.
  There could hardly be a more graphic testament to the sheer inadequacy of the status quo. The chairman of the British Medical Association said recently:
  "The NHS in its current state cannot survive without radical change."
  That change is essential if we are to translate care from a word to a deed. Even the Health Secretary has blurted out the worst kept secret in Britain-that the national health service is the last great nationalised industry.
  Waiting lists and waiting times are rising. The number of care home beds is falling. Bed blocking and cancelled operations have soared. Mixed sex wards abound. Doctor and nurse shortages put us to shame in the league tables of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and of the European Union. Patients travel as far as South Africa for treatments that should be available here.
  Mr. Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: No.
  In 2000–01, the Department of Health failed even to spend £693 million that was allocated to it by the Chancellor. There are now more bureaucrats in the NHS than beds, and the morale of NHS staff is at an all-time low. Waste and fraud cost the service £10 billion a year.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: Of course I shall give way to the Father of the House.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman help us with his credentials for being quite so certain about what is happening in Scotland, as I know personally that many improvements have been made there?
  Mr. Bercow: I always listen carefully and with respect to the hon. Gentleman. My assessment is that the service in Scotland has not improved as one would expect consequent upon the increase in resources that it has enjoyed under his Government. I say to him that I have not depended on advocacy, but grounded my case in evidence. I have referred to what struck me—and I hope would strike him—as the significant fact that in precisely the same period as spending on health has increased by 28 per cent. in real terms, there has been a 25 per cent. increase in the average waiting time for an out-patient appointment. That is the reality; it may not seem natural and might not have been expected, but it is the consequence of the mismanagement of our national health service and the defects of the status quo that reigns within it.
  There are now more bureaucrats than beds in the NHS—[Interruption.] These points are important, so I shall repeat them. The morale of NHS staff is at an all-time low and waste and fraud cost the service —10 billion a year. All too many wards are breeding grounds for MRSA—methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus—and the Public Accounts Committee found but

  549
  18 months ago that infections caught while in hospital killed about 5,000 people a year. Perhaps most tellingly all, one's chances of surviving cancer are markedly worse in the United Kingdom than in many other industrialised countries.
  What was the response of the Secretary of State for Health to the miserable catalogue of underperformance that is failing the British people? The night before his statement to the House on the NHS plan, according to the 21 April edition of The Sunday Times, the right hon. Gentleman sat in his office with colleagues with a collection of papers strewn all over the place, munching on Marks and Spencer ready-made pasta and sweating over what he could possibly say to the House fewer than 24 hours later. Professor Alan Maynard, the eminent economist from York university, dismissed the Government's proposals for reform as "horse manure".
  I shall not go as far as that because I am a charitable soul, as you can testify, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, what we do know is that the extra nurses, doctors, hospitals and primary care centres about which the Secretary of State for Health talked are only expected, not promised, and are not even expected until 2008. We know that he merely hopes that the legislation to establish the Commission for Health Care Audit and Inspection will be introduced in the next Session and that the first inspection report is unlikely to materialise before 2005.
  We know that the Secretary of State has not even begun to consult local councils on the plans to make them responsible for bed blocking. He wants to pass the buck from a Government whose fault it is to local government, whose fault it is not, and he has not even had the decency to let the fall guys know of his plans to stitch them up. What a shower these Ministers are.
  Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: My hon. Friend is no doubt aware of the reduction in beds—256 of them have gone in Somerset-and that bed blocking is now a major problem in rural areas and is getting worse. Does he agree that unless the Government take action, care homes in rural areas will disappear and people will have to go into hospitals, as there will be nowhere else to go?
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is entirely right; he speaks from personal experience. It is only to be hoped that even now, at the 59th minute after the 11th hour, the Chief Secretary might be prepared to reconsider the matter. I am sorry to say, however, that he has specialised in putting his own case even if that has meant distorting the statements of others. For example, he referred to Anthony Goldstone and his supposed verdict, but did not quote all his remarks. Of course, Mr. Goldstone, whom he prayed in aid, said:
  "we now have to live with these tax increases, but we say to the Chancellor there is no coming back for more, whether openly or stealthily."
  Mr. Goldstone indicated that he did not think that the Government were going about things in the right way. What a pity that the right hon. Gentleman chose not to—or inadvertently omitted to—give the full context and flavour of Mr. Goldstone's remarks.
  While the Secretary of State for Health ducks, dithers and delays, damage is done every day. The Bill offers no
  550
  answer. It shows that the Government have a closed mind and refuse to learn from abroad. To adapt the celebrated and justified verdict on the Wilson Government,
  "Never in the field of political affairs has a Government taxed so much, delivered so little and been in such an indecent haste to blow its own trumpet."
  6.16 pm
  Vernon Coaker: I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and to have the chance to respond to one or two of the points that he made. I think that we are taking part in an historic debate in which we see clearly the divide between his side of the House and ours—it was made plain in his speech. It is historic as for the first time in a number of years, we have seen a clear argument put for the introduction of increased taxation to pay for improved public services.
  With respect, I thought that the hon. Member for Buckingham made a strategic and tactical error when he referred to a range of occupations and professions and specified what the taxes would cost people in each of them. His mistake and that of the Conservative party is that they have not realised what Labour Members realise, which is that, far from seeing that cost in the old way in which they saw tax—money that they paid without getting anything—people are now saying that they want to invest in their public services. They have accepted the argument that was advanced at the last election for investment and reform in our public services. They now want to see that investment and they understand and realise that they will have to pay for it. The point is not what tax people pay, but what they get for it. The Government will be judged not on the amount of tax that we are asking people to pay through the increased national insurance contributions, but on whether they see the results of that increased investment that we are putting into the national health service.
  The shift in the debate has been huge. I remember standing for election and arguing the case for increased taxes to pay for improved public services a number of times only to lose significantly. It is a great credit to our Government, the Treasury team and others that we have now shifted the debate away from tax cuts and on to investment and reform as the winning combination. That is a significant shift in our political culture.
  We will pay for massive increases in health spending of 7.4 per cent. in real terms in the next five years. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said, the amount spent will shift from £65.4 billion this year to £105.6 billion in 2007 and 2008. Those are staggering figureshuge figures£but people accept the need to pay more because they want new hospitals, shorter waits, new drugs and a modern NHS with more doctors and nurses.
  It is a mistake on the part of Conservative Members to rubbish the NHS as it currently stands. To say that there has been no improvement in the NHS over the past few years completely belies people's experience. It is not true to say that it is a complete shambles and that nobody receives decent service, decent treatment or a decent operation—every single day, tens of thousands of people go to hospital or to their doctor and receive treatment that they are proud to be able to receive and about which they write letters of thanks to ward staff and doctors.

  551
  We need more investment, and significant problems remain to be addressed, but to say that every single hospital, every single surgery and every single operation goes wrong and is a disaster is not true, and it is not the experience of ordinary people.
  Phil Hope: Does my hon. Friend agree that what the Tories are doing is not an accident, but part of a carefully laid out strategy? They are running down the national health service to try to convince people that it does not work. Once they have done that, they can say that they have an alternative—that is, to charge people and force them into private health insurance. Their strategy is aimed at the eventual privatisation of the NHS, and we should reject it absolutely.
  Vernon Coaker: I thank my hon. Friend for that important point. Every time we see a Conservative spokesman on television or hear one on the radio, they simply rubbish what is happening in the NHS. When I speak to people who work for the NHS, they say that although there are real problems, we should recognise progress where it exists. We all have people in our constituencies who come to us to complain that they are waiting too long for an operation, there are not enough consultants, the buildings they have to visit are too old, there is not enough of this or that, or that a certain drug is not available. There are real problems and challenges still to be met, but we should reiterate that progress has been made. The solution outlined by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary at the beginning of the debate—to increase investment in the NHS through the rise in national insurance contributions in the Bill—is the fair and equitable way to rebuild the NHS and to respond to the difficulties that people describe to us.
  We agree with the Wanless report that general taxation is the best way to achieve that. It is the fairest and most equitable system that we have, but it has been rejected by the Tories-they want more private medical insurance or social insurance, which are more inequitable and costly. My right hon. Friend quoted figures on the social insurance systems in France, where employers pay on average some £60 a week towards health care for an employee on average earnings, and in Germany, where employers pay on average £30 a week. We heard about the United States, where family premiums for private insurance average £100 a week and are set to rise on average by £13 a week.
  Those are the choices that confront us. It is perfectly reasonable for people to say that we should fund the health service through private health insurance or social insurance, but I am proud that we have rejected those options and said that we want improvements in the NHS to be paid for through increases in general taxation and national insurance. That is because we believe that that ensures equitable access to treatment, that it is the fairest means possible, and that it remains true to the original principles of the national health service.
  Mr. Maples: I share the hon. Gentleman's allegiance to the principle of care being free at the point of use, but I want to ask him the question that the Chief Secretary failed to answer. The national health service may be a far better way to fund health care than either social insurance
  552
  or health maintenance organisations—the main component in the United States—but the hon. Gentleman cannot quote figures that hide what is being paid here. When we are spending £100 billion a year on the health service, the average family of four will pay £7,500 a year in tax towards it. That may be good value, but he should not pretend that it is cheaper than what people pay in France, Germany or the United States, because it is not.
  Vernon Coaker: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he will have to put those arguments to the electorate. My argument will be that general taxation is the fairest and most equitable way of funding improvements to the NHS and of ensuring that we have the standards that we want. I am happy to present that argument to the electorate, as are my hon. Friends.
  The rise in national insurance contributions is paying for improvements. We all remember what happened under the Conservatives between 1979 and 1997, when national insurance rose from 6.5 per cent. to 10 per cent. without any corresponding improvements in the social wage. Our increase will lead to improvements in the NHS, with a £2.7 billion package for the low paid through a new tax credits system. The 1 per cent. rise that continues above the upper earnings limit ensures that the contribution increase is progressive. That is what people want—a fair and progressive way of raising the additional funds that are needed, then invested, in their health service.
  Alongside that investment people want reform, and I am pleased that that will happen. There will be more beds, new buildings, increases in social services spending and structural change. I remind my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that although we must ensure that patients are given more choice, that should be based on quality, not price competition.
  The new health inspectorate, the Commission for Health Care Audit and Inspection, is important. It will not only audit the use of the new money, but consider private sector quality. More co-operation with the private sector is another important aspect of reform.
  Mr. Bercow: I always enjoy listening to the hon. Gentleman, because he is decent, sincere and well informed. I know that he is a Nottinghamshire, not a Scottish, Member, but may I nevertheless ask him this question? Why has Scotland experienced, throughout the same periods, both a real terms rise in health spending of 28 per cent. and an increase in the average waiting time for an out-patient appointment of 25 per cent.?
  Vernon Coaker: The hon. Gentleman makes a mistake about the argument being for either resources or reform—it has to be for both, as we propose. We believe that increased investment and reform together will lead to shorter waiting times and a whole range of improvements in our national health service.
  The country has faced a choice between publicly funding improvements to our national health service through higher taxation and taking the route of more private money. For many years, I stood for election calling for increased taxes to pay for improved public services. Then, I lost that argument. Now, thankfully, we are winning it. I am proud to be part of a Government who are increasing taxes to improve our public services. Reform must take place alongside that investment.

  553
  The Bill will go a long way towards ensuring that we have the funds and resources to provide the national health service that we need for the 21st century.
  6.29 pm
  Dr. Evan Harris: The shadow Chief Secretary is right that much has been said about the subject of the debate—for example, by him, the Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor), who is giving me a chance to get my teeth into Government health policy this afternoon. I am pleased to see him in his place.
  Several matters have not been tackled, and I hope to cover them this afternoon. It is important to emphasise that Liberal Democrats welcome the additional resources for which the Bill provides, and we will vote for the measure. After all, we called for the resources in the first place, not shortly before the Budget, and not one, two, three or four years before it but five years ago. We called for additional resources from general taxation to save the national health service. The Government made the same commitment in 1997, but without the resources to go with it. Year after year, we called for the very aspect of the Budget that is so popular with electors: increased revenue from fair taxes. Although I do not believe that the Government have gone far enough, the taxes should be as fair as possible in order to pay for the health service.
  We welcome the resources, but we have several anxieties and criticisms. The measure is five years too late, and it came as a surprise to those who listened to the Labour party before the election. It said that taxes, which by implication included national insurance contributions, would not go up. Such behaviour damages the integrity of politics, because politicians should be honest with the electorate.
  The Chief Secretary has stayed to hear my contribution, and I invite him to admit that, before the election, he did not predict that national insurance contributions would increase significantly. I give him the opportunity to say that he had no idea that that would happen or. alternatively, that he realised that national insurance contributions would rise, but did not believe that it was worth making that explicit to the electorate.
  Mr. Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Harris: I was hoping that the Chief Secretary would reply, but I shall give way to a fine substitute.
  Mr. Bryant: I am glad that I will do. Does not the hon. Gentleman remember last year's general election campaign? The subject was extensively discussed; many journalists pushed the Chancellor and tried to get him to make specific commitments on the upper earnings limit and various other aspects of national insurance. My right hon. Friend pointedly refused to do so.
  Dr. Harris: The Chancellor pointedly refused to say that there was a good chance that national insurance would have to rise significantly shortly after the election. But it is in fact a popular act, and yet refusing to be honest with people before an election is destructive to the electoral process. I shall revert to that briefly later.
  The measure is not as progressive as it would be if income tax were used. The 1 per cent. increase in employers' national insurance contributions is a stealth
  554
  tax, which can represent a significant burden on industry and have an impact on job creation. To some extent, it is self-defeating because organisations such as local government, for which some of the money is intended, will lose through having to pay employers' national insurance contributions. I shall consider exactly how much money should be spent on local government later.
  Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman became a Member of Parliament in 1997, at the same time as me. Does he remember the manifesto on which he stood? It promised a grand total of £540 million a year extra for the national health service—half the sum that the Government put into it. Liberal Democrats intended to raise that money through changes to the national insurance system. Why was it right then but wrong now?
  Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman needs to go back to our manifesto, because the funding was not intended to come from the national insurance system.
  Dr. Ladyman: Here is the manifesto.
  Dr. Harris: Let me deal with the point. Our commitment has always been over and above existing Government spending plans, not to burn the money that Labour found for investment but to add to it and to be honest and say that if people want decent public services they have to pay for them. I therefore believe that the hon. Gentleman deceived his electorate twice. Before people claim that they will save the NHS or invest in public services, they must specify the source of the money. In costed manifestos that were audited independently for two elections, we stated that funding for education would come from a penny on income tax. In the last election campaign, we said that money for the health service would be raised through an increase in the top rate of income tax. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that that is an honest and progressive way of raising the money? Will he answer that?
  Dr. Ladyman: Yes.
  Dr. Harris: Perhaps he is more honest than he was in the general election campaign.
  Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman began by challenging me to go back to the Liberal Democrat manifesto, which I have. It states:
  "We will:
  Invest more in the NHS. We will invest at least an extra £540 million every year in the NHS to pay for our policy priorities."
  It goes on to say that the money will be raised through the national insurance system. It is crystal clear. The penny on income tax applied to the health service only in the 2001 manifesto.
  Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman has the misfortune of being patently incapable of quoting and of facing an author of the document, my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell. If the hon. Gentleman has the courage to provide the quote, we can refute his words. We have been clear about the matter. [Interruption.] All the fuss from Labour Members is simply defensiveness because they did not have the guts to do what they have

  555
  subsequently done. They did not have the courage to put to the electorate before an election the fact that income tax or other taxes must increase to pay for public services.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Dr. Harris: I can take as many interventions as Labour Members like, but they are on dangerous ground. However, I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell.
  Matthew Taylor: My hon. Friend might find it helpful to know that our 1997 manifesto proposed cuts in employers' national insurance contributions, funded by the carbon tax, which the Government adopted in a different form through their energy levy.
  My hon. Friend might also find it helpful to reflect on the fact that while we proposed an upfront increase of £540 million for the health service after the election, the Labour Government were elected on a pledge to save the NHS, but imposed two years of real-terms cuts by adopting Conservative Budget proposals.
  Dr. Harris: They went further. They not only stuck to Tory spending plans, which were savage for public services, but found resources to fund tax cuts for the well off, beyond published Conservative spending plans. That was simply twisting the knife
  John Mann rose—
  Mr. Parmjit Dhanda rose—
  Dr. Harris: They want more. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda).
  Mr. Dhanda: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman). Is it true that the 1997 Liberal Democrat manifesto proposed only an extra —5 billion for the NHS, when the Government provided an increase of —20 billion in three years?
  Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman mentions a —5 billion increase proposed by the Liberal Democrats. That sounds like Treasury calculations in a press release, given the Government's history of triple counting.
  We are worried about not only the method of raising the money and the fact that it is not progressive, was not honestly advertised, is late and, in the case of the employers' national insurance increase, self-defeating, but the way in which it is spent. We are worried about whether it will go to the parts of the health and social care organisations where it can be most effective, or be channelled specifically to achieve political targets without making the maximum impact on patient care. We are worried about the way in which the Government continue to manage the health service through too much interference, centralisation and structural change for the sake of change, not the benefit of patients.
  Labour Members, in pushing at an open door or facing an open goal with the lack of Conservative policy, talk about a health service that is universal, comprehensive
  556
  and free at the point of delivery, but they should consider the health service that they have delivered. It is not free at the point of delivery; there are prescription charges for those who are not exempt. Many believe that that is a regressive method of asking the sick to pay for the health service.
  Many people cannot afford to pay prescription charges for all their medication. Patients often ask my former colleagues in the health service to specify the prescription medicines that they do not need so much, so that they do not have to pay for them. We have made a commitment to try to remove the unfairness in exemptions for prescription charges. People believed that the Labour party might do that for cystic fibrosis sufferers, since it made a pledge in opposition to exempt those who survived into adulthood from prescription charges. Again, it reneged on that in government. Similarly, eye checks and dental checks are not free at the point of delivery, as the Liberal Democrats would wish them to be, not only because that is a fair way of doing things, but because it would encourage people—
  Vernon Coaker: Free eye tests, free dental checks, free prescriptions—how much is all that?
  Dr. Harris: If the hon. Gentleman had read our manifesto more than his colleague has, he would know. If such screenings were free, people would go for such checks, which would help them to have good health in the future.
  Mr. Rammell rose—
  Dr. Harris: I look forward to the intervention of the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell).
  Mr. Rammell: As usual, I have taken the opportunity to read the alternative Lib Dem Budget. Many people listening to the hon. Gentleman's last contribution will have gained the impression that the Liberal Democrats are in favour of abolishing prescription charges. Will he confirm that the alternative Liberal Democrat Budget—the only document on which he can be reasonably judged—does not propose to abolish prescription charges?
  Dr. Harris: In the alternative Budget, we made it very clear that we would freeze prescription charges—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Well, I think that people who find it hard to pay prescription charges would prefer, in the first instance, a policy of freezing the charges that the hon. Gentleman's Government have increased year upon year. The increases in prescription charges under his Government—increases similar to those that he and his colleagues used to criticise when the Conservatives implemented them—have been significant in this Parliament.
  We made it clear in our manifesto that we would seek to abolish prescription charges. If the hon. Gentleman looks at our next manifesto, he will see how that is going to be funded, because, unlike the Labour party, we say how we are going to fund our commitments. Rather than making empty promises to save the NHS—as Labour did five years ago, four years ago, three years ago and two years ago—without having the resources to do so, we will provide an indication of where those resources would come from.

  557
  Labour Back Benchers, in criticising the Conservatives, suggest that the NHS is somehow comprehensive at the moment. I do not blame the Labour party for the fact that it is not comprehensive, and that there is rationing, but it is important that those of us who want to save the NHS are at least honest about the fact that not every treatment is available to everyone who could benefit from it. Labour Members who campaigned on these issues know that, for example, someone suffering from multiple sclerosis will not necessarily have access to beta interferon. People wanting prompt surgical treatment might have to wait, sometimes for too long, and sometimes beyond the point at which their condition is operable. A whole series of drugs in cancer treatment, and in others, are not available to people.
  The question that we all face today—it is also one that the Conservatives must address—is not whether there is going to be rationing but how much rationing there will be, and how comprehensive we can make the health service. That will depend on the amount of resources going in, the amount of preventive work that is conducted, which the Government often ignore, and the efficiency with which the resources are spent. So, let us not pretend that, under Labour, the health service is as comprehensive as we would wish. The Government have to recognise that, before they attack the Conservatives for seeking to make it less comprehensive.
  I want to return to my earlier point about this not being the most progressive way of funding the health service. Income tax would clearly have been a more progressive way of funding this increase, and that is what we propose in our alternative Budget. The Chief Secretary was singularly unable to recognise that an increase in the top rate of income tax would ensure that those who were paying for an increase in funding for the health service were those most able to pay.
  I gave notice to the hon. Member for Bolsover Mr. Skinner) that I intended to point out his rather ridiculous intervention in Treasury questions last Thursday. I know that I am taking my life in my hands by saying this, but I did give him notice. He argued that, because some pensioners pay income tax—he said that half of them did so, when it is actually one third—it was a bad, regressive tax, and that obtaining these funds through national insurance contributions was fairer. I do not know on what basis he feels that it is his job to protect the interests of Baroness Thatcher and her husband, who are wealthy pensioners living off a large unearned income and who will not pay a penny more on their national insurance contributions.
  Before Labour Members argue that income tax is somehow regressive because wealthy pensioners would have to pay it, they must recognise that if we want to find the most progressive way of funding these increases in public services. we have to look at the better off who have done very well and ask them to pay a little more, in a fair way, before we ask people earning small amounts—as little as £5,000 a year—to pay more through national insurance. Before we ask those people to pay, we should ask the very wealthy.
  John Mann: I would not dream of putting words into the mouth of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), but our constituencies share quite a long border and very similar characteristics, having both been mining constituencies. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman
  558
  a question about pensioners in my constituency, who have the same characteristics as those of my hon. Friend. The vast majority of pensioners in mining areas have a second pension from British Coal and—because of the scandal of health and safety in the coal industry—now receive industrial injuries compensation to the tune of £6 billion. They are precisely the pensioners who would lose out if this increase were to be funded through income tax rather than national insurance contributions. How would the hon. Gentleman answer that point?
  Dr. Harris: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell gave to his almost identical, but more briefly expressed, question at column 975 on 1 May. I suggest that he picks up a copy of Hansard.
  The point that the hon. Gentleman's pensioners will make clear to him, as mine do to me, is that pensioners rely on the health service and on adequate funding being given to it. They are of one voice in wishing that these increases had been introduced five years ago. By now, we could be five years into a 10-year plan, instead of one year into it. We could be watching the first newly qualified medical students emerging at the end of their training, rather than seeing new medical schools being set up only this year. Nurses whose training places had been funded by increased resources could already be on the wards by now. Five years have been wasted. For the many pensioners who cannot write to the hon. Gentleman because, sadly, they have passed away, this increase has come too late, as has the delivery that the Labour party promised.
  The Government published the NHS plan in 2000. In the following year, and in this one, they have published details of the delivery of the NHS plan. Perhaps, in 10 years' time, we shall see a new document outlining how they will deliver the delivery of the NHS plan. The Government's history on the management of health service funding consists of a series of comprehensive spending reviews that have not been comprehensive and in which the money has sometimes not been spent. The only thing in their favour is that they have constantly been reviewed and revised. In 1997, this Government hit the ground reviewing, rather than running. They have not dealt with the health service in the way that it needed to be dealt with.
  Mr. Rammell rose—
  Dr. Harris: I shall give the hon. Gentleman one more chance.
  Mr. Rammell: One of the difficulties with these debates with the Liberal Democrats is that we hear spending commitments sprayed around like confetti, but when we analyse them they do not add up. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House clearly and precisely what net additional health service spending—above and beyond the Government's current plans—the Liberal Democrats are committed to, and how they would finance it?
  Dr. Harris: As I said earlier, we welcome the current plans. The level of resources that the Government are now talking about for the NHS—social services are still to be the poor relation—is about the level that we would wish to see spent. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman can look at our

  559
  manifesto and our alternative Budget to see that we were the only party at the time to be honest with the electorate about what these resources would be. I know that the hon. Gentleman is not used to straight counting and straight figures, because of the triple counting and re-announcing that he is used to from his own side, but I think, in all modesty, that he should give us credit for announcing our spending plans to the public before the election.
  The 1 per cent. rise in employers' national insurance contributions is a stealth tax, and is a potential significant burden for industry. Indeed, the Government recognised that when they announced, in their March 1999 Budget, that they were going to tax the "bads" and not the "goods", and cut tax on employment to encourage employment opportunities. That was in reference to, yes, a cut in employers' national insurance contributions. What applied in 1999 to employers—particularly those in manufacturing industry, faced with the problems of a high pound and the decline in manufacturing—should really apply now if this really is a Government of stability, at least in terms of policy.
  The proposal is also self-defeating, because the local authorities will have to pay in NICs about the same amount extra that they will receive to fund care of the elderly, even before the ridiculous and punitive fines system is imposed. It has been estimated that the additional costs for the care homes sector will be £50 million in NICs. That has not been factored in. If it has been factored in by the Government, they must give a net figure for an increase in funding in those important care sectors. They have not done so, because they fear that there may be a negative net figure in certain areas—a cut in the money available to social services.
  The Government want to spend the money on the health service and they have set out examples of how in a Department of Health document. Some issues are worrying, and I would be grateful if the Minister addressed our concerns when she winds up the debate. The idea that those moneys should be spent on financial incentives for hospitals wholly misunderstands the basis on which people in the health service work. They work because of a public service ethos to treat patients to the best of their abilities.
  The idea that we can wring more out of those dedicated professionals by giving hospitals financial incentives to get people in, to get people out and to treat them as day cases or not as day cases suggests that their inspiration is mercenary rather than professional and dedicated. It also runs the risk of significantly distorting clinical priorities and makes the health service more of an accountants' paradise, moving to a bottom-line analysis of health care delivery rather than one based on consideration of the patient's needs.
  The Government say that they will establish a new commission to reassure us on how the extra funding is spent. The first place to which a new commission examining whether funding is spent correctly should look is its own creation. Remember, the Government rightly set up the Commission for Health Improvement under the Health Act 1999. They followed that with a refusal to allow it to consider the private sector, setting up the National Care Standards Commission a couple of years later, to begin functioning this April.
  560
  Then, while debating the latest NHS deform Bill on Report, we heard about another structural reform, as the Government said that they would merge the CHI and the newly established NCSC after all, despite saying that they would not when we advocated it during consideration of the previous legislation. All that money was spent on establishing a commission that was dissolved shortly afterwards. We heard nothing more until another announcement of a new health commission-this time, merged with Audit Commission functions and the NCSC. How much money has been wasted on the failed attempts to get this right?
  We also hear that the Government are to insist that primary care trusts send patients prospectuses to tell them what services are available. That would be even more worth while if the Government insisted that PCTs openly and explicitly tell patients what services are not available. I return to the point about rationing: we should consider not the question whether there is rationing for the health service, but how explicit we are, so that people who are deciding whether to vote for the resources to go to the health service know that some services will not be available if they do not vote for those resources.
  The major concern, and our biggest problem with the Government's proposals for spending the money, is how social services are being treated. The Government must recognise that, across the country, local authorities are spending £1 billion more—taken from council tax and other services—than what the Government say they should spend on social services. So, the Government are saying that there is £1 billion of cuts to be had from social services spending or they are happy for education or, more likely, environmental budgets, as education is protected, to be cut to pay for the care of the vulnerable.
  Perhaps the Government want council tax to rise. Whatever we say about NICs and income tax for pensioners, Labour Members must accept that council tax is much more regressive, particularly for pensioners on a fixed income. The failure of the standard spending assessment to match need means that the most vulnerable—pensioners paying council tax or children who want funding for education or special needs provision—have to pay for the vulnerable users of social services.
  The Government have not only failed to fund social services adequately, but they now say that social services will be fined if funding is not provided to deal with bed blocking and the problem of delayed discharge. We know what that means—not that social services and local authorities will pay the fines, but that they will cut other social services funding on which they will not be fined to avoid those fines. Spending on responsibilities without statutory protection, including vulnerable children, the mentally ill and the disabled, as well as some where statutory duties apply, will be cut.
  Indeed, pressures on social service spending come not only from the elderly, but from the vulnerable young and the huge increase in the number of looked-after children who need those resources. Forcing local authorities to rob Peter to pay Paul or to rob Darren to pay Dora to avoid those fines is low politics of the worst kind.
  The Government should ensure that their social services funding matches if not exceeds NHS funding. The Wanless report is revealing in that respect. Table 5.4 shows personal social services spending in England and

  561
  every column covers four years of projected increase, except that for the current spending review period. Instead of covering the years 1998–99 to 2002–03, it covers the three years from 1999–2000 to 2002–03. Every projection in that column lists average real-terms growth of only 1.2 per cent. compared with about 7 per cent. for the NHS. That shows the low priority that the Government plan to give to social services.
  Kevin Brennan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Harris: In a moment. What the Wanless report does not show is that between 1997 and 1999, according to the Library, there were real-terms cuts made under Tory spending plans, imposed by the Government on the most vulnerable. [Interruption.] I note that the Paymaster General is yawning at this point.
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Harris: In a moment. Vulnerable people who use social services will want to know why the Government felt it possible to cut social services in real terms—after allowance was made for the additional duties funded by the special transitional grant—in those first two years. Was not that asking the most vulnerable social services users to pay for the Government's unfunded education promises in those early years?
  Dawn Primarolo: I was listening closely to the hon. Gentleman, but will he return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell)? I studied the shadow Budget produced by the Liberal Democrats not two months ago and the total spending raised for all public services, including health, would not match even what we are spending on health. Would the hon. Gentleman like to apply some of the honesty that he implores the rest of the House to apply by talking about what the Liberal Democrats have costed instead of his wish list?
  Dr. Harris: I am delighted that the Minister is paying attention. If so, she will see that our investment in the early years of that projection, which is what our alternative Budget was due to cover, is higher and made quicker than what the Government promise. One of our main concerns about the Government's proposals is not only that they are one, two or five years too late to meet their commitment to save the NHS, but that they are slow to start. That is why not all the proceeds from NICs are going into the health service, particularly in the early years.
  Dawn Primarolo: If what the hon. Gentleman says is true, the Liberal Democrats would need to raise more than the Government are currently raising to invest in the NHS. Will he now tell the House, as he recites his wish list, how much it would cost and where the Liberal Democrats would raise the money to pay for it? That is not in their shadow Budget.
  Dr. Harris: It most certainly is in the shadow Budget. I take every opportunity to make the point that we would ask the best off in society to pay not the extra 1p NIC on
  562
  employees that trickles through as the only progressive measure, but 10p on the top rate of income tax on incomes of more than £100,000. That means that those who have done particularly well out of the Minister's Government—many of whom may have contributed to her party, we hear—would be asked to pay for the health service. If she looks at our figures, which have been independently costed, she will see that our funding matches what she is providing over the cycle, but that it provides more in the early years.
  Mr. Rammell rose—
  Dr. Harris: The Paymaster General has still not replied to my question, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman who is seeking to intervene can tell us why the Government cut social services funding in the early years. Does the Paymaster General now regret cutting social services spending in the first two years?
  Mr. Webb: The Chancellor stood up on Budget day and announced that the economy would grow substantially faster than the Government had previously thought. The Government had billions of pounds, which provided these substantial extra sums for the health service. That information was not available to my hon. Friend when he set out our proposals.
  Dr. Harris: That is the point we are making. The funds and the taxation that we promise are additional to Government projected revenues.
  Mr. Bryant rose—
  Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman will know and will be jealous of what we have been able to achieve in government in Scotland, and we could do more if the Labour party in Scotland had not shackled itself to the commitment not to raise fair taxes, which is what the Government did for far too long.
  I question the Government's position on money following the patient; it is sad to see the Labour party parroting the Tory line on money following the patient, which it opposed when it was in opposition. The Labour party said that it would abolish the internal market. That internal market never really existed, except that money followed the patients for the services that were commissioned—which is the new Labour word for purchased—by fundholders. The Government have created primary care groups and primary care trusts, which are fundholders writ large. Now they are saying that money will follow the patient. But that does not mean more choice if the money merely follows the patient from queue to queue. People who write to me do not want a choice of which 12-month queue to join; they want access to their local hospital. A litany of local health services have been closed under the Government, so local choice has been denied, not increased.
  What is the Conservative position on the future of the health service? The Tories are the second greatest danger to the health service, were they to come to power. It is clear that they do not love the NHS, because their strategy is to talk it down in the hope that they can persuade people to move to a different system that is palpably less fair.
  The Government are hoist on their own petard, because one of the strongest Tory arguments is that Labour put huge resources into the health service in their first four

  563
  or five years in office—a false argument—and the health service has not got any better. I think that the Government accept—it is certainly accepted by Wanless—that that funding was not the step change that they are now proposing.
  The Labour party cannot have it both ways. It cannot agree with us that the funding it is now proposing is required and is a step change, and also argue that that happened five years ago. We are not where we want to be already, because the Government have not put in the resources.
  It would be fine if the Government had said that they were not going to put in the resources because no one wanted to pay more tax, so we would not save the health service. Instead, they stuck to Tory spending plans and provided only limited increases, and during that time they repeated announcements, triple counted and talked about billions of pounds. To the people who are now asking what has been delivered that made it seem as though the money had gone into the health service.
  The Tory posters saying "You paid the taxes, but where are the teachers and the doctors" were only half wrong. The Government announced significant increases—although presumably from Santa Claus and not from taxation—but never put in those resources.
  We do not have the health service we require, because we do not have the doctors, the nurses and the beds. The resources that the Bill will make available will provide those doctors, nurses and beds. I hope that the five-year delay and the Government's failure to be honest does not make it too late to save the NHS with the funds provided in the Bill, which we will support tonight.
  7.4 pm
  Phil Hope: A filibuster is traditionally used in Parliament when Members oppose legislation, not when they are in favour of it. Given the previous contribution, I am surprised to learn which way the Liberal Democrats intend to vote.
  What we are doing in the Bill is historic. This is landmark legislation, and will place the national health service on a sound and robust financial footing. It puts a roadblock in the way of Tory plans to privatise and break up our national health service. The Bill produces a structural shift in the resources available to the NHS. That is the important point. It will provide a permanent future for health care, built on Labour's principles of a free health service based on need, not on ability to pay.
  Under the Tories we experienced 18 years of deliberate disinvestment. Money was taken out of the NHS to pay for tax cuts. We know what happened. Every day we see all around us in our constituencies the legacy of that disinvestment. The Tories run down the NHS—I was sad to hear the Liberal Democrats doing the same just now—criticise it endlessly, and never accord it the success that it is having, so that people lose confidence in it. As people lose confidence in the service, in come the Tories with their plans for charges and private health insurance. They play on people's fears to force them down that route. They have no moral right to do that.
  Mr. David Ruffley: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's robust start to his
  564
  speech, but should I deduce from what he is saying that any future increases in health spending that necessitate more Government money will come from national insurance increases rather than income tax increases? That seems to be the logic of what he is saying.
  Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman has hit on exactly the point I was trying to make. As a consequence of the 7.4 per cent. increase year on year that the Bill will generate, spending on the national health service from national insurance contributions will rise from £65 billion in this financial year to £105.6 billion in 2007–08. He is right to point out that as a result of the Bill, national insurance contributions will provide the robust financial security for the NHS that it never had under previous Tory Administrations. That is why the Bill is historic.
  For a century, Labour has campaigned and fought for social equality and social justice, and for the fundamentals that matter in society, such as people's health. I feel privileged to be in the Chamber for the Second Reading of a Bill that is placing the NHS beyond the ravages of a Tory Government, and putting it in the hands of the people for its future longevity and sound delivery.
  It is also significant that this is not just about a system of health care in the United Kingdom. If we get this right, it will be a model for other countries. It will show every western democracy and every emerging democracy in other parts of the world that we can deliver health care through general taxation that meets people's needs without forcing them to pay from their own pockets, without making the sick pay for being sick. We do not have to go down that route. The Labour Government in the United Kingdom are showing the world one of the most spectacular success stories. [Interruption.] Tory Members are shaking their heads. They cannot bear the thought that a Labour Government are showing the world how to produce one of the finest health services on the planet, which is fairly funded and efficiently delivered.
  I could not believe it when the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) said that national insurance contributions were not a progressive form of taxation. Of course they are. That is the point about national insurance: people pay according to how much they earn. Moreover, pensioners on low fixed incomes will not have to pay because they do not pay national insurance. As we know, pensioners use the NHS disproportionately; the older people get, the more ill they will be. How much more progressive can you get? Those who need the health service most will not have to pay for these extra resources.
  Dr. Evan Harris rose—
  Phil Hope: We had 35 minutes of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, and that was plenty of time for him to make his points.
  Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend is right to say that the Liberal Democrats' argument is nonsense. In their 1997 manifesto they promised to spend £540 million extra on the health service. We spent more than that on the health service during that Parliament. They promised to fund increases by putting up taxes on cigarettes£which the Government did£and by tinkering with national

  565
  insurance. It is utter tripe for them to suggest that they would have spent more on the health service than we have spent.
  Phil Hope: Tripe may be too polite a word to describe the contribution of the Liberal Democrats. It was interesting that the Liberal Democrat spokesman signally failed to answer the question that my hon. Friend the Paymaster General asked about exactly how the Liberal Democrats were going to fund their proposals. What was it they announced today for their manifesto at the next election? I think I heard it said that they would abolish all prescription charges. I think that free eye tests and free dental checks were mentioned. It will be interesting to read the Liberal Democrats' manifesto. Their current spending plans do not match what we are putting into the NHS, and they would put extra costs on top, which they do not have a clue how to fund.
  Dr. Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Phil Hope: We can dismiss the Liberal Democrats. In the hon. Gentleman's 35-minute contribution, he failed signally to deal with—
  Dr. Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope) has made it clear that he has no intention of giving way.
  Phil Hope: There is another reason why this debate is important. Why do we need to put more money into the NHS? The Labour Government have spent five years investing in the NHS. In my area, we have a totally refurbished accident and emergency unit. We have a new orthopaedic centre, a new endoscopy suite and a new eye care ward. I have a list here. There has been hundreds of thousands of pounds of new investment under a Labour Government in the past five years, which I am proud of and which my constituents are benefiting from—but all is not right in the NHS. We would not be here raising money through national insurance contributions and putting through wholesale reforms of the NHS if all were well with the world. We know that it is not. That is why we have the Bill. We need more resources and more reform.
  There are still huge problems to be addressed, but unlike the Tories and the Liberal Democrats, instead of running down the nurses and doctors who work in the health service, instead of rubbishing what has already been achieved, we acknowledge what we have achieved, but rightly say that we have a lot more to do.
  I shall now make a small constituency point—a plea to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who is now on the Front Bench. I know that she does not have responsibility for health care spend, but forgive me if I make the point that a recent report by Northamptonshire health authority showed that Corby had the highest inequalities in Northamptonshire. Corby people have the lowest life expectancy, the highest levels of coronary heart disease, the highest death rates from cancer, the worst rate of respiratory diseases and the highest levels of child poverty in Northamptonshire. Therefore, Corby desperately needs the extra investment. Increased spending on the NHS is literally a question of life or death
  566
  for my constituents, so while we may argue about the niceties of how to raise the money, the fundamentals are there, staring us straight in the eye.
  Dr. Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Phil Hope: I guess the hon. Gentleman still does not realise that he had 35 minutes, and we do not want to hear any more from him.
  This is not just about the treatment that people receive from their general practitioner, or their hospital operation. We all have people with those particular needs in our constituencies, but I want to emphasise what I call the softer side of health care, which is about preventing ill health. The money should be used to promote a healthy lifestyle. Activities such as the sure start programme, which is partly funded by the health service, make a real difference to children and families in the poorest estates in my constituency.
  In the rural area of my constituency, we have some innovative schemes run jointly by health and social services. We have a hospital at home service, funded by the NHS but allowing patients in rural areas to return home sooner than they would otherwise do after their operations. We have heard a lot of nonsense from the Opposition about bed blocking. We know that bed blocking causes a squeeze in the system because people cannot leave hospital, but we are putting the resources in. We are investing in social services and in provision such as intermediate care for elderly people, so that people can leave the NHS when they have had their treatment and recuperate away from the hospital bed, freeing that for another person to be treated. In a place near home, or even in their own home, they can receive the treatment that they need after an operation.
  Corby has many needs that still need to be met. That is why I support the Bill—to raise the money to meet the needs of my constituents. We need a new cardiac diagnostic centre for people in the town because we have such a high level of coronary heart disease. We need improved dental services. There cannot be one hon. Member who does not know of problems with the delivery of good dental care in his or her constituency. We also need better services for people with cataracts—basic ways of delivering services, which can be improved through raising resources and reforming the NHS as we are doing at the moment.
  The Tories' contribution today was shambolic. They have not said that they will match our spending plans, yet they say that they believe in an NHS free at the point of delivery. How will they pay for the expenditure that is clearly needed for an NHS free at the point of delivery? They hide. They do not say how they will do it. They say, "That will be explained in four years' time at the general election"—but that is not good enough. The challenge is on the table. Would Conservatives charge patients for their care? Would they force people into private health insurance?
  We have seen some clues to what the answers may be. We have heard the shadow Secretary of State for Health publicly state that he wants to break the link between the NHS and health care. We have heard the shadow

  567
  Chancellor talk about a Stalinist NHS. Clearly, that is a message that they want to break up what we have had since—
  Mr. Christopher Chope: What does the hon. Gentleman think about the 250,000 people who last year had to pay for their health care by using their own money to obtain operations and appointments?
  Phil Hope: That almost indicates the Tory mentality exactly. Their answer is not to provide a decent NHS but to offer tax incentives for people who have the money to get a better health service. They want a two-tier health service—one standard for the rich who can afford it and a second-class health service for those who cannot. That is the essence of Conservative philosophy.
  Ann McKechin: Is it not the height of hypocrisy for Conservative Members to talk about the rise in national insurance, because last time they were in government they increased national insurance in 1995 but cut benefits? This Government may be increasing national insurance, but they are doing it for the benefit of the whole population.
  Phil Hope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the essence of Labour's approach: a fair form of raising taxation to be distributed equally, so that people in most need do not have to worry about whether they can afford to have an operation, because it will be provided for them through the NHS. Under the Conservatives, people would wake up and say, "Can I afford that operation? Should I put a bit by? How will I afford to pay for my visit to the doctor?" Can hon. Members imagine a Conservative world where people wake up every morning thinking, "I hope I don't fall ill today, because I haven't any money in the bank to pay for an operation"? That may be the Conservative world, but it is not the world that I want to live in.
  Mr. Bill Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman will understand that those 250,000 people who have paid for their operations are waking up thinking exactly the things that he has just mentioned. I understand why he is so excited about the expenditure that the Government are promising, but if things do not get better, at what point will he recognise that that expenditure alone has not been enough?
  Phil Hope: I will know that I do not have to worry when the Conservatives decide to vote for the NHS for the first time in their history—when they decide tonight to walk through the Aye Lobby to support the Bill in favour of a national insurance contribution increase that will fund year on year the kind of health service that we want. This is not just about money. We know that. It is also about reform. I hope that in years to come the Conservatives will walk through the Division Lobby with Labour, voting for a reform of the NHS that will deliver a fair and efficient health service, as well as the money to go with it.
  That will become the test, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) said earlier. When we go to the electorate we lay out the choices, and today
  568
  we see the choice that they will have. We are not having an election now, but I think that if we were, the Tories would probably have to abstain rather than vote against this Bill, because they know how damaging that decision would be.
  This is a fundamental choice between left and right; it is back to good old politics. This is what we are about: an NHS funded through general taxation—a comprehensive system free at the point of delivery, and delivered according to people's need, not their ability to pay. When the Conservatives walk through the No Lobby they will be saying, "Look after yourself." That is the choice. It is a simple choice. Strangely enough, the Liberal Democrats will vote with us, despite the contribution of their spokesperson earlier—and I know that the Conservatives will vote against. I know that people in my constituency will welcome the fact that we are making a historic decision, and I am proud to be part of it.
  7.19 pm
  Mr. John Maples: It is always interesting to listen to somebody describing one's party's policy when they are getting it so comprehensively wrong. If the Conservatives wanted to do as much damage to the NHS as the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope) says, why did we not privatise it or start charging people when we were in charge? The fact is that we did not.
  The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) put his finger on what the debate is all about. Will the Government's dramatic increase in health spending—from £60 billion to £100 billion—show up in better health outcomes? He said that it will, as though it were a given. I would say that the crucial test is whether it does or does not.
  The issue within the health service is clearly a lack of capacity. We see that in waiting lists, rationing and poor health outcomes compared with a lot of other countries. That is partly due to the fact that we spend less money than comparable countries, but it may have something to do with the model or the system by which we turn that money into health care.
  The Government ought to think about the example of Scotland. In Scotland, health spending is at the level of our main European competitors in this regard, but the outcomes and waiting lists are not that much better. One must ask what is going wrong there: why is that extra money not being turned into better health outcomes? Will our model use this enormous increase in spending efficiently? If it does, we will have as good a health service as France, Germany and Holland, which are the most interesting countries to compare us with. If it does not, it will throw into question whether the model to which we have been wedded for many years is the right one.
  The Government have produced an interesting combination of a massive increase in money and a reform of the way in which that money is spent within the health service. It is a change from when I used to shadow on this subject for the Opposition in the first years of the Government, when they were doing exactly the opposite of what they are proposing to do now, in terms of the using the driver of the internal market. It is an interesting combination and, I say to my hon. Friends, it may work. We all have doubts about whether the system can deliver, but it may work.

  569
  My belief is that the jury is out and will not be back for three years or so. We have had three years of quite large increases in health spending. By the next election, we will have had another three, making six. If at that time we are seeing far better outcomes, the Government will have been proved substantially right in the way in which they have handled the issue. But if, by the next election, we are not seeing dramatically lower waiting times, better health outcomes and less rationing, the Government and their supporters will have to examine whether the model they are using to turn the money into health outcomes is the right one. It is an interesting experiment, but I have my doubts.
  One problem is that there are huge supply-side constraints within the health service, at least in the short term. In the long term, one can train more doctors and nurses and build more hospitals. In the short term, one cannot. The proposal could lead to health sector inflation, about which the Government must be careful. They could spend all the money on increasing everybody's pay and have no additional outcomes. They could also introduce an enhanced role for the private sector on the supply side of health care. There may well be greater flexibility and less short-term constraint there than in the public sector.
  The NHS is very good at controlling costs at a macro-level—largely because the Chancellor decides how much money will be spent—but not at a micro-level. This will be the crux of the issue.
  Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman is one of the more thoughtful Conservative Members and I accept his goodwill in this matter. But does he agree that the logical conclusion of what he is saying is that the Opposition should support the Bill, to give us the money to see if our modernisation programme works, while possibly making proposals to amend the modernisation programme? To deny us both the opportunity to modernise and the money to do it with is nonsensical.
  Mr. Maples: The Government will get a lot of support for what they call their modernisation proposals. But it is a bit much to expect the Opposition to support the Government over a stonking great tax rise that is in breach of their own manifesto. There is only so far I am prepared to go in helping the Government to make their case.
  There is little choice within the NHS for patients or GPs. In the private sector, choice is what drives efficiency and quality because it produces competition. That cannot happen in the NHS, so we try to create proxies for it. The Government have created some interesting proxies that are similar to what we did some time ago; their supporters will argue that they are different. They are trying to create proxy drivers for efficiency and quality in outcomes, which are missing, by definition, from a nationalised and Government-run service.
  One other concern that I have is what in the jargon is called "turbulence". The Government are trying to get a hugely increased amount of money turned into health care: something that has never been done before. Very senior civil servants who are friends of mine say that they have never done it before, and that it is difficult to get 7 per cent. real terms increases in spending through into the front line. At the same time as doing this—and while introducing a new way in which money moves around the system to create incentives—there has been a huge
  570
  reorganisation, with the creation of primary care trusts and strategic health authorities as well as new monitoring organisations and their merging.
  At the moment, health authorities are being abolished and strategic health authorities and primary care trusts are being created. In my constituency—other Members will have noticed this as well—for the last six months, people have been concerned about what job they will do and whether they will still have a job when the authority is abolished. When they do get a job, they spend the next six months setting up the organisation, hiring the staff and ensuring that the working methods and protocols are in place. Those very people—particularly the senior managers in the health service—who will be responsible for driving the money through into health care have been massively distracted over the last six months and are likely to be so distracted over the next six months.
  Phil Hope: Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), I welcome the thoughtful approach of the hon. Gentleman. Our dilemma is that if we are to achieve the increases in spending needed to deliver real health care, we require leadership. He has given an academic view; he stands back and says it will be interesting to see whether the model works or not, and we will decide in three years' time. Does he agree that we have to show leadership, and that we as a country must show that we want the spending and that we want those NHS managers to deliver? We need the managerial ability to drive the measure through. It is not an academic exercise in which we can make our minds up at some point in the future. It requires real leadership, which the Government are giving to the NHS.
  Mr. Maples: I agree that we will require effective management to turn the money into health care. That is what I have been trying—perhaps rather laboriously—to say. I am concerned that those very managers will be distracted by the change in the bureaucracy and the structure of the health service that has been going on for the past six months and which is likely to take another six months, or longer, to bed down. However, I agree completely that management may well be the key.
  I want to refer to the "but if'. If the plan does not work, people will have to be prepared to look at other ways of working. Ours is the only OECD country of which I am aware—certainly the only advanced European economy—that uses this model for funding and running a national health service. Clearly, it has attractions; the primary attribute, of which we are all in favour, is that it provides care free at the point of use on the basis of need. But anyone who pretends that there are no problems with the system, that some people's needs are not more easily met than others, or that some of the rationing is not very arbitrary, is pretending that there are not flaws in the system, which there are.
  My friends and colleagues who are Members of Parliament in Germany, Holland or France do not have weekend surgeries and postbags full of complaints from people about the time they are waiting. It is worth looking at how others do these things. We ought not to treat this subject like religion-something that you either believe in or not. We are looking for an effective way of turning a citizen's money, however it is paid-whether through taxes, social insurance or whatever-into the best possible health outcomes.

  571
  There has been much trashing of the United States system, and I do not advocate it. What is wrong with the US system is that it is very bad for the poorest third of the population, but it is jolly good for the other two thirds. If you are rich, there is no question but that the United States is where you would choose to be if you fell ill. The US has a self-funding and classic insurance system that wealthy people tend to use. In the middle, they have developed health maintenance organisations, which are extremely interesting. They ration health care, but do so openly. The system involves the money that a family spends as an insurance premium; whether one pays it as a premium or in tax seems a relatively minor detail. However, health maintenance organisations are interesting. They present the health care that they are going to provide openly and honestly.
  That model is worth looking at, but a yet more interesting one is the social insurance model that Holland, France and Germany use in one way or another. In those countries, such issues seem not to be as political as in Britain, in that they do not bother their elected representatives quite so much. The model allows some choice and gets more money into the system. When people can see money going directly into health care, they are willing to pay more than if the Chancellor takes the money in tax and then decides how much he is going to spend on health care. In other words, when the arrangement is more direct, people are prepared to pay more, and the service can still remain free at the point of use. That said, it should be pointed out that our health care system—and those of other countries—does make charges, but basically it is free at the point of use.
  Under that model, rationing does not disappear, but it is more open. Other things being equal, the more money spent, the less rationing there will be. However, it is a fallacy to imagine that it will disappear altogether, and that we can eliminate waiting times completely and create a health service that is prepared to provide any drug that anybody wants. Drugs are becoming incredibly expensive.
  If we are to go down this route—I agree that it is worth looking at—I should like to adopt the model used by Germany and Holland, in which people can contribute to several social health funds. At the moment, we spend about £60 billion a year on health care—a 10 per cent. levy on everybody's taxable income produces roughly that sum—but we should consider a system in which people's taxes are reduced by 10 per cent. Here, the "straw man" of the £60 or £100 a week cost arises. The idea is that, if the sum is being paid as an insurance premium, it is not being paid in tax, but we should consider a system similar to that suggested by the Liberal Democrats, under which a 10 per cent. levy on people's taxable income is put into the health fund of their choice. It is at this point that I part company with the Government's thinking. Under my suggested model, the national health service would become one such health fund, and other organisations—the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress, insurance companies—could set up others. People would have a choice. The Government would lay down the minimum standard of care to be provided, but people could top it up if they wanted to. Again, that should be done as a percentage of one's income, so that equality can be maintained.
  572
  One thing that I do not like about the health service is that, although we pay a lot of money in tax for our families' health care, we cannot choose to pay a little more in order to get a bit more of a service; we must either take it, or leave it. If we leave it, we have to pay for the whole thing over again out of private resources, while not getting anything for the taxes we have paid. A social insurance system would combine the two incentives. The Prime Minister and the Minister have mentioned scare stories about the £60 a week that employers pay under such a system, but as I have pointed out, projected health spending of £100 billion a year will amount to about £1,700 per person per year, or about £7,500 for a family of four. In other words, we are paying a hell of a lot of money for health care, and we want to know that the existing system for delivering it will use the money to maximum effect. Describing the costs of other health care methods as additional to, rather than a substitute for, current costs, is a straw man. It is not an honest way to argue.
  Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman quotes the Dutch model, but as chairman of the all-party group on the Netherlands, I can tell him that the biggest issue in this week's Dutch general election—excluding the death of Pim Fortuyn—is long waiting lists in their health care system. The Dutch perceive that their health care system does not work. Social insurance is not the panacea that he perhaps suggests.
  Mr. Maples: Nothing is a panacea, and we will never be prepared to pay enough for the health care that we need at a particular point. If I had been making this speech three or four months ago, I would have suggested that my alternative is a better one. Given that the Government have pursued a policy whereby a huge sum of money is being raised in order to make a difference, my question now is whether the medium of the national health service can translate that into an equivalent increase in health care. If it cannot, it is worth looking at other systems, and it would be sensible to consider the one that I am describing.
  Dr. Evan Harris: The hon. Gentleman is right: we need a grown-up debate, and it is wrong to argue that private health insurance will cost X amount, implying that it is more than people are paying in tax. However, as he will recognise, the problem that many have with alternative models concerns equity. It is difficult to find a more equitable way of providing health care than the current system, which, arguably, should prove more efficient thanks to the lack of cost to the administrative system of national and social insurance.
  Mr. Maples: If there is a trade—off—I am not sure that there is—we are paying a high price for it. We are enforcing a system on those who would perhaps pay more for their health care, and reducing that care to a level that everybody is prepared to pay for. I want people to be able to top up a minimum guarantee from their own resources. There are many health procedures that people want to undergo—the hon. Gentleman is a doctor, so he knows far more about such matters than I do—but which are not strictly necessary for their health. Perhaps such people are prepared to pay a little extra for such procedures, but at the moment they cannot.

  573
  I have not heard continental social insurance systems being criticised as inequitable. I would imagine that my proposed system would have exactly the same equity as the national health service; however, it would provide rather more choice, and enable people to spend more money.
  John Mann rose—
  Mr. Maples: Perhaps I can move on. None the less, I agree that the jury is out on the matter. We need to wait two or three years and see whether the Government are right and their system works, and I am simply describing the system that we should consider if it does not.
  I welcome the Government's change in attitude to the private sector. When I was shadow Secretary of State for Health, we discussed the abolition of various mechanisms such as local health plans, in which local hospitals are used for various purposes. Money certainly did not follow patients under those plans, and I am glad that they are being reinvented. I genuinely welcome that change of heart. Choice in the commissioning of health care will drive improvements in efficiency and quality, and replicate the drivers that one normally expects to find in economic mechanisms in the NHS. I am also glad that the purchaser-provider split is being retained. Internally, at least, that will offer a choice between providers.
  The Government abolished fundholding on taking office, and in a sense they have recreated it through primary care trusts. My worry about such trusts is that they are a bit too big. I hope that some flexibility will be allowed internally, so that they will not corral every GP into exactly the same choices. Allowing such flexibility is more likely to drive up efficiency and quality.
  The Government will need private sector involvement on both the supply and demand side if they want to meet their targets and ambitions, and we certainly share their ambitions. On supply, we must recognise that many elements of the health service are already provided by the private sector. The drugs industry and the medical supplies industry are private, and hospitals are now built—and in many cases operated—by the private sector. In fact, GPs are private sector contractors to the health service. We as a nation spend well over —1 billion a year on over-the-counter drugs.
  One business in my constituency owns several MRI and CAT scanners, and operates them on behalf of hospitals on various bases. Although every head of radiology wants a scanner, some hospitals do not need constant access to one. Given that they cost £1 million, why should such hospitals buy one? That business will supply such a scanner for, say, two days a month. Such scanners are mobile. The business will staff them, or hospitals can staff them themselves. Hospitals can pay so much per week, or so much per episode. The private sector provision of capital is likely to prove more efficient than the purchasing by small and medium-sized hospitals of their own facilities. That system could be replicated across many clinical services, such as pathology. Unlike large hospitals such as the one across the river, some others might not be able to justify a full-scale pathology service. That is another example of how huge capital expenditure items can be more productively shared among several hospitals.
  Cataract surgery is the fifth most common surgical procedure. It accounts for nearly 4 per cent. of admissions, 5 per cent. of waiting list admissions, and 11 per cent. of
  574
  total waiting list days. The average wait for a cataract operation is 203 days. Given that most people who are in need of a cataract operation are already pretty old, that constitutes a significant part of their life expectancy. Subjecting people to such waits is scandalous. There is clearly a capacity constraint, whether through choice, or because certain fundamentals are difficult to effect. Commissioning authorities should get together and say, "Let us commission a cataract service from the private sector, which will perform a certain number of operations at X cost per year." That way, perhaps we can eliminate the scandal of the 203-day wait.
  The Government could use the private sector to supply health care in several similar areas. The Government will have difficulty in turning money into health care because of the serious short-term supply-side constraints that they will face, and they might find it easier to meet their targets by using the private sector.
  Private sector funding could also be used imaginatively on the demand side. Nobody would seriously suggest that private health insurance should be used to provide all health care, but I shall give an example of how it might be used. Ten surgical procedures account for 35 per cent. of all admissions and all waiting list days. and 20 procedures account for between 46 per cent. and 49 per cent. of admissions and waiting list days. A relatively small number of surgical procedures account for a huge amount of the work. That is the old 80:20 rule and—I suppose—it is what one would expect to find, but it is surprising that it is true on examination of the figures.
  Given those figures, we might do a lot to reduce waiting times and lists by giving a modest tax subsidy to a limited private insurance subsidy that covered only those operations. That would be sensible for the Treasury to consider. I understand the arguments on private health insurance about dead-weight cost—many people already have insurance, so why give them the tax subsidy?—but the subsidy could be pitched much lower than the cost in lost taxation and still create an incentive. People could be encouraged to spend more of their own money and, in the process, could help the Government to meet their targets by taking some of the pressure off the NHS.
  I am glad that we have Treasury Ministers on the Government Front Bench, because I have another idea to suggest. One of the problems that we face is that people are not saving enough for their retirement. When I worked at the Treasury, it was one of the main concerns of senior officials that people are heading for retirements during which they will cost the state a lot of money. However, we could allow people who have significant pension funds to spend some on private health care. Some people have pension funds considerably in excess of what is needed to keep them off state benefits, and we could encourage people to have a retirement fund not only for income purposes but for residential care or nursing care in their old age. If they need an operation or a hospital stay, they could also be allowed to spend money from their fund on that.
  Ann McKechin: The hon. Gentleman has expressed some interesting opinions. However, one of the difficulties faced by the NHS is the lack of specialist staff, especially consultants. He mentioned cataracts and the length of the waiting lists in particular, but consultants in Glasgow are already tempted to move to other areas where they are likely to get more private work. If we

  575
  spend too much time focusing on the needs of people with private insurance, it skews the health service away from those who are most in need, which is those who suffer from the worst poverty.
  Mr. Maples: I do not know about the Glasgow example, but the supply of health services is probably more flexible and less constrained in the private sector than it is in the public sector, at least in the short term. The Government have decided to chuck a huge amount of money at health services, but because of the constraints they will find it difficult to turn the money efficiently into health care. I do not argue that all the money should be spent in the private sector, but in the Secretary of State's statement on delivering the NHS plan he clearly envisages purchasing services from the private sector. By giving some examples, I hope to suggest an efficient way to spend a marginal amount of the money. The supply-side constraints are less in the private sector, although in the long run there are constraints on both sectors, because the problem is the number of consultants and nurses. Nurses can be trained relatively quickly, but it takes about 15 years to become a consultant.
  It will be an interesting experiment to see whether the Government's model and the increase in health spending will work. We will not know for two or three years whether they will. We obviously all hope that the Government get the outcomes they want, but if the experiment does not work we will need to recognise that the model will have been tested close to destruction. Those who have been its passionate advocates will have to be prepared to look at other systems; and I suggest that we should look to our continental partners, who are not all completely crazy, to offer systems that differ from ours. I am glad that the Government are encouraging the use of private sector suppliers and encouraging private sector demand. They are likely to find that a less constrained and more productive way to spend some of the money than trying to increase capacity at the margin in the NHS.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. John Lyons: I welcome this debate on national insurance, but I do not welcome the fact that it has been used to rubbish the NHS. That is both unfair and untrue. Since the announcements on national insurance, I have had the opportunity to speak to my constituents. I admit that they have not queued up to tell me that the Chancellor is brilliant, outstanding and has done a wonderful job on national insurance, but they have all accepted that it is a fair and decent way to pay the extra 1 per cent. Many constituents have also welcomed the fact that the money will go to the NHS.
  My constituents know that the NHS is a key service for them and they want to preserve and defend it, so that it can flourish. They also know that spreading the cost widely is fairer. More people in my constituency now pay NI because more people are in work since 1997. Many of the young people among them are happy to pay those NI contributions because they are now in work.
  The health service must be kept at the top of the agenda. I declare an interest in that I have spent a lifetime defending the NHS and fighting on behalf of its staff, so I have some bias on those matters. As a member of a
  576
  health board in the past, I know that staff have been struggling against difficult circumstances across the health service for a long time, whether in acute services, primary care or elsewhere. The staff have fought hard to try to turn the situation around.
  I am not the sort of person who goes around saying that everything in the health service is wonderful, but some brilliant work is being done. We need look no further than last Friday. The people dragged from the carriages at Potters Bar were treated by the best of our health service, and they were well looked after by firemen, ambulance workers and health care workers.
  I welcome the NI changes, but we must ensure that the money raised goes to front-line services so that people can see real value for the health service from what has been asked of them. The money should be spent on investment in consultants, nurses and nursing auxiliaries to ensure that we have people in place to provide and deliver a proper health service for our constituents. However, the time delay in training staff, whether nurses or consultants, is a problem. Major changes cannot be made immediately, even though they are desirable politically.
  It takes time for staff to qualify, but progress has been made. In 1997, 21,370 consultants were working in the NHS. By September 2001, the figure had risen to 25,690—an increase of 20 per cent. or 4,320. That should not be the end of the matter; I want us to build on those figures. Everyone will agree that an increase in the number of consultants will have a knock-on effect on a range of services. It does not matter how many nurses are employed, if there are not enough consultants to treat patients, thus reducing waiting times and waiting lists, we shall be stuck—we can achieve nothing. The first thing that we need is more consultants—that is important. Thereafter, by all means, let us have more nurses and auxiliaries to treat the flow of patients. I am not making a political point. Any Government would be proud if they could achieve that result—I am sure that no Member would deny it.
  I have been a Member of Parliament for only 10 months, but during that time I have tried to listen to people and to my constituents—irrespective of their political view—on matters such as the health service. Across the political spectrum, people want one thing: a national health service equipped for the 21st century. They want a national health service that will deliver in a modern way, but they all realise that we cannot achieve that by wishing—we need proper investment. That is the key. Without that investment, we can forget about everything else. The national insurance changes give us, properly, the funding for the investment that people want.
  My contact with the health service, especially during the 10 months since I became a Member, has done nothing but reinforce my awareness of the importance of the NHS and of its centrality to people's lives—along with the police, the fire service and so on. Our constituents value the staff of the health service. People who have been in hospital always talk about the kindness of the staff and about the quality of the care that they received. The public realise that NHS staff are delivering a first-class health service.
  Members who oppose investment in the service need to consider their position as regards their constituency and the services provided there. People need reassurance—

  577
  especially those working in the service. The rubbishing of the service and of the people who deliver it must stop; it is undermining and destroys morale. We should change our political attitudes in that regard.
  Our constituents think that they are well served by the people who work in the service. Today, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was presenting awards to the outstanding public servants of the year. We need to keep making such awards, especially for health workers, to let them know that we trust them and, above all, that we value them and their commitment to public service.
  We must tell them that our confidence in them will be matched by increased investment and increased training to allow them to fulfil their potential in the health service. We need to break down some of the old barriers, especially for nurses or auxiliaries who, because they are paid at a certain grade, are not allowed to undertake certain work. We should find the means for a spread of work for nurses and auxiliaries—we should use them to the best of their ability.
  People want a real return for the investment—a qualitative change in many services. That can be achieved. We have taken the right approach; it is bold and open and has been well received by the electorate. At the end of the day, that is what counts.
  7.53 pm
  Mr. David Ruffley: I am glad to be able contribute to this good-natured and thoughtful debate, with good speeches from Members on both sides of the House, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples).
  The Bill gives us the chance to meditate carefully on the contributory principle of social insurance that underlies the national insurance fund. On Budget day and since, we have heard much from Labour Members about William Beveridge—much has been done in his name. The reality is, however, that during successive decades and under successive Governments of all political persuasions, there has been an erosion of Beveridge's concept of genuine social insurance and the contributory principle, to the point where those ideas have become highly confusing and confused.
  I regret that the process has continued in the Bill, whose author, almost inevitably, was the Chancellor of Exchequer—Complexity Brown—a man who unfortunately, Budget after Budget, not only welcomes confusion in the national insurance and taxation systems, but does much to generate even more confusion in those systems.
  The essential element of the contributory principle is eligibility for certain benefits—in essence, at present, jobseeker's allowance, incapacity benefit, and retirement and widow's pensions—based on compulsory contributions from employees, employers and the self-employed. The system covers about 20 million employees, about 1 million employers and about 2.3 million self-employed—a great many people—all of whose national insurance contributions are paid into the fund. Until now, only a small percentage of those contributions has gone to NHS spending.
  Figures produced by the Library show what the regime was like before the Budget announcements and before the Bill was introduced. Just over 1 per cent. of an employee's
  578
  earnings between the primary threshold and the upper earnings limit was devoted to the NHS, and about 0.9 per cent. of the earnings in respect of which employer's contributions were paid. Most of the national insurance fund covers contributory benefit pay-outs.
  The national insurance fund operates on a pay-as-you-go basis, so that today's contributions by today's workers cover and finance the current outgoings paid to today's benefit recipients. The problem is that there is little direct financial relationship between what an individual puts in over a lifetime and what that individual may or may not pull out by way of benefit. That point was powerfully and brilliantly exposed in the fifth report of the Select Committee on Social Security in June 2000. The Committee was worried about the future of the contributory principle and what it actually meant for the public in accounting and practical terms.
  My contention is that the current national insurance system is light years away from the model of social insurance that Beveridge envisaged and that Ministers so assiduously pray in aid. Beveridge thought that the system should be fully funded. That is clearly not the case in the current national insurance system. He envisaged a fairly low flat rate for all contributors, thus allowing—in his view—middle and higher-income earners to make their own voluntary, private provision on top. They would have been able to do that because the flat rate was relatively low. That is not the case with the current system.
  The fault does not lie merely with the Government over the past five years, but it has continued under them and it makes the system very different from Beveridge's model of social insurance. The problem with Beveridge's system—its corruption, some would argue—had much to do with the fact that, at an early stage, the Government of the day did not allow the social insurance fund to mature, which would have taken about 20 years of contributions. Instead, full pensions were paid at an early stage and swiftly resulted not in a fully funded insurance system but a pay-as-you-go system.
  Other factors beyond the Government's control have, of course, contributed to the corruption of the original idea. In part, it has been caused by the change in women's employment in the work force, which we all celebrate but which Beveridge did not envisage at all. His view was that the man would continue to make the contributions and the wife would stay at home. Another example is life expectancy. When social insurance on a fully funded basis was talked about at the end of the 1940s, the life expectancy of a worker on retirement was one year. It is now in excess of 20 years. Those are changes that make a fully funded model very difficult to deliver. We now have a mish-mash in which what is paid into the fund, and what is received out of it, are, to say the least, untransparent transactions.
  Another point about national insurance and the contributory principle properly defined was that there would be less reliance on means-tested benefits—under the contributory principle, means-tested benefits should have declined. In the last 40 to 50 years, of course, the reverse has occurred. At the end of the 1940s, more than 60 per cent. of Government social security expenditure was on contributory benefits, and only 13 per cent. was on means-tested benefits. Today, contributory benefits make up 47 per cent. of spending, and means-tested benefits have grown to more than a third of the total.

  579
  Much of the growth in means-tested benefits is attributed to the failure of many people to qualify for the contributory national insurance benefits. It is also due to many new means-tested benefits: rent and rate rebates or the new housing benefit and council tax benefit. Undoubtedly, successive Governments have not done much to clarify in the public mind what should be paid out in relation to what is paid in by an individual payer of the stamp or national insurance contribution.
  How many of our constituents, if asked about the Bill and about the contributory principle, would understand that the bulk of national insurance does not go to the national health service? Research undertaken by Dr. Bruce Stafford in 1998 for the then Department of Social Security produced some interesting findings. He discovered an individualistic approach underpinning views of the national insurance fund and the contributory principle:
  "Generally, the respondents believed that through their contributions they had secured a contract with the state that gave them a 'right' to contributory benefits. In some instances, respondents thought, incorrectly, that their contributions were paid into a 'personal kitty', which was available when needed, and this was linked to the notion that contributory benefits 'top-up' other state benefits and/or private insurance."
  In giving evidence to the Social Security Committee, the Trades Union Congress also complained about the lack of transparency in relation to the national insurance contribution system. When it was campaigning against the introduction of jobseeker's allowance—when it was cut from 12 months to six months, in relation to contributory benefits for the unemployed—it was surprised by the public's complete lack of understanding about the working of the contributory system. It blamed
  "the complexity of national insurance and the widespread ignorance of its main features".
  This may be the first time that I have agreed with the TUC, but it is right in that regard.
  Increasing evidence exists that the link between contributions put in and benefits drawn out is getting vaguer year by year, Budget by Budget. The restrictions on which contributions can be counted and when they can be counted will often mean that someone who has paid national insurance at the lower end will still end up not qualifying for benefit. In 1995–96, the then DSS estimated that there were about 4 million people, mainly those with low earnings, who paid standard or self-employed contributions for short periods during the year who did not obtain a qualifying year for basic state pension, even with the benefit of credits adduced to them. At the other end of the scale, much higher earners make a similar complaint about what they get for what they put in.
  From whichever end of the income scale one looks at the issue, the idea of national insurance contributions as genuine social insurance is becoming outmoded. As Professor Disney of the Institute for Fiscal Studies has observed, national insurance is merely a device for raising money because people dislike the idea of paying income tax. He said:
  "They"—
  the public—
  "think that if they pay contributions somehow they have a greater entitlement than if they pay income tax … You can make the argument 'I have paid contributions all my life, I ought to get more
  580
  pension'. Why not make the same argument 'I have paid income tax all my life. Why do I not get the pension I deserve?' To me they are almost identical statements."
  That observation reflects what successive Governments have increasingly done. They have always altered national insurance contribution rates and the benefit conditions attached to them without strict adherence to any kind of actuarial calculation. In short, although the idea of benefits as a right might be popular with some members of the public, it does not have much basis in economic or accounting reality.
  It seems that it is high time to explode the myth that the current national insurance regime is "insurance". To be much more honest, the Government should admit that we have a social security tax—a straightforward redistribution mechanism—to get contributions from those in work and to make payments to those outside the labour market. I would not advocate or support such a system but that is what the new Labour Government and the Chancellor are perpetuating with every Budget that they pass. It is incumbent on the Chancellor to own up and admit it.
  I have described the manifest confusion in concepts of national insurance, but that is not the only confusion attendant on the Bill. There was much confusion in the presentation of what was undoubtedly a tax increase, not a genuine national insurance contribution increase. The hike of 1 per cent. in alleged national insurance contributions together with the removal of the upper earnings limit in relation to that rise equals a tax increase identical to a 1 per cent. increase in the basic rate, a 1 per cent. increase in the standard rate, and a 1 per cent. increase in the top rate of income tax, with increases in liability for many of the categories to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) drew attention—nurses, police inspectors, firemen and many other public sector workers.
  The Institute for Fiscal Studies is in no doubt that what we are talking about, effectively, is a back-door increase in income tax rather than any form of contribution. It says that the Government's increase in national insurance is,
  "for somebody whose sole source of income is from paid employment exactly like increasing the starting, basic and higher rates of income tax by 1 percentage point."
  Many sage observers in the City and in the newspapers have made the perfectly legitimate and far-sighted point that the increase opens the door for increases further down the line—from I per cent. to 2 per cent., 3 per cent. or 4 per cent.—gradually working up to a much higher increase in the top rate of tax by the back door. What we have seen in the Bill is merely the thin end of the wedge. On 20 April, The Economist followed the same line of argument and said:
  "NICs are barely distinguishable from income tax, except that they are levied only up to a ceiling of around £30,000. There is no ceiling on this extra new percentage point. So Mr. Brown has not raised 'income tax'; he has simply changed the incidence of NICs so that … they are exactly the same thing, and raised that instead."
  The measures in the Budget and the Bill are in breach of the spirit of statements made by Her Majesty's Ministers at the time of the last general election. My favourite is from the Prime Minister in response to a question from Jeremy Paxman on "Newsnight" on 22 May and just before polling day. Mr. Paxman said:
  "I am merely asking why you could give this guarantee"—

  581
  not to abolish the national insurance ceiling—
  "last time but you can't give it this time and whether any reasonable person wouldn't suppose that you therefore propose to increase national insurance contributions?"
  The Prime Minister replied, "They shouldn't" suppose that.
  Then, of course, we had the all-time classic of its kind from the now Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. On the "Powerhouse" programme on 29 May 2001, she said:
  "We've got no plans at all to raise that ceiling on National Insurance contributions … It is not going to happen."
  The Select Committee on the Treasury also had some sage comments and judgments to pass on the Budget and the proposals in the Bill. I sit on the Committee and we observed the uncapped nature of the 1 per cent. rise in NICs and asked Treasury officials what they were up to. They said that the definition of the upper earnings limit on NICs is
  "the point at which I 1 per cent. stops and 1 per cent. starts with respect to employees."
  That view seems to be greatly at variance with the previous, widely accepted and traditional definition of the upper earnings limit, which was that it was the maximum amount of weekly earnings in respect of which employee contributions are payable. The Committee went on to suggest rather insightfully:
  "To insist, therefore, that the Upper Earnings ceiling remains intact seems to us mere sophistry. We note this departure from previous practice which could be viewed as a move of the national insurance contribution system towards that of general taxation."
  That is the main thrust of my argument.
  We have a national insurance system in which there is no direct relationship between what individuals pay and what it pays out. It is true that the Bill will direct more funds into the national health service. Conservative Members believe that more money should be put into the national health service, but that extra funding must be accompanied by reform. The Bill does not talk about reform at all. The extra financing must also be carried out with clarity and honesty, and the Bill does not do that.
  Mr. Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ruffley: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I am coming to the end of my remarks.
  Honesty, transparency and clearly delineated reform are not characteristics of the Bill or any other part of the Chancellor's legislation. Unfortunately Complexity Brown has complicated an already confused national insurance regime by a further damaging blurring of the distinction between general taxation and national insurance contributions.
  8.13 pm
  Jon Cruddas: I briefly want to consider the Bill in terms of two general criticisms levelled against the national insurance increases announced in the Budget. The first is that it marks a break with Government strategy since 1997, and the second is that it compromises the national insurance fund through its extra financing of the NHS.
  The Bill enactss the national insurance elements signalled in the Budget. From April next year, the primary threshold for the level of earnings at which national
  582
  insurance contributions begin will be frozen at £89. Employees' contributions will be increased from 10 to 11 per cent. Employers' contributions will be increased by I per cent. to 12.8 per cent. From next year, the 1 per cent. increase will also apply to earnings above the limit. A person on median earnings, or £21,400, will pay £3.70 extra each week.
  When considering those proposals, it is worth remembering that, between 1979 and 1997, NICs were raised for most workers from 6.5 per cent. to 10 per cent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) said, at the same time, there were no discernable increases in what might be described as the social wage. Indeed, when the increase from 9 to 10 per cent. was announced in 1995, it worked alongside cuts in national insurance support—down to six months—for unemployed workers.
  In contrast, these national insurance proposals work alongside the developing tax credit regime to ensure that a two-child family with one adult in full-time employment on average pay will be nearly £4 a week better off even after the freezing of personal allowances. Under the Government's proposals, tax will rise as a proportion of national income from 37 per cent. in 2001–02 to 38.3 per cent. in 2005–06. Even then, average European Union tax takes are 3 per cent. higher. Moreover, our main rate of corporation tax is lower than in any other major European country. For small businesses, the situation is even more favourable.
  The response to the revenue-raising proposals announced in the Budget was very interesting. Many commentators assume that the Budget marks a rupture with the patterns of economic management and investment sustained by the Government since 1997. That argument is worth addressing, because any specific proposals, such as these for national insurance, must be analysed in terms of the general strategy that underpins them.
  I prefer to consider the national insurance proposals in terms of the evolution of Government strategy since 1997 rather than as a form of rupture that began on the day of the Budget. In that sense, four core elements in Government economic strategy are identifiable since 1997. First, the priority of efficient macro-economic management means that we have witnessed the lowest interest rates for 40 years, the lowest mortgage rates since the 1950s and the lowest inflation rate since the early 1960s. At the same time, debt estimates stand at a healthy 31 per cent. through to 2004. Secondly, we have attacked unemployment through our active labour market policy and work subsidies. Using those two strategies, the Government have dramatically altered the trade-off between levels of unemployment and accelerating rates of inflation. In one sense, that is one of the greatest hallmarks of their activity since 1997.
  Thirdly, we have attacked poverty through re-incentivising work and by helping pensioners, especially poorer ones, and young families. Fourthly, I refer to our historic refinancing of public services. The effects of fiscal drag, debt repayment and reductions in unemployment have allowed us to refinance the public services with some £36.1 billion extra of annual cash expenditure by 2003–04 compared to 2000–01. As such, since 1997, we have witnessed an incremental strategy at work that systematically redistributes while simultaneously locking in stability and comparatively

  583
  high growth rates. Rather than breaking with that incremental strategy, the Budget develops it further. The hallmark is its continuity in terms of stability, re-activating the supply of labour and confronting poverty and refinancing public services.
  Within that overall strategy, three areas stand out in the Budget. The first is the way in which our comparative productivity shortfalls have moved centre stage in terms of our economic strategy, which I very much welcome. The second is the announcement of £33.5 billion of investment in the health service between 2003–04 and 2007–08, which, again, I very much welcome. The third is the acceptance of the revenue implications of such a strategy and, therefore, the national insurance proposals that we are discussing today.
  The national insurance elements will raise £7.9 billion in 2003–04 and, alongside that, the freezing of allowances will raise £700 million. Despite those revenue-raising mechanisms, the Red Book projects that general Government net borrowing will be 1.1 per cent.—or some £12 billion—for next year, which is the end of the current comprehensive spending review period, and will rise further through the next CSR period.
  I mention that briefly to highlight a prospective problem in the development of the overall strategy of refinancing public services—namely, the growth and stability pact that might interfere with this incremental domestic strategy and break the link with public service refinancing.
  Adam Price: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to discuss the growth and stability pact, will he assist me? I do not have his mastery of the figures, but will he explain how the 1p cut in the basic rate of income tax in 1999 and the 1 p increase in employee and employer national insurance contributions reflects a continuity in Labour Government policy?
  Jon Cruddas: I tend to perceive three distinct phases, which gradually paint a picture. Furthermore, it is possible to see evolution in the devolutionary strategy. First, after 18 years of Tory government, the focus between 1997 and 1999 was on reinforcing our bona fides in respect of general economic management. That moved us into a second phase—the three-year comprehensive spending cycle, which ensures real-terms reinvestment across all public services and, through the effects of the tax revenues of fiscal drag, retains healthy balances on the accounts to allow for that investment. The third phase, which was signalled in the Budget, is to accept the revenue consequences of another three-year real-terms refinancing of the health services, and at the same time to retain the core macro-economic conditions that allow real-terms growth across all public services. That strikes me as an incrementally radical agenda that systematically confronts poverty and inequality while retaining healthy economic conditions within which that radical agenda operates. I see no contradictions.
  The growth and stability pact might interfere with the incremental domestic strategy and break the link between public services reinvestment and our revenue-raising initiatives. In so doing, we might compromise the reason why the public elected us last year, which I believe is also
  584
  the reason why they will accept the national insurance contributions changes, in that they are being levelled so as to refinance our public services systematically. That link could be broken if we were seen to use the receipts to finance net balance at the expense of those investment plans. I therefore welcome the national insurance estimates and the way in which they will allow us incrementally to deliver the agenda on which we were elected.
  The second argument—that the national insurance proposals signal a rupture with the past—relates to the historic role of the national insurance fund itself. The argument runs that, in contrast with the original assumptions behind the contributory principle, the new proposals, with their explicit link to the national insurance fund, weaken the link between contributions and benefits by cross-subsidising public service investment, which should come out of direct taxation. At the same time, because national insurance contributions are a payroll tax, the proposals act as a disincentive to employment.
  However, the national insurance system has never been the wholly earmarked social insurance system that such arguments imply it was: for example, apart from a brief period between 1988–-89 and 1993–94, there has been a Treasury supplement to the fund from the Consolidated Fund. At the same time, a portion of contributions income is paid into the NHS; the House of Commons Library estimates that, at various times, it has amounted to between 6 per cent. and 17 per cent. of NHS costs, and the figure for 2001–02 is some 12 per cent. of NHS revenue. If we assume that all of the increase in contributions is directed to the Consolidated Fund for use specifically in the NHS, in 2007–08, £13.2 billion from the insurance fund will amount to some 12.5 per cent. of NHS income.
  It can therefore he argued that in a period of massive reinvestment in the NHS in the current CSR period, with £36 billion coming in the next CSR period, the national insurance proposals simply ensure that the proportion of contributory income directed to the NHS remains relatively stable at 12 to 12.5 per cent. Therefore, the proposals continue the principle established in the 1940s of raising resources towards the cost of the NHS through national insurance contributions.
  It seems to me that these initiatives are in turn consistent with the arguments deployed by Beveridge in "Social Insurance and the Allied Services", specifically in terms of the anticipated comprehensive national health service. That is because of Beveridge's continuous emphasis on the link between the provision of social insurance, a national health service and continued paid employment. All his proposals have to be seen in the light of his desire to retain income maintenance. He states on page 8:
  "the Plan for Social Security … takes abolition of want after this war as its aim",
  and later he argues that
  "the provision of an income should be associated with treatment designed to bring the interruption of earnings to an end as soon as possible."
  The corollary of treatment was the anticipated form of socialised medicine. It is therefore entirely legitimate to direct an element of contributions to health care, not least because, as the CBI states, workplace absence cost British business about £10 billion in 1999. As for the

  585
  employment effect, any effect of the national insurance proposals must be seen alongside the totality of initiatives that have helped to reduce unemployment to about 1 million, reactivated much of the labour supply and created about 1.5 million jobs since 1997.
  Overall, I strongly support the national insurance proposals. On the ground in my constituency, Dagenham, we are beginning to see real changes in health provision. A new hospital will be up and running within a few years, and the health authority is working on increased budgets. None the less, the needs of the community are immense: the incidence of heart and lung disease, infant mortality and life expectancy, especially for males, are among the worst in the capital. Yet the new PCT faces GP shortages and a swathe of GP retirements, while health inflation squeezes out its real-terms budget increases.
  In coming years. the proposals will help to deliver the sort of health care that my constituents should receive as of right. The Bill is part of the Government's overall strategy to refinance that care effectively, and I strongly welcome it.
  8.25 pm
  Adam Price: It is usual at this point in proceedings for an unearthly calm to settle upon the debate. Thus far, it has been quite lively. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) declared, with characteristic chutzpah, that this was a landmark Bill. In a slightly different tone, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas) has just told us that new Labour is now in the third phase of an evolutionary strategy.
  Mr. Chris Mole: I think that the person whom the hon. Gentleman has in mind is my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope), not my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas).
  Adam Price: I am grateful. My English geography has always failed me, but I am sure that hon. Members will forgive me.
  It should be acknowledged that the Budget represents a welcome change in direction by the Government. Given the comments of the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), it should be said that it is a change for which many people. both inside and outside the Labour party, have fought.
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that the debate was not about whether we need the extra investment in public services. We wholly agree with that assertion—we are glad that the Government have now adopted the view that Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party have held for some time. The debate is about how that money should be raised, and it is on that that I shall focus my speech, as it is where some of the problems arise. Clearly, we will support the Government on Second Reading, because the investment in our public services is sorely needed.
  The Bill marks a small step forward, but hon. Members will forgive me for believing that half a step backwards has been taken in terms of the mechanism by which the Government have chosen to raise the funds. Despite claims to the contrary, national insurance contributions are relatively regressive. Increases in employer contributions have a deflationary impact on jobs and investment, and that will to some extent eat into the extra investment in the public sector.
  586
  In March, the Deputy Prime Minister tried to justify the use of national insurance contributions for the health service, saying:
  "What people forget is that the health service started off as a payment out of national insurance".
  He forget to mention that he was referring to the National Insurance Act 1911, which created a form of mandatory health insurance scheme whereby all wage earners and employers paid into a scheme, in return for which they received some degree of medical support. Anyone familiar with the novels of A. J. Cronin will know that that was not an entirely satisfactory arrangement, which is why the Attlee Labour Government placed direct taxation at the heart of the funding arrangements for the national health service. The National Insurance Act 1946 contained a partial link to health service funding, but was primarily about funding the provision of welfare benefits such as retirement pensions and sickness and unemployment benefits. A small proportion—it is now about 10 per cent. of national insurance contributions—goes to the NHS.
  As we heard in a thoughtful speech from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), the value of contributory benefits demonstrates a breaking of the link between national insurance contributions and welfare benefits. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is no longer in his place. I do not remember who said that the two things that can be said reliably about the national insurance fund are that it is not a fund and it is nothing to do with insurance. That is more the case now than ever before.
  Semantics aside, the increase in national insurance contributions is an increase in taxation. When the Government transferred responsibility for national insurance contributions, the Inland Revenue probably gave the game away, although I need not detain the House too long on that.
  Dawn Primarolo: The previous Government believed that national insurance should be transferred to the Inland Revenue, on the basis that it made sense to make some alignments to reduce the burdens on employers that result from some of the mechanisms. It was not a statement of what was to come, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is making some interesting points.
  Adam Price: I am grateful to the Minister. One of the things that gives me the greatest pleasure in this place is that I never have to speak on behalf of the Conservative party. I certainly do not claim responsibility for the previous Government.
  I believe that there has been some discussion within Government, or at least some feasibility studies, of the pros and cons of amalgamating the tax and national insurance systems. That might suggest that national insurance contributions, to a greater or lesser degree, are a form of taxation.
  Dawn Primarolo: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman carefully and he is making some pertinent points. One of the problems, as business tries to persuade the Government that we should amalgamate national insurance with tax, is the loss of the contributory principle of the national insurance fund, which flags up benefit entitlement. That is precisely the point that the hon.

  587
  Gentleman is saying is missing. The very thing that keeps the national insurance fund in its present form is the fact that it is contributory and flags benefits.
  Adam Price: I am grateful for that clarification. I note that the payroll sub-group of the Government's better regulation task force said that
  "we understand that the really big regulatory gains would come from either combining national insurance contributions and tax into a single charge for those who currently pay both or NICs being shown as a social security surcharge."
  I will happily person the barricades jointly with the Minister to oppose any further erosion of the contributory principle, but I would like to move on to the regressive nature, as I see it, of the national insurance contribution mechanism as it provides for general Government expenditure.
  Generally, national insurance contributions are regressive because workers on average incomes pay a greater proportion of their income on contributions than those on higher incomes. The Chancellor could have abolished the upper earnings limit, but the anomaly of the ceiling would remain. Those earning £31,000 a year face a marginal tax rate of 23 per cent., whereas those earning less have a marginal tax rate of 33 per cent. That is clearly unacceptable for those who support a progressive income tax system.
  To be fair, the Chancellor has been progressive to some degree in the way in which he has dealt with national insurance contributions. Previously, he has raised the lower earnings threshold faster than the upper earnings limit. In the most recent Budget, he introduced the additional primary percentage to operate above the ceiling. That is a partial breach of the upper earnings limit, and we hope that there is more to come. As a recent OECD study concluded, the shift from income taxation to payroll taxes leads to an overall decline in the progressivity of the tax system.
  Labour Members would do well to be aware of those dangers. There has been extremely rapid growth in payroll taxes over recent years. If we include the employer contribution, we find that many people pay more in payroll taxes as a proportion of their total wage bills than they do in income tax. We have seen a continuous upward trend. Employer contributions have risen from 10 per cent. in 1997 to 12.8 per cent., according to the Government's proposals. Employee contributions have increased from 6.5 per cent. in 1979, under the Conservatives, to 10 per cent. in 1997, and now to 11 per cent. Both the employee and employer contributions represent the highest ever figures in terms of payroll taxes.
  The problem is that the burden falls disproportionately on those on average and lower incomes. There are fewer bands within national insurance contributions because of the upper earnings limit. As we have heard from the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), unearned income is not taxed in this context. We live in interesting times when we hear the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) defending the rights of what used to be called the rentier class in days gone by in the Labour movement. I am referring to wealthy people who do not rely on employment for their income.
  588
  There is the rejoinder that those of us who are in favour of fairly taxing unearned income are in favour also of taxing pensioners. It should be remembered that the Labour Government introduced the tax on dividends from occupational pension funds. That has had a considerable impact on the welfare of those who rely on income from such sources.
  If the NIC proposal is not classically redistributive, it certainly will be deflationary in its impact on the economy. We heard about the Beveridge principles from the Chief Secretary. It is true that the Government embraced the idea of shifting the burden of taxation from employment to phenomena that are more negative in terms of social welfare, such as environmental pollution. We saw that with the climate change levy. We now see a shift of the burden back on to employment. We have not had a satisfactory explanation of the rationale that lies behind that.
  It is irrefutable that if non-wage labour costs are increased, ceteris paribus, there will be a negative impact on job creation.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for 12 minutes, and I am fascinated by his economics lecture. He obviously welcomed the extra investment in the health service, but where would his party get that extra investment, if not from national insurance?
  Adam Price: I do not want to detain the House long, but I am happy to send the hon. Gentleman a copy of our alternative Budget, which has not been mentioned so far in our debate, although I am waiting. We favour abolishing the upper limit, introducing a higher tax band to restore a progressive element in the tax system and raising the standard rate. That is probably enough to be getting on with.
  The increase in employers' national insurance contributions will affect business's ability to invest in growth and will delay economic recovery. It will hit labour-intensive businesses disproportionately, particularly small businesses with higher staff-related costs. A major Canadian study estimates that a 1 per cent. increase in payroll costs one year reduces total employment by 0.2 per cent the following year. As a 2 per cent. rise is proposed in the Bill, that analysis suggests a loss of 110,000 jobs in the United Kingdom in the year ending April 2004. Oxford Economic Forecasting has come up with the not dissimilar figure of 110,000 job losses over the next three years.
  If predictions of an economic recovery in manufacturing are true, that recovery remains fragile, which is certainly the case in Wales, Scotland and areas where labour market problems involve not supply side constraints but an effective lack of demand.
  Mr. Kevan Jones rose—
  Adam Price: I should like to make progress. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways; he cannot accuse me of speaking at length and being generous in giving way.
  There was an opportunity to introduce an element of regional economic policy in the Government's thinking following the pre-Budget report, when we were promised a review of such policy. A number of us in Wales and Scotland have called for a look at regional incentives in

  589
  economic policy, especially in national insurance contributions. There is an opportunity to target reductions in national insurance on economic black spots where they could have a significant impact. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made such a proposal two years ago, when he suggested targeting reductions in employers' national insurance contributions on unemployment black spots. It is therefore a shame that we are still waiting for Government proposals on regional economic policy.
  Previously, we have discussed the impact of employers' contributions, particularly on the public sector, where there are still pent-up demands and wage inflation. Public sector employees, particularly nurses and ancillary staff in the NHS, believe strongly that much of the extra investment going into the public sector should be used to improve their wages and conditions. Logic is on their side; we cannot improve the NHS and other public services without tens of thousands of extra members of staff, as the Government have admitted, who will have to be enticed with higher wages, which involves a significant deadweight cost.
  In that context, the increase in employers' and employees' national insurance contributions will only add to pent-up demands and public sector wage inflation. Scotland and Wales, because of the operation of the Barnett squeeze, will have a lower real-terms increase than that promised across the rest of the UK—6.8 per cent. and 6.5 per cent. respectively—and, in addition, the rise in national insurance contributions will increase public sector wage inflation. The public sector in Wales may therefore be left with a small real-terms increase, which is why Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party have argued for the public sector to be exempted from the employer contribution. That solution is not perfect—we are not arguing that it is—but at least it would ensure that the NHS receives the full benefit of the promised additional revenue.
  In conclusion, we support Second Reading, because the Bill is the only way to overcome the 20 or 30 years of underinvestment referred to in the Wanless report, including the last five years of wasted opportunity, raised expectations and little delivery. We look forward to continuing the debate not just about the additional investment now going into health, but about other public services facing a similar shortage of funds. We hope that this is a beginning of a new debate with a different emphasis on taxation and public expenditure than has hitherto been the case.
  8.44 pm
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: The debate has been going on for some time. Elements of it were being discussed before the Budget, and discussion has continued at a fierce pace since then. Much of what needs to be said has been said, but that will not stop me saying it again, though perhaps not at the same length as one or two Opposition Members have spoken, as I know that some of my colleagues want to get in. Before my own contribution, I shall comment on some of the remarks from those on the Opposition Benches.
  We have heard much about whether the tax is progressive or regressive, but we cannot look at just one tax. We must consider the whole tax system, which is made up of progressive taxes, regressive taxes and
  590
  contributory taxes. The entire package must be examined and a judgment made about whether people at particular levels of income are paying the right contribution to society.
  In choosing national insurance contributions to fund the proposed increase in public spending, the Government made some finely balanced judgments. We can argue about whether they have got it right, and Opposition Members can suggest that they have not, but the Opposition cannot attack the increase on the grounds that rich people are not paying enough into the tax system. That is an argument about the whole tax system, which we should have as part of the wider Budget debate, not in the context of a rise that is being levied specifically for the purpose of rebuilding the health service.
  The Liberal Democrats tried to wriggle out of accepting that in their 1997 manifesto, they proposed an increase in national insurance to fund national health service spending. They cannot deny it; the proposal is there in black and white for anybody to see. Admittedly, the amount was piffling. The sum that the Liberal Democrats claimed was necessary to rebuild the NHS in 1997 was just £540 million a year, of which half would go on making prescriptions free. Their total extra spending on NHS investment for a five-year period would have been one fifth of the sum that the present Government put into the NHS.
  The Liberal Democrats cannot claim now to be guardians of investment in the national health service. They were not when they faced the electorate in 1997, and all that they have done since is ramp up their demands every time Labour has put more money into the health service.
  As for the contribution from the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, the less said, the better. It was a typical performance from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)—more entertainment than information. If the national insurance increase that we are debating is so anti-employment, why did the Conservatives leave employers' national insurance at 10 per cent. through 18 years in government? Why, when unemployment was rising from about 750,000 to 4 million, did they never once reduce that national insurance? Why, when manufacturing jobs were disappearing at hundreds of thousands every year, did they never once reduce it? Now they claim that the 1 per cent. increase is anti-jobs.
  When asked how the Conservatives would deal with the health service in the future, the hon. Member for Buckingham said that they had not yet decided. On previous occasions he said that he was not in Parliament for the 18 years of Conservative Government, so he washed his hands of everything that they did in the past. Conservative Front-Bench policy focuses on the present—it will never predict or take responsibility for the past. The Conservatives cannot be allowed to get away with that.
  We should concentrate on four questions: how the national health service should be funded, in general terms; whether it needs more money; if so, whether we will raise that through some form of direct taxation, and whether national insurance is the right form of taxation for that; and how we will make sure that the money is spent wisely. We can discuss the various alternatives for funding the NHS.

  591
  Although they deny it, the thrust of the Conservatives' thinking is clearly towards some sort of private health care system or the increased involvement of the private sector. I say to the Opposition that there are many different business models, but two tend to predominate: high-turnover, low-margin businesses and low-turnover, high-margin businesses. In health care systems such as that of the United States, which is predominantly private, exactly those two business models dominate: the wealthy go into low-turnover, high-margin and high-quality health care systems and the poor go into high-turnover, low-quality and low-margin systems.
  I mentioned in an intervention on the Chief Secretary a recent initiative in Florida, Jeb Bush's state, in which the pharmaceutical industry tried to help the state to reduce its Medicare budget, which was running out of control. The state has to provide such a budget for the health care of poorer people. The industry was asked to help and said that it would try to do so by providing preventive health care and decent primary care systems, on the basis that that might ultimately be the best way of driving down overall costs. For the first time in that state, poor people received preventive health care checks and saw general practitioners who took an interest in their underlying concerns. As we have seen in reports on television and elsewhere, many of those people, a significant number of whom are elderly, could say "This is the first time in my life when I have had a proper conversation and interview about my health needs with a GP."
  That is what happens in an essentially private health care system, which is why we should never take that route. In this country, we have a system that is equitable and provides for people's needs when they arise—and it does so for free. Let me give the House a personal example. My mum has quite severe Parkinson's disease and the health care with which she has been provided is absolutely fantastic. She has never wanted for any medication or for the attention of her GPs. The level of care is such that we as a family could never have dreamt of providing it from our own resources. The health service does not quibble about providing that care. She needs it and gets it in its entirety for free. That is the dream on which our health system was built and we must not give it up easily.
  My next question was whether we needed more money. I can tell the House that we have put substantial extra amounts into the health care system. In east Kent, I have seen the £2 million renovation of accident and emergency facilities and a new ward block in the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital in Margate. Three wards around the area have been refurbished and new scanners have been provided, but it is still not enough. The East Kent Community NHS trust is the sixth biggest trust in the country and we have an elderly population of 20 per cent. above average. Despite the extra money, 835 people are still waiting more than 12 months for in-patient surgery and almost 4,000 people are waiting more than 13 weeks for out-patient work. We have done a huge amount, but we still need to do more. The total increase in spending between 1996–97 and 2002–03 has been almost 50 per cent. The level has gone from £262 million in east Kent to £521 million, so nobody can argue that we
  592
  have not pumped extra money into the health service in east Kent or that we have not made real gains—but the gains have not gone far enough.
  Finally, I asked whether national insurance was the right way of raising the extra money that we need. Opposition Members would do well to read the Bill; I fear that many of them have not done so. They would see provisions that I would have thought they would welcome. One of them asked whether the changes that are being made were the thin end of the wedge. The Bill is necessary because many of the changes that are being made require primary legislation. If we were further to increase the contribution that national insurance makes to the health service, that would require further primary legislation. I should have thought that Opposition Members would say that it is a good thing for taxes to be raised in a way that requires primary legislation. I should also have expected them to welcome the fact that clause 4 gets closer than the Chancellor has ever got to hypothecation by making it clear that the extra money has to be spent on the health service.
  As we have heard, pensioners will not have to pay because they do not pay national insurance. That also applies to people saving for their retirement. That may give rise to anomalies. Baroness Thatcher and people of similar wealth will not pay any extra towards the health service, but that is a small price to pay for raising the money that the health service needs and delivering it to where it has to go.
  There are already 31,000 extra nurses, 9,000 more doctors and 12 new hospitals as a result of the work that the Government have done. In a thoughtful contribution, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) went a long way towards saying that the money would have a real impact, with the proviso that the jury was still out on whether it would have the impact that Labour Members hope. He is right, and I accept his challenge. In four years' time, if the extra money that we are putting in has not reformed health care and our NHS modernisation programme has not turned things around, the onus will be on Labour Members to admit that we were wrong and to be prepared to consider alternatives. However, as the money that we have already put into the health service has led to demonstrable and good progress, there is no reason not to believe that the additional funding—which I hope that the House will take the first step towards approving tonight—will be the next step towards proving that the national health service can deliver the dream of its creators.
  8.57 pm
  Mr. Bill Rammell: I am pleased to make a contribution to this debate on one of the most significant pieces of legislation that the Government will pass in all their years in office. I genuinely mean that. Just as the Tory privatisation programme in the 1980s was emblematic of what the Tories in government were about, and fundamentally changed our society, the Bill and the budgetary changes associated with it define more clearly than anything what the Labour party and the Labour Government are about, and will change this country for the better.
  The Bill is the culmination of a careful, deliberate and gradualist strategy to rehabilitate the concept that direct, progressive taxation can be used as a tool to achieve a

  593
  social good. Our arguments make that clear, and they have resonance with people. We are telling them that society does not get something for nothing and that if we want a world-class health service, we will have to pay a little more through extra direct taxes.
  There is public support for that view, and I am confident that we are also beginning to win the debate in the House of Commons. Nothing gives me more confidence in saying that than the fact that, although this is one of the most significant pieces of legislation that the Government will introduce, for most of the debate no Tory Back-Bench Members have been present—currently, there is one. That shows that they do not have the stomach for debating this issue. They know the direction in which the public debate is going and how the public mood is moving.
  Mr. Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been here for virtually the whole evening. I popped out to see a constituent, having made you aware that I was doing so. The hon. Gentleman is, perhaps inadvertently, attempting to mislead the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): That is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Rammell: The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) is the exception who proves the rule. If Conservative Members believed that they were in tune with the public mood and that they could win the argument, they would fill the Opposition Benches and try to make their case. Their absence speaks volumes.
  Let us consider the substance of the Bill. I warmly welcome the measure because it firmly establishes the principle that taxation, and sometimes increases in direct taxation, is necessary in a civilised society. The Government are building on the developing consensus by introducing the measure.
  In the 1980s, the public mood, to which the Conservative Government responded and which they also led, was tax cuts at almost any price. After more than 18 years, people have realised that such a strategy entails enormous cost in damage to schools, hospitals and public services generally. In 2002, there is greater public recognition that we do not get something for nothing. People look increasingly to Europe and countries such as France and Germany where waiting lists do not exist. People logically conclude that that is not unconnected to the substantially greater sums of public money that are spent on their health care systems. According to figures from the Library, of the 15 European Union countries, Britain has historically spent the second lowest percentage of GDP on health.
  I increasingly believe that people are ready to endorse a preference for progressive taxation to fund the improvements that we need in the NHS rather than social insurance, private medical insurance or direct charges. I was interested to listen to the shadow Chief Secretary, who denied that the shadow Secretary of State of Health had advocated direct charges in the NHS. He may not have realised that his comments were recorded, but he went out of his way to advocate what he termed "self-pay". Self-pay or direct charges take no account of ability to pay and are far more regressive than direct taxation to pay for public expenditure. To appreciate how
  594
  disastrous such a system can be, we should consider the United States, where 40 million out of 200 million people simply do not have access to decent health care. That is genuinely worrying.
  We are moving in the right direction, but the key question is whether we can convince the public that direct tax changes through increases in national insurance constitute the right way forward. Initial opinion polling evidence gives ground for optimism. The Daily Telegraph poll shows that 77 per cent. of people support the increased expenditure for the health service and 63 per cent. believe that we were justified in raising national insurance.
  I urge some caution. People have not yet started paying the taxes and we should never underestimate the capacity of people to support tax rises in principle but, when the crunch comes, to find all sorts of reasons against them. If we are to win the debate fundamentally and in the long term, we need to take some action. First, we must provide the extra doctors, nurses and beds to increase NHS capacity.
  Secondly, we must be careful about the way in which the additional money is spent. I speak as a Member of Parliament for a south-east constituency, and I am conscious of the need to increase health professionals' pay, especially to meet additional housing costs. I give a word of warning. If the bulk of the unprecedented, substantial increase in public expenditure is spent simply on additional pay, and the public do not perceive sufficient improvements in the services that they receive, they will not thank us in the long run. I therefore welcome the fact that the Secretary of State for Health went out of his way to say that higher salaries must be accompanied by higher productivity and increased responsibility.
  We must also make it clear, in terms of winning this debate, that this is long-term investment for long-term change. We have underfunded the national health service for more than a generation, and this is not going to be a quick fix; it is going to take time to build up the capacity. We need to say that because, otherwise, when the taxes start to bite in a year's time, the Conservatives will say to us, "People are paying the extra taxes. Where are the improvements?" There will be improvements—there are already improvements—but this is a long-term strategy. We need to make the point very clearly that we cannot underfund the national health service for 18 years and expect everything to be put right in just a short period of time.
  I shall deal with some of the criticisms that have been put forward today by the Conservatives. First, they said that we had broken our election promises, but I certainly remember the Chancellor and the Prime Minister repeatedly refusing to rule out rises in national insurance contributions during the general election. Secondly, I simply will not take lessons from the Conservatives about keeping our promises on tax during a general election campaign. We all remember the 1979 campaign, in which they said that they would not put up VAT; they doubled it immediately after the general election. Similarly, in 1992, they said that they had no plans to raise the rate or change the scope of VAT. What did they do straight after the general election? They increased it by 2.5 per cent.

  595
  I question the integrity of the Conservatives position when they say that they are committed to extra spending on the national health service. I have been staggered in recent weeks to read some of their statements, particularly when the shadow Health Secretary said:
  "we agree on the need to spend more on health care in the United Kingdom",—[Official Report, 23 April 2002; Vol. 384, c. 162.]
  Forgive me, but I simply do not believe that statement. The Conservatives were in power for 18 years—the longest period of one-party rule in this country since the second world war—but never did we see the increased investment levels that this Government are now introducing.
  This is a debate about extra resources, and about the need for those resources. It is also about the fundamental choice that we face: do we want a socialised system of health care that is free at the point of use, or do we go down the road to private medical insurance and charging? The most revealing moment in this debate was when the shadow Chief Secretary was invited three times to say that he supported a national health service that was free at the point of use. Three times he ducked the opportunity to confirm that; he simply said that he was in favour of a better national health service. Put alongside what the shadow Health Secretary has said about wanting self-pay and private medical insurance, that makes it very clear that the fundamental choice is between rebuilding the national health service—free at the point of use—under this Government or being forced to pay for it, in a way that takes no account of the ability to pay, by the Conservative party. I am absolutely confident which way people will go.
  9.8 pm
  Mr. Bill Wiggin: I can see that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall take no interventions and try to keep my speech as short as possible. I should like to begin by heaping praise on the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) for having actually read the Bill. Labour Members who refer to "ordinary people" should show those people the Bill and see whether they can make head or tail of it. The implementation of the Bill will raise about an extra £10 billion a year, and the Government have earmarked those funds to part-fund a 43 per cent. increase in national health service spending over the next five years. They are demanding yet more of the taxpayer's hard-earned money, but have so far failed to propose any policy for spending the extra cash that even hints at being effective.
  My constituents are paying £1,600 a year more in tax than they were in 1997, yet waiting lists are rising again and the chances of surviving cancer in Britain are among the worst in Europe. The Chancellor's increase in employers' national insurance contributions will hit the public services hard. The Government have admitted that their changes to national insurance will cost the public sector £1.2 billion, of which £200 million represents the increase in the total salary bill for employing 1 million national health service workers in England. So, although the Budget has been heralded by the Government as the saviour of the NHS, it will actually start off by costing the health service money.
  It is not just the Conservative party that has labelled the Budget as more tax and more talk, but making no difference. The message from the public is clear, too: it
  596
  is not good enough. The British public lost faith in the Government several broken promises ago, so no wonder the Chancellor's latest money-grabbing initiative has not been as well received as they hoped.
  Employees and employers are rightly unwilling to pay more of their hard-earned income in national insurance contributions, because of the Government's track record of failing to deliver. In Herefordshire, last-minute cancellations of operations for non-critical reasons have risen by 121 per cent. in the past year. That group, as a percentage of elective admissions, has doubled in size over the last year—and the number of those unfortunate patients not to be admitted within a month of the cancellation is up by 260 per cent. The number of patients in my constituency who are not admitted within a month in the first instance rose by 58 per cent.
  In conjunction with the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch)—sadly, he is not in his place now—I have recently been involved with a petition that received more than 26,000 signatures from people in Herefordshire. The "Give us the beds we need" petition was part of my campaign for much needed funds to provide the new hospital at Hereford with the additional 120 beds that it needs to operate efficiently. It also needs those 120 beds to make it the same size as the hospital that it is replacing.
  A large group of doctors, nurses and hospital workers from Hereford hospital made the 150-mile journey to London last month to present the petition to Downing street and to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the Government. The message from my constituents is loud and clear: the situation is unacceptable. I am sure that the good people of Herefordshire are not the only ones in the country who have had enough of broken promises, increased taxes and decrepit public services.
  The situation in the NHS is that waiting lists are rising again, hospital beds are blocked—mainly because care home beds have been closed—and the odds of surviving cancer in Britain are among the worst in Europe. Last year 250,000 people without insurance paid for their own operations—more than ever before. More talk and more tax will not give people the standard of health care that they deserve. Scotland spends as much as Australia and Holland on health, and Wales and Northern Ireland spend as much as France, yet patients are receiving inferior treatment.
  The Budget is a missed opportunity, and the Treasury has a closed mind on health care. It says that we have nothing to learn from other countries, despite the fact that Germany has no national waiting lists, and Danish patients have a legal right to treatment within four weeks of seeing a GP. We have an open mind. We have visited other countries that deliver better health care, simply to see what we can learn from them. Yes, Britain needs to spend more on the health service, but spending it on how the NHS is run today, and raising higher and higher taxes, will not give this country the health care standards that it has a right to expect.
  Patients are paying to be treated outside the NHS. When the Independent Healthcare Association says that more than 250,000 people are having to self-fund their operations in the private sector this year, we know that things are not right. An article on BBC Online has revealed that hundreds of British patients are flying to South Africa for treatment to avoid NHS waiting lists in

  597
  the UK. Over the last six months, the number of Britons travelling to South Africa to take advantage of cheaper and quicker hospital treatment has risen dramatically.
  The west midlands area health authorities, which cover my constituency, last year reported more than 1,000 delayed discharges from hospitals due to the shortage of care homes. The same was true the year before. To make matters worse, research has shown that over one third of those discharges are delayed by more than a month.
  The NHS is in turmoil—we all know that—but the delayed hospital discharge problem could be eased greatly if the Government addressed the shortage of care home beds and the lack of funding for existing homes. Instead, their proposed national insurance contributions tax will have a dramatic effect on the operating margins of those homes—to their detriment, sadly.
  Many small care homes in England are running at a 5 per cent. margin, but for an average care home, wages are 80 per cent. of costs. Therefore, the national insurance increase will reduce margins by 20 per cent. That increase may impose costs that are too onerous for many smaller care homes to cope with. Frank Ursell, the chief executive officer of the Registered Nursing Homes Association, said:
  "For those care home owners who are already teetering on the brink, this tax increase on wages could be the final straw. Many care home owners could say 'I've had enough'".
  In the current year, total NHS spending in the UK is expected to be about £68 billion. The Wanless review estimates that there will need to be a rise of between £154 billion and £184 billion by 2022–23 in order to deliver the high quality service envisaged. That implies total NHS spending increases at an average rate of between 4.2 and 5.1 per cent. a year in real terms over that 20-year period.
  The increased activity implied by the projections in the report would result in a substantial increase in demand for health care workers. Derek Wanless estimates that at least two thirds more doctors and a third more nurses will be required over the next 20 years. Under the existing plans, which Wanless describes as "ambitious", the report estimates a small shortage of nurses by 2020, and a shortfall of 25,000 doctors, especially GPs.
  That caused the British Medical Association much concern. In a statement to the House, the Secretary of State for Health pledged that the Government's plans for health reform would deliver 15,000 more doctors. I am left wondering where the other 10,000 will come from. It is time that the Government ceased promising everything and actually delivered. I accept that there are no quick fixes, and everyone realises that the situation is difficult and problematic, but the sensible route is not one of unattainable objectives. The Government would do well to forgo their announcements of miracles, because the public are no longer fooled. Only real results and real policies will do for the NHS and for the people of Britain.
  Sadly, it is typical of the Government that the Wanless report was released on Budget day, when media attention was focused elsewhere. Perhaps the disparity between the number of doctors needed and the number pledged by the Government led to that attempt to bury the report.
  The best insurance policy in the world is one that people can claim on and which delivers without delay. I do not believe that the Bill can do either.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Chris Mole: The debate on national insurance contributions is important, because we must find the right way to raise funds fairly and efficiently for the NHS. It is clear that we should use national insurance, not income tax. The Budget package seeks to take progressive and significant steps on behalf of pensioners, and this is one way in which we can provide resources without calling on pensioners.
  Investment clearly works—we have only to look at the cash for change funds that the Government made available from late 2001. In my constituency, that scheme is already delivering reductions in the number of acute hospital beds blocked by delayed transfer of care. The Ipswich hospital in Heath road has seen a reduction from 64 last November to 24 in March.
  I would also like to draw attention to the investment of £1.9 million in intermediate care at the Ravenswood development in my constituency, which will help to meet the need of the elderly for the mixture of social and health care that increased resources can deliver.
  The Opposition should lay out their proposals for a costed practical alternative. They need to explain to people what their proposals would mean and what they would cost. They must say whether, under their proposals, the health service would be free at the point of usage.
  As we have heard, there are many reasons why there is increasing demand for additional health care expenditure. Demographic changes, new technology and rising expectations of the health care system demand that we take a close look at its financial needs. Many illnesses and injuries are now survivable that perhaps 50 years ago, at the inception of the NHS, were not. They can now be treated with some confidence. We are in the middle of a pharmaceutical and biological revolution, with new procedures and new practices. There are new technologies such as minimally invasive surgical procedures, and new drugs with greater efficacy and acceptability. My local primary care trust has confirmed evidence gathered nationally that the amount of medicines, dressings and appliances dispensed in the community has been rising by about 10 per cent. a year over recent years.
  To return to the point about demography, the number of people over 65 is expected to increase by nearly one third over the next 20 years. That is why I welcome the element of the Budget that will raise real-terms spending on social care by some 6 per cent. per annum. Much ill health is age related, and that additional social care investment will be important if we want to deliver on the expectations of our health service, which I believe we all do.
  If we compare our performance with that of many of our European competitors in areas such as life expectancy, infant mortality, premature mortality and survival rates for cancer and heart disease, we know that we can and must do better. People want us to deliver on improved use of new technology, shorter waiting times and enabling them to spend more time with their GP.
  When we look at the Bill, we have to question what the alternatives might be. Clearly, there are alternatives such as charging, private insurance and social insurance. Most countries rely on a mixture of those. The trouble with charging is that, unlike a regular trip to the shops, our individual demands on health care are not predictable. In many instances, consumers of health care will have much

  599
  less information and less expert knowledge than they would have when purchasing other goods and services. There is a risk of professionals setting the price for their service.
  Eighty per cent. of patients in France take out supplementary insurance to pay for charges. If that is what the Conservative Opposition are proposing, that really is a stealth tax by any other name. It is important to us all that we do not go down that route, because if people are put off seeing the doctor, they are likely to end up back in the health care system with more severe health problems. Charging makes the sick pay for their sickness, so it is not a good idea.
  Private insurance is not an efficient system. Administrative costs are higher. In the United States, administrative costs are about double those in Canada, which has a more general tax-funded system. In those countries, the people who need health care most are the least likely to be able to afford it. The evidence is that the sickest 10 per cent. of the American population spend six to seven times what the average American citizen does on health care. Someone with a private insurance policy that may cover only 80 per cent. of their charges can be faced with additional costs of, for example, $2,000 for hospitalisation during child birth. Many insurance policies exclude primary care and emergency care. I do not think that that sort of approach would drive consumers to change their pattern of consumption, because most of the costs of health care are initiated by the doctors, not the patients.
  Let us have a brief look at social insurance, Compulsory contributions paid into and managed by independent, not-for-profit sickness funds are also a stealth tax by any other name. Is that what the Opposition are recommending? Employers end up footing much of the bill, paying on average £60 per week per employee, compared with the £5 or so that employers pay in this country through national insurance, or perhaps a total bill of £10, if we include the company's contribution through general taxation. It is also a system in which costs can fall on companies whose employees are sick. In our system, there is a significant sharing of risk among employers, which helps many small and medium-sized businesses.
  We should now look at the national insurance system that the Bill is asking us to put our faith in. It offers a good deal over the lifetime of the individual, allowing us to have a health service more comprehensive than those funded by other systems. It gives us the general practice system, community nurses and other facets of our health service. It covers all of the people all of the time. Some 80 per cent. of the NHS is now funded from general taxation, and funding and costs do not fall on one group only.
  We should affirm our support for a system that does not impose higher costs on those predisposed to illness and does not demand that employers bear the main burden of health costs. It is a modern and rational choice, and it is the best insurance policy in the world.
  9.26 pm
  Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: Before considering the Government's proposals on funding the NHS through national insurance contributions, I thought that it might
  600
  not be a bad idea to have a look at some of the alternatives. Last Wednesday, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said that the nation could expect his party to examine the experience of other countries and to offer clear and costed proposals when they have completed that period of analysis.
  The hon. Gentleman does his own colleagues something of a disservice. I would like to take this opportunity to sketch some of the ideas that his colleagues already have, and about which they have, to some extent, thought long and hard. They are well documented, if one digs a little.
  The hon. Gentleman said that it would be necessary to examine the experience of other countries, and that is all well and good. Let us take a slightly closer look at the American model. I understand that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), on hearing that 14 million Americans are not covered by any health insurance at all, has ditched his American model, and quite rightly so. He ditched the American model in favour of a Swedish one. He said that in 1999, St. George's hospital in Stockholm was sold to the private sector, producing a reduction in costs of between 10 and 15 per cent. He said:
  "If health care can be improved in Sweden without taxing spending and wasting, we can do it in this country as well, given the will."
  I was somewhat surprised to hear a member of the shadow Cabinet expressing admiration for the public service policy of the one country in the world that is renowned for heavy taxation, but I am pleased that he has such an open mind. However, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's Swedish model could be employed in this country, for the simple reason that while Sweden has, for the last 30 years, had one of the highest tax and spend policies to provide for its health service, the NHS in the United Kingdom has been chronically underfunded by the Conservative party.
  I fear that the shadow Cabinet will have to ditch both their American and Swedish models. But it is quite astonishing how far they are prepared to go find a suitable model for the NHS. Let us turn to Canada, and to the example of the provincial Government of Saskatchewan. Between 1987 and 1989, the current shadow Home Secretary—a former Treasury spokesperson for the Conservative party—worked as an assistant director for N. M. Rothschild and Sons and advised the provincial Government there on a series of privatisation programmes. Most of us are aware of the hon. Gentleman's ideas about the public services, but before we consider the Saskatchewan model, I want to remind the House of some of his constructive contributions to the debate on funding public services in years gone by.
  In 1987, in an article entitled "The privatization of education", the hon. Gentleman said:
  "You can privatize just about anything."
  In 1988, he wrote a thesis entitled—I am not making this up—"Privatising the World". In 1996, he described the privatisation of nuclear power stations as
  "intrinsically an entirely bankable proposition."
  He probably thinks, therefore, that his party could indeed consider privatising as many of the public services as it can get away with, including the national health service.
  The Saskatchewan Government listened to advice from the person who is now the shadow Home Secretary about various privatisation programmes. He was obviously very

  601
  good at his job. His company was reportedly paid $30,000 a month for his services—very good work, for those who can get it. In his view, the Saskatchewan Government had not done a particularly good job of privatising the dental service, but his advice to them was heavily criticised in the state legislative assembly.
  The Saskatchewan Hansard of 23 March 1989—I can provide a copy—says of the shadow Home Secretary that he
  "will tell them that—and has told them, I understand—that the way they went about privatizing the dental plan was one of the worst examples that he has ever seen. He says: you don't do it that way. You got to be smoother. You got to con the people more. You got to work slower. Privatize some other things first and then work your way to health once you soften people up."
  I doubt whether the shadow Home Secretary is very popular in Saskatchewan province. Given the verdict of the Saskatchewan Government, it may be best for the shadow Cabinet to ditch this model, along with the American and Swedish ones—unless they really do want to con the people, privatise some things first and work their way slowly towards health, once they have softened people up.
  The shadow Cabinet need to clarify their policies on national insurance contributions and the funding of the national health service, and I am pleased to say that they need look no further than the House of Commons Library. In 1993, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), now the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, co-authored a pamphlet entitled "Who Benefits?" Four of the five Conservative Members of Parliament who wrote it are now shadow Ministers.
  On page 19, under the heading "Privatising Insurance", the pamphlet states:
  "The private sector should be encouraged to take on the role of providing the kind of insurance for which National Insurance Contributions must currently be paid."
  It proposes giving rebates to those who can afford to pay for their own health insurance, and to those who can afford to insure themselves privately against unemployment, invalidity and even pregnancy. In return, a Conservative Government as envisaged by the Leader of the Opposition could scale down the national health service massively, because it would be a service only for the poor, the unemployed, the disabled, the elderly and the particularly needy—those who could not pay the premiums in a private health insurance scheme.
  The proposals would make healthy and very wealthy people better off, and leave the rest of the country dependent on an underfunded two-tier NHS. However, the pamphlet also suggests that that state of affairs would be only a temporary solution. The Leader of the Opposition had longer term ideas, which the pamphlet puts succinctly:
  "Ultimately, the state may provide no insurance of its own."
  That is what the right hon. Gentleman put his name to, and I hope that it is helpful to the shadow Cabinet as they try to clarify their position on NI contributions and the NHS.
  By contrast, the Government have laid their policy out clearly. The Bill says that they seek to make provision for
  "increasing national insurance contributions and for applying the increases towards the cost of the national health service."
  602
  The Bill will do exactly what it says on the tin. The Government will raise NI contributions by I per cent. and increase UK health spending to £65.4 billion this year and to £105.6 billion by 2007–08. For the extra penny in the pound paid in NI contributions, my constituents can expect their local health authority to receive more than £430 million in the coming year, which is £206 million more than it received in the last year of the last Conservative Government, so I welcome the Bill. Its aims and means are clear, and it will guarantee an NHS that is free to all at the point of use.
  9.36 pm
  John Mann: We have heard lots of bluster and a smattering of supposition from hon. Members on the usually empty Opposition Benches, but that is not surprising because they are in a quandary. Last week, I challenged the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) to ask his voters, through his website, what they thought of the NIC increases. Unfortunately, he does not appear to have done so. Let me help him out. Last Thursday, I visited Bassetlaw hospital with the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears). The hospital presented 60 staff, from consultants to cleaners, and not one of them had any opposition to paying more NICs for the NHS. My hon. Friend also asked every patient whom we saw at random in the hospital what they thought of the NHS. Every single one was positively in favour of the NHS and what the Government are doing.
  I have asked several times what model is preferred. I was told repeatedly, and Hansard will show, that the American model has been discounted, which can leave only the west European high taxation model. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) mentioned Sweden and Canada, but my example is Germany. The German model is a pluralist, corporatist and regional model. Many of the hospitals are funded by organisations. For example, the trade unions run their own hospitals through the Workers' Welfare Agency—the Arbeiterwohlfahrt—as do the Lutheran church and the Roman Catholic Caritas agency.
  If the Opposition have discounted the American model and the British model, do they prefer the German model? If so, which trade union will they invite to run the hospitals? Will they be honest and tell people that is what will happen? In fact, in the German model, health care funding is overseen at the regional level by the trade unions and the employers. One similarity between Germany and the US is collective bargaining. Some 99 per cent. of large employers in the US which run an insurance scheme have collective bargaining. The Teamsters in Ohio have five separate schemes that they attempt to negotiate with their members' employers. That is why the employer cost is higher. The employer cost in Germany is also higher, thanks to the system built up since the war and first created by Bismark. The trade unions are a full part of that system. Social insurance costs employers in Germany three times more than employers in the UK, and it costs employers in France six times more.
  I am not sure what Baroness Thatcher would make of the Conservatives' move towards the social partnership model, but if they discount the model of the NHS and the model of privatisation in the US with its collective bargaining, that leaves only the high-tax Swedish model

  603
  or the decentralised German model. It is make-your-mind-up time. Perhaps the Conservatives' spokesman will tell us when he winds up which one they are plumping for.
  9.39 pm
  Mr. Christopher Chope: Three things have been established during the debate: first, the Government have broken their promises; secondly, there will be damaging tax rises for employees, the self-employed and employers; and thirdly, there is no evidence that concrete improvements will flow as a result of the additional expenditure—any more than there was on any previous occasion.
  The Government are always talking about extra concrete improvements as the return for extra concrete investment. On 24 June 1999, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury—the present Secretary of State for Health—stated:
  "We have fulfilled our commitment to publish Public Service Agreements covering all the public services. They set out the concrete improvements to be delivered in return for the extra investment we are making."—[Official Report, 24 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 458W.]
  Those concrete improvements have not been delivered, yet the Government are talking about massive extra investment with no guarantee that we shall get the reforms.
  Let me dwell on those broken promises—a serious issue. During the—
  Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman is running down the NHS.
  Mr. Chope: That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman and his party did while we were in government—they ran down the NHS and tried to undermine confidence in it.
  During the last general election campaign, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was repeatedly questioned as to whether Labour intended to raise the national insurance ceiling. His spin doctors briefed journalists in a dishonest way. On the BBC 6 o'clock news bulletin on 22 May 2001, Mark Mardell said:
  "Those close to Gordon Brown say it's completely wrong to interpret this reluctance as meaning there is a plan to put up national insurance. They say that's not his intention."
  At that time, no one was much closer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer than the Chief Secretary. Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) challenged the Chief Secretary to deny that he knew a year ago that national insurance would have to be raised.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: I had no such knowledge.
  Mr. Chope: It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman did not say that earlier. I am glad we have pressed him into saying it now. Perhaps it shows that he is not as close to the Chancellor as he thought.
  Dr. Evan Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman find it surprising that the Treasury No. 2 could not foresee such
  604
  a huge increase in taxation and NHS spending six months or a year before it happened? One would have thought that the Treasury team would be capable of predicting that.
  Mr. Chope: I agree with the hon. Gentleman; many people would think that surprising, but our experience teaches us otherwise.
  We shall continue repeating the comments of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the "Powerhouse" programme on 29 May 2001. She said:
  "We've got no plans at all to raise that ceiling on National Insurance contributions."
  This is the fourth debate on the national insurance changes since the Budget, but the Government have still not apologised for having blatantly misled the electorate on the issue.
  Let me conclude my account of the broken promises by referring to the Prime Minister's words in Mr. Desmond's Daily Express. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government had not "the slightest intention" of hammering people on £30,000 and £35,000 and the higher income brackets. Of course, if we consider the Prime Minister's words carefully, we realise that when he said that they had not slightest intention, that left the way open for them to have the greatest intention. That is an example of the way the Government use words to deceive the electorate. It is no surprise that the leading article in The Economist, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), attacked the brazen claim that the Government had not broken any promises in the Budget.
  A more important consideration for some people is whether extra employers' national insurance contributions will damage industry. On 6 October 1999, the Government's response to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry stated:
  "The climate change levy and the associated reduction in employers' National Insurance contributions represents a shift in the burden of taxation from 'goods', such as labour, to 'bads', such as environmental pollution. The reduction in National Insurance contributions will reduce the cost of labour and thereby encourage employment opportunities throughout the economy."
  That is what the Government were saying in 1999. By the Government's logic, therefore, the Bill will add to the cost of labour and discourage employment opportunities throughout the economy. That is endorsed by businesses large and small.
  Mr. Anthony Goldstone, who was quoted selectively by the Chief Secretary in his opening remarks, said at the British Chambers of Commerce conference:
  "There is no point simply pouring our money into a bottomless pit."
  That will have severe implications for the public sector as well. It is interesting that the Treasury is going back on what Lord McIntosh of Haringey said in another place:
  "the cost … to public sector employers is estimated to be around £1.2 billion in 2003–04."
  He also said that
  "the cost to the National Health Service is £300 million, not the £200 million to which the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, referred."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 April 2002; Vol. 634, c. 244-45.]
  Those figures now seem to be disputed by the Government's spokesmen, but that was what was said immediately after the Budget.

  605
  Are these national insurance increases necessary? The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) said that they were particularly fair because they were going to the NHS. He and his constituents are the victims of a massive confidence trick. If one looks at the Red Book and the Budget in detail, one sees that they add £4 billion to departmental expenditure limits for next year, £2.4 billion of which has been immediately allocated to United Kingdom health spending and £0.4 billion to personal social services. That adds up to £2.8 billion extra next year for the health service. The additional national insurance contributions, however, will yield £7.9 billion, and freezing income tax, personal allowances and national insurance thresholds will yield a further £700 million, which is again justified on the basis that it is needed for the NHS. Last week, in winding up the debate on North sea taxation, the Economic Secretary justified the £450 million taxation increase on North sea producers on the basis that it would be
  "revenue that will help put the NHS back on a sustainable long-term financial footing".—[Official Report, 9 May 2002; Vol.385,c.359.]
  If we add that yield of £450 million to the total, we are talking about tax increases of £9 billion next year, only £2.8 billion of which is necessary for the national health service.
  This is a massive confidence trick. Like a child who says, "I'd like some more pocket money to spend on books, Daddy", and then spends it on sweets, the Government are saying to the taxpayers of this country, "Please pay up because we're going to spend it all on the NHS", whereas they are going to spend a heck of a lot on dealing with the waste already incurred in other Departments.
  We have debated whether we will be able to achieve proper improvements in the NHS as a result of this expenditure. Nobody was able to show any evidence of improvements in the NHS as a result of increasing expenditure from 6.7 to 7.7 per cent. of GDP. Nobody was able to answer the question: why are a record 250,000 people paying for their own treatment? In many respects, performance is deteriorating. That is confirmed by the King's Fund five-year health check. Under the NHS plan, there were targets for July 2000 that no one should wait more than six months for in-patient treatment. By December last year, 277,500 people were waiting, which was more than in March 2001. Similarly, in July 2000, the NHS plan set a target for attainment by March 2002. No one was to wait more than 26 weeks for an out-patient appointment, but we now know that, by December 2001, the figure was 84,300 and higher than it had been in March 2001. That shows that performance is moving away from the targets that have been set and that bad performance is continuing with impunity, as far as the Government are concerned.
  People have spoken in the debate of what things were like under the Conservatives. At least under the Conservatives, 89 per cent. of accident and emergency patients were admitted within four hours. By 2000, the figure had dropped to 76 per cent. So the proportion of accident and emergency patients not admitted within four hours has more than doubled under this Government. In 1996, 73 out of every 100 patients were seen by a doctor within one hour. In 2000, only 53.5 patients in 100 were seen by a doctor within an hour. Again, that is a manifest deterioration in the quality of service. The Audit Commission has said that there appears to be no link between work load and the speed of treatment.
  606
  Since 1996, there has been a drop of 49,700 in the number of places for long-stay residential care for the elderly and the disabled, and a host of care homes have closed as a result. In 1997, 50,505 operations were cancelled but, in 2001, 77,818 operations were cancelled. In 1996, there were 30,000 fewer administrators than now, but there were 13,000 more beds. Is it surprising that an increasing number of people say, "Bring back the Conservatives"? We know how to administer the health service.
  My hon. Friends the hon. Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) and for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) drew attention to what has been happening in Scotland. Of course, as people know, expenditure on health in Scotland is extremely high compared with in England. In 1999, NHS spending per head in England was £740; in Wales, it was £822; and, in Scotland, it was £904.
  Before Labour Members troop into the Lobby to support the Government, they should be reminded of an interesting article that appeared in Public Finance on 29 March this year. It said that
  "under devolution, so much cash is being thrown at NHS Scotland that health spending is projected to reach 8.1 per cent. of the nation's national income by the end of next year. This won't just be above the European average—it will be higher than in any other country in Europe.
  Yet, for all this, the Scottish NHS is being denounced as a disaster by its patients. Waiting lists refuse to die down, the national health record is atrocious and, worst of all, the public is furious. Scotland is living Tony Blair's future, and it demonstrably does not work … The Scottish NHS has the cash that Blair covets so badly—and has nothing to show for it … If Blair's logic is correct, the Scots should be a pretty healthy bunch—and far happier with the NHS than the patients of the cash-strapped English system. But there is the rub.
  The Scots have the worst health record in the UK. The death rates, also measured by National Statistics, show Scotland doing worse than any other part of the UK in everything from cancer to suicide rates. For every 100,000 people, 58 Scots die of bronchitis (49 for England) and 228 from coronary heart disease (205 for England) … A government survey of NHS patients, taken in Scotland last year, shows that 25 of every 100 patients were so dissatisfied that they considered making a formal complaint. This was true for only ten of every 100 patients of the lower-budget, longer-waiting list English NHS."
  That is what is happening in Scotland, and that is what will happen in England if we have more expenditure without reforms.
  The Government have been presiding over an NHS that is riddled with fraud and waste—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] We want a better system. Labour Members seem surprised. The amount of fraud was revealed by a senior civil servant, Stuart Emslie, who estimates that of the £54 billion annual budget of the health service in England, between £7 billion and £10 billion has been lost through waste and fraud.
  The Labour party is not interested as long as it can carry on taxing. That is the difference between Labour and the Conservatives. We believe in getting value for taxpayers' money, and that is why we will oppose the Bill until we see reforms.
  9.55 pm
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): If the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) is in favour of the national health service, everyone listening to this

  607
  evening's debate will understand why the national health service is not safe in Tory hands: he made not one positive statement about the national health service.
  Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have contributed to the debate. Essentially, they broke into two camps: those who agree that the national health service needs more money and investment, although they may disagree on how the money is raised, and those represented by most of the Conservative speakers, who prefer to state why the national health service should not receive any more funding and why they believe it should be privatised and broken up. The notable exception was the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), who made a thoughtful speech. I intend to return to some of the points he made.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) started the Back-Bench speeches. He pointed out that the Chancellor's Budget set out plans for an unprecedented increase in spending in the NHS, and proposals for financing that increase in spending in public services which ensure that the investment achieves results. The Bill will deliver the funding for a sustained improvement in the NHS—unlike the alternatives of private insurance or employer-based social insurance policies.
  Our proposals mean that the NHS will continue to be available to all, without restriction, not based on ability to pay, and funded through general taxation. Despite repeated requests and challenges to commit themselves to a national health service comprehensively available and free at the point of need, Conservative Members continued to decline to do so.
  Using the national insurance contribution means that the money is raised as fairly as possible. Employees and the self-employed will pay an extra 1 per cent. of all of their earnings above £89 a week, and employers will make the same contribution, acknowledging the fact that an efficient health service is also in their interests. After the changes to national insurance, British companies will still pay less towards the cost of their employees' health than many other countries, particularly European countries.
  The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) referred to the OECD study of the rising imposition on employment of social insurance taxes. He should remember that the 2002 OECD study "Taxing Wages" showed that the social contributions in the United Kingdom are significantly lower than those in our major European partners, and they will continue to be so. The very problem that many of our European partners are experiencing is of a social insurance nature and to do with the high cost of their health system.
  In an excellent contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas) said clearly that because of the new tax credits, no family with an income of less than £18,000 a year will be worse off. The new tax credit system ensures that lower earners will still have an incentive to take jobs and increase their earnings. Together with the freezing of the income tax personal allowances, the changes allow for a substantial increase in investment in the NHS.
  608
  There are no broken promises. The Government promised not to raise the basic or top rate—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Many conversations are taking place in the Chamber. The Minister is addressing the House, and she should be heard.
  Dawn Primarolo: The Government said that there would not be a rise in the basic or top rates of income tax, and that the NHS would be rebuilt after decades of neglect. No promises have been broken.
  Given the provisions that are set out in the Bill and the scale of the funding that is being directed to the NHS—from £65 billion this year to £105 billion in 2007–08—we can show that all the resources being raised by the increase in national insurance contributions are being directed to the NHS.
  A few points were made about the quality of the health service, especially in Scotland. Questions were asked and observations were made, particularly about spending in Scotland on health care. In-patient waiting lists are about 8 per cent. higher in England than in Scotland. On average, people in Scotland have been waiting for admission for more than a month less than in England. Each year, there are about 10,000 more operations per thousand of the population in Scotland than there are in England. Investment is needed throughout the NHS in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, but the clear reforms and the clear investment that the Government are making prove that the NHS can work.
  There have been comments about the imposition of 1 per cent. and the likely effects on employers. Raising money through the national insurance system ensures that we spread evenly the burden of the increased raising of tax. We have never disputed that. It is not true, as some sought to assert, that because of the national insurance changes, employers would seek to reduce pension contributions, for example, or to move away from particular pension funds.
  Commentators are already suggesting that employers should increase contributions into pension funds because such contributions, unlike pay, are not liable to national insurance contributions. When we consider the benefits to employers of a healthy labour force, of reductions in costs for ill health, of low inflation, of low tax and of a high-growth economy, we can see that Britain is still a good place in which to be an employer. It is a climate that ensures that employers can continue to grow.
  Comments have been made about the need to increase the number of care homes. Care homes and the care of the elderly stand to gain from higher NHS and social service spending. Increased resources for social services will include payments for more places for people who need that care. Personal social services spending is to increase by 6 per cent. in real terms.
  The Bill will increase the amount of finance that goes into the NHS. It is a service that is valued and respected by our communities, even if it is not by the Conservatives. The Bill will ensure that the reforms take place and that the money is in place to ensure that we have a first-class health service for the people of this country. Investment must match reforms. We must have accountability. Money must go to front-line staff and primary care trusts to ensure that there is developing and improving care.

  609
  As my hon. Friends made clear throughout this evening's debate, this is a long-term strategy to put right the long-term problems in the national health service. It is a long march—no one is expecting immediate results— but with the finances and reforms provided in the Bill, at least this Government will be keeping their election promises and delivering a first-class health service.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 357

  Division No. 235]

  10.5 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Horam, John

  Amess, David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Bacon, Richard

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Baldry, Tony

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Barker, Gregory

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Baron, John

  Key, Robert

  Bellingham, Henry

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Bercow, John

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Blunt, Crispin

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Boswell, Tim

  Lansley, Andrew

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Leigh, Edward

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Letwin, Oliver

  Brady, Graham

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest)

  Brazier, Julian

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Lidington, David

  Burns, Simon

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Burnside, David

  Loughton, Tim

  Burt, Alistair

  Luff, Peter

  Butterfill, John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Cameron, David

  Mackay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Cash William

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Chope, Christopher

  Maples, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  May, Mrs Theresa

  (Rushcliffe)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Moss, Malcolm

  Collins, Tim

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Conway, Derek

  Norman, Archie

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Page, Richard

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Paice, James

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

  Paterson, Owen

  Evans, Nigel

  Pickles, Eric

  Fabricant, Michael

  Randall, John

  Fallon, Michael

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Flight, Howard

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Francois, Mark

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Gale, Roger

  Ruffley, David

  Gibb, Nick

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Selous, Andrew

  Goodman, Paul

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gray, James

  Simmonds, Mark

  Grayling, Chris

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Soames Nicholas

  Grieve, Dominic

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Spring, Richard

  Hammond, Philip

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Streeter, Gary

  Hayes, John

  Swire, Hugo

  Heald, Oliver

  Syms, Robert

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hendry, Charles

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Hoban, Mark

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  610

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Wilkinson, John

  Trend, Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Yeo, Tim

  Waterson, Nigel

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Watkinson, Angela

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Whittintgdale, John

  Mr. Desmond Swayne and

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien

  Wiggin, Bill

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles

  Ainger, Nick

  (Norwich S)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Allan, Richard

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Allen, Graham

  Clelland, David

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cohen, Harry

  Austin, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Bailey, Adrian

  Colman, Tony

  Baird, Vera

  Connarty, Michael

  Banks, Tony

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Barnes, Harry

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Barrett, John

  Cooper, Yvette

  Battle, John

  Corston, Jean

  Beard, Nigel

  Cousins, Jim

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Cruddas, Jon

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Bell, Stuart

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Benn, Hilary

  Cummings, John

  Bennett, Andrew

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Benton, Joe

  (Copeland)

  Berry, Roger

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Best, Harold

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Betts, Clive

  Dalyell, Tam

  Blackman, Liz

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  David, Wayne

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Davidson, Ian

  Borrow, David

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry

  Bradshaw, Ben

  (B'ham Hodge H)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Dismore, Andrew

  (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Browne, Desmond

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Bryant, Chris

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Doran, Frank

  Burden, Richard

  Doughty, Sue

  Burgon, Colin

  Drew, David

  Burnett, John

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Burnham, Andy

  Dunwoody, Ms Gwyneth

  Cairns, David

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Eagle, Maria (L'Pool Garston)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Edwards, Huw

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Efford, Clive

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  (NE Fife)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Etherington, Bill

  Caplin, Ivor

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Farrelly, Paul

  Casale, Roger

  Fisher, Mark

  Caton, Martin

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Cawsey, Ian

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Challen, Colin

  Flint, Caroline

  Chaytor, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Chidgey, David

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Clapham, Michael

  Foulkes, George

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Galloway, George

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Gapes, Mike

  611

  Gerrard, Neil

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Linton, Martin

  Gilroy, Linda

  Lloyd, Tony

  Goggins, Paul

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Love, Andrew

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Lucas, Ian

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Luke, Iain

  Grogan, John

  Lyons, John

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Hancock, Mike

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Hanson, David

  MacDonald, Calum

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  McDonnell, John

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  McFall, John

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Harvey, Nick

  McIsaac, Shona

  Healey, John

  McKechin, Ann

  Heath, David

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McNulty, Tony

  Hepburn, Stephen

  MacShane, Denis

  Heppell, John

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hermon, Lady

  McWalter, Tony

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  McWilliam, John

  Heyes, David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hill, Keith

  Mann, John

  Hodge, Margaret

  Marris, Rob

  Hoey, Kate

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Holmes, Paul

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hope, Phil

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Martlew, Eric

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Miliband, David

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mole, Chris

  Hurst, Alan

  Moore, Michael

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Morgan, Julie

  Illsley, Eric

  Morley, Elliot

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Mountford, Kali

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Mudie, George

  Jamieson, David

  Mullin, Chris

  Jenkins, Brian

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Norris, Dan

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Oaten, Mark

  Joyce, Eric

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  O'Hara, Edward

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Olner, Bill

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Keetch, Paul

  Öpik, Lembit

  Kemp, Fraser

  Owen, Albert

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Khabra, Piara S

  Perham, Linda

  Kidney, David

  Picking, Anne

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Pickthall, Colin

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Pike, Peter

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Plaskitt, James

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Pond, Chris

  Lamb, Norman

  Pope, Greg

  Lammy, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Laxton, Bob

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Price, Adam

  Lepper, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Leslie, Christopher

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Levitt, Tom

  Pugh, Dr John

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Purchase, Ken

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  612

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Rammell, Bill

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Thurso, John

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Timms, Stephen

  Rendel, David

  Tipping, Paddy

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Rooney, Terry

  Touhig, Don

  Ross, Ernie

  Trickett, Jon

  Ruane, Chris

  Truswell, Paul

  Ruddock, Joan

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Ryan, Joan

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Tyler, Paul

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Tynan, Bill

  Sawford, Phil

  Vaz, Keith

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Sheridan, Jim

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Wareing, Robert N

  Simon, Siôn

  Webb, Steve

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Weir, Michael

  Singh, Marsha

  White, Brian

  Skinner, Dennis

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  (Swansea W)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

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

  Winnick, David

  Southworth, Helen

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Wishart, Pete

  Squire, Rachel

  Woodward, Shaun

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Woolas, Phil

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Worthington, Tony

  Stevenson, George

  Wray, James

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Stringer, Graham

  Wyatt, Derek

  Stunell, Andrew

  Tami, Mark

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Angela Smith and

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mr. Ian Pearson.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on second or third reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS BILL (PROGRAMME)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 June 2001],
  That the following provisions shall apply to the National Insurance Contributions Bill:

  NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS BILL (PROGRAMME)
    Committal
    (1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
    Programming of proceedings
    (2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House and all remaining proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.

    Proceedings in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading
    (3) Notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the intervals between stages of Bills brought in on Ways and Means Resolutions, proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed in one day.
    (4) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at half past Eight o'clock on that day.
    (5) Any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on that day.

    Programming Committee
    (6) Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House or on consideration and Third Reading—[Dan Norris.]
    Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

    EXECUTION OF ORDERS FREEZING ASSETS OR EVIDENCE
    That this House takes note of European Union Document no. 6980/02, draft Framework Decision on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence; shares the Government's view that the general thrust of the measure will improve the speed and effectiveness with which assets and evidence can be secured in cases of serious crime; acknowledges the amendments which have been included, largely at the Government's instigation, to ensure that personal rights and freedoms are protected as far as is possible; and supports the Government's position on this measure—[Dan Norris.]
    Question agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation, etc., orders),
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    HOUSING
    That the draft Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) (England and Wales) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 17th April, be approved—[Dan Norris.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation, etc., orders),

    REGULATORY REFORM
    That the draft Regulatory Reform (Carer's Allowance) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 22nd April, be approved—[Dan Norris.]
    Question agreed to.

  Ordered,
  That John Cryer be discharged from the Select Committee on Deregulation and Regulatory Reform.—[Dan Norris.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  10.20 pm
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I draw your attention to motion 7, which is about to be put to the House. You will see that the first two paragraphs, with which we have no problem whatever, refer to tomorrow's proceedings. However, paragraph 3 refers to proceedings next Friday, whereby the Government are attempting to reduce the amount of time for the motion on the Adjournment of the House.
  May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to use your powers on complicated questions? In 1888, the Speaker said that a complicated question can be divided if each part is capable of standing on its own. Clearly, paragraph 3 of the motion can stand by itself, and I therefore ask you to put the question on paragraphs 1 and 2 separately from paragraph 3, to which I shall object.
  Mr. Speaker: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is speaking on behalf of the official Opposition and so is saying that paragraphs 1 and 2 of the motion have the agreement of the official Opposition. In that case, I ask the Whip to move paragraphs 1 and 2 together, and the House can then vote on those paragraphs. We can take the third paragraph separately, because I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that that paragraph can stand on its own.
  Ordered,
  That

  (1) at the sitting on Tuesday 14th May, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. Robin Cook and Mr. Stephen Twigg relating to the Modernisation of the House of Commons, to Select Committees, Payment for Chairmen, Tax Law Rewrite, Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, Liaison Committee: Power to take Evidence, Regulatory Reform and Power to Exchange Papers with Devolved Legislatures not later than four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion, and such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; the Questions may be decided, though opposed. after the expiration of the time for opposed business and the Order [28th June 2001] relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply to them;

  (2) at the sitting on Tuesday 14th May, the Motion in the name of Mr. Robin Cook relating to Code of Conduct may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour, and the Order [28th June 2001] relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply to Questions on the Motion or on any Amendments proposed to it; and:-[Dan Norris.]

  Motion made,
  That—
  (3) at the sitting on Friday 24th May, proceedings on the Motion for the adjournment of the House in the name of the Prime Minister relating to matters to be considered before the forthcoming adjournment may continue for three hours, not including any time taken on Questions, statements or personal explanations made pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings), and the Motion shall then lapse.—[Dan Norris.]
  Mr. McLoughlin: Object.

  PETITIONS

    Accommodation Centre (Bicester)
    10.22 pm
    Tony Baldry: I am pleased to be able to present to the House a petition signed by more than 10,000 of my constituents from the town of Bicester and the surrounding villages, which declares:
    That they object to the proposal by the Home Office to build an accommodation centre for asylum seekers on land vacated by the Ministry of Defence and they want the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to exercise his discretion to ensure that there is a public inquiry.
    That such a public inquiry should provide proper opportunity for the providers of local services, elected representatives of local communities and local people themselves to give evidence to be heard on the merits of any such proposal.
    And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Burford School Transport
  10.23 pm
  Mr. David Cameron: I beg leave of the House to present a petition on behalf of Mrs. Mullis and parents of children travelling to school by bus from Bampton to Burford school in west Oxfordshire. The petitioners are concerned that from 8 April this year, children from Bampton have been travelling on a double-decker bus instead of a traditional school coach. The bus is supposed to carry more than 100 children. It is unsupervised except by the driver and it does not
  616
  include seat belts. The petitioners are concerned about safety and supervision. There are 251 signatures to the petition.
  The petitioners therefore request:
  That the House of Commons takes note of their petition and of the concerns about the safety of children travelling on double-decker buses to school.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the table.

  Accommodation Centre (Bicester)
  10.24 pm
  Mr. John Bercow: I wish to present a petition requesting a public inquiry into any proposal to site an accommodation centre for asylum seekers near Bicester. I speak on behalf of no fewer than 324 constituents.
  The petition states:
  The petitioners request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to exercise his discretion to ensure that in respect of any proposal by the Home Office to site an accommodation centre for asylum seekers on land vacated by the Ministry of Defence on the outskirts of Bicester there be a Full Public Enquiry.
  That such Public Enquiry provide proper opportunity for the providers of local services, elected representatives of local communities and local people themselves to give evidence and be heard on the merits of any such proposal.
  And that the Secretary of State in determining any dispute or differences between the Home Office and Cherwell District Council in respect of any application for such an accommodation centre, should, pursuant to the arrangement set out in Part 4 of the Memorandum attached to the DoE circular 18/84, exercise his discretion to ensure and facilitate a Public Enquiry.
  And the petitioners remain, etcetera.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Marie Curie Cancer Care
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dan Norris.]
  10.25 pm
  Lady Hermon: First, I should like to thank you most sincerely for giving me an opportunity through an Adjournment debate to raise the serious funding concerns of Marie Curie Cancer Care and other voluntary hospices. I declare an interest because even after my election to the House last June, I could not bear to break my links with Marie Curie Cancer Care in Northern Ireland and chose, therefore, to remain as the unpaid chairman of its North Down support group.
  In my absence, I have a committee of ever cheerful volunteers who continue to work enthusiastically as fundraisers for Marie Curie Cancer Care, and I am proud of the people of North Down, who continue to give generous support to their fundraising efforts.
  I am extremely pleased to see you in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, because I know that you have always taken a keen personal interest in the great good work of Marie Curie Cancer Care, especially in Hunter's Hill, which is in your constituency and one of only two Marie Curie centres in Scotland—the other is in Edinburgh.
  You are, Mr. Speaker, widely recognised as a loyal and active supporter of the hospice in your constituency, and in its silver anniversary year, your generosity in offering to host a reception in Speaker's House is greatly appreciated by Marie Curie. Hunter's Hill is regarded as a centre of excellence in specialist palliative care, but most regrettably, financial constraints mean that its full complement of 41 beds cannot be used.
  Beyond Scotland, there are eight other Marie Curie centres throughout the rest of the United Kingdom—one in Wales at Penarth, six located around England at Newcastle, Liverpool, Bradford, Solihull, north London and Caterham in Surrey. Last, but certainly not least, there is one centre in Northern Ireland. The Marie Curie centre in Belfast was formerly known as Beaconfield. Again, it regrettably now functions with only 19 beds providing specialist palliative care.
  We need to raise approximately £3 million for capital investment in an extension and we would obviously welcome Government support for that. In addition to the 19 beds in the Belfast centre, approximately 700 patients are cared for each year in their own homes by Marie Curie nurses across Northern Ireland. All staff make a wonderful commitment.
  I want to pay warm tribute to the staff in the 10 centres as well as those Marie Curie nurses who cared for some 17,000 cancer sufferers at home in 2000–01. Their selfless dedication and compassion give tremendous comfort and support to those with cancer and their families. In that context, I should like to quote briefly from a letter that I received from a constituent, Mrs. Yvonne Mortlock, who described the last days of her father's life in the Marie Curie centre at Caterham. She wrote:
  "The building was a haven of peace, kindness, love and compassion, which wrapped itself around one when entering the building. It was all so tranquil.
  The nursing care was superb, so professionally administered it looked easy. But what was also so admirable were the love and care shown to the close relatives of the patient."
  618
  Mrs. Mortlock concluded:
  "I commend this Government to pledge itself to support in whatever way is possible the tremendous work the Marie Curie charity has done, is doing and hopefully will be able to continue to do in the future. Without question it is a deserving organisation."
  Mrs. Mortlock's plea is echoed by many Members of the House, and I am sure that the Minister will be well aware of early-day motion 1081, entitled "Hospice Funding", which has already been signed by 133 Members.
  I should like the Minister to address two key questions tonight. First, are the Government supporting, in whatever way possible, the tremendous work of Marie Curie Cancer Care, as my constituent has requested? Secondly, are the Government supporting other voluntary hospices around the country? Sadly, the figures suggest that the answer to both those questions is no. Despite the fact that voluntary hospices provide three quarters of palliative care, the NHS contribution to voluntary hospices has dropped from 35 to 28 per cent. of annual running costs. This 7 per cent. drop has occurred since the Labour Government came to power in 1997.
  The main reason for the fall has been that inflation uplifts to the voluntary sector have not kept pace with the voluntary hospices' increasing costs. For example, the Government have—quite rightly, I must say—made significant improvements to the salaries of NHS doctors, nurses and other staff. That, of course, means that voluntary hospices have no choice but to match the increases for their staff, without whom they could not function.
  Moreover, the increase in employers' national insurance contributions announced in the recent Budget will mean that Marie Curie Cancer Care will need to find considerable funds to keep its 10 hospices running and to pay for its nursing service. I look forward to what I hope will be a guarantee from the Minister that the additional funding raised by the Budget for substantial investment in the NHS will also be extended to increase public funding to Marie Curie and other voluntary hospices that will have to bear the additional burden of increased national insurance contributions.
  Another way in which hospices such as Hunter's Hill are severely penalised is through VAT. In the last financial year alone, Marie Curie paid £1.4 million in irrecoverable VAT. That is a huge amount of money. The amount of VAT that is being paid by hospices generally is not widely recognised. Surely it is time, therefore, that the Government gave active consideration to making voluntary hospices exempt from VAT.
  In fairness to the Minister, however, I must say how delighted I was—I mean that truly—that, last Friday, 10 May, the Government announced that they were taking action to tackle the inconsistencies in the current system, in which some NHS trusts charge hospices for providing support services, such as NHS ambulances, pathology, imaging and pharmacy services, while others provide them free.
  In their NHS cancer plan, issued as long ago as September 2000, the Government made a commitment that by 2004 an additional £50 million would be made available to the NHS for investment in hospices and specialist palliative care. I would welcome clarification from the Minister as to exactly how and where that £50 million will be spent. Does she agree that, in light of the 7 per cent. drop in NHS contributions to hospices

  619
  since 1997, £50 million may not now be sufficient? We all know that cancer has no respect for class, sex, colour, creed or any other status. Instead, it is a frightening fact that one in three people will get this awful disease, and that one in four will die from it. Looking around the Chamber and quickly totting up how many Members are here, that is a frightening statistic.
  Hospices that care for terminally ill cancer patients have widespread public support from many, many thousands of volunteers who not only raise funds, but give of their time voluntarily in the hospices. I suggest that the Government must not risk losing the confidence of the general public or of those volunteers. Instead, they must give a firm commitment to developing a proper funding relationship with voluntary hospices as part of the forthcoming spending review. Like my constituent, Mrs. Mortlock, I commend the Government to pledge themselves to support, in whatever way possible, the tremendous work of Marie Curie.
  10.35 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I am happy to congratulate the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) on securing this important debate on hospices, specialist palliative care and, in particular, the excellent work of Marie Curie Cancer Care, which she highlighted. Policy responsibility for cancer services in Northern Ireland rests with the Assembly, so I am able to speak on those issues only as they affect England. However, I trust that what I have to say will interest Members, whichever part of the United Kingdom they represent.
  The hon. Lady set out the success of the hospice movement clearly, passionately and in human terms. I hope that she accepts that this country is at the forefront internationally of standards in palliative care. I am the first to recognise that the hospice movement first showed that such care is possible and that patients, families and carers can be supported through illness and death, as well as during bereavement through counselling.
  It surprised me to learn just how recent are the developments in palliative care. Only in the 1960s through dogged persistence, careful research, tireless fundraising and skilful lobbying did the hospice movement help others to see that such care was not only possible, but at the heart of excellent practice. Therefore, those health care developments are relatively recent.
  The hon. Lady eloquently set out the important and valuable work that Marie Curie Cancer Care does to provide comprehensive care to people with cancer and their families throughout the UK. I am pleased to have the opportunity to acknowledge its work and to thank it for the way in which, over the years, it has worked constructively in partnership with the Department of Health. This certainly is not an example of the voluntary sector going along one track and the Department taking another. We constantly learn from each other in developing services for people in the community.
  On the development of specialist palliative care, the hon. Lady asks how we shall help hospices throughout the country to provide a good standard of service. She will recognise that problems are associated not just with the diversity of palliative care, but with the massive regional inequalities in access to such care.
  620
  A survey conducted in 2000 by the National Council for Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care Services on behalf of the Department showed dramatic variations between regions: only 38 per cent. of health authorities in London had full palliative care strategies, whereas 92 per cent. in the west midlands were already well on the way to developing far-reaching palliative care strategies. In-patient provision varied across regions and there were similar variations in day care, home care and hospital support services. That is not good enough, and we are committed to trying to tackle those inequalities so that people throughout the country, wherever they live, can rely on good-quality palliative care services.
  Inevitably, services that have developed from the voluntary sector depend to some extent on the ability, charisma and passion of individuals to take forward their fundraising programmes. That results in patchy service across the country. That is why the NHS cancer plan, which we published in September 2000, set out our intention to invest an additional £50 million in specialist palliative care by 2004. For the first time, NHS investment in this area nationally will match that of the voluntary sector, so there will be parity of funding.
  It is true that merely increasing investment will not necessarily address the inequality of provision. That is why we have put in place other measures to try to tackle these issues. We have commissioned the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to undertake an evidence-based review of palliative care services as part of the supportive and palliative care service guidance. Initial findings are likely to be available later in the summer, and they will contribute to the strategy that we are developing as part of the overarching cancer plan. That will enable us, for the first time, to develop standards, so that people will know exactly what service is on offer and whether there is consistency and parity across services.
  We have instituted a series of cancer networks, each of which has a palliative care strategy. Part of that strategy is to consider current population, the needs of a local area and how to build a service for cancer patients at community level involving primary care, secondary care, tertiary care and palliative care. We now have comprehensive data on the map of palliative care provision across England. That will enable more realistic support for voluntary hospices, and will help hospices to plan their own care, so that they can fit in with the network and collaborate with a whole range of professionals—clinicians, nurses and community support workers.
  We recognise the importance of ensuring that the needs of voluntary sector providers are fully reflected in the investment plans that are developed, so as to ensure that we get maximum value from the extra £50 million. We have made central funding available to the national council to support people working in the voluntary sector and enable them to have a real input into the development of local plans. We do not want the plans to be a top-down mechanism. They should be based on the experience of local communities, and should build on the work, knowledge and expertise that voluntary sector providers have acquired over the many years they have been involved in this area.
  We also want voluntary sector providers to have a role in helping to shape the standards that will be developed through the work of NICE, because learning from their

  621
  experience will be key to ensuring that standards are relevant to the needs of the people who will access the services.
  The role of primary care trusts will be significant for palliative care, because they will spend 75 per cent. of the NHS budget by 2004. We have issued national guidance on the new arrangements for primary care trusts for this year's planning process, including the specific role of cancer networks. We have said that all primary care trusts should use the networks' service delivery plans to commission cancer services for their localities. That should ensure that there is proper planning, so that services do not spring up as a result of local initiatives that are unable to provide an equitable service for people across the community. Proper resources together with proper, detailed planning based on local people's experience should give us a much more coherent provision of cancer services and palliative care services than we have had in the past.
  The hon. Lady raised some specific issues about hospice funding. I understand her concern that the sector should be adequately funded. Estimates by the national council show that total expenditure on adult palliative care services is about £300 million, of which about £170 million is provided by the voluntary sector and £130 million by the NHS. When the £50 million extra investment for the NHS comes through in 2004, funding from the voluntary sector and the NHS should be broadly equal. At a local level, that investment must be based on the agreed plans for palliative care provision within each of the cancer networks' plans.
  According to the figures that the hon. Lady produced, it appears that NHS funding for the hospice movement—the proportionate funding, not the absolute funding—has fallen in recent times. The voluntary sector has been able to increase its fundraising by about 22 per cent. and NHS funding has gone up by about 14 per cent. Clearly, it is not matching the 22 per cent. increase by the voluntary sector. Therefore, proportionately, the figure will go down, but the absolute increase in cash terms has been about 14 per cent. over the past two years. Therefore, real funding for the sector is going up.
  I congratulate the voluntary sector on being able to raise funds at a faster rate than the NHS. That does not mean that NHS funding is going down, but clearly the proportion will be less than the proportion of voluntary sector funding, which is increasing at quite a dramatic rate. I am delighted that local communities and individuals want to contribute voluntarily to the excellent fundraising of Marie Curie and a range of different cancer charities. As I said, this does not mean that the NHS contribution is falling, but it is not rising as fast as the voluntary sector contribution.
  I say that not to blind anyone with figures and statistics, but to show that the Government are just as committed to putting money into the sector. However, we have not been able to do so as fast as the voluntary sector. That does not mean that the hon. Lady and her colleagues should not continue to press Government on the issue because it is obviously an important area for investment.
  The hon. Lady has raised a couple of issues about VAT, about which officials at the Department of Health are in close contact with Customs and Excise. I understand that they will shortly be making a report to the Under-
  622
  Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), to see whether any relief can be provided in relation to VAT.
  We would expect the NHS to take the recently announced increases in employers' national insurance contributions into account when deciding the level of funding for hospices. Clearly, they are a key part of the calculation. Hospices have wage bills to pay, and we would expect those bills to be part of the calculation when primary care trusts decide the level of funding.
  The hon. Lady generously drew attention to last week's announcement about several issues that were anomalous in the sector, including funding for training posts in hospices, the cost of drugs, pathology and ambulance transport. I am delighted to confirm that from 1 April this year funding for the full basic salary costs of specialist registrars in palliative care training in voluntary hospices will be met centrally through the medical and dental education levy. Therefore, they will be on exactly the same terms as they are in any other sector. The hospice movement will not have to find those extra costs.
  We will be communicating with chief executives of trusts to ensure that their policy on pharmacy, pathology, imaging and ambulance services is consistent across the country, because there are variations at the moment. In some places, there are extra costs; in some places, there are not. NHS patients in hospices should get the free pathology and imaging tests and services that NHS patients in any other settings get, and patients should not be charged for transport by ambulance between hospice, hospital and home. We will be reminding chief executives that fully agreed pharmacy costs for hospices should be met by the NHS. I am pleased to say that we agree that NHS patients should have access to those services and that hospices should not have to bear those extra costs.
  The close partnership to which I referred between the NHS and the voluntary sector enables us to provide some of the best palliative care services in the world. I recognise that people want us to do even more and to ensure that people across the country are able to get access to care not just in hospices but, importantly, at home, which is a rapidly developing sector. That is why in the NHS cancer plan we said that we would make an extra £50 million available. It is also why we take cancer itself so seriously. A massive amount of new investment is going into not just treating cancer, but cancer research, which is an important area.
  Government investment in cancer research in the past year has been estimated at £190 million. Charities themselves found £180 million in the same year. Those are quite significant and substantial sums, and they are a recognition of the tragic cost to families, individuals and their carers caused by cancer in our community. The stark figures provided by the hon. Lady at the end of her speech brought that home to us.
  As well as the extra investment, there is a massive programme of updating equipment. We are putting in more MRI scanners and linear accelerators. We are trying to bring our equipment up to the best standards that would be expected in any other country.
  I am delighted to say that more than 95 per cent. of patients referred urgently with suspected cancer were seen within two weeks during October to December 2001, the last period for which we have figures. We are beginning to get on top of this matter, although we can do much more to make sure that we catch the disease as early as possible.

  623
  An extra 85,000 women have been screened this year in the first phase of the extension of the NHS breast screening programme to women aged 65 to 70. Much more screening, detection and early diagnosis are taking place, and there is much more work on research and, crucially, prevention. One of our top targets was to try to get more people to give up smoking as a contribution to reducing cancer. Over the last 18 months, more than 118,000 people have reported that they have successfully given up smoking using the Government's world-class services to help people to quit.
  We have a good programme right across the field in tackling cancer. The hon. Lady is right to raise the important issue of specialist palliative care, which is a relatively new field of health care that has been developed over the last 30 to 40 years. The people involved are some of the most impressive nurses, clinicians and community support workers whom I have ever met. I have visited hospices, and the words of the hon. Lady's constituent—that these places are a "haven of peace" that wrap themselves around people at a difficult time in their lives, and when they are at their most vulnerable—were appropriate. The services that I have seen are absolutely first rate and first class.
  624
  The task for the Government and the community is to make sure that these services are not simply available where there have been enthusiastic volunteers and that, as a national health service, we have a responsibility to people right across the community to make sure that they can have access to care at home or in a hospice, as well as support for their families and carers. The service must be designed around the needs of the patients who use it.
  That is why I genuinely feel that the cancer networks and the collaboratives—local people working together with patients, talking about their needs and the services they would like to see—should be driving not just cancer services, but the whole of our national health service. Patients and the public fund our services, through fundraising or taxes, and our responsibility is to make sure that those services are the very best that we can possibly provide.
  I am delighted that the hon. Lady has had the opportunity to raise the subject today. I reassure her that the Government certainly value these services and that we will do our very best to make sure that the new investment gets to them and makes a difference on the ground.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the work of English Heritage in relation to listed buildings. [53966]

  Dr. Howells
  English Heritage's statutory duty is to secure the preservation of buildings of historical importance. They advise the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport about historic buildings meriting statutory protection and advise Government and planning authorities about requests for permission to demolish or alter protected buildings. They also give grant aid for the repair of listed buildings.

  National Stadium
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when a decision will be made regarding the national stadium project. [53973]

  Tessa Jowell
  As I explained to the House in my statement on 7 May I have agreed to the Football Association's request to delay the Government's final decision on support for the national stadium until the current commercial negotiations between the FA and their bankers are concluded. Those discussions continue to make good progress.

  Sport and Leisure Facilities
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions about conducting a national audit of sport and leisure facilities; and if she will make a statement. [53974]

  Mr. Caborn
  I discussed the proposed database of sports facilities in England with a number of my ministerial colleagues, including those from the DfES and the DTLR, at the last meeting of the Inter-departmental Group on Sport in February.

  I have also written to my ministerial colleagues at the DfES and the DTLR, along with those from the Department of Health, Home Office and the Ministry of Defence, seeking their views on the scope and content of the proposed database of sports facilities in England.

  Social Deprivation (Amenities)
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress her Department has made in the use of sports, arts and culture in tackling social deprivation in the poorest communities. [53976]
  410
  Mr. Caborn
  Tackling social deprivation is at the heart of the Department's activity. Our work is focusing on four strategic priorities: promoting lifelong learning and social cohesion by opening up institutions to the wider community; enhancing access to a fuller cultural and sporting life for children and young people; maximising the contribution which creative and leisure industries can make to the economy; and modernising delivery, ensuring that our sponsored bodies put the needs of the customer first.

  Sport (Ethnic Minority Participation)
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the efforts being made at the grassroots level to increase ethnic minority participation and representation in sport. [53977]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government are anxious to ensure that sport is accessible to all members of society, irrespective of age, ability, gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality or socioeconomic status, and remain committed to improving opportunities for those groups which are under-represented in sport, whether as participants, competitors, coaches or administrators.

  There are a number of schemes and programmes aimed at those traditionally under-represented in sport; these include Sport England's Active Communities Programme, which targets ethnic minorities as one of its priority groups, and the Sporting Equals Programme, which receives £180,000 a year from the Government and the Commission for Racial Equality towards promoting sporting opportunities for ethnic minorities.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the impact of the Budget on the film industry. [53978]

  Tessa Jowell
  It was announced in the Budget that the film tax relief will be restricted to films intended for the commercial cinema only, and that television production will no longer be able to access the relief. The relief was originally intended to help build a sustainable film industry and there has been a general acceptance that this is a necessary refocussing of the relief.

  Digital Broadcasting
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to ensure choice of access for digital broadcasting services. [53979]

  Dr. Howells
  The draft Communications Bill and associated documents (Cm 5508, published on 7 May), set out a proposed framework for the regulation of communications, which is intended to broaden choice of and access to modern communications technologies, and to make markets work better.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what definitions of(a) access, (b) availability and (c) affordability the Government will use to determine when analogue switch-off will take place; and if she will make a statement. [54620]
  411W
  Dr. Howells
  One of the key tasks of the Digital Television Action Plan is for Government to conduct a comprehensive review of progress towards digital switchover with particular reference to the accessibility, availability and affordability tests announced in September 1999. The Review will refine the tests and report on how progress towards meeting them is to be measured.

  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many digital television sets were sold in the last financial year; and if she will make a statement. [53982]

  Dr. Howells
  Industry figures indicate that 120,000 integrated digital television sets were sold in the 12 months until the end of March. As part of the Digital Action Plan, the Government will be comprehensively investigating with industry and the European Union the issues surrounding the transition to exclusive sales of integrated digital television sets. Because of our international agreements, the UK alone could not mandate the sale of integrated digital television sets.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the impact of digital switchover on the BBC licence fee. [53987]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government increased the BBC licence fee in 2000 in recognition of the BBC's role in the development of digital broadcasting services. The annual increase is set until 2006 when the charter is due for renewal. The effect of changing media markets on the licence fee will be one of the issues we consider as part of the charter review process.

  Gaming Machines
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the recommendations on gaming machines in the Budd report. [53981]

  Mr. Caborn
  We published a safe bet for success on 26 March. This sets out the Government's decisions on the recommendations for reform of the law on gambling which were made by the Gambling Review Body last summer. We took careful account of all the points made in public consultation on the report before reaching our conclusions.

  Museums (North-East)
  Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her support for museums in the north-east of England. [53983]

  Tessa Jowell
  My Department directly provides support to the Tyne and Wear Museums to the sum of £1 million per year. Resource, the Council for Museums, Libraries and Archives will provide funding to the North East Museum, Libraries and Archives Council to the tune of £745,000 in 2002–03.

  Resource has now received bids from each English region, including the North East, to be considered for selection as regional hubs in accordance with the recommendations of the Regional Museums task force as set out in the report Renaissance in the Regions: a new vision for England's museums which was published last
  412
  October. My Department are currently working with Resource to start implementing the task force recommendations with £10 million per annum which was given to Resource in the last spending review.

  We will take the task force's recommendations into account in the current spending review alongside other priorities.

  Tourism
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures she is taking to promote tourism in the west midlands region. [53984]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department is currently considering options on how to provide stronger co-ordination of the promotion and marketing of England, including a strong regional dimension and we hope to announce our plans shortly.

  Tourism in the west midlands region has recently benefited from £2 million funding from Advantage West Midlands (AWM) regional development agency (RDA). £1.1 million was spent on a recent national marketing campaign "Head to the Heart", promoted by the Heart of England Tourist Board (HETB), which principle aim is to attract more visitors to the region.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she last met representatives from the English Tourism Council to discuss tourism in the south-east. [53991]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been in close contact with the chairman of the English Tourism Council about the proposed merger between the south east and southern tourist boards. They also hold regular meetings to discuss issues of national and regional significance, the most recent being on 29 April. The Minister also met Joan Patten, chair of the south east tourist board, on 11 April.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of Government funding provided to each region is for tourism marketing. [56023]

  Dr. Howells
  Over half of the £3.8 million obtained last year from the reserve to assist the domestic recovery of tourism from foot and mouth disease was passed via the English Tourism Council (ETC) to the 10 regional tourist boards (RTBs). Much of that money was used for promotional and PR activities.

  Other central Government funding provided to the RTBs via the ETC is for the delivery of the national tourism strategy at regional level—that does not include money for domestic marketing. The RTBs are mainly private companies and use some of their membership fee and commercial income for regional marketing initiatives. In some regions, the Regional Development Agencies have also supported tourism marketing with Government funds and a substantial part of over £90 million spent by local authorities on tourism is also used for promotional activities.

  Football
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with the football authorities on the financial position of Nationwide League football clubs. [53985]
  413W
  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have remained in close touch with the Nationwide League and the Football Association since it was announced that ITV Digital was to go into administration, and met the league's management on 17 April. The Government will now work with the working group appointed by the FA's chief executive to consider how affected football clubs might be helped to secure their futures.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what support her Department is giving to football-based schemes levels in the coalfields. [53980]

  Mr. Caborn
  Funding from public sources for football is channelled through the Football Foundation. The Foundation's grass roots, community and education, and stadium safety funding programmes are not geographically targeted. They are designed to address lack of provision in England wherever it exists. However, the Foundation has indicated that it considers local levels of economic deprivation, among other issues, in assessing applications for funding.

  Regional Theatre
  Mr. Mole
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps the Government are taking to support theatre in the regions. [53986]

  Tessa Jowell
  This is a matter for the Arts Council of England and the Regional Arts Boards. From 1 April this year the Arts Council is investing an additional £12 million in theatre increasing to £25 million a year from 2003–04, as a result of its extensive review of the needs of regional theatre. Funding for the New Wolsey in Ipswich will increase from £322,750 last year to £492,750 in 2003–04, an increase over two years of 53 per cent.

  Public Libraries
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the role public libraries play within the Government's culture plan. [53988]

  Tessa Jowell
  Two of the key strategic priorities I have set for my Department are developing children and young people and building stronger communities through participation in the arts and culture. Public libraries have a major role to play in both of these and I intend to publish a policy document in the autumn setting out how they will contribute.

  British Grand Prix
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what studies her Department has undertaken to ensure the continuation of the British Grand Prix at Silverstone. [53989]

  Mr. Caborn
  I met representatives of Octagon Motorsports, Sir Jackie Stewart, the Motor Sports Association, the British Racing Drivers' Club and other interested parties on 11 December 2001 and 24 January 2002 to discuss proposals for improving arrangements for the 2002 British Grand Prix, as well as wider proposals for the long term development of Silverstone. New access roads are under construction to improve access to and from the Silverstone circuit for future years. My officials 414
  are working closely with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the Government Office of the East Midlands and the Highways Agency. I am receiving monthly reports on the progress of access improvements to Silverstone.

  I also met Max Mosley, President of the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile, on 12 December 2001 to inform him of the Government's commitment to motor sport and the British Grand Prix.

  Sports Action Zones (Cumbria)
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the performance of sports action zones in west Cumbria. [53990]

  Mr. Caborn
  A Sport Action Zone manager was appointed in September 2000 and a Needs Assessment and Action Plan was compiled in the first year of the Zone's operation, covering the period 2001–2006. This plan was approved at the Sport Lottery panel in October 2001. Approximately £230,000 per annum was ring-fencing over the five year period across the Allerdale, Barrow and Copeland districts. The projects in the Year One action plan have received ring-fenced funding and are in various stages of development, depending on match-funding sources and lead organisations' time scales.

  The Sport Action Zone is being overseen by the six strategic partners including Allerdale Borough Council and Copeland Borough Council.

  The Sport Action Zone partnership is looking into marketing and evaluation reports, which will be publicly available when they are produced.

  Hotel Industry
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make funding available for marketing the English hotel industry. [53975]

  Dr. Howells
  The marketing of hotels is a matter for the industry itself but the announcement today will have a beneficial impacts on all sectors of the industry in England. The English Tourism Council has made considerable progress in extending its quality assurance schemes to all types of accommodation. Hotels and others that commit to the national quality standards benefit since the quality assurance fee entitles them to a free entry in the ETC's 'Where to Stay' guidebooks and entry on the BTA's VisitBritain website.

  Pride of Place
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if it is intended to place on sale copies of Pride of Place; [54998]

  (2) pursuant to the answers of 18 April 2002, Official Report, column 1039W, and I May 2002, Official Report, column 785W, what the intended destination is of the copies of Pride of Place that are not being sent out as complimentary copies to award recipients. [55000]

  Dr. Howells
  4,000 copies of Pride of Place will be available for sale through the Arts Council at £12 each.

  Works of Art (Indemnities)
  Sir Patrick Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many indemnity undertakings were given under section 16 of the National Heritage Act 1980 for the six-month period ended 31 March; and what the value was of(a) contingent liabilities in respect of such undertakings given at any time under that section which remained outstanding as at 31 March, (b) non-statutory Government indemnities in respect of loans handled by the Government Art Collection which remained outstanding as at 31 March and (c) non-statutory undertakings of Her Majesty in respect of loans from the Royal Collection which remained outstanding at 31 March. [55027]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 9 May 2002]: The provision for the Government Indemnity Scheme is made by the National Heritage Act 1980. The scheme facilitates public access to loans of works of art and other objects for public display made to museums, galleries and other such institutions by private owners and non-national institutions. It does this by indemnifying lenders against loss or damage to their loan. Loans covered by the scheme must be for public benefit. The scheme also covers loans of such objects for study purposes within borrowing institutions where this would contribute materially to the public's understanding or appreciation of the loan. Examples of this are enhancing interpretation or explanation to the public of objects or bringing into the public domain, the conclusions of any study.

  In the six-month period ended 31 March, the following undertakings to indemnify were given under section 16 by the relevant Departments for objects on loan to national and non-national institutions:

  Number

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  629

  Scottish Executive Education Department

  258

  The National Assembly for Wales

  114

  The value of contingent liabilities in respect of undertakings given at any time under section 16 and which remained outstanding as at 31 March is:

  £

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  2,466,655,792

  Scottish Executive Education Department

  467,275,161

  The National Assembly for Wales

  45,990,729

  The value of non-statutory Government indemnities to cover loans handled by the Government Art Collection and which remained outstanding as at 31 March is:

  Value: £5,500,000.

  Payments by scheme for five years—England

  £000

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Countryside stewardship

  15,708

  19,896

  23,359

  28,890

  47,326

  Arable stewardship

  —

  —

  470

  863

  1,500

  Energy crops scheme

  —

  —

  —

  —

  234

  Environmentally sensitive areas

  28,600

  37,600

  39,500

  40,900

  48,300

  Farm woodland premium

  4,700

  5,400

  5,900

  6,000

  7,500

  Hill farm allowance

  —

  —

  —

  —

  42,346

  416
  The value of non-statutory undertakings given to Her Majesty in respect of loans from the Royal Collection and which remained outstanding as at 31 March is:

  Value: £219,601,825.

  Party Conferences
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much her Department has spent organising events at(a) the Labour party's, (b) the Conservative party's and (c) the Liberal Democrat party's (i) autumn and (ii) spring conference in each of the past five years; what the purpose of events organised at party conferences is; what form these events took; and if she will make a statement. [55750]

  Dr. Howells
  No events have been organised by this Department at party conferences.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Illegal Logging (Indonesia)
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 18 April 2002,Official Report, column 1064W, what the timetable is for negotiations with Indonesia to tackle illegal logging and associated trade; and when agreement will be reached. [53757]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Governments of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Indonesia signed on 18 April 2002 a Memorandum of Understanding on co-operation to improve Forest Law Enforcement and Governance and to combat illegal logging and the international trade in illegally logged timber and timber products. We are placing a copy of the Memorandum in the Library of the House.

  Farming
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what payments were made in each of the last five years broken down by(a) scheme, (b) county and (c) farm size, for (i) the countryside stewardship scheme, (ii) arable stewardship (up to 2000), (iii) the energy crops scheme, (iv) the environmentally sensitive areas, (v) the farm woodland premium scheme, (vi) the hill farm allowance scheme, (vii) the organic farming scheme, (viii) the woodland grant scheme, (ix) the processing and marketing grant, (x) the rural enterprise scheme and (xi) the vocational training scheme. [54476]

  Alun Michael
  The following table shows expenditure on the England Rural Development Programme schemes for the last five years. A further breakdown by county or farm size is not readily available.
  417W

  Payments by scheme for five years—England

  £000

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Organic farming scheme

  700

  1,200

  2,300

  15,400

  26,600

  Woodland grant scheme

  15,723

  18,151

  18,416

  16,957

  16,590

  Processing and marketing grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  237

  Rural enterprise scheme

  —

  —

  —

  —

  573

  Vocational training scheme

  —

  —

  —

  —

  332

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total area of genetically modified crops to be grown in the farm scale evaluations in England in 2002 is; and how many trials there are for(a) spring oilseed rape, (b) winter oilseed rape, (c) fodder beet, (d) sugar beet and (e) fodder maize. [54477]

  Mr. Meacher
  The total area to be grown with GM crops in the farm scale evaluations in England to date is approximately 400 hectares. In autumn 2001, 30 oilseed rape sites were sown. This year, there are 22 spring oilseed rape sites, 33 maize sites, six fodder beet sites and 12 sugar beet sites. The proposed site locations for the 2002 round of winter oilseed rape will be announced later this year.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the data from the farm-scale evaluations of GM crops will be available for the advisers in ACRE and ACP; and when she will publish the data. [54986]

  Mr. Meacher
  Data from the farm-scale evaluations will be available to this Department, to advisers on the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment and the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, and the wider public generally, once we have received the advice of the scientific steering committee overseeing the progress and publication of the ecological studies and the results are published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. This is anticipated to be in the summer of 2003 for {spring-sown crops (spring-sown oilseed rape, maize and beet) and in summer 2004 for winter-sown oilseed rape.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will announce her decision on the proposals put forward by the Agriculture, Environment and Biotechnology Commission for public debate on the possible commercialisation of GM Crops. [54984]

  Recovery and Recycling 1998–2001

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Paper

  1n/a

  1,894,086

  1,820,732

  1,880,414

  2,030,944

  Glass

  —

  503,800

  582,577

  715,037

  735,594

  Aluminium

  —

  14,517

  15,402

  16,299

  29,030

  Steel

  —

  182,409

  225,216

  238,668

  278,079

  Plastic

  —

  125,539

  198,461

  204,430

  269,962

  Wood

  —

  170,000(1)

  94,000(1)

  296,437

  573,951

  Alt. evidence

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30,741

  Total recycling

  —

  2,890,351

  3,084,296(2)

  3,351,285

  3,917,560

  Percentage

  227

  28

  33·5

  36·5

  42

  EfW

  —

  448,354

  496,269

  500,047

  513,939

  Total recovery

  3,338,705

  3,506,611

  3,851,332

  4,462,240

  Percentage

  230

  33

  38

  42

  48

  Tonnes in waste stream

  —

  10,240.000

  9,189,981

  9,179,981

  9,313,900

  1Breakdown by material not available for 1997

  2Approximate

  416
  Mr. Meacher
  The Government welcome the AEBC's advice on the proposal for a public debate on the possible commercialisation of GM crops. AEBC has provided an important contribution which the Government are considering. We will announce our response as soon as possible.

  Sustainable Environmental Schemes
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has made to HM Treasury in advance of the Comprehensive Spending Review on funding to assist the transition from direct subsidies to sustainable environmental schemes; and if she will make a statement. [54488]

  Mr. Meacher
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, has submitted advice and proposals to my right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith), as he is in charge of other spending Departments. The proposals are consistent with the Government's policy of promoting a sustainable, diverse, modern and adaptable farming industry. The outcome of the Spending Review will be announced in Parliament in due course.

  Waste Regulations
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what levels of(a) business packaging waste recovery and (b) business packaging recycling in the United Kingdom were in each year since 1997; what assessment has been made of how the United Kingdom compares with Europe; and if she will make a statement. [54828]

  Mr. Meacher
  Packaging waste recovery and recycling achieved by businesses obligated under the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 (as amended) from 1997 to 2001 was as follows:
  419W
  The UK's current recovery and recycling rates of 48 per cent. and 42 per cent. have been achieved in the four years from 1998 to 2001. Other member states began focusing on packaging waste recovery/recycling in the early 1990s. A number of them have achieved much higher recovery/ recycling rates while others remain close to or just above the UK rate.

  Figures from the European Commission show the following recovery and recycling rates for European Union member states in 1998.

  Recovery and recycling rates in member states 1998

  Percentage

  Recovery rate

  Recycling rate

  Austria

  70

  65

  Belgium

  73

  64

  Denmark

  89

  50

  France

  56

  45

  Germany

  67

  65

  Italy

  35

  28

  Netherlands

  62

  62

  Spain

  37

  34

  Sweden

  68

  61

  UK

  33

  28

  Source:
  European Commission

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what steps her Department is taking to review the notice period on annual targets under the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997; and if she will make a statement; [54802]

  (2) for what reason the targets for packaging and packaging waste for 2002 did not appear until 19 March; when she expects to publish targets for 2003; and if she will make a statement. [54843]

  Mr. Meacher
  We make every effort to publish the annual targets for recovery and recycling of packaging waste as early in the year as possible. Businesses have an opportunity to plan on the basis of the proposals and analysis in the consultation exercise carried out in the previous year. However, where the Government do not have the latest relevant packaging data until the end of a year, this means that it is not always possible to decide on the final targets for the following year to our intended timing.

  It is too early to say when we might publish targets for 2003. However, it is the Government's intention to consult this year on targets for 2003 and 2004.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations her Department has received(a) between September and December 2001 and (b) since 1 January regarding the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997; and if she will make a statement. [54841]

  Mr. Meacher
  We liaise regularly with industry and receive a good deal of correspondence relating to the packaging Regulations. The period in question covers the consultation exercise undertaken on proposed packaging waste targets for 2002. The consultation document was 420W
  issued in September 2001 and 66 responses were received to this alone. Since January 2002, we have received about 70 letters relating to packaging waste matters.

  Nitrate-Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many nitrate-sensitive areas have been designated. [54859]

  Mr. Meacher
  There are 66 nitrate vulnerable zones (NVZs) in England, which were designated in 1996.

  In December 2001, in response to a European Court of Justice judgment, we consulted on options for completing implementation of the nitrates directive in England. These would involve either designating additional nitrate vulnerable zones, or applying measures to prevent and control nitrate pollution throughout England.

  We are still considering the responses to this consultation, and will announce a decision in due course.

  Flooding
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action the Government are taking to ensure that sustainable urban drainage systems are adopted and maintained by water companies. [54638]

  Mr. Meacher
  A Working Group chaired by the Environment Agency and comprising representatives of this Department and other interested parties has been set up to consider all aspects of the use of sustainable urban drainage systems. Among other things, it will be considering future responsibilities for installation and maintenance of such systems, including the extent of water and sewerage companies' responsibilities.

  Waste Composting
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if her Department plans to allow local authorities to count domestic composting towards their recycling targets; and if she will make a statement. [54599]

  Mr. Meacher
  We have no plans to allow local authorities to count domestic composting towards their recycling targets.

  Local authorities benefit in two main ways from home composting. First, they save on the costs associated with collecting, transporting and composting this waste. Secondly, it increases their recycling rate because the home composted waste is not included in the calculation for the total amount of waste collected. This has the effect of increasing the percentage of household waste sent for recycling.

  There are also real difficulties with the measurement of home composting. Accurate reporting against the statutory performance standards is essential if we are to ensure real efforts are made by local authorities to increase recycling and composting.

  Kyoto Agreement
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what part a
  421W
  reduction in HFC emissions in the UK will play in the United Kingdom's commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto agreement. [54626]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK is on course to meet, and go beyond, its target under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2008–12. This target covers a basket of six greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride); the UK does not have targets under the Kyoto Protocol for the individual gases.

  UK emissions of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in 1995—the base year chosen for measuring emissions of these gases for the Kyoto Protocol—were equivalent to 4.1 MtC, contributing about 2 per cent. of the total greenhouse gas emissions in that year.

  Action to reduce fugitive emissions of HFC-23 from HCFC-22 manufacturing plants have meant that total emissions of HFCs have fallen significantly since then. This will be partly offset by an increase in emissions from end use markets such as aerosols, refrigeration and foam blowing as consumption of HFCs increases in response to the phase out of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) under the Montreal Protocol. However, reduced levels of leakage and increased use of alternative fluids are expected to limit the increase in emissions.

  Overall, annual emissions of HFCs are projected to be equivalent to 2.9 MtC in 2010, a fall of 29 per cent. from 1995 levels. The expected reductions in emissions of the other five greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol mean that the relative contribution of HFCs emissions in 2010 is projected to be the same as in 1995, at about 2 per cent. of the total UK greenhouse gas emissions.

  Timber
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 272W, on timber, if she will place in the Library the confirmation given by the Brazilian Government that the mahogany shipments in question did not breach CITES regulations. [54644]

  Mr. Meacher
  A copy of the translation of the document issued by the Brazilian Management Authority confirming that the CITES permits for the shipment in question were authentic has been placed in the Library.

  Farm-scale Biodiversity Evaluations
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the time scale was set out in the voluntary agreement with SCIMAC in November 1999 for the Scientific Steering Committee to review the data and provide recommendations on the farm-scale biodiversity evaluations. [54985]

  Mr. Meacher
  The voluntary agreement between SCIMAC and Government made in November 1999 states that:"The final year of crop plantings within the Farm-Scale Biodiversity Evaluations is 2002. Following the Scientific Steering Committee's final year review and recommendations, the
  422W
  work programme of the Committee relating to the current objectives set and agreed will be concluded. No extension to this agreement will take place without
  further negotiation between Government and SCIMAC."
  "The Government will ask and expect the Scientific Steering Committee to review data and provide recommendations/advice on or before end-October in 2002 of the Farm-Scale Biodiversity Evaluations."
  "The Government will ask and expect the Scientific Steering Committee to complete final year analysis and reporting of results for winter oilseed rape in time for autumn 2003 plantings to take place should the null hypothesis be confirmed."

  Refrigerators
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how the money allocated to help local authorities deal with the storage and disposal of refrigerators has been distributed. [55077]

  Mr. Meacher
  The £6 million allocated to local authorities for the extra costs they faced from 1 January to end March this year was added to local authorities' general grant for the current financial year. General grant is distributed to councils through standard spending assessments (SSA). The provision for waste disposal is included within the upper tier of the Environmental, Protection and Cultural Services (EPCS) SSA.

  Marine Environment
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what new funds her Department will provide to the statutory nature conservation agencies and Sea Fisheries Committee to allow them to meet their responsibilities to manage, protect and monitor the marine environment and its natural resources. [55768]

  Mr. Meacher
  Officials are currently discussing with English Nature their corporate plan for 2002–05. These discussions will focus on the need for resources to cover important areas of work such as the marine environment and in turn help inform the process for the Departments allocation of funds as part of spending review 2002.

  Sea fisheries committees are committees of local authorities and are funded by local government. The Government have made it clear that no decisions will be taken on funding of sea fisheries committees until the Common Fisheries Policy review is complete. At that stage we will be better placed to assess any changes in our obligations for inshore management, including any additional environmental responsibilities.

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Government's Review of Marine Nature Conservation will report on its findings. [55769]

  Mr. Meacher
  The regional seas pilot scheme in the Irish sea recently announced by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is due to report its findings to Government in the early part of 2004. The pilot scheme's findings will inform the review's final recommendations to Government which we hope to receive by the end of 2004.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what actions BNFI has taken to stop the leaks from the sludge storage tanks in Building B24L at Sellafield; and when this work will be complete. [53662]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  BNFL has undertaken a number of projects aimed at improving the integrity of the B241 tanks, reducing the potential for material to leak from the plant and enabling the removal of the inventory from the tanks. This work has been ongoing since 1993. BNFL expects that the work to remove the majority of the active inventory will be completed in approximately 11 years.

  Rainforests
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action the Government have taken to reduce the logging of rainforests and to discuss these matters with mining companies. [53653]

  Clare Short
  I have been asked to reply.

  Logging of rainforests is not necessarily a bad thing. It can bring income and jobs to poor people. If done carefully logging need not threaten the long-term sustainability of these forests or the environmental services they provide.

  Logging should not take place in protected areas or in contravention of other laws and regulations. My Department is working with a number of countries to help improve forest law enforcement and governance and tackle illegal logging and associated trade.

  The Government have not discussed logging of rainforests with mining companies.

  Co-product Feeds
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what estimate she has made of the amounts of moist co-product feeds and liquids used as feed materials by livestock farmers in conjunction with home-produced feeds or as complements to bought-in feeds in the last year for which figures are available; and what assessment she has made of the importance of co-product feeds to the UK livestock industry; [42247]

  (2) if she will make a statement on her Department's policy on co-products as feed materials; and what representations she has made to the European Commission to include co-product feeds on the EU's proposed positive list of approved feed materials. [42248]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that industry estimates nearly two million tonnes of moist feed and over one million tonnes of liquid feed is fed annually to British livestock. Many materials derived during the manufacture of food and drink are fed by livestock
  424
  farmers, or used by manufacturers for feed sold to farmers. These co-products have a nutritional value and are considered an important range of feed materials for the UK livestock industry.

  The European Commission has commissioned a feasibility study on the possibility of having a positive list of approved feed materials for use in animal feed. If any such list is to be compiled it is likely that it will include co-products.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Christopher Reeves
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement about her Department's handling of the case of Christopher Reeves, Oxford Crown court T2000/022. [51371]

  The Solicitor-General
  Dr. Alfred Christopher Reeves was tried at Oxford Crown court, on a number of allegations of indecent assault. On 22 May 2000, he was acquitted on all charges, part way through the defence case, at the direction of the trial judge, Her Honour Judge Mowatt.

  Following the conclusion of the case, Dr. Reeves and the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions complaining about the CPS handling of the case. These complaints have been investigated thoroughly and the Crown Prosecution Service and the Attorney-General have provided comprehensive responses to both the hon. Member and Dr. Reeves' solicitors.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Young People
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on what subjects and on which dates his Department has recently consulted organisations representing young people; and if he will list such organisations. [52508]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Cabinet Office does not hold this information centrally and it could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Cabinet Office is committed to the new core principles for the involvement of children and young people published by the Minister for Young People in November 2001. The Cabinet Office will shortly be publishing an action plan setting out for the first time how it will implement these principles to extend the participation of children and young people in the design, provision and evaluation of policies and services that affect them.

  Fraud
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the estimated level of losses to fraud and corruption
  425
  was in (a) his Department's Vote 1 budget and (b) his Department's Vote 2 budget for (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01. [54700]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Buckingham on 29 January 2002,Official Report, column 252W.

  Sustainable Timber
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place in the Library certificates showing that timber used for the doors, doorframes and window frames in the refurbishment of Norman Shaw South came from a certified sustainable source. [55261]

  Derek Conway
  I have been asked to reply.

  Wallis Joinery, the manufacturer of the new timber windows, doors and joinery for the Norman Shaw South refurbishment project, operates a Quality Assurance system. This requires their timber suppliers to provide evidence (in the form of import licences and certificates) to show that timber supplied has been legally obtained and is from sustainably managed sources. The contractor is required to provide these licences and certificates to the House. When they are received I will ensure that copies are placed in the Library.

  Balfour Beatty
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what contracts the Government have with Balfour Beatty; which ones are under way; and what the start dates are of ones on which work has not started. [55293]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not held centrally.

DEFENCE

  Sea King AEWs
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he plans to withdraw the Sea King AEW force from service. [49767]

  Mr. Ingram
  On current plans the Sea King Airborne Early Warning force is projected to remain in service until at least 2012.

  Deployments
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 26 March 2002,Official Report, column 858W, on deployments, if he will reconcile his figure for the number of service personnel serving in the Balkans with the answer given on 16 April 2002, Official Report, column 825W. [53823]

  Mr. Ingram
  The answer I gave on 26 March 2002,Official Report, column 858W, showed only UK regular forces deployed on military tasks overseas, including operations. Personnel on NATO commitments and Mobilised Reservists were not included.

  Reconciliation of this answer with the answer given on 16 April 2002, Official Report, column 825W, is shown in the following table.
  426W

  Number deployed

  Balkans Tasks

  NATO and Mobilised Reservists

  Balkans total

  Royal Navy

  —

  100

  100

  Army

  3,823

  744

  4,567

  RAF

  233

  —

  233

  Total

  4,056

  850

  4,900

  Note:
  NATO and Mobilised Reservists figures are approximate.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what British service personnel are deployed in the Republic of Cyprus. [54732]

  Mr. Ingram
  The United Kingdom contributes 414 service personnel to UNFICYP. British forces in the sovereign base areas on Cyprus, and therefore on British territory and not in the Republic of Cyprus, number approximately 3,230.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) men and (b) women from ethnic communities were serving in the British forces on 1 May. [54640]

  Mr. Ingram
  Figures for 1 May 2002 are not yet available. A re-survey of the ethnic origin of armed forces personnel is currently being undertaken using the categories contained in the national census of 2001. The last available figures using the previous ethnic categories are those of 1 October 2001 and are as follows:

  Ethnic minority (EM)

  Number

  EM as a percentage of EM plus non-EM

  Male

  3,173

  1·73

  Female

  314

  1·92

  Total

  3,487

  1·75

  Women
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many women are serving in each of the armed forces. [54634]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 1 April 2002, the number of women serving in the UK regular forces is as follows:

  Number of women serving

  Naval Service

  3,521

  Army

  7,901

  RAF

  5,616

  Total

  17,038

  These figures are taken from TSP1 'UK Regular Forces Strengths and Changes', a monthly publication, a copy of which can be found in the House of Commons Library.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British service personnel are involved in land mine destruction; and in which countries such personnel are working. [54632]

  Mr. Ingram
  British Service personnel provide technical expertise, management and specialist skills to support mine action programmes worldwide. As at 1 May 2002, personnel were deployed as follows:Senior Technical Adviser to the UN Mine Action Centre in Bosnia.
  Staff Officer within the Humanitarian Demining Training Centre at the US Army's Engineer School.
  Head of Technical Unit at the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining.

  In Bosnia, as part of the Stabilisation Force (SFOR), UK military personnel are involved in the co-ordination and monitoring of mine clearance; emergency disposal of mines and unexploded ordnance as required; and mine awareness training. We also maintain an Explosive Ordnance Disposal detachment in the Falkland Islands. Additionally, UK personnel have provided technical information to the United Nations and to non-governmental organisations on mines that could be found in Afghanistan.

  Gurkhas
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Gurkha troops are serving in Gurkha regiments based in the United Kingdom. [54635]

  Mr. Ingram
  The total number of trained Gurkhas serving in the United Kingdom as at 1 April 2002 is 2,291. There is only one Gurkha Infantry Battalion based in the United Kingdom; however, Gurkha Reinforcement Companies are currently serving with the 2nd Battalion Parachute Regiment, 1 Royal Irish and 1 Highlanders. There are also formed Gurkha units serving with 10 Transport Regiment, 30 Signal Regiment, 36 Engineer Regiment and in training establishments at Sandhurst and Brecon. In addition, there are small numbers of Gurkha servicemen serving as "Attached Arms" within numerous other establishments across the British Army.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) of 22 November 2001,Official Report, column 373W, what savings accrued from the cancellation of the exercises. [54901]

  Mr. Ingram
  Information on the savings which might have accrued from the cancellation of the 84 exercises listed in the answer given on 22 November 2001 is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Savings might have accrued, for example, from the cancellation of chartered transport or from a reduction in fuel consumption. However, other costs such as personnel, equipment and infrastructure costs are fixed and would not have been saved when an exercise was cancelled.

  Navy Vessels
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the oldest ship in commission in the Royal Navy is. [54641]

  Mr. Ingram
  The oldest ship in commission in the Royal Navy is HMS Victory which was commissioned in 1778. Although HMS Victory is the oldest ship in commission in the Royal Navy, she is no longer floating but is set in a dry dock in Portsmouth naval base. The oldest commissioned ship which is still afloat is HMS Fearless which was brought into service in November 1965 and is due to be de-commissioned on 31 October 2002.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the complement is of(a) HMS Cardiff, (b) HMS Edinburgh, (c) HMS York, (d) HMS Nottingham, (e) HMS Glasgow, (f) HMS Exeter, (g) HMS Southampton and (h) HMS Newcastle.[54884]

  Mr. Ingram
  The respective complements are set out in the table:

  Ship

  Complement

  Cardiff

  252

  Edinburgh

  244

  York

  255

  Nottingham

  242

  Glasgow

  251

  Exeter

  241

  Southampton

  243

  Newcastle

  249

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to put into reserve HMS Cornwall, HMS Campbeltown, HMS Chatham and HMS Cumberland in Portsmouth naval base. [55433]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are no current plans to put any of the Type 22 (Batch 3) frigates into reserve.

  Defence Logistics Organisation
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the operating costs were of the Defence Logistics Organisation in(a) 2002–03 and (b) each year since it was established. [54900]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Defence Logistics Organisation (DLO) was formed on 3 April 2000. The first year of operation (2000–01) was managed under a cash regime. 2001–02 was managed under the new resource accounting system for the first time but the final outturn will not be available until the end of October 2002 which is when the National Audit Office is expected to have completed the audit of the departmental accounts. Operating costs have therefore been provided on a cash basis for consistency as follows:Financial year 2000–01 final outturn: £5·798 billion
  Financial year 2001–02 AP 12: £6·371 billion.

  Under a cash accounting regime, operating costs include expenditure on capital projects and running costs. The outturn for 2000–01 included a transfer of some £600 million from the Defence Procurement Agency to the DLO following the transfer of responsibility for the management of in-service support costs. Financial year

  429W
  2001–02 included a transfer of an additional £400 million for in-service support, taking the annual total transfer of in-service support costs into the DLO to around £1 billion.

  Financial year 2002–03 has only just started and under the new resource accounting regime the DLO has not been given a cash control total equivalent target.

  Split North Port
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost to his Department was for the use of the Split North Port by British forces between September 1992 and January 2002.[54835]

  Mr. Ingram
  The cost to the Ministry of Defence for the use of Split North Port between September 1992 and January 2002 was £10.14 million.

  Fraud
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the estimated level of losses to fraud and corruption was in(a) his Department's Vote 1 budget and (b) his Department's Vote 2 budget for (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01. [54703]

  Dr. Moonie
  The reported estimated losses arising from suspected fraud (including theft and corruption) are as follows:

  Year

  £

  1999–2000

  2,037,406

  2000–01

  881,350

  No abatement is made for subsequent recoveries. The figures, which relate entirely to the resource estimates formerly ascribed as Vote 1 attribution, are a combination of suspected and proven frauds and theft with estimated values refined from time to time as investigations, sometimes lasting a year or more, reach a conclusion. A significant element of estimated cost or value can relate to 'at risk' estimates applied to suspected procurement cases, the majority of which have a proven value lower than original estimates with a significant number of cases resolved as 'no crime'.

  Medial Treatment
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the(a) standard of treatment (b) in-patient waiting time, (c) out-patient waiting time and (d) cost of the current medical treatment of armed forces personnel in (i) the private sector and (ii) the NHS. [54135]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: We consider that a satisfactory standard of treatment is provided to Service personnel by the NHS and private healthcare providers. The majority of Service patients treated in NHS hospitals are admitted to Ministry of Defence Hospital Units whose host NHS trusts are set targets by the Defence Secondary Care Agency, reflecting its own Key Targets for both in-patient and out-patient waiting times. Overall performance against the key targets is published in the Agency's Annual Report, which is laid before Parliament. The contracts with the NHS trusts are monitored for cost effectiveness. Some Service personnel receive treatment at other NHS hospital trusts with whom
  430
  we have no contractual agreements, where this is more appropriate for them. As entitled patients, they receive such treatment free of charge. Limited use is made of private healthcare providers to enable Service personnel to be treated and returned to deployability more quickly, where this is considered cost effective.

  Army
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the average length of service has been for(a) British nationals, (b) Gurkhas and (c) foreign nationals, broken down by country serving in the British Army. [55453]

  Mr. Ingram
  The tables show officer and soldier mean length of service. Nationality at birth before 1997 is not available on strength data so only the last six years have been shown. Totals shown are for untrained and trained personnel, ie officer designates are included in the officer table.

  Calculations have been made using the mean length of service totals as at April 2001 of each year for those personnel on current strength at that date. Figures on mean length of service have only been calculated for populations of 10 or more.

  Average length of service in years—as at April

  Officers

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  (a) British

  11·71

  11·60

  11·75

  11·57

  11·52

  11·36

  (b) Gurkhas

  n/a

  22·99

  22·56

  22·38

  22·18

  22·40

  (c) Foreign1

  Nationality (at birth)

  Australia

  7·69

  8·24

  8·73

  8·12

  7·17

  7·38

  Canada

  10·00

  9·26

  9·35

  10·29

  10·12

  10·95

  India

  9·41

  9·67

  10·36

  10·50

  10·35

  10·57

  Malta GC

  18·22

  17·44

  15·93

  15·04

  16·70

  —

  Nepal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12·90

  New Zealand

  6·88

  7·21

  7·36

  7·50

  7·23

  7·30

  Republic of Ireland

  10·36

  10·29

  10·98

  11·74

  11·44

  10·33

  Rhodesia

  6·38

  6·38

  7·37

  8·07

  8·31

  8·82

  South Africa

  8·80

  8·82

  9·24

  6·54

  6·81

  5·50

  Zimbabwe

  —

  —

  3·00

  1·95

  2·83

  3·67

  1Those nationalities with a current strength more than 9 as at April 2001

  Average length of service in years—as at April

  Soldiers

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  (a) British

  8·21

  8·19

  8·14

  8·16

  8·23

  8·26

  (b) Gurkhas

  n/a

  9·09

  8·97

  9·01

  9·16

  9·10

  (c) Foreign1

  Nationality (at birth)

  America

  8·25

  7·43

  7·08

  8·68

  7·61

  8·17

  Australia

  6·14

  6·79

  6·61

  6·38

  6·48

  7·20

  Belize

  —

  —

  —

  3·00

  3·20

  —

  Canada

  8·20

  7·84

  7·09

  7·02

  7·62

  7·20

  Fiji

  —

  —

  1·64

  0·60

  1·13

  1·37

  France

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9·60

  Gambia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·85

  Germany

  8·85

  7·34

  6·88

  5·99

  4·85

  5·47

  Ghana

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3·45

  1·32

  Grenada (Windward Islands)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·00

  India

  14·61

  13·17

  11·59

  12·20

  10·67

  8·43

  Jamaica

  15·01

  15·31

  11·89

  8·09

  4·57

  1·94

  Kenya

  —

  —

  11·50

  8·50

  2·67

  2·31

  New Zealand

  7·09

  6·89

  5·98

  6·68

  6·95

  8·41

  New Zealand Islands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·94

  Nigeria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·44

  Pakistan

  9·92

  8·83

  9·63

  10·63

  9·90

  6·71

  Republic of Ireland

  8·24

  7·66

  7·84

  7·79

  8·30

  9·20

  Rhodesia

  6·60

  6·85

  5·90

  5·80

  6·31

  7·89

  South Africa

  4·88

  4·32

  3·81

  2·79

  2·48

  2·17

  St· Helena

  —

  —

  0·42

  0·66

  1·07

  2·09

  431W

  Average length of service in years—as at April

  Soldiers

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  St. Lucia Island

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·89

  St. Vincent Island

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·49

  1·46

  Trinidad and Tobago

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4·41

  3·33

  Zimbabwe

  —

  5·50

  3·25

  2·85

  2·20

  1·35

  1Those nationalities with a current strength more than 9 as at April 2001

  Glencorse Barracks
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future use of Glencorse Barracks. [55170]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 9 May 2002]: The Ministry of Defence is currently examining the options for the future use of Glencorse Barracks, but I can confirm that the Recruit Selection Centre will remain at the site, maintaining a dedicated recruit selection facility in Scotland. In addition, it is intended that there will be a further Army presence at Glencorse, although the extent of this has not yet been decided.

  Submarine Service
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) manning requirement and (b) strength is of the submarine service. [54882]

  Mr. Ingram
  The manning requirement for the Submarine Arm of the Royal Navy is 710 officers and 3,154 ratings.

  The trained strength of the Submarine Arm, including personnel filling staff appointments and undergoing training, is 806 officers and 3,004 ratings.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the submarine service has sufficient manpower to crew all operational submarines; and if he will make a statement. [54883]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Submarine Arm of the Royal Navy has sufficient manpower to man the submarines currently in the normal seagoing operational cycle to 100 per cent. of their complement.

  Israel
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on the supply of arms to Israel. [54731]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) on 15 April 2002, Official Report, columns 722–23W.

TREASURY

  Aggregates Levy
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total cost to the Treasury will be(a) at the outset of its introduction and (b) projected in the next three years of moneys redirected from the Aggregates Levy to the Sustainability Fund in England. [53719]
  432W
  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund is a public expenditure programme of £29·3 million a year in England for the two years 2002–03 and 2003–04. Decisions on the size of the fund in future years have yet to be made.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact on VAT revenues of the 1 per cent. rise in employers' national insurance contributions from April 2003; whether this impact is included in the revenue estimates published in Table A.1 of the Red Book; what estimate he has made of the cost to the public sector of higher VAT charges resulting from the rise in employers' national insurance contributions; and whether the impact on public sector VAT bills of a higher rate of employers' national insurance has been included in his estimate of the total cost to the public sector of the increase in employers' national insurance contributions. [53627]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The net Exchequer effect of a Budget measure is generally calculated as the difference between applying the pre-Budget and post-Budget tax and benefit regimes to the levels of total income and spending at factor cost expected after the Budget. Separate estimates of the impact of individual measures on overall levels of income and spending are not available; any such effects will, however, be taken into account in the forecasts of the economy and public finances as set out in chapters B and C of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report".

  English GDP
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contributions to English GDP were made in 2001–02 by the(a) farming, (b) tourism and (c) manufacturing industries (i) gross and (ii) net of subsidies and compensation. [54463]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 13 May 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on estimating the contributions to English GDP in 2001–02 of a number of industries net and gross of subsidies and compensation. (54463)
  The latest Gross Value Added (GVA) estimates for the constituent countries of the United Kingdom by industry are available up to 1998 only, and were published as an ONS News Release on 27 February 2001 (data up to 1999 will be published later this month). The Standard Industrial Classification breakdown identifies 'Agriculture, Hunting, Forestry and Fishing' and 'Manufacturing' but does not separately identify 'Tourism'. However, estimates of the contribution from 'Tourism' have been supplied by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, defined from the activities of tourists rather than by the conventional industry classification. For this reason, there will be some double counting for estimates in this category against estimates for the agricultural and manufacturing industries.

  433W

  Table 1: Gross Value Added, England, 1998

  £million

  Agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing

  7,313

  Manufacturing

  127,027

  Tourism1

  34,700

  Total

  743,318

  1GVA for tourism will include a small element from agricultural and manufacturing industries.

  Source:
  Office for National Statistics, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Department for Culture, Media and Sport
  No sub-UK breakdowns of subsidies or compensation payments consistent with these data are currently available.
  Data on subsidies for the whole of the UK are available by industrial sector up to 1999, as outlined in the release 'United Kingdom Input-Output Analysis 2001', but National Accounting conventions limit these to include subsidies on production only, excluding subsidies on product. Using these National Accounts definitions, the 'Agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing' industry received £370m subsidies on production in 1999 across the UK, while the 'Manufacturing' industry received none (and, as before 'Tourism' is not classed as an industry under the Standard Industrial Classification).
  Separately, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs publication 'Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2001' shows that subsidies on product for that industry for the UK totalled £2,405m in 1999 and £1,943m in 2001. No estimates on subsidies on product are available for the Manufacturing industry. No estimates on Tourism as an industry are available from any source, though the Department for Culture, Media and Sport made a statement recently about Government support for tourism, which I enclose.
  The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs publication also shows a breakdown by country for these data on agricultural subsidies. The latest report was published on 3rd May 2002, and is available through their web site at http:// www.defra.gov.uk or through the House of Commons library.
  The ONS releases referred to in this answer are available in the House of Commons Library and on the web at htt://www.statistics.gov.uk

  Advisory Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the mandate of the Economic Policy Committee: Working Party and Reduced Compositions is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [55351]

  Ruth Kelly
  The responsibilities of the Economic Policy Committee are set out in articles 272 and 209 of the EC treaty, and in its statute as adopted in European Council decision 2000/604 of 29 September 2000. Article 1·2 of the statute requests this committee to "contribute to the preparation of the work of the Council by providing economic analyses, opinions on methodologies and draft formulations for policy recommendations, particularly on structural policies for improving growth potential and employment in the Community".

  The Economic Policy Committee met 11 times over the 12 months from the beginning of May 2001, and the UK representation consists of three officials from HM
  434W
  Treasury and one from the Bank of England. In addition there are eight working groups dealing with specific topics, which met up to six times over the last 12 months.

  To disaggregate the costs of the Economic Policy Committee from the UK's total contribution to the EU budget would involve disproportionate costs.

  The reports of work under consideration by the Economic Policy Committee are available on the committee's website. Any reports that are subsequently considered by the ECOFIN Council are subject to normal parliamentary scrutiny.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the mandate of the Economic and Financial Committee (including alternates and working party) Working Party and Reduced Compositions is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [55352]

  Ruth Kelly
  The role and responsibilities of the Economic and Financial Committee are set out in Article 114(2) (ex 109c(2)) of the EU treaty and in the statutes of the Economic and Financial Committee, which were adopted by the ECOFIN Council on 31 December 1998.

  Since the start of May 2001, the Economic and Financial Committee has met on 12 occasions. In accordance with Article 114(2) of the EU treaty, member states each appoint two members of the committee; the UK is represented by one official from HM Treasury and one official from the Bank of England. Each of these representatives has one alternate.

  The information regarding the annual cost of the committee's work to public funds can be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  The items currently under consideration by the Economic and Financial Committee are those to be discussed in the coming months by the ECOFIN Council. Accountability and transparency to Parliament are ensured by the regular EU scrutiny process: documents agreed by the ECOFIN Council are submitted to Parliament along with explanatory memoranda and are examined by the Scrutiny Committee.

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the outcome was of the ECOFIN Council held in Brussels on 7 May; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [55301]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I attended the ECOFIN Council on 7 May.

  ECOFIN held an orientation discussion on the draft Commission proposals for the 2002 Broad Economic Policy Guidelines. After further preparatory work in the Economic and Financial Committee, the draft guidelines will be agreed at ECOFIN in June and submitted to the Seville European Council.
  435
  Political agreement was reached on the draft directive for financial conglomerates and on the articles of the draft directive on market abuse. After clarification of the recitals, the market abuse directive will return at the 4 June ECOFIN for political agreement on the text as a whole.

  ECOFIN discussed a Presidency key issues paper on energy taxation. It was agreed that further preparatory work should be undertaken, with a view to reaching political agreement at the 4 June ECOFIN.

  The Commission gave an oral update on progress with third countries on the savings tax directive. Ministers updated the Council on progress with dependent territories.

  The Commission introduced the Preliminary Draft Budget for 2003. Along with colleagues, I stressed the importance of respecting the Berlin Financial Perspective ceilings. I also welcomed the Commission's proposals to target a greater proportion of external aid at the poorest countries, and called for further progress towards meeting the EU's November 2000 Development Strategy. The draft budget for 2003 will he agreed at the Budget Council in July.

  ECOFIN discussed the Council's proposal for a revised Financial Regulation. Italy maintained its reserve on the article allowing delegation of aid delivery to member state agencies. Ministers requested further discussion of this by EU Ambassadors in COREPER to enable the regulation to be agreed at the 4 June ECOFIN.

  Under Any Other Business, the Swedish Finance Minister emphasised the need to keep track of member states' progress in meeting the development aid target agreed at the recent Monterrey Conference. It was agreed that ECOFIN would consider the issue at a later date.

  Following discussion over lunch, ministers also adopted texts on the economic and financial aspects of the EU-Latin America summit and on further work on arrangements for financial supervision and stability.

  No votes were taken at the meeting.

  Bingo
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax revenue was raised from the bingo sector in the latest year for which figures are available; and what his projections are for such revenue in each of the next five years. [55258]

  Mr. Boateng
  Duty receipts from bingo can be found in the HM Customs and Excise statistical bulletin "Receipts from Betting, Gaming and Lottery Duties", a copy of which can be found in the House of Commons Library. Details of the amount of VAT received from the bingo industry are not readily available.

  Projections for total revenue from duty on betting and gaming, including bingo, were published on 17 April in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2002. Revenue projections for bingo are not made separately.

  Home Energy Efficiency
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will increase investment in home energy efficiency to meet the improvement target proposed in the Energy Review. [55275]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Performance and Innovation Unit's Energy Review is a report to the Government and was published in February 2002. The Government are currently considering the issues raised by the PIU, including its recommendations on energy efficiency. A consultation paper to inform the Government's response will be issued shortly. Decisions on public expenditure for home energy efficiency measures will be taken in the context of the current Spending Review.

  Beer Duty
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost to the Treasury of extending the reduced rate of duty on beer from small breweries to those local breweries that produce between 30,000 hectolitres and 200,000 hectolitres, using the brewery rate formula published in the Finance Bill. [55599]

  Mr. Boateng
  Extending the relief for small breweries to breweries producing up to 200,000 hectolitres would raise the cost in 2002–03 from £10 million to £15 million by bringing around 25 additional brewers with turnovers up to £25 million within the scope of the relief.

  Orphan Assets
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the value is of orphan assets held in the life assurance sector in the UK. [55640]

  Ruth Kelly
  A precise figure is not available. Any estimate would be subject to a wide margin of error.

  Sustainable Development
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans his Department has to assess the impact of the 2002 Comprehensive Spending Review on sustainable development; and if he will make a statement.[55689]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Improving quality of life and promoting sustainable development is an overarching aim of SR2002. The Treasury has for the first time in this spending review provided Departments with specific guidance on how to consider sustainable development systematically. This guidance has been made publicly available. Ministers are currently considering all aspects of departmental proposals to the Spending Review, including their implications for sustainable development. A statement on the outcome of the review will be made in due course.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the numbers of families and persons receiving(a) the working families tax credit, (b) the child care tax credit supplement to WFTC and (c) the disabled persons tax credit. [55791]
  437W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The latest figures appear in "Working Families' and Disabled Person's Tax Credit Statistics. Geographical analyses. November 2001", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Christian Groups (Annuities)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what discussions he has had with Christian groups on alternative provision of annuities for those who are not able to purchase an annuity because of Christian conscience; [55618]

  (2) what proposals he has considered as alternatives to a life annuity for those groups that cannot take out such a policy because of Christian conscience. [55619]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury and the Inland Revenue have had several meetings with a Christian group to discuss their concerns about annuities and alternative approaches to retirement income consistent with their beliefs.

  Royal Family (Tax Status)
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the principles of the arrangement made between the Government and the monarchy for the payment by the royal family of(a) income tax, (b) inheritance tax and (c) capital gains tax. [56421]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  The arrangements are set out in full in the Memorandum of Understanding in the Royal Trustees report (HC 464) published on 11 February 1993.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to ensure inheritance tax is paid on the estate of the Her late Majesty the Queen Mother. [55825]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  Inheritance tax is payable in accordance with the normal rules and paragraph 21(b) of the 1993 Memorandum of Understanding in the Royal Trustees report (HC 464).

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  London Underground
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the(a) total passenger capacity and (b) the theoretical maximum capacity of London Underground was at peak periods in 1996–97 and 2001–02; and what changes in capacity resulted from (i) new lines, (ii) new trains, (iii) signal upgrades, (iv) speed restrictions, (v) signal failures, (vi) supply failures, (vii) line failure and (viii) structural problems. [54264]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for London Underground (LU).

  (a) LU advise me that they do not measure, as part of their regular monitoring, the number of passengers which they are able to carry on the tube network as a whole. Instead, they have information which shows that in 1996–97 and 2001–02, during peak hours, the busiest short sections of the underground's lines carried totals of 133,450 and 142,401 passengers per hour respectively.

  438W

  (b) LU have figures for the design capacity of their rolling stock. This is the number of customers the rolling stock can physically carry and is defined by the manufacturer without taking into account the quality of the journey. An assessment can be made of the design capacity of trains scheduled per hour, at peak times on the same busiest short sections of each line. This gives figures of 308,278 for 1996–97 and 315,514 for 2001–02.

  (i) to (viii) LU inform me that this information does not form part of their regular monitoring and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the application of the phrase "minimum ambiguity" to deciding who is responsible for tube assets under the PPP. [54287]

  Mr. Jamieson
  London Underground is responsible for development of the PPP plans for the modernisation of the underground's infrastructure. I understand that when London Underground was restructured into an operating company and three infrastructure companies in April 2000, that restructuring was effected by an asset transfer scheme. It is correct to say that the requirement of "minimum ambiguity" as to the responsibility for asset maintenance within the underground has been a guiding principle for the development of the PPP Service Contracts with the infrastructure companies following the asset transfer scheme. During the period of shadow running since April 2000 there has been considerable work carried out to develop detailed asset information, with clear allocation principles to be incorporated in the contract documents, the application of which will enable responsibility for maintenance and renewal of underground assets to be determined.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the results of the recent consultation regarding the proposed Private Public Partnership for the London Underground; and if he will place a full report of it in the Library. [55809]

  Mr. Jamieson
  London Underground Ltd. has addressed London Regional Transport's consultation with the Mayor of London and Transport for London in its "Update to Final Assessment Report". This document is available on London Underground Ltd.'s website.

  Network Rail
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress made by Network Rail to raise sufficient funds to acquire Railtrack's assets. [55779]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter for Network Rail.

  Network Railcard
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his response is to ATOC's proposals further to limit the validity of the Network Railcard. [55079]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Since privatisation in 1993 the SouthEast Network Railcard has been an regulated fare. As a result its implementation and conditions are a matter for train operators.

  Airports
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what plans he has to(a) enforce and (b) improve the code which controls the distances between aircraft and customs that incoming and outgoing passengers are required to walk at UK airports; [54996]

  (2) which body has the authority to enforce standards and rules on the maximum distances which incoming and outgoing passengers are required to walk between aircraft and customs at UK airports. [54995]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are not aware of the existence of any such standards, rules or code governing these matters.

  Annex 9 to the Chicago Convention contains the recommended practice that: "Particular attention should be given to passenger routes involving long distances to be covered on foot and the possibility should be studied of facilitating travel over these routes by mechanical systems."

  My Department has commended this guidance to the industry, but it is for airport operators to decide how to apply it at individual airports, taking into account any relevant customer service standards.

  Special arrangements for elderly and disabled people are the subject of a Code of Practice currently being developed between my Department and representatives of the aviation industry and the various disability organisations; it is hoped to finalise the text shortly.

  Al
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) cars, motorbikes and vans, (b) lorries and (c) camper-vans and caravans use the A1 between Newcastle and Edinburgh each day. [54607]

  Mr. Byers
  The average numbers of vehicles per day on the A1 between Newcastle and Edinburgh in 2000, are given in the following table.

  Vehicle type

  Number

  Cars

  11,621

  Motorcycles

  80

  LGV (vans)

  1,468

  HGV (lorries)

  1,543

  Road Pricing
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if there is(a) current and (b) proposed European Union guidance on the implementation of (i) congestion charging, (ii) road pricing and (iii) workplace parking charging. [55268]

  Mr. Byers
  I am informed that there is no current or proposed EU guidance of this nature.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if his Department produces guidance to local authorities on the recommended daily rates for(a) congestion charging and (b) workplace parking charging; and if he will make a statement. [55267]
  440W
  Mr. Byers
  My Department has issued no guidance. It is for local authorities to decide, after local consultation, on the structure and level of any road user or workplace parking levy charges.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the estimated revenue is from(a) workplace parking charges and (b) congestion charging in each year of his Department's 10-year transport plan. [55266]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to her on 15 April 2002,Official Report, column 741W

  Traffic Disruption
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what restrictions govern the movement of slow moving wide loads on public highways in England and Wales; and what steps he has taken to keep traffic disruption caused thereby to a minimum.[55795]

  Mr. Spellar
  The movement of slow moving and wide loads is regulated by the requirements laid down in the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, as amended and the Motor Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types) General Order 1979, also as amended. Under these regulations there is a requirement on the haulier to inform the police about the movement of such loads. The police have the powers to vary the time or date of the move on the grounds of road safety and congestion to suit local conditions.

  Road Safety (Children)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will introduce a telephone hotline for members of the public who witness the carriage of children without seat belts. [56144]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department has no plans for such a hotline for reports about unrestrained children carried in vehicles. It is the responsibility of the police to enforce road traffic legislation including that relating to the use of child restraints. It is always open for members of the public to make specific complaints directly to the police.

  Roadside surveys indicate that the wearing rate for child restraints/seat belts by children in the rear seats of cars is over 90 per cent. The Department will nevertheless continue with its publicity and information campaigns to encourage even greater use of restraints by adults and children.

  10-Year Transport Plan
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to revise the 10-year transport plan to incorporate rural proofing. [55921]

  Mr. Byers
  I will be publishing a first year report detailing progress on delivery of the 10-year transport plan in July. Rural transport concerns were fully incorporated when the 10-year plan was published in 2000.

  Infrastructure Projects
  Jon Cruddas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to streamline the inquiry procedures for major infrastructure projects. [56518]

  Ms Keeble
  My right hon. Friend has today laid before Parliament a Statutory Instrument: The Town and Country Planning (Major Infrastructure Project Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2002. A Departmental Circular (DTLR Circular 02/2002) is also being issued today to accompany the new Statutory Instrument. This Circular explains the new procedures for handling inquiries into those major infrastructure projects in England, as defined in the schedule to the Rules. Copies of the Statutory Instrument and the Circular have been placed in the House Libraries.

  The new arrangements for major infrastructure project inquiries, which are due to come into force on 7 June, are part of the package of measures announced by my right hon. Friend on 20 July 2001, to streamline the planning procedures for major infrastructure projects. The Department has also consulted on a key part of that package which is the proposed introduction of new procedures to enable Parliament to make a decision in principle on applications for major projects before the detail of the application is considered at a public inquiry.

  The new Rules build on the improvements already made to inquiry procedure rules more generally in August 2000.

  The key changes are
  the introduction of round table sessions will allow parties to discuss areas of concern with each other. Experience at other inquiries has shown that these can be a very effective mans of agreeing facts, and narrowing areas of disagreement, both before and during the inquiry.
  the introduction of a technical adviser, who will be tasked with assessing the technical evidence of all parties and will produce his own independent report on the technical issues.
  the introduction of mediation into inquiry proceedings which will help to narrow the issues before and during the inquiry.
  A date for the delivery of the Inspector's report will be announced at the end of the inquiry. This will give certainty to the parties about the length of time.
  the provision to limit cross examination where the inquiry timetable is put at risk has been introduced so that a situation should not arise where people at the beginning of an inquiry are not allowed to encroach into cross examination time allocated to those at the end of the inquiry.

  All these measures, included in the Rules, will help to improve the inquiry system for major infrastructure projects.

  Rural Affairs
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to include rural areas in the(a) National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal and (b) Neighbourhood Renewal Fund. [55917]

  Mr. Byers
  The Government's policy is to tackle deprivation wherever it lies. It is not limited to urban areas but is concerned with removing social exclusion wherever it exists.
  442
  The National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal is a new long-term initiative designed to address the underlying causes of deprivation. Delivering the National Strategy will require changes to the way key services are delivered in all deprived areas—urban or rural. The Neighbourhood Renewal Fund aims to supplement this by enabling the 88 most deprived authorities to improve the services they provide. At least 16 of these 88 areas contain substantial rural areas.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions his Department has had with the Countryside Agency on the application of rural proofing to the work of his Department. [55918]

  Mr. Byers
  Both the Minister for Housing, Planning and Regeneration and I have met the chairman of the Countryside Agency to discuss a range of rural issues. Officials from my Department have regular contact with their counterparts at the Countryside Agency about rural proofing and other matters.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to increase rural proofing in his Department in line with the Countryside Agency's report, "Rural Proofing in 2001–02". [55919]

  Mr. Byers
  My Department is taking a number of measures to further enhance its rural proofing activity. Those measures include:

  (i) nomination of a ministerial "rural champion": Lord Falconer will assume overall responsibility for the co-ordination of rural issues within the Department;

  (ii) the introduction of an integrated policy appraisal tool that guides policy makers towards assessment of the full range of policy impacts, including specifically those on rural areas;

  (iii) staff awareness raising activity: a number of actions are envisaged, including articles in internal DTLR journals, presentations to staff on integrated policy appraisal and rural issues, etc.;

  (iv) enhanced role for the DTLR official level rural "focal point": the focal point will be taking a more pro-active role in co-ordinating DTLR's activity as it impacts on rural areas, and will liaise regularly with the Countryside Agency.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what guidance he has issued to the Strategic Rail Authority on the application of rural proofing to its work. [55920]

  Mr. Byers
  Paragraph 8.6 of the Directions and Guidance I gave to the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) on 11 April requires the authority to use their published planning criteria in appraising rail schemes. These criteria requires costs and benefits relating to environment, accessibility, integration, safety and economy to be taken into account, many of which could identify specific rural impacts.

  Financial assistance is provided to rural rail services as part of the Rail Passenger Partnership programme (RPP). RPP funding contributes to the provision of new or enhanced local and regional rail services or facilities. Projects cover both urban and rural networks, but have so far included increased services to rural areas, new stations and schemes to improve accessibility.
  443W
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what account is being taken of rural proofing in the Department's review of the Standard Spending Assessment formula for local authorities. [55922]

  Mr. Byers
  We are working to develop options for a fairer and more intelligible grant distribution system. Representatives of rural authorities are members of the technical working groups my Department is running. We will consult on options over the summer and will consider the responses, including those on factors that relate to rural areas, when we come to take decisions.

  National Land Use Database
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement in respect of each of the English regions on(a) how many local authorities provided the necessary information on the review of the national land use database and (b) what action he plans to take to ensure that those regions who have not reported satisfactorily do so. [55615]

  Ms Keeble
  The number of local authorities providing returns for the 2001 update of the national land use database of previously developed land is shown in the following table. My Department is working with local authorities, English Partnerships, the Government Offices and other regional bodies to improve response rates for the 2002 update.

  Government office

  Number of authorities in region

  Number of authorities returning in 2001

  Percentage of authorities returning in 2001

  North-East

  24

  13

  54

  North-West

  44

  36

  82

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  24

  17

  71

  West Midlands

  34

  23

  68

  East Midlands

  40

  23

  58

  East of England

  49

  24

  49

  South-West

  47

  23

  49

  South-East

  67

  43

  64

  London

  33

  23

  70

  England

  362

  225

  62

  Firefighters' Pensions
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's advice to local authorities on whether they will permit widows and widowers of firefighters to retain their pensions on remarriage. [55614]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Under the current rules of the firefighters' pension scheme, the surviving spouse of a firefighter who remarries will lose the rights to a widow's/widower's pension. There are no proposals at present to amend the scheme in this respect and therefore we could not advise local authorities to permit surviving spouses to retain their pensions on remarriage. We continue to discuss amendments to the current scheme with the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council which includes representatives of the Scottish Executive, the Northern Ireland Administration, fire service employers and unions and staff associations.

  Registered Social Landlords
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate is of the comparative costs of(a) loans entered into by registered social landlords for capital developments and (b) the equivalent cost to local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [55626]

  Ms Keeble
  Information to make a direct comparison of the cost of loans to registered social landlords (RSLs) and local authorities for housing investment is not held by my Department.

  RSLs are private sector organisations who borrow directly from banks, building societies and other financial institutions. Loan costs will vary according to the RSL taking the loan, the type of loan and when it is taken out.

  Borrowing for housing investment by local authorities is generally from the Public Works Loans Board. Loan costs will also vary due to the type of loan, when it is taken out and the local authority involved. The cost of servicing the loans is met through housing revenue account subsidy.

  Emergency Services (Radio Communications)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what plans he has to provide inter-operability between emergency services and their radio communications systems; [55468]

  (2) which organisations from industry are advising Ministers on the procurement details for the fire and ambulance services for the replacement of their radio communications systems;[55469]

  (3) which Department has responsibility for taking decisions on the replacement of radio communication systems for fire and ambulance services; [55466]

  (4) what consultations he has had to determine the procurement process for the fire and ambulance service for the replacement of their radio communications systems. [55467]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 10 May 2002]: DTLR has policy responsibility for fire services in England and Wales and the Department of Health for ambulance services.

  The requirements for inter-operability reflect identified needs following the attack on the World Trade Centre. The Presidents of the associations representing the Chief Officers of the emergency services have now agreed a new and enhanced requirement for the inter-operability of radio systems between the services.

  On 7 May 2002 I made an announcement about the procurement of a national radio communications system for the Fire Service in England and Wales. DTLR will now be discussing with fire authorities how best to implement the new national strategy. A new specification reflecting this enhanced requirement is being prepared. There will be competitive procurement for the fire services in accordance with EU procurement legislation.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what
  445W
  proportion of tenants have bought their homes through right to buy schemes in rural areas in the last 15 years; and if he will make a statement. [55332]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 10 May 2002]: In the 15 years to 31 March 2001, 23 per cent. of local authority dwellings in rural areas have been sold under the right to buy scheme.

  When selling properties under the right to buy scheme, landlords may impose restrictions on their resale if they are located in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, or certain rural areas designated for this purpose. An owner may be required to offer the property back to the landlord (if they wish to resell within ten years) or to people who have lived or worked locally for three years. The intention is to try to ensure that more of the existing housing in rural areas is available to local people. There are currently 24 designated rural areas, and our November 2000 Rural White Paper "Our Countryside: The Future" encouraged other local authorities to consider seeking designation.

  Empty Homes (South-west)
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many empty homes there are in the south-west region. [56025]

  Ms Keeble
  The number of empty homes in the south-west region on 1 April 2001 (latest available data) was 68,200.

  Notes: figure rounded to the nearest 100

  Sources: DTLR's 2001 Housing Strategy statistical appendix return and Housing Corporation's 2001 Regulatory and Statistical Return (RSR).

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps his Department has taken to monitor the incidence of mast sharing by mobile phone operators. [55207]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government's policy is firmly to encourage mast and site sharing where that is the optimum environmental solution. Planning Policy Guidance Note 8, "Telecommunications" provides guidance on this.

  In addition, as part of the mobile phone industry's 10 commitments to improve the handling of telecommunications development, operators have pledged to publish clear, transparent and accountable criteria and cross-industry agreement on site sharing.

  The industry sends site sharing statistics to the Department on a quarterly basis as part of this commitment. Latest figures show that, out of the current 10,416 sites that are capable of some form of mast/tower share, 3,669 sites have at least one sharer present. In addition, 2,713 applications for site share are pending.

  St. Thomas' Hospital
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether the Government Office for London has provided him with a brief on the site at St Thomas' Hospital known as Block 9. [55410]
  446W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government Office for London provides Ministers with a wide range of briefs but it is not the practice to disclose details of internal discussion and advice.

  Planning
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what new planning guidelines will be introduced on the role of regional assemblies in planning applications. [55196]

  Ms Keeble
  We are not proposing to introduce any new planning guidance in relation to the existing role of regional assemblies in planning applications.

  Regional planning bodies already offer advice to local planning authorities and give evidence at an appeal where the planning application raises regional or sub-regional issues relevant to the delivery of regional planning guidance.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 7 May 2002,Official Report, column 24W, if he will place a copy of the analysis by Smith and Williamson of responses to the Planning Green Paper in the Library. [56005]

  Mr. Byers
  I have placed a copy of the consultation analysis in the Library of the House. As Smith and Williamson make clear in their report:"It should be emphasised that this report represents only a partial analysis of the responses to the Green Paper. Many of the standard responses that have been quantitatively analysed have been initiated and influenced by organised campaigns. We suggest that in order to gain a more complete picture of opinions and suggestions regarding the Green Paper's proposals, it will be necessary to consider in more detail the many suggestions and qualifying comments on the standard forms and also the large number of more detailed responses, which it has not been possible to code and quantify, submitted by a wide variety of organisations, groups and individuals."

  I have also therefore placed in the Library a copy of the memorandum provided to the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Select Committee which attempts to provide this more qualitative analysis of the detailed responses.

  Housing
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to relax the limitations on local authorities' borrowing against their assets for housing improvements or construction. [55613]

  Ms Keeble
  A change is to be made allow authorities to borrow without Government consent where they can afford to service the debt from available revenue resources. This change requires primary legislation and will be made as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment the Government have made of the likely number of new dwellings that would be required in(a) London and (b) the south-east in order to satisfy predicted housing demand in the next 10 years. [55616]
  447W
  Ms Keeble
  Regional Planning Guidance for London and the south-east (RPG9) provides that 23,000 additional dwellings should be provided in London and 39,000 in the rest of the south-east (including, for these purposes, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Essex) each year on average until such time as the figures are reviewed.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what recent assessment he has made of the costs of building(a) prefabricated houses and flats and (b) non-pre-fabricated permanent houses and flats; [56003]

  (2) what recent discussions he has held with the house building industry on the merits of pre-fabricated housing. [56004]

  Mr. Byers
  It is not the normal practice of Governments to release details of specific meetings with private individuals or companies.

  The Government do not hold benchmark costings on the difference between modular and traditional build. The Peabody Trust have said that their pioneering modular development at Murray Grove was slightly more expensive than a similar sized traditional build development. Costs could be expected to fall with greater volume in further developments.

  Parishes
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many parish councils in England have a population of(a) under 3,000, (b) 3,000 to 10,000, (c) 10,001 to 20,000, (d) 20,001 to 30,000 and (e) over 30,000. [55724]

  Dr. Whitehead
  My Department does not hold current statistics on the populations of all parish councils in England. A survey1 was carried out in 1997 by the Aston Business School, from which the following data have been drawn:

  Population size band

  Councils in England

  Percentage

  Less than 500

  3,252

  40

  500–999

  1,734

  21

  1,000–2,499

  1,591

  20

  2,500–4,999

  760

  9

  5,000–9,999

  487

  6

  10,000–19,999

  251

  3

  20,000 and above

  64

  1

  Total

  8,139

  100

  1DETR 1998 "Local Councils' Use of Section 137: A financial review of parish and town councils in England and their discretion to spend under Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972"; ISBN 1 85112 118 8.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many parishes are exempt from the right to buy as a consequence of their population. [55725]

  Ms Keeble
  No parishes are exempt from the right to buy.

  However, when selling properties under the right to buy scheme, landlords may impose restrictions on their resale if they are located in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, or certain rural areas designated for this
  448W
  purpose. An owner may be required to offer the property back to the landlord (if they wish to resell within ten years) or to people who have lived or worked locally for three years. The intention is to try to ensure that more of the existing housing in rural areas is available to local people. There are currently 24 designated rural areas, and our November 2000 Rural White Paper "Our Countryside: The Future" encouraged other local authorities to consider seeking designation.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many parishes are able to claim business rates relief on village shops as a consequence of their population. [55726]

  Dr. Whitehead
  This information is not available.

  To be eligible for rate relief under the village shop scheme, the business must be located in a qualifying rural settlement. Qualifying rural settlements must have a population of no more than 3,000, and be wholly or partly in a rural area that has been designated by the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. However, it is the responsibility of the local authority to determine which settlements in its area meet the criteria for the scheme, to identify their boundaries and to place them on its local rural settlement list. Information on their number is not held centrally.

  Local Authority Services
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how he will ensure that the new finance system for local authorities will provide an effective framework within which councils can initiate innovative ways of delivering customer-focused services. [54800]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Our comprehensive agenda for reform of the local government finance system was set out in last December's White Paper "Strong Local leadership—Quality Public Services". Our finance reforms will give councils more space to innovate and respond in ways that are appropriate to local circumstances by providing local authorities with greater freedom to borrow, invest, trade, charge and set spending priorities. Our White Paper implementation plan is available on the DTLR website at http://www.dtlr.igov.uk/local-regions/sll/implement/plan/index.htm.

  Electoral Register Sales
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans to allow local authorities to sell electoral registers to third parties. [54590]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have today published a policy paper and draft regulations setting out the Government's intentions for regulations making provision about access to and sale and supply of electoral registers.

  The approach we are adopting strikes a balance between the individual elector's right to privacy and the needs of others to receive the data to carry out their functions. There will be two versions of the register, the

  449W
  data in which will have been compulsorily obtained—a full one, and an edited one containing particulars about only those electors who have not requested that their details be removed from the edited register.

  The full register will be available for electoral purposes, for law enforcement and crime prevention and for other purposes where there is a strong public interest in preserving availability. These include checking identity for credit purposes. The edited register will be available for sale to anyone for any purpose.

  Both the policy statement and the draft regulations have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and on the internet for public comment on the regulations. Our aim, subject to parliamentary approval, is to make the regulations to have effect from the 2002 canvass.

  Special Advisers
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the names and responsibilities of(a) his special advisers and (b)special advisers of his Ministers.[55977]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 12 March 2002 Official Report, column 908W.

  Letters of Comfort
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on how many occasions his Department has issued letters of comfort to a private sector contractor. [54285]

  Dr. Whitehead
  As there is no central list of "letters of comfort", this information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Data Protection Act
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions 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. [53375]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Stephen McCabe) on Thursday 25 April 2002,Official Report, column 446W.

  Aga Khan
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what meetings he has had with(a) the Aga Khan and (b) his staff in the last 12 months. [55411]

  Mr. Raynsford
  It is not the normal practice of Governments to release details of specific meetings with private individuals or companies.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Developing Countries (Electricity)
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what projects she has financed in the last three years to improve electricity supply in developing countries, indicating the cost of each and which use renewable technologies. [54614]

  Clare Short
  We are all increasingly providing financial assistance to our partner countries via payments through their central budgets in collaboration with other donors. Under these circumstances it is not possible to separate out the contributions of any one donor to any particular sector.

  We do, however, still have a number of ongoing specific energy projects in some countries. Brief details of our major country projects, together with details of our research projects in this sector and a full list of our activities in the energy sector over the past three years will be placed in the Library of the House.

  We are also contributors to the multi-donor technical co-operation facilities (ESMAP and PPIAF) which have activities in the energy sector, some of which include renewables. Brief details of this work are also available in the Library of the House.

  Fraud and Corruption
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development 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. [54720]

  Clare Short
  Losses in DFID's Vote 1 and Vote 2 accounts were disclosed separately in the Losses Statement of the Appropriation Accounts 1999–2000 and the Accountability Notes of the Resource Accounts 2000–01.

  The estimated level of losses to fraud and corruption in DFID's Vote 1 budget in 1999–2000 and 2000–01 was £21,000 and £13,000 respectively. Of these amounts, £11,000 and £8,000 can be attributed to the theft of assets, which, in line with Treasury guidance, has been classified as involving departmental staff either directly or through collusion.

  There was no loss in DFID's Vote 2 budget in 1999–2000, but a loss of £0.2,000 was recorded in 2000–01.

  Details of suspected or proven fraud are provided to the Treasury on an annual basis. The annual report that the Treasury prepares on fraud is deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she was informed that sapele timber had been used in the refurbishment of 1 Palace Street. [56044]
  451W
  Clare Short
  Standard DFID procedures were followed for this refurbishment project. These do not require me to be advised.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Israel
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral statement of 29 April 2002,Official Report, column 668, on Israel, what risk assessment has been made regarding the protection of the deployed supervisory wardens from radical groups in the west bank. [54622]

  Mr. Straw
  An assessment has been made of the monitors' security situation in Jericho. I judge this to be satisfactory in the circumstances, though it is plainly not possible to eliminate all risk. Measures have been put in place to enhance the level of protection afforded to the team. They are kept under constant review.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral statement of 29 April 2002,Official Report, column 668,on Israel, what contingency plans are in place to ensure the evacuation of the British personnel deployed as supervisory wardens. [54621]

  Mr. Straw
  Contingency plans are in place for the evacuation of personnel deployed as monitors in Jericho, as they are for staff at our consulate-general in Jerusalem. They are kept under constant review.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with(a) the UN and (b) other Governments on a role for international forces in peacekeeping between Israelis and Palestinians. [55575]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. the Foreign Secretary is in constant contact with his US and European counterparts about the middle east peace process. He also has regular contact with the UN Secretary General and the parties. These discussions cover the full range of issues including the role of the international community in helping Israel and the Palestinian Authority achieve a ceasefire and the resumption of negotiations.

  There is broad international consensus that an international peacekeeping operation cannot work without the agreement of both parties; a ceasefire to maintain; and a parallel political process. These do not now exist, so the immediate priority must be to help rebuild confidence and create such conditions for progress.

  Fraud
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the estimated level of losses to fraud and corruption was in(a) his Department's Vote 1 budget and (b) his Department's Vote 2 budget for (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01. [54710]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The information is as follows.452W

  Losses to fraud and corruption

  £

  April 1999 to March 2000

  April 2000 to March 2001

  Vote 1 budget

  FCO fraud

  11,183

  16,326

  Sum recovered

  11,183

  15,553

  Net loss

  0

  773

  Vote 2 budget

  Nil

  Middle East
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have made to the International Criminal Court regarding human rights abuses as a result of the on-going conflict in the middle east; and if he will make a statement. [54989]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court will enter into force on 1 July 2002. The Court, which will formally come into existence on that date, will have no powers to investigate crimes retrospectively.

  Belarus
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Belarusian Government about the Iraqi military delegation visit to Minsk in October 2001; what reports he has received about(a) the aim and (b) the outcome of the visit; and if he will make a statement. [55154]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are aware of press reports from October 2001 that an Iraqi delegation visited Belarus to receive military training and purchase arms. We view any report of actual or proposed transfers of weapons or weapons-related materials to Iraq—by any country—with serious concern. We have no doubt about Iraq's desire to acquire sophisticated weapons systems. We have expressed our concern about the October 2001 reports to the Belarusian Government and raised our concerns at the United Nations Iraq Sanctions Committee. We made clear in both instances our expectation that the Belarusian Government will continue to take all possible steps to ensure that arms sales and other transactions that violate UN Security Council resolutions will not take place.

  Ministerial Accommodation
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what publicly owned accommodation is made available to him in his official role; how many nights he has been in residence at each of these properties in the last 12 months; and what the total cost was of maintaining each of these properties in the last 12 months. [55093]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 9 May. 2002]: The official London residence of the Foreign Secretary is at 1 Carlton Gardens. I use the day rooms on the ground and first floors for meetings, receptions and entertaining. There is a self-contained residential apartment on the upper floor, which I have never occupied. This was occupied by my.
  453W
  right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) when he was Foreign Secretary, and continues to be occupied by him, as President of the Council. As Foreign Secretary he was 35 nights in residence between 1 April 2001 and 7 June 2001. Total maintenance costs during this period were £2,790.68. From 8 June 2001 the costs of the residential apartment are to he met by the Privy Council Office. I do have both official and private use of Chevening House, Sevenoaks. This is owned by a private trust.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under what circumstances(a) British nationals and (b) British passport holders would receive official help to leave Zimbabwe. [55597]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There are approximately 26,000 British nationals registered with the British High Commission in Harare. The British High Commission in Harare stands ready to offer what assistance they can to British nationals of all categories who seek their help to leave Zimbabwe.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department has drawn up contingency plans to help UK citizens and UK passport holders evacuate Zimbabwe in the event of a breakdown of law and order there. [55596]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have a Civil Contingency Plan in place for Zimbabwe, as we do for many other countries. This is under constant review. Any evacuation would be a last resort and by whatever means available at that time.

  Madagascar
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens are resident in Madagascar; and what relationships are established between Madagascar and the United Kingdom in the(a) economic, (b) political and (c) cultural fields. [55204]

  Mr. MacShane
  Our embassy in Antananarivo estimates that there are some 160 British citizens in Madagascar.

  Bilateral links between Madagascar and the UK are strong. We have been working hard to maintain these, despite the difficult political and economic situation that has developed since the disputed presidential election in December 2001. We continue to support the efforts of the Organisation of African Unity to broker an agreement between the parties which will break the political impasse.

  The UK supports a number of small scale projects in Madagascar, particularly in the area of penal reform, and a number of British environmental NGOs are active there. Cultural links are growing: the BBC World Service rebroadcasts locally on FM, and there is increasing interest in learning English.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his assessment is of the political agreement reached on 22 April by the rival presidential contenders in Madagascar; and what steps he will take to seek the investigation of human 454W
  rights violations and the establishment of a permanent mechanism for the protection of human rights for all sections of the population. [55203]

  Mr. MacShane
  We welcomed the signature of the Dakar Accord by Marc Ravalomanana and Didier Ratsiraka on 18 April. We regret that the parties have not, since then, been able to take the necessary steps to break the political deadlock. We continue to believe that the Dakar Accord provides the best basis for a settlement, and therefore support President Wade of Senegal's initiative for a second round of talks in Dakar on 14–15 May.

  We, with our EU partners, the US, the OAU and UN will continue to encourage the two parties to work together to find a peaceful solution to the impasse, including the need to respect the human rights of all the Malagasy people.

  Visitor Visas
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people were refused visitors' visas by British high commission offices in(a) India, (b) Pakistan and (c) Sri Lanka in the last 12 months. [55197]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The total number of visitor visa applications (including family visit applications) refused between April 2001 to March 2002 is as follows:

  Pakistan: 32,133

  India: 23,891

  Sri Lanka: 4,199

  Statistics for April 2002 are not yet available.

  British Indian Ocean Territory
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans his Department has to enable Ilois people to be able to visit the Chagos Islands; and if he will make a statement. [55604]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 56W.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from environmental organisations concerning the protection of the British Indian Ocean Territories; and if he will make a statement. [55605]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The BIOT Government receives representations from various environmental organisations such as the United Kingdom Overseas Territories Conservation Forum and the Friends of Chagos on environmental matters in BIOT. The BIOT Government invests considerable time and effort on environmental and ecological issues.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what environmental impact assessments he holds concerning the effects of US military activity on Diego Garcia; and if he will make a statement. [55623]
  455
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The BIOT Government employ a Conservation Consultant who makes annual visits to the territory to assess the state of the environment and report to the Commissioner. The last such visit was in February/March 2002.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what income has been received from the USA for the use of Diego Garcia as a military base since its establishment; when the lease expires; and if he will make a statement. [55606]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The United States pays no rent or makes any similar payment in respect of its right to use the British Indian Ocean Territory, including Diego Garcia, for defence purposes. However, in 1965, when it became clear that the costs of setting up the territory as a separate dependency would exceed original estimates, the US Government agreed to contribute £5 million towards these costs.

  No part of the British Indian Ocean Territory, including Diego Garcia, has been leased to the United States. Under the 1966 Agreement between the UK and USA Governments, the islands will remain available to meet the defence needs of both Governments until 2016, and then for a further period of 20 years, unless either side has previously given notice of termination.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his officials have had on the licensing of fishing for commercial purposes within the British Indian Ocean Territories. [55607]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The BIOT Government regularly holds talks with their fisheries consultants who are responsible for negotiating commercial fishing rights within BIOT waters. The fishing licences themselves are issued by the BIOT Government in London.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what preparations have been made by his Department for the receipt of passport applications by Ilois people living in(a) Mauritius, (b) Seychelles and (c) elsewhere. [55608]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Chagossians living in Mauritius and Seychelles apply for British passports to the British high commissions in those countries. They should continue to do so when section 3 of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 comes into force on 21 May 2002. Arrangements have been made so that, in the event of a large number of applications being received, the British high commission in Pretoria, which has a large passport issuing section, will issue their passports. Chagossians living elsewhere should apply to their nearest British passport issuing office.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to authorise the processing of British passport applications from Ilois people within the terms of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002.[55624]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs signed a Commencement Order on 1 May which will bring the citizenship provisions of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 into force on 21 May 2002.
  456W
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to receive and publish a report on the possibility of resettlement of the Chagos Islands; and if he will make a statement. [55609]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The results of Phase 2B of a study investigating the feasibility of resettlement on some of the outer islands of the Chagos Archipelago are expected to be available by mid 2002.

  India
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has made with the Government of India regarding bilateral training initiatives in counter terrorism. [54096]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In January 2002 my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee agreed to enhance significantly our bilateral co-operation in counter-terrorism, including training. This commitment was soon followed by a visit to India by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's counter terrorism adviser to discuss areas where we could deepen existing bilateral counter-terrorism co-operation. We subsequently held a successful aviation security course in New Delhi for officials from India and the region. On 25 April, the UK/India Joint Working on Terrorism met in London to discuss international terrorism as well as opportunities for further co-operation on training.

  British Prisoners Overseas
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) men and (b) women of British nationality are serving a prison sentence in an overseas country; and in which country the sentence is being served in each case. [54246]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  On 30 April 2002 we were aware of 2,030 British nationals serving custodial sentences in prisons overseas. Of these 1,753 are men and 277 are women. The table gives details of how many prisoners are in each country. The statistics represent only those prisoners who have asked the local authorities to inform the British consulate of their arrest and sentence.

  Country

  Number of prisoners

  Albania

  0

  Algeria

  0

  Angola

  0

  Antigua

  1

  Argentina

  3

  Armenia

  0

  Australia

  101

  Austria

  11

  Azerbaijan

  0

  Bahamas

  0

  Bahrain

  1

  Bangladesh

  3

  Barbados

  24

  Belarus

  0

  Belgium

  31

  Belize

  0

  Bolivia

  1

  Bosnia and Herzegovina

  0

  Brazil

  7

  Brunei

  0

  Bulgaria

  0

  457

  Country

  Number of prisoners

  Burma

  0

  Burundi

  0

  Cambodia

  1

  Cameroon

  0

  Canada

  51

  Chile

  1

  China

  1

  Colombia

  5

  Costa Rica

  4

  Croatia

  0

  Cuba

  5

  Cyprus

  7

  Czech Republic

  0

  Denmark

  10

  Dominica

  1

  Dominican Republic

  1

  Ecuador

  6

  Egypt

  2

  El Salvador

  0

  Estonia

  1

  Ethiopia

  1

  Finland

  3

  France

  163

  Georgia

  0

  Germany

  130

  Ghana

  0

  Grand Cayman

  0

  Greece

  8

  Grenada

  13

  Guatemala

  0

  Guyana

  2

  Haiti

  0

  Honduras

  0

  Hong Kong

  8

  Hungary

  1

  India

  23

  Indonesia

  6

  Iran

  0

  Ireland

  104

  Israel

  6

  Italy

  23

  Jamaica

  110

  Japan

  52

  Jordan

  0

  Kazakhstan

  0

  Kenya

  2

  Kuwait

  1

  Latvia

  0

  Lebanon

  1

  Lithuania

  0

  Madagascar

  0

  Malawi

  1

  Malaysia

  2

  Mali

  0

  Malta

  6

  Mauritius

  2

  Mexico

  1

  Mongolia

  0

  Monteserrat

  0

  Morocco

  13

  Mozambique

  0

  Namibia

  0

  Nepal

  1

  New Zealand

  7

  Nicaragua

  0

  Nigeria

  0

  Norway

  2

  Oman

  2

  Pakistan

  2

  Panama

  5

  Papua New Guinea

  0

  Peru

  8

  Philippines

  14

  Portugal

  10

  458w

  Country

  Number of prisoners

  Qatar

  2

  Romania

  2

  Russian Federation

  2

  Rwanda

  0

  Saudi Arabia

  16

  Senegal

  0

  Seychelles

  0

  Sierra Leone

  1

  Singapore

  10

  Slovakia

  0

  Slovenia

  0

  Solomon Islands

  0

  South Africa

  29

  South Korea

  1

  Spain

  221

  Sri Lanka

  0

  St Lucia

  6

  St. Vincent and Grenadines

  5

  Surinam

  1

  Swaziland

  0

  Sweden

  34

  Switzerland

  2

  Syria

  1

  Tanzania

  0

  Thailand

  31

  The Gambia

  1

  The Netherlands

  48

  Togo

  0

  Tonga

  0

  Trinidad and Tobago

  13

  Tunisia

  0

  Turkey

  7

  Turkmenistan

  0

  Ukraine

  0

  United Arab Emirates

  22

  United States of America

  537

  Uzbekistan

  0

  Uruguay

  0

  Vanuatu

  0

  Venezuela

  25

  Vietnam

  1

  Yugoslavia

  0

  Zambia

  0

  Zimbabwe

  0

  Total

  2,030

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Gibraltar. [55858]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) on 7 May 2002,Official Report, columns 151–2W.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had regarding(a) shared sovereignty and (b) the Spanish claim to full sovereignty of Gibraltar with the Spanish Foreign Minister during the talks in Valencia. [55861]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on 24 April 2002,Official Report, columns 294–95W.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had with the Government of Gibraltar prior to announcing his intention to visit Gibraltar. [55063]
  459
  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) on 7 May 2002,Official Report, column 152W.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the recent findings by the European Commission of breaches by Spain of EU law which affect Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement. [54574]

  Peter Hain
  To answer this question would incur disproportionate cost. It would be necessary to identify and review every case in the European Court of Justice between the European Commission and Spain, since Spain's accession to the EU in 1986, to ascertain whether a breach of EU law was found, and consider whether the judgment had any affect on Gibraltar's law. The judgments of the European Court of Justice are published in Reports of Cases before the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance, which can be found in the House of Commons Library.

  Any judgment of the ECJ against a member state potentially has implications for the law of another member state. The UK Government look to the Commission to ensure that all EU member states, including Spain, abide by their EU obligations.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for each of the last five years, how much financial support and what percentage of the whole allocation her Department allocated for research and development as sources of energy of(a) wind, (b) wave, (c) biomass, (d) solar, (e) hydrogen, (f) nuclear, (g) coal and (h) gas; and in each case what percentage this represented of the whole sum spent on such matters by her. [53825]

  Mr. Wilson
  Over the last five years, the Department of Trade and Industry has spent the following amounts on energy research and development, covering renewable

  DTI expenditure on energy R and D1

  (£ million)

  1997–98 (Percentage)

  (£ million)

  1998–99 (Percentage)

  (£ million)

  1999–2000 (Percentage)

  (£ million)

  2000–01 (Percentage)

  (£ million)

  2001–02 (Percentage)

  Sustainable energy

  DTI programme

  13.0

  35.3

  11.3

  36.9

  12.5

  38.6

  13.1

  39.7

  12.2

  34.4

  Research Councils

  2.9

  7.9

  3.1

  10.1

  2.4

  7.4

  2.8

  8.5

  5.0

  14.1

  Total

  15.9

  43.2

  14.4

  47.1

  14.9

  46.0

  15.9

  48.2

  17.2

  48.6

  Nuclear fusion

  16.6

  45.1

  12.6

  41.2

  14.4

  44.4

  14.3

  43.3

  14.3

  40.4

  Coal2

  4.1

  11.1

  3.4

  11.1

  2.9

  9.0

  2.6

  7.9

  3.7

  10.5

  Oil and gas

  0.2

  0.5

  0.2

  0.7

  0.2

  0.6

  0.2

  0.6

  0.2

  0.6

  Total

  36.8

  100

  30.6

  100

  32.4

  100

  33.0

  100

  35.4

  100

  1£ million and percentage of total DTI energy R and D spend for the year.

  2Cleaner Coal programme.

  Notes:

  1. The DTI Sustainable Energy Programme supports work on export promotion and technology transfer as well as projects relating to specific renewable energy technologies. Figures include programme management costs.

  2. The figures for oil and gas relate to the SHARP programme covering improved oil recovery and gas research.

  3. There may also be some Research Council supported R and D relating to coal, oil and gas.

  4.2001–02 figures are subject to revision.

  460
  (including wind, wave, biomass, solar and hydrogen); nuclear (where DTI spending has been confined to research on fusion); coal; and oil and gas. The table gives the percentages spent in each of these categories.

  The DTI supports research and development on sustainable energy technologies both through its Sustainable Energy Programme and through the Research Councils. Over the last five years, expenditure through the programme on wind energy has been in the range £1.2 million to £1.7 million per year; on wave energy, in the range £0 to £0.9 million per year; on biomass, in the range £1.8 million to £2.2 million per year; on solar, in the range £1.4 to £2 million per year; and on fuel cells (including some expenditure on hydrogen), in the range £1.2 million to £1.8 million per year. Relevant work supported through the Research Councils would be additional to these figures. The Sustainable Energy Programme also supports cross-technology work in the areas of technology transfer, export promotion and policy support.

  Provision for research and development through the Sustainable Energy Programme increases to £19 million for 2002–03 and through the Research Councils to £5.6 million. Additionally, the DTI has been assigned a further £5 million over three years for wave and tidal demonstration projects and a further £4 million for net metering, storage and control demonstration projects.

  The Government have also set up capital grants programmes in the following areas to bring forward new renewable energy technologies:
  £74 million for offshore wind (including £10 million from the New Opportunities Fund);£69 million for bioenergy (including £36 million from the new opportunities Fund and £3 million for biomass heating);£20 million for photovoltaics (PV).
  The R and D and capital grants programmes supplement the substantial boost for renewable energy being provided by the Renewables Obligation. Estimated maximum payments available under the Renewables Obligation for England and Wales and the corresponding Renewables Obligation (Scotland) for 2002–03 are £282 million. The level of the Obligation is set to rise each year to 2010-11, when maximum payments for the year are estimated to reach £1 billion.
  461

  Alternative Fuels
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions her Department has held with companies regarding the conversion of fleet vehicles to alternative fuels. [51966]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer to my answer given to the hon. Member previously on 23 April 2002,Official Report, column 298W.

  Sellafield

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Health and Safety Executive were first informed that the sludge storage tanks in building B241 at Sellafield were leaking. [53632]

  Mr. Wilson
  BNFL staff first discussed a suspected leak to ground from sludge tank number 4 in B241 with the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear inspectors at a meeting in October 1993.

  British Aerospace

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much financial assistance she granted to British Aerospace, and what the purpose was of each element, in each of the last five years. [53826]

  Alan Johnson
  In March 2000 HMG committed £530 million to BAE SYSTEMS in launch investment towards the design and development costs of the wings for the Airbus A380 "superjumbo". This commitment was subsequently novated to Airbus UK in anticipation of the restructuring of Airbus from a consortium to a single integrated company, which took effect in July 2001.

  In the past 5 years British Aerospace / BAE SYSTEMS received the following funding for a number of projects under the DTI's civil aeronautics research programme:

  £million

  Year

  1997–98

  2.8

  1998–99

  2.1

  1999–2000

  3.4

  2000–01

  2.0

  2001–02

  1.5

  Following the restructuring of Airbus, a number of the civil aeronautics research projects-which had a value of £1.1 million in 2001–02—were novated to Airbus UK.

  The company has also participated in a number of LINK collaborative projects, part-funded by DTI.

  Rural Awareness
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) when her Department will have rural proofing embedded in policy-making procedures as set out in the Countryside Agency's report, "Rural Proofing in 2001–02"; [54432]

  (2) when her Department will establish rural targets and monitoring as part of overall rural proofing measures as set out in the Countryside Agency's report, "Rural Proofing in 2001–02"; [54411]
  462W
  (3)when her Department will introduce measures to raise rural awareness through staff (a) training, (b) development and (c) secondments as part of overall rural proofing measures set out in the Countryside Agency's report "Rural Proofing in 2001–02". [54421]

  Alan Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to this question by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 9 May 2002,Official Report, columns 273–74W.

  Refrigerants
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received concerning the equity of international standards-setting guidelines for refrigerants; and if she will make a statement. [54628]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has received several representations from manufacturers of hydrocarbon refrigerants.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has made concerning United Kingdom Government policy on HFCs to the international standards-setting body responsible for refrigeration standards. [54627]

  Mr. Wilson
  None. The standardisation process is independent of governments: representation is made through national standards bodies which, for the UK, is the British Standards Institution.

  Milk
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will refer the matter of the sale of milk to the competition authorities. [54222]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: Under UK competition legislation the Director General of Fair Trading is responsible for monitoring markets and investigating allegations of anti-competitive behaviour. Any evidence of anti-competitive behaviour should be sent directly to the Office of Fair Trading.

  Directory Inquiries
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the market for directory inquiries services will be open to new entrants. [54823]

  Mr. Alexander
  The opening of the market for Directory enquiries is a matter for Oftel. New Codes facilitating the introduction of competition in this area will be introduced from October 2002.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by what method directory inquiry calls will be routed after the market is opened to new entrants. [54820]

  Mr. Alexander
  The regulation of the market for directory inquiries services is a matter for the Office of Telecommunications (Oftel). The Director General of Telecommunications will write to the hon. Member with details of how directory inquiry calls will be routed after the market is opened to new entrants.
  463W

  Chronic Bronchitis and Emphysema Claims
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will set out the policy issues which need to be resolved to enable final settlements to be made to chronic bronchitis and emphysema claims. [55004]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department has now agreed a revised version of Schedule 10 of the Claims Handling Agreement (CHA) with the claimants' solicitors. Schedule 10 determines the level of special damages to which a claimant is entitled. In addition, small cohorts of claimants are affected by on-going negotiations on surface dust and coal-mining related co-defendants.

  Consignia
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 1 May 2002,Official Report, column 792W, what discussions between Consignia and parties other than the Dutch post office regarding a possible sale of, merger with, or equity investment in, Consignia have taken place in the last 12 months. [55012]

  Mr. Alexander
  Apart from the negotiations with TPG about a possible merger as set out in my answer on 1 May 2002,Official Report, column 792W, the Department have not been notified, during the last 12 months, about any discussions between Consignia and other parties regarding a possible sale of equity, merger or equity investment.

  Universal Bank
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry What progress has been made with discussions with the European Commission on the EU rules which forbid the Government of member state from subsiding banks in relation to the proposed universal bank project. [55005]

  Mr. Alexander
  The European Commission has decided not to raise any objections to universal banking services. It informed the Government in February 2002 that it considers the measures notified to it to be compatible with the common market.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of state for Trade and Industry how much has been spent by the administration section of the Export Credits Guarantee Department under code B4 (Grant and transfers: current) in the appropriation accounts on IT expenditure in the last five financial years; how much was paid to each IT company; What the nature of the project was; and if she will make a statement. [54361]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 8 May 2002]: Details of amounts of money paid to individual companies are commercially confidential. I have listed ECGD's total spend on IT for each financial year 1997–98 to 2001–01 and broken the total down into five areas of expenditure. Copies are available in the Library. Also provided are the names of the companies employed by ECGD to provide IT services in those years and an outline of the services provided. I have not included figures for 2001–02 as these have yet to be audited.
  464
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been spent by the administration section of the Export Credits Guarantee Department under code B4 (Grant and transfers: current) in the appropriation accounts on consultancy fees in the last five financial years; how much was paid to each consultancy company; what the nature was of the project in each year; and if she will make a statement. [54358]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 8 May 2002]: Details of amounts of money paid to individual companies are commercially confidential. I have listed ECGD's total spend on consultancy for each of the financial years 1997–98 to 2000–01, the names of the companies or individuals employed by ECGD as consultants in those years and an outline of the service provided. Figures for 2001–02 have not been included as these have yet to be audited.

  Year 1997–98: Consultancy spend £146,501.71

  Company or individual

  Service provided

  C.O.I.

  Publications

  CDR International

  Training

  Coda plc

  Accountancy

  Doyle Clutton Associates

  Accountancy

  Four Acre Accountants Ltd.

  Accountancy

  French Thornton

  Change Management Consultancy

  Hays Accountancy Personnel

  Recruitment

  Idon Ltd.

  Training

  KPMG CHAPS

  Recruitment

  Marketing Improvements Group plc

  Customer Survey

  Pricewaterhouse Coopers

  Review of Aircraft Finance Practice

  Record Currency Management Ltd.

  Training

  Standard and Poors NY

  Corporate Risk Consultancy

  Year 1998–99: Consultancy spend £331,821.49

  Company or individual

  Service provided

  David Parker

  Translation

  Emslie Phelps

  Training

  Environmental Resources Management

  Environment Policy Consultancy

  French Thornton

  Change Management Consultancy

  IBM UK Ltd.

  IT Services

  KPMG

  Internal Audit Consultancy

  Lavant Consulting Ltd.

  Business Adviser

  Marketing Improvements Group

  Customer Survey

  Rimell Associates

  IT Services

  Standard and Poor's Rating Group

  Risk Management Consultancy

  Standard and Poor's NY

  Risk Management Consultancy

  Year 1999–2000: Consultancy spend £514,649.98

  Company or individual

  Service provided

  CMG (UK) Ltd.

  IT Services

  David Parker

  Translation

  Deloitte and Touche

  Accountancy

  Emslie Phelps

  Training

  Ernst and Young

  Risk Management

  Jean Caines

  Press and public Relations Consultancy

  KPMG

  Risk Management Review

  National Economic Research Assocs

  Economic Rationale Review

  Record Currency Management Ltd.

  Financial Risk Management

  Standard and Poors Rating Group

  Training

  Year 2000–01: Consultancy spend £757,681.14

  Company or individual

  Service provided

  Alan Brown

  Risk Management

  Atalink Ltd.

  Publications

  Berry Palmer and Lyle Ltd.

  Active Portfolio Management Project

  C.O.I.

  Publications

  CMG (UK) Ltd.

  IT Services

  465W

  Year 2000–01: Consultancy spend £757,681.14

  Company or individual

  Service provided

  Coda Group Holdings Ltd.

  Financial

  Deloitte and Touche

  Accountancy

  Dion Durrell and Associates Ltd.

  Active Portfolio Management Project

  Hays Accountancy Personnel

  Recruitment

  National Economic Research Assocs.

  Economic Rationale Review

  Record Currency Management Ltd.

  Financial Risk Management

  Risk Control Ltd.

  Risk Management

  Small Computer Company

  Training

  Cold Calling
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans the Government have to regulate the practice of cold calling. [55181]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Protection is provided by the Consumer Protection (Cancellation of Contracts Concluded away from Business Premises) Regulations 1987, the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000, the Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) Regulations 1999 and the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

  Business Grants
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the grants and other help that she administers that are available to industrial and commercial businesses located in(a) Scotland, (b) Wales and (c) Pendle. [55428]

  Alan Johnson
  DTI does not administer any grants or funding for businesses in Scotland or Wales with the exception of the Coal Operating Scheme. Other grants and funding are covered by the relevant devolved Administrations.

  Grants and business support services for small companies can be accessed via the local business link which is administered by the Small Business Service. The Small Business Service itself covers the whole UK but in Scotland and Wales the arrangements for business support delivery are again a matter for the devolved Administrations.

  In addition, small and medium sized enterprises in Pendle can apply for the Enterprise Grant Scheme, most of Pendle is covered by transitional Objective 2 of the European Structural Funds until 2005, and the North West Development Agency aims to promote business development in the region.

  The DTI publication 'Financing your Business' describes the various types of business finance available and lists sources of further information.

  Postal Deliveries
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many derogations there are for addresses in(a) Aberdeenshire and (b) Banffshire where Royal Mail are not obliged to provide a delivery service direct to the door; and if she will make a statement. [55164]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 9 May 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) on 25 February 2002, Official Report, columns 847–48W.
  466W
  Since I gave that answer Postcomm issued a third interim Direction (which is still in force) on 26 March 2002 and I am placing a copy of that Direction in the Libraries of the House.

  CASIM Project
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in the assessment and location of the CASIM project. [55482]

  Ms Hewitt
  Peer review assessments of both elements of the project, CASIM 4GLS and CASIM SIRIUS were considered by the Director General of Research Councils and the Research Councils' chief executives at a meeting on 16 April 2002. It was agreed that 4GLS should proceed to the next stage of the Office of Government Commerce Gateway review process. In the case of SIRIUS it was recommended that further discussions between the Office of Science and Technology and the Department of Health, the two main prospective funders, should take place before any decision was taken on project viability or location.

  Edmonton B Power Station
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will decide on the development of the Edmonton B power station. [55349]

  Mr. Wilson
  A decision will be announced shortly.

  Unfair Trading
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints have been received by the Competition Commission in respect of unfair trading in each year since its formation. [55812]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Complaints of unfair trading are received by the Office of Fair Trading. Relevant statistics can be found in the OFT's annual report, a copy of which is available in the Libraries of the House.

  Electricity Regulation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she intends to update the electricity safety, quality and continuity regulations; and if she will make a statement. [56139]

  Mr. Wilson
  The proposed Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations will replace the existing Electricity Supply Regulations 1988 (as amended). The main objective of the proposed Regulations is to improve safety standards in the new electricity market while preserving important public safety, power quality and supply continuity requirements in the existing Regulations. The draft Regulations will be finalised shortly following the public consultation exercise carried out last year and further discussions with interested parties since then. Allowing time for the approval process and publication of detailed Guidance Notes 12 weeks in advance of the introduction of regulations in accordance with Government guidelines, it is anticipated the new regulations will commence in November 2002.

  In addition to the Guidance Notes, the Government's response to the comments received during the public consultation exercise will be published in due course.
  467W

  Energy Review
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry as a result of the recent energy review, what discussions she is having with energy providers to ensure that account is taken of local security of supply. [55617]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have requested a study into the resilience of the electricity supply networks in an emergency, in order to obtain reassurance that we have the best possible systems in place to avoid or minimise supply failure, together with examples of good practice in emergency preparedness. Our consultants, British Power International (BPI), visited all the electricity transmission and distribution licence-holding companies in mainland Britain during March, and will be reporting shortly.

  DTI's Engineering Inspectorate has been dealing with a small number of cases in which consumers in rural areas are complaining about frequent interruptions to their electricity supply, and Ofgem has taken important steps to strengthen the incentives on distribution companies to provide a good quality of service to consumers. From 1 April 2002 a new Guaranteed Standard of Performance was introduced which will mean that consumers that suffer more than three interruptions of more than three hours duration over the course of the year will receive a compensation payment of £50. This protection is directly aimed at 'worst-served' consumers. Ofgem has also introduced an incentive scheme for distribution companies that focuses on key areas quality of service—the number of interruptions to supply, the duration of interruptions to supply and the quality of telephone response provided by distribution companies. Taken together these mechanisms provide significant additional protection to consumers in respect of the quality of service they receive from distribution companies.

  The introduction of widespread distributed generation in electricity networks will certainly raise some technical issues not previously faced by electricity distributors. Close monitoring of developments in embedded generation is necessary by all those involved to ensure the emerging security of supply issues are identified and managed. Following on from the report of the joint DTI-Ofgem Embedded Generation Working Group (EGWG) in June 2001 www.dti.gov.uk/energy/egwg/index.htm, the Government has recently established a Co-ordinating Group, jointly led by the DTI and Ofgem, to monitor the implementation of the EGWG recommendations and to advise Ministers of potential problems.

PRIME MINISTER

  Royal Family
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the agreement in force between the Government and the Royal Family on the payment of death duties by members of the Royal Family. [55572]

  The Prime Minister
  The inheritance tax arrangements are set out in paragraphs 20 to 23 of the Memorandum of Understanding in the Royal Trustees report (HC 464) published on 11 February 1993.
  468W
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will take steps to ensure the will of the Her late Majesty the Queen Mother is published. [55826]

  The Prime Minister
  In line with a long standing convention for dealing with the wills of senior members of the Royal Family, an order has been made by the High Court for the sealing up of the will of the late Queen Mother, which means that the will cannot be inspected or published. Therefore, I do not intend to take any steps to ensure publication of the will.

  European Commission
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his policy towards the direct election of the President of the European Commission. [55692]

  The Prime Minister
  It is not our policy.

  Annual Government Report
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will reconsider publishing an annual Government report. [56277]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 12 July 2001,Official Report, column 638W.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Prime Minister if the work of Professor Michael Barber contributed to his recently announced initiative to reduce child benefit payments to the mothers of persistent young offenders; and if he will make a statement. [56006]

  The Prime Minister
  No. This is one of a range of proposals which the responsible Departments are looking at.

  Civil Servants
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Prime Minister how many Ministers have concluded contractual agreements with civil servants which include a clause restricting the ability of parties to the agreement to make public statements since 1 May 1997. [55923]

  The Prime Minister
  All civil servants are employed under terms and conditions set out in the Civil Service Management Code. Responsibility for personnel matters within individual Departments is delegated by the Minister to the Permanent Head of the Department.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Criminal Justice
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many construction projects are planned for use of agencies or organisations associated with the criminal justice system; for each project, what his estimate is of(a) completion date and (b) total cost to completion; what the involvement of the private sector is;

  469W
  and what provision has been made for the display of flags, emblems and other symbols on the exterior and interior of buildings within each project. [34127]

  Mr. Browne
  I am sorry for the delay in answering.

  Two construction projects are planned for the use of the Juvenile Justice Board (scheduled to become the Youth Justice Agency with effect from April 2003). The projects relate to the rationalisation of the Juvenile Justice Estate and were announced in Parliament by the then Northern Ireland Minister of State, Adam Ingram on 29 November 2000.

  The first project, phase I, involves upgrading security and refurbishing the accommodation on the existing Rathgael site in Bangor, to facilitate the closure of Lisnevin. The construction project is scheduled to be completed by autumn 2002. The contract was awarded as a design and build project at a tender cost of £2.8 million. Private sector involvement in phase I relates to the appointment of a design team and main building contractor. No provision has been made for the display of flags, emblems and other symbols on the exterior and interior of buildings within this project.

  The second project, phase 2, is the provision of a new, purpose designed centre, also to be located on land at Rathgael. When fully commissioned, the new centre will replace the phase I facility. Planning the phase 2 project is at a very early stage. It is estimated to take about four to five years to complete the project. It is not possible to give an accurate estimated cost, but based on similar facilities, it is anticipated that the cost should be in the region of £12 million to £15 million. In keeping with Government policy, we will be examining various procurement methods including PFI/PPP. It is intended to utilise various expertise from the private sector to establish the most cost-effective method of procuring this facility. The extent of their involvement will become clearer once the project has been properly scoped and all the issues addressed as part of the outline business case.

  As in phase 1, no provision has been made for the display of flags, emblems and other symbols on the exterior and interior of buildings within this project.

  The Northern Ireland Prison Service has three construction projects planned at present, a new inmates kitchen at HMP Maghaberry, at a cost of £1.9 million which will be completed in October 2003. New programmes village at HMP Magilligan at a cost of £1 million which will be completed in December 2002 and a new visitors reception at HM YOC Hydebank at a cost of £800,000 which is due for completion in January 2003.

  A private sector contractor will be involved in the design and construction of the inmates kitchen at HMP Maghaberry. The remaining projects will involve the private sector in the construction phase only. No provision has been made for the display of flags, emblems, and other symbols on the exterior or interior of the buildings.

  The Northern Ireland Court Service is at the very early stage of plans to build new courthouses in Lisburn and North Down with anticipated completion dates of 2005 and 2006 respectively. Public private partnership is the preferred funding route and, in this event, the only costs incurred at completion would be consultancy from the
  470W
  private sector estimated at £500,000. All construction work will be carried out by the private sector. Construction work for a courthouse in Dungannon is already under way and is due for completion in November this year, at an approximate cost of £11 million. This is not a public private partnership project. Provision for the display of flags, emblems or other symbols at these venues will be in accordance with Government policy as articulated in the Criminal Justice Review Implementation Plan and the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill. The practical steps to give effect to this policy would be taken at the appropriate stage in the construction project.

  The Northern Ireland Office has entered into an agreement with the Northern Ireland Bar to rent a new headquarters building for the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). The building is currently being constructed by Bar Library Services Ltd. and is due to be completed by 31 December 2002.

  As part of the Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland the DPP will be undertaking an exercise to consider the development of offices outside Belfast. The extent and number of such have not yet been identified.

  The Government's policy on the display of flags at Government buildings is set out in the Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000. The display of emblems and other symbols is in accordance with the Belfast Agreement which acknowledged the sensitivity of the use of symbols for public purposes, and the need to ensure that such symbols are used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division.

  De Chastelain Process
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the de Chastelain process is responsible for monitoring terrorists groups' acquisitions of new weapons. [54825]

  Jane Kennedy
  No. General de Chastelain's remit is to facilitate the decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons as set out in August 1997 in the Agreement between this Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

  Castlereagh Police Station
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the report into the break-in at Castlereagh Police Station on 17 March will be completed. [55016]

  Jane Kennedy
  Sir John Chilcot is currently conducting his review into the national security implications of the break-in at Castlereagh police station which is running in parallel with the criminal investigation. Both the review and the investigation must be allowed to take their course and I have not set a deadline for Sir John to complete his work.

  Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) whether the Belfast International Airport Constabulary will be brought within the remit of the new Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice; [55829]
  471W
  (2) what progress has been made since 19 April to produce a comprehensive list of organisations to come within the remit of the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice. [55722]

  Mr. Browne
  During the passage of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill through the House of Commons, I undertook to review the list of organisations within the remit of the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice. I have written to initiate consultations with 19 organisations and I am awaiting final responses from a number of these. It is important that there is proper consultation with these organisations before final decisions are taken. As part of the consultation process, and to assist in identifying functions within these organisations which it might be appropriate to bring within the inspectorate's remit, a number of useful exploratory meetings have taken place. The Belfast International Airport Authority is one of the bodies with whom consultations are progressing.

  Departmental Spending
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for 1997–98 and each subsequent financial year the amount spent by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies in respect of hotel and other similar privately-provided accommodation (i) in the UK and (ii) abroad for (A) Ministers, (B) staff and (C) other persons; if he will list the proportion of this cost incurred in respect of (x) food and (y) alcohol in each case; and if he will list the average cost per hotel room or similar unit of accommodation provided in each case. [34378]

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

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for 1997–98 and for each subsequent financial year, including the current year to date, the amount spent by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies on (i) food and (ii) alcohol, indicating how much was spent on guests, and how much in respect of (A) Ministers and (B) staff, broken down to show how much was provided directly by his Department and how much reclaimed. [34453]

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

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Pensions
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what the annual financial effect was on the Church of England's pension arrangements of the removal of the payable tax credit was in the last 12 months. [54003]

  Mr. Bell
  The removal of the tax credit has reduced the Church Commissioners' investment returns and cut the amount of money available to support the Church by £7 million p.a. It has also increased the cost of pension 472W
  contributions over the last 12 months by £3 million. Both these sums have had to be raised by dioceses and parishes from their congregations.

  Church Repairs
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what the cost was to the Church Commissioners of church repairs in the last financial year. [54005]

  Mr. Bell
  The cost of church repairs is borne by the individual church congregations and figures are not held centrally. However, as the House will already know from previous answers, following a survey the estimated cost of repairs to and maintenance of Anglican Churches in 1999 was £120 million. No more recent survey has been undertaken.

  These figures do not include the huge hidden subsidy of voluntary support within parishes or of the expert guidance within the faculty jurisdiction system.

  The Commissioners have some small liabilities for the chancels of around 800 parish churches. In 2000, this cost almost £700,000.

  Franks Allotments, Walcote
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the proposal by the Diocese of Leicester to sell the Franks allotments in Walcote. [54006]

  Mr. Bell
  No, Sir. The land in question belongs to the Leicester Diocesan Board of Education and the Church Commissioners have no connection with any proposals to sell it.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Accommodation Centres
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what legislation is required to permit the construction of the proposed asylum accommodation centres; what powers his Department has to prepare for their construction before such legislation has received Royal Assent; and if he will make a statement. [35641]

  Angela Eagle
  I am sorry the hon. Member has not received an earlier reply, this was due to an administrative error.

  There are existing powers in part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 which permit the Home Secretary to acquire property for the purposes of providing accommodation for destitute asylum seekers and their dependants.

  New powers in relation to accommodation centres are in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill which was published on 12 April 2002.

  Asylum and Immigration Legislation
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish a bill on asylum and immigration; and if he will make a statement. [43238]
  473W
  Angela Eagle
  I am very sorry for the delay in replying to my hon. Friend; this was due to an administrative error. The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill was published on 12 April 2002.

  Asylum Seekers
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is planned that monetary support for asylum seekers through the ARC card system will be provided in cash only; and if he will make a statement. [44442]

  Angela Eagle
  All financial support for asylum seekers is being provided in cash using existing systems. Later in the year it is envisaged that asylum seekers will use their Application Registration Care (ARC)—which will provide a useful way of verifying their identity—to access their financial support which will be provided in cash.

  Mr. W. R. Glenie
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will instruct the Immigration Office to return the passport belonging to Mr. W. R. Glenie of Kingsbridge, Devon, lodged on 14 December 2001, by 21 March; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay in processing it. [43836]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: I am very sorry for the delay in replying to the hon. Member this was due to an administrative error. Mr. Glenie's documents were returned to him on 18 March 2002 following completion of his fiancée's application for leave to remain.

  Unpaid Advisers
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the names of the unpaid advisers appointed by him and his predecessor since June 1997, stating in each case(a) the date of their appointment, (b) the duration of their appointment and (c) the project or projects on which they have been engaged. [43382]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: Since the period June 1997, the Home Office has not appointed any unpaid advisers in line with the requirements of paragraph 51 of the Ministerial Code.

  For details of unpaid appointments made by the Home Office to task forces, review groups and other ad hoc advisory groups, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. friend for Shipley (Christopher Leslie) on 16 November 2001, Official Report, column 958W.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new initiatives his Department has taken in 2001–02 to assist in achieving its public service agreement targets. [47411]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Information about progress on Public Service Agreement targets will be published in the Home Office's 2002 Departmental Report.
  474W

  UK Citizenship
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to revoke the UK citizenship of a person whose name has been communicated to him; and if he will make a statement. [53083]

  Mr. Blunkett
  There are no present plans to deprive the person in question of British citizenship, but we will keep this under review.

  Robert Brown
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to initiate the rehabilitation of Robert Brown. [53755]

  Beverley Hughes
  Mr. Brown has been offered a range of offending behaviour work and non offence-related courses, including for example, anger management, reasoning and rehabilitation and a pre-release course. He has declined most of these but this should not inhibit him from progressing towards his release. In addition, he has been offered the opportunity for escorted town visits to aid his reintegration into the community but has declined to participate. He has also been encouraged to engage in the sentence planning process and has been assisted to address his use of drugs in prison successfully. His suitability for transfer to a resettlement regime in an open prison will shortly be considered by the parole board.

  Inter-country Adoption
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the countries from which young children up to the age of five years were allowed entry into the UK for legal adoption in the last 12 months. [53869]

  Angela Eagle
  Information on the number of children admitted to the United Kingdom from overseas countries for adoption is not currently available.
  The information that is available covers the number of children up to the age of five years given indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom (UK) on the basis of adoption. This number excludes those children given limited leave to remain and who are subsequently adopted through the UK courts, becoming British citizens on the date that the final adoption order is made.

  A total of around 20 adopted children up to the age of five were given indefinite leave to remain in 2000, the latest information available. The nationalities of the children were:

  Chile

  China

  Guatemala

  India

  Jamaica

  Lebanon

  Nigeria

  Pakistan

  St. Lucia

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Ukraine

  United States of America

  Vietnam

  Zimbabwe.
  475W
  We aim to publish 2001 data in July/August 2002.

  National Asylum Support Service
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many supported asylum seekers received a £50 additional single payment from the National Asylum Support Service under regulation 11(1) of the Asylum Support Regulations 2000 in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02; and what the total amount paid out in the form of such payments by NASS is since 3 April 2000. [54103]

  Angela Eagle
  The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) does not keep central statistics in respect of the number and total value of single additional payments it makes to supported asylum seekers.

  Payment of a single additional payment (SAP) is achieved by increasing one of the regular weekly subsistence payments by the required £50. The value of all regular weekly payments is stored within each individual's computer record, together with associated explanation. NASS can, therefore, confirm the payment of a SAP to an individual and could ultimately obtain the requested statistics, but the cost in doing so would be disproportionate.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will answer the letter from the hon. Member for Torbay of 9 January concerning Hazir Ymeri. [54241]

  Angela Eagle
  My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Rooker wrote to the hon. Member on 8 May 2002. I apologise for the delay.

  MI5
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons sought to obtain agreement from the Director General of MI5 to allow them to begin paid employment outside the service in each year from 1 May 1997. [54670]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 8 May 2002]: Since 1 May 1997 three people of Director grade or above sought the Director General's agreement before accepting employment, or establishing or engaging in consultancies, within two years of retirement or resignation. In each case the applications were approved unconditionally.

  Any member of staff, irrespective of grade is required to seek approval from the Director of Establishments for the Service before taking up employment with a business or organisation with which they have had direct or indirect dealings within the last two years of service. No central record is kept of such requests or authorisations.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with other Government Departments on the(a) level of illegal meat imports to the UK and (b) effectiveness of port controls and enforcement measures to tackle illegal meat imports in respect of his responsibilities for border control and immigration. [19545]
  476W
  Angela Eagle
  I am extremely sorry for the delay in replying to the hon. Member. This was due to an administrative error.

  Home Office Ministers regularly have discussions with ministerial colleagues and officials in many parts of Government. In line with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information details of such confidential discussions are not normally disclosed.

  Department officials have met colleagues in other Government Departments to assist in co-ordinating action across Government to ensure that rules on imports of all products are enforced effectively. The Immigration Service has instructed its officers at ports of arrival to be vigilant and where appropriate, to refuse entry to the United Kingdom to those offenders identified as being engaged in the illegal importation of meat and meat products.

  Building Projects
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the building projects under construction; and what coolant will be used for the building services water chilling system for such projects. [52047]

  Angela Eagle
  A list covering the projects in construction for the Home Office, including Prison Service, but excluding maintenance works and non-departmental public bodies has been placed in the Library. Most of the projects listed. do not involve the use of cooling systems. Records are not held centrally of the type of cooling systems or the coolants used and to provide this information would be at disproportionate cost. Where coolants are to be used on non-prison projects, these are currently planned to be either R407(a), R407(c) or R134(a) although these could be subject to change in the course of the works.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Functions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the functions of his Department that have been(a) market tested and (b) outsourced in each of the last five years, specifying the (i) money saving and (ii) percentage saving in each case. [42994]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has not market-tested any functions over the last five years. It has outsourced the following functions during this period:

  December 1997: ARAMIS, a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract for the provision of accounting, financial, payroll and Management Information Services—a money saving of £122.41 million over 9 years three months at 1998 prices;

  July 1999: Probate Records Centre, a PFI contract for the design, build, financing and operation of central probate records store for England and Wales—a money saving of £16.4 million over 25 years at 1999 prices;

  September 2001: Pensions administration—a money saving of £260,759 over three years at today's prices.

  The answer does not provide money saving and percentage saving because the combination of the two would allow contractual payments to contractors to be

  477W
  identified. This information is commercially confidential and is withheld under exemption 13 of the Code of Practice On Access to Government Information.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  PCS Union Strike
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if it is his policy that participation of staff in the PCS Union strike action be taken into account in future decisions on promotion. [30431]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  No.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the publications issued by his Department in each of the last four years; and what the(a) circulation, (b) cost and (c) purpose of each was. [34189]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To keep people aware of their rights, responsibilities and eligibility for benefit the Department issues many hundreds of publications each year. To list each title, its circulation, cost and purpose would be at disproportionate cost.

  Housing Payment Scheme
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the budget for the discretionary housing payment scheme is broken down by local authority; [41487]

  (2) what the budget was for the exceptional hardship payment scheme in (a) cash and (b) real terms since 1997, broken down by local authority; [41488]

  (3) what the reasons were for changing from the exceptional hardship payment scheme to the discretionary housing payment scheme; and how the change was announced. [41489]

  Malcolm Wicks
  From 2 July 2001 we replaced the exceptional hardship and exceptional circumstances schemes with improved arrangements that are broader in scope than the old regulatory provisions. Subject to certain conditions, local authorities are now able to give additional payments to any person whose housing benefit or council tax benefit is restricted where they are satisfied the person is in need of further financial assistance with housing costs or council tax liability. Unlike the old scheme there are no prescribed definitions of either "exceptional hardship" or "exceptional circumstances". The new measures give local authorities and incentive to direct funds to helping those people most in need.

  The introduction of the discretionary housing payments scheme was announced in the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on 13 July 2000, Official Report, column 638W. Implementation of the scheme was deferred until July 2001 in response to representations from local authorities.
  478W
  The discretionary housing payments scheme budget for 2002–03 by local authority is in Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Circular A/2002, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  The available details of the budget by local authority for the exceptional hardship scheme since 1997 (and for the discretionary housing payments scheme between July 2001 and March 2002) in both cash and real terms have been placed in the Library.

  E-business
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the percentage of business transactions that are capable of being carried out electronically by his Department. [43360]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 14 March 2002]: Currently our customers can easily access electronic information on all our benefits and services via the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) website or through the life episodes on UKonline. People looking for work can access the worktrain website and Job Bank to interactively search for job opportunities—this is one of the most used Government sites.

  In addition, almost 70 of our benefits have claim forms available on the internet which customers can access, fill out, print out and submit back to us. Electronic payments can also be made directly into customers' bank accounts.

  But, in line with the cross-Government target of electronically e-enabling all services by 2005, and also rising trends in our customer base to use interactive media, we are undertaking a programme of radical change to our IT systems which will allow full e-enablement.

  Criminal Damage
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost has been of criminal damage to his Department's buildings in each of the last four years. [44848]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Under the terms of the Prime contract, responsibility for meeting the costs of repairing damage to former DSS buildings falls to Trillium. Accordingly, no central records are kept and this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what have been the total salary costs of each of the non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible in each of the last five years. [50300]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is not available for the period before April 2000. Such information that is available is in the following table. The costs given in the table are the total fees paid to members of each of the non-departmental bodies for the year stated.

  The amount paid out in fees is mainly dependant upon the number of referrals made by the Department to the three advisory councils. Increased activity required of the advisory councils in 2001–02 has therefore resulted in an overall increase in the amount of fees paid.
  479W

  Fees for non-departmental public bodies

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Number of members claiming fees

  Number of claims for fees

  Total amount of fees paid (£)

  Number of members claiming fees

  Number of claims for fees

  Total amount of fees paid(£)

  Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board

  21

  119

  27,248·60

  20

  130

  35,192·33

  Industrial Injuries Advisory Council

  15

  77

  8,097·16

  15

  85

  9,110·72

  Pensions Compensation Board

  2

  4

  684·00

  2

  6

  1,056·00

  Social Security Advisory Committee

  13

  96

  23,067·24

  16

  113

  29,283·27

  Total

  51

  296

  59,097·00

  53

  334

  74,642·32

  Mr. W. J. Baber
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Leominster dated 27 February on behalf of Mr. W. J. Baber concerning non-payment of incapacity benefit in the first three days of illness. [50630]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I replied to the hon. Member on 18 April.

  Autism
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what training employment advisers are given in respect of the needs of people with autistic spectrum disorders who are seeking work. [51205]

  Maria Eagle
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the chief executive, Leigh Lewis. I have asked him to reply to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Dr. Stephen Ladyman, dated 13 May 2002:
  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning the training employment advisers are given in respect of the needs of people with autistic spectrum disorders who are seeking work.Disability awareness open learning materials are available to all advisers, and are an important pre-requisite for attendance on all disability training courses. The open learning materials contain information provided by the National Autistic Society and its associated 'Prospects' employment programme to support people with Asperger syndrome. The topics covered are;
  What is autism?

  What causes autism?

  What is Asperger syndrome?

  What causes Asperger syndrome?

  Tips for advisers

  Useful techniques for interviewing

  Potential benefits of employing people with autism/Aspergers syndrome

  Difficulties that may occur in the work place

  Employment Support

  Where to go for more help

  In addition, advisers have access to a Special Needs External Organisations Directory which includes information on autism and Asperger syndrome.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Long-stay Patient Benefit
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many people in the United Kingdom are in receipt of long-stay patients' benefit; [51541]
  480W
  (2) how many people in the United Kingdom are in receipt of long- stay patient benefit. [51544]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows:

  As at 30 September 2001 there were 10,000 retirement pensioners whose pension had been reduced because they had been in hospital for more than 52 weeks.

  As at 30 November 2001 there were 13,000 incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance recipients whose benefit was reduced due to them being in hospital for more than 52 weeks.

  As at 30 November 2001 there were 3,000 income support recipients who had their benefit reduced due to being in hospital for more than 52 weeks.

  The hospital downrating rules prevents double provision from public funds as the publicly funded NHS maintains people while they stay in hospital as well as providing free treatment. Social security maintenance benefits are also paid from state funds. They are therefore not paid in full indefinitely where a person is in a NHS hospital and having their day to day living expenses met through the NHS.

  The double provision principle is a key cornerstone of the system of national insurance introduced over 50 years ago.

  Recruitment
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many net additional staff his Department has recruited in each month since June 2001 at(a) executive officer level and (b) administrative level. [52431]

  Maria Eagle
  Data on staffing levels in the civil service are collected by the Cabinet Office twice yearly, with figures being reported as at 1 April and 1 October. Headline figures are published under National Statistics guidelines via a press notice. Those for October 2001 were published on 21 February 2002 and are available in the Library. Figures are not collected centrally on a month to month basis.

  Digital Equipment
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many digital radios are owned by his Department for use in departmental buildings from which Ministers work; and what the(a) cost and (b) date of purchase of each radio was. [52859]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: None.
  481W

  Access to Work Scheme
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many applications have been received monthly since the creation of Access to Work; and what proportion of those applications have been(a) accepted and (b) rejected broken down by grounds for rejection. [53042]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  From the start of the Access to Work programme in June 1994 to 31 March 2001, 54,481 applications have been supported, an average of 262 new applications a month. Eligibility is discussed prior to any application being made, so applications are made only by those eligible for help through Access to Work.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

  Electoral Process (Participation)
  Martin Linton
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, if he will ask the Electoral Commission to report on measures to increase participation in elections following the turnout in the local elections. [54000]

  Mr. Beith
  In accordance with its statutory obligations, the Electoral Commission will be evaluating the pilot schemes implemented by 30 local authorities across England at the May 2002 local elections. These pilot schemes were aimed at increasing turnout and modernising the electoral process. The Commission will submit its evaluation reports to the Secretary of State for the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions by 2 August, and the reports will be published.

  Misleading Election Material
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, what assessment the Electoral Commission has made of the effect on turnout of the distribution of deliberately wrong information in election material. [54001]

  Mr. Beith
  I understand from the Chairman that the Commission has made no assessment of the effect on turnout of the distribution of deliberately wrong information in election material. The publication of false statements of fact in relation to a candidate may amount to an illegal practice under section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 and should be reported to the police.

  Local Elections (Administration)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission when the Electoral Commission will assess the operations of the local elections of 2 May; and if he will make a statement. [54002]

  Mr. Beith
  The commission has a statutory duty to report on the conduct of a range of elections, including Parliamentary general elections, European Parliament elections, and elections to the Scottish Parliament, Northern Ireland Assembly and National Assembly 482W
  for Wales. There is no statutory obligation for the commission to report on the operation of local elections, but the commission will be evaluating the electoral pilot schemes held in 30 local authority areas in May 2002. The commission's evaluation is expected to be published in August 2002.

  Public Bodies (Scrutiny)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what extra resources the commission will provide to enable the National Audit Office to carry out more examinations of executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies. [54004]

  Mr. Alan Williams
  Following the commission's consideration in March of the National Audit Office's Estimate for 2002–03, I wrote the Comptroller and Auditor General asking him how the NAO, through further Value for Money Studies (on top of the 50 or so a year at present), could expand the scope of scrutiny—and thus the perceived risk of scrutiny—among accountable bodies, in particular executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies. The commission will consider any proposals in this direction from the Comptroller and Auditor General when they review the National Audit Office's Corporate Plan for 2003 to 2006 in the summer.

  Proportional Representation (Scotland)
  John Robertson
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, what recent discussions the Commission has had with the Scottish Executive regarding proportional representation in Scotland. [53997]

  Mr. Beith
  I understand from the Chairman of the Commission that Commissioners and staff meet regularly with members and staff of the Scottish Executive. However, no discussions regarding proportional representation have taken place with the Scottish Executive. The Commission has no statutory responsibilities in respect of local elections in Scotland and so does not intend to comment on the Executive's current consultation exercise about the possible extension of proportional representation to local government elections.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Pre-school Funding
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to the answer of 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 711W, on pre-school funding, when the Ofsted and QCA files referred to will be placed in the Library. [39422]

  Margaret Hodge
  Following further investigation into the matter with staff operating in the area at the time, we have established that the decision was reached on the basis of verbal discussions between the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority and the Department for Education and Employment, in 1997. No records of those discussions have been traced.
  483W
  Given that the guidelines have been in place for a significant time I will keep the situation under review.

  Criminal Damage
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost has been of criminal damage to her Department's buildings in each of the last four years. [44834]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The cost of criminal damages against the Department's buildings where the police were involved was approximately £5,000 in 2001. During the previous three years no costs were incurred.

  Further Education Colleges
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the effectiveness of the outcomes of imposing efficiency targets on further education colleges since 1997. [52565]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Government has sought to improve the efficiency of further education since 1997 and colleges have delivered real improvements in value for money. Since 1996–97 the participation funding for each full-time equivalent (FTE) student has remained constant in real terms, while total funding for each FTE student has increased by 12 per cent. in real terms (reflecting the additional funds targeted on much needed capital developments, standards and teachers pay). Over the same period colleges have widened participation among learners, broadened programmes of study for 16–19- year-olds and increased basic skills provision. Qualification success rates for long (24 weeks or over) qualifications have increased from 51 per cent. in 1996–97 to 56 per cent. in 1999–2000 (the latest year available). When shorter courses are also taken into account, qualification success rates have increased from 56 per cent. in 1996–97 to 60 per cent. in 1999–2000. The Government recognises that investment is important for raising standards further and will set out future funding plans for colleges as part of the Spending Review outcome.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what requirements have been(a) placed on and (b) removed from further education and sixth form colleges in the last year for which information is available. [54436]

  Margaret Hodge
  The following major requirements were placed upon further education colleges and sixth from colleges in England during the financial year 2001–02.
  A requirement for all new teachers entering further education from 1 September 2001 to hold, or acquire within two to four years, an FE teaching qualification or schools equivalent.Colleges have been made subject to inspection by Ofsted and the Adult Learning Inspectorate by virtue of the Learning and Skills Act 2000.A requirement for colleges to follow replacement Instrument and Articles of Government for all colleges in the FE sector effective from 1 April 2001.484W
  The requirement to meet the terms of the previous Instrument and Articles of Government was removed.

  In addition, the Learning and Skills Council is responsible for funding further education and sixth form colleges, and also places requirements on colleges. I have therefore asked the chief executive of the LSC, John Harwood, to write to you directly on this matter.

  Work-based Learning
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of whether there are sufficient resources in the Standards Fund for 2002–03 to improve the provider infrastructure for work-based learning. [53097]

  Margaret Hodge
  We have increased standards funding from £160 million in 2001–02 to £185 million in 2002–03. We have also ensured that work-based learning providers have access to the new Learning and Skills Standards Fund from April 2002. Local LSCs will allocate standards funding to providers based on individual need and national and local priorities and targets. An evaluation of the impact of the new Fund's operation, including provision for work-based learning, is planned to start in the Autumn of 2002.

  Teachers' Salaries
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will award additional resources to the Learning and Skills Council to cover salary increases for(a) sixth form staff and (b) general FE staff agreed as part of their central negotiation structure. [53121]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: The investments we are making via the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) to support both school sixth forms and further education colleges should ensure that staff receive appropriate salary increases this year. The real terms guarantee (RTG) for schools with sixth forms means that their funding will be protected at least at 2000–01 levels, providing pupil numbers are maintained. Indeed in 2002–03 around two thirds of sixth forms will benefit with higher funding from the LSC's formula funding and the remaining third will be funded at their RTG level.

  We are also investing significant funding in the FE sector. In 2001–02, £527 million extra was planned for FE—a 12 per cent. real terms increase, with a further 3 per cent. increase this year. By 2003–04, annual funding for FE will have increased by £1.4 billion compared with 1997–98, a real terms increase of 26 per cent. It is for each college to agree annual pay rises and conditions of employment with its staff in the context of the overall resources available to them. Within the total funds for FE, the Teaching Pay Initiative (TPI) budget is £311 million over the period 2001–04. This is to reward excellent teaching and is over and above any general pay rise.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will take steps to ensure parity of pay scales between teachers working in further education and teachers working in schools. [54625]
  485W
  Margaret Hodge
  Teachers in maintained schools are subject to national school teachers' pay and conditions. Further education sector colleges are run by independent corporations established under the Further Education and Higher Education Act 1992 and there is no national pay structure in place. Colleges are free to establish pay scales that meet their needs and can be agreed with their staff. This Government have acknowledged the historic funding gap between schools and FE and we have pledged to bring up levels of funding and ensure upward convergence over time. The Teaching Pay Initiative (TPI) budget is £31 1 million over the period 2001–04. This is to reward excellent teaching and is over and above any general pay rise. The additional investment we are making in the FE sector should help support the pay aspirations of their staff.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent improvements the Government have made to buildings and teaching facilities in higher education. [53629]

  Margaret Hodge
  In 1999–2000 the Government made available £35 million in England for higher education capital funding. In the succeeding years, the amounts made available were £50 million, £100 million, £145 million. and in 2003–04 £194 million, to support the teaching infrastructure, modernise and improve the estates and build new medical schools. Of this, £56 million over two years to 2003–04 is to help institutions meet the cost of the statutory changes relating to the access parts of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001.

  To this, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) adds funding which it finds from its own resources to promote capital investment, often with contributions from others. For example, between 1998–99 and 2002–03 the HEFCE Poor Estates Initiative has invested £291 million in the sector, supporting 149 projects at 80 institutions with a total value of £950 million.

  Alongside this, the Government, in partnership with the Welcome Trust, have plans to invest some £1.75 billion in research infrastructure in universities and elsewhere over the four years to 2003–04.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much more investment has been put into higher education in the current spending review than in the previous year. [53630]

  Margaret Hodge
  Since 1998, the total additional funding for institutions is £1.7 billion, an increase of 37 per cent. in cash terms or 18 per cent. in real terms over the six years to 2003–04. Publicly planned funding for higher education in England in 2001–02 is £.396 million more than in 2000–01, so that for the first time in over a decade funding per student will rise in real terms, and further expansion of student places will be fully funded in the following two years. In addition the sector will benefit from £1 billion joint Welcome Trust and Government investment in research and technology infrastructure between 2002 and 2004, plus further 486W
  funding of £250 million over the three years to 2003–04 through the Office of Science and Technology for priority research in areas such as e-science and genomics.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her Department's definition is of higher education in the context of her Department's target for 50 per cent. of all 18 to 30-year-olds to experience higher education by 2010; and if she will make a statement. [55060]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Government are committed to increasing and widening participation in higher education so that more young people benefit from the opportunities that higher education brings in terms of employability, earnings and quality of life. At the same time, we want to ensure that we meet the UK's needs for a highly skilled, competitive work force.

  We measure participation in higher education by means of the Initial Entry Rate (IER). The IER includes all courses of one year or more, above A-level and its equivalents, which lead to a qualification awarded by higher education institutions or widely recognised national awarding bodies (eg. the Institute of Management).

  We are also currently seeking advice from the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority regarding a very small number of professional qualifications of less than one year's duration, for example in nursing, law, business and management. The QCA will advise us whether the nature and content of these qualifications could appropriately be classified as being of higher education standard.

  Child Care
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children's places there were in(a) Southwark, (b) London and (c) England in (i) May 1997, (ii) May 2001 and (iii) April 2002; and if she will make a statement. [52033]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: The information is not available in the form requested. The available information, which was provided by local authorities, is shown in the table.

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

  From 1998 to 2001 Southwark has received £837,370 of child care and European Social Fund supported grant funding. In 2001–02 £240,765 of European Social Fund money and £2,961,854 of child care funding was available for Southwark's early years development. Of this £2,301,424 is funding from the Neighbourhood Nursery Initiative (NNI), which hopes to create 45,000 child care places in Neighbourhood Nursery Centres in disadvantaged areas over the period 2001–04. In 2002–03 Southwark will receive £754,430 of child care and European Social Fund supported grant funding.
  487W

  Day care places for children under 8 in 1997 and 2001—Southwark, London and England (position at March 31 each year)

  Day nurseries

  Childminders

  Playgroups

  Out of school clubs

  Holiday schemes1

  1997

  2001

  1997

  2001

  1997

  2001

  1997

  2001

  1997

  2001

  Southwark

  1,650

  1,906

  1,048

  1,081

  1,111

  904

  2,077

  3,113

  2,305

  4,940

  Greater London

  27,650

  44,834

  47,562

  38,504

  41,534

  31,111

  13,731

  32,207

  45,574

  140,261

  Inner London2

  15,052

  22,751

  13,106

  10,639

  9,899

  8,405

  8,180

  20,422

  19,210

  63,180

  Outer London2

  12,598

  22,083

  34,456

  27,865

  31,635

  22,706

  5,551

  11,785

  26,364

  77,081

  England

  193,800

  285,100

  365,200

  304,600

  383,700

  330,200

  78,700

  152,800

  209,000

  598,000

  1Holiday schemes cannot be directly compared due to changes in instructions given to data providers.

  2The 2001 definition of inner and outer London is used.

  Engineering Qualifications
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent representations she has received in respect of new vocational qualifications in engineering; if she will make it her policy to extend funding approval for existing qualifications pending further consultation on the curriculum design of the new qualifications; and if she will make a statement. [53827]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I have received representations from the National Forum for Engineering in Colleges. I am aware of the importance of existing qualifications to the continued running of Modern Apprenticeships and have consequently asked the Learning and Skills Council to identify which are essential until new accredited qualifications can replace them. The LSC is working closely with relevant sector bodies, including EMTA for engineering, to that end. Once the qualifications are identified and following consultation with the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, I will take action to approve them. Outside the Modern Apprenticeship context, approvals will be limited to qualifications accredited by the QCA. Persons over 19 should have no problem in accessing existing courses, as LSC funding for them is not dependent on there being an approved qualification.

  Engineering Course
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what assessment she has made of whether the new AVCE engineering course has been introduced as intended; and if she will make a statement on the opportunity the course gives students to achieve grades that will enable them to follow their chosen career paths; [54543]

  (2) what action she is taking to ensure that students undertaking the AVCE engineering course will attain grades appropriate to their achievement in their course of study; [54544]

  (3) what discussions she has had with the Chief Inspector on the examination of the AVCE course in engineering; [54545]

  (4) what action she has taken to ensure high quality assessment of students undertaking the AVCE course; [54546]

  (5) what discussions she has had with further education colleges on the AVCE engineering course examinations assessment; [54547]
  488W
  (6) what action she is taking to ensure that examination boards for the AVCE course in engineering are able to evaluate the course content that students have studied. [54548]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) is monitoring all new AVCE qualifications, including engineering, as part of its remit to review the performance of the awarding bodies in delivering qualifications. AVCE courses give students suitable opportunities to achieve grades to enable them to follow their chosen career paths, including progression to employment, higher education or further training such as modern apprenticeships.

  QCA's work in monitoring the work of awarding bodies includes ensuring that qualifications are suitable for purpose and that students have the opportunity to achieve grades which reflect their achievement.

  The Secretary of State has not had discussions with the Chief Inspector on the subject in question. However, Ofsted Inspectors have programme of visits and inspections of schools and colleges to enable them to inspect standards. QCA held a two-day conference for awarding body chief examiners in November 2001.

  AVCE qualifications have been designed to ensure that they are fully comparable with GCE A levels. QCA is charged with the task of maintaining standards of assessment and ensuring that it is consistent across all awarding bodies.

  QCA and departmental officials have visited FE colleges to discuss the AVCE engineering course assessment.

  Awarding bodies provide training and guidance to examiners on assessment. QCA is working with the awarding bodies to ensure that this training and guidance is appropriate and effective and that assessment gives a fair appraisal of students' achievement.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was spent in total by local education authorities on transport for special needs pupils in the latest year for which figures are available. [54865]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Provisional figures for 2000–01, the latest year for which figures are available, show that £245.2 million was spent by local education authorities on transport for pupils with special education needs.
  489
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the funding allocations for special educational needs(a) in the east midlands and (b) in Nottinghamshire are in 2002–03; and what the average is in England. [55416]

  Mr. Timms
  Local education authorities' budget statements contain information about the notional allocations made to schools for pupils with special educational needs and the funding retained centrally by the authority. The Department is in the process of collecting data relating to the 2002–03 financial year. I shall write to my hon. Friend when the information is to hand.

  London Weighting
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to equalise the London weighting allowance for staff working in further education and tertiary colleges. [54595]

  Margaret Hodge
  General further education colleges and sixth form colleges are independent corporations and determine their own staff pay and allowance policies. The allowances will, therefore, vary from college to college and the Government have no plans to change this.

  Playground Safety
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures she has introduced to improve the safety of playgrounds at(a) primary and (b) secondary schools. [54795]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department's publication "School Grounds, A Guide to Good Practice", contains detailed advice on design and management. This includes guidance on safety issues in school playgrounds.

  While there is not any specific funding for upgrading playgrounds, the Government's capital investment in schools in England has risen from £683 million in 1997–98 to £3 billion in the current year (2002–03), and will rise to £3.5 billion next year (2003–04). Local education authorities and schools may draw on this funding for projects which improve playground safety.

  Nursery Education
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children are in maintained nursery education. [54888]

  Margaret Hodge
  The available information on the number of three and four-year-old children in maintained nursery schools and nursery classes in maintained primary schools is shown in the table.

  The figures for three and four-year-olds in schools and private and voluntary providers were published in Statistical Bulletin 11/01 "Provision for children under five years of age in England-January 2001" which is available at www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics/ and from the Library.
  490W

  Number and percentage of three and four-year-olds1,2 in maintained nursery schools and nursery classes in maintained primary schools: England—1997—2001

  Position in January each year

  Number3

  Percentage

  1997

  367,400

  29

  1998

  368,400

  29

  1999

  366,900

  30

  2000

  362,700

  30

  20014

  —

  —

  1Head count of children aged three and four at 31 December in the previous calendar year, rounded to the nearest 100.

  2Numbers of three and four-year-olds may include some two-year-olds.

  3Number attending provider expressed as a percentage of three and four-year-old population.

  4This information is not available for 2001 due to the transition to new methods of data collection.

  Information and Communication Technology
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the recent Ofsted report on ICT in schools. [54890]

  Mr. Timms
  We welcome the report, it shows that National Grid for Learning (NGfL) and New Opportunities Fund (NOF) initiatives along with sustained standards fund spending is making a real impact on both standards of teaching and the willingness of teachers to embrace ICT. We particularly welcome the report's confirmation that Government funding of ICT resources through the NGfL continues to make an important contribution to the development of the ICT curriculum and the use of new technologies in schools, and the recognition that this is beginning to impact on teaching and learning.

  The report acknowledges that the existence of the NOF programme has raised the profile of ICT training in many schools and it has helped teachers to improve their ICT skills significantly. However, we recognise that the report also raises concerns that this has not had as widespread an effect on classroom practice as intended, or as might reasonably be expected at this stage of the programme. We will be working with NOF and the Teacher Training Agency to ensure that the concerns are addressed and that we establish the most effective support for teachers who are crucial to the successful implementation of the overall programme. We also note, however, that the report recognises the excellent take up of this training and we look forward to increased evidence of impact as more schools complete their training.

  The report highlights personal access as one of the strongest influences toward successful training and classroom usage. We have provided over 50,000 teachers with PCs through various Government initiatives over the past few years, of which around 32,000 have been supplied via the Computers for Teachers Scheme. The current £100 million Laptops for Teachers scheme will supply a further 100,000 teachers with computers from September 2002. Our Curriculum Online project will enable online access to digital learning materials that are easily accessible to teachers and which they can use to support the teaching across the curriculum.
  491W

  Protection Rackets (Schools)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information she has collated about the presence of protection rackets in secondary schools involving teenage pupils. [54892]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We do not specifically collect any information about the presence of protection rackets in secondary schools involving teenage pupils.

  Teacher Numbers (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers were in service in Worcestershire in(a) January 2001 and (b) January 2002. [54979]

  Mr. Timms
  There were 4,430 full-time equivalent teachers in service in the maintained schools sector in Worcestershire in January 2001.

  Data for January 2002 are not yet available at local education authority level.

  Information on teachers in service in January 2002 by local education authority will be published in the Teachers in England statistical volume in December 2002.

  Part-time teachers have been converted to an estimate of their full-time equivalence and added to full-time numbers.

  Teachers' Pensions
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the annual percentage increase in teachers' pensions is in the next financial year. [54981]

  Mr. Timms
  Teachers' pensions, in common with all other public service pensions, are increased in line with the retail prices index. Increases are confirmed in the annual Pensions (Increase) Review Orders: the increase for the financial year 2002–03, as specified in the 2002 order, is 1.7 per cent. The order confirming the increase for 2003–04 will be published next spring.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers applied for medically-supported retirement for the Teachers' Pension Scheme in each of the last three years; and what the average time to reach a decision on these applications was. [55706]

  Mr. Timms
  The numbers of applications for ill health retirement by members of the Teachers' Pension Scheme (which covers schools, FE and some HE and independent establishments) in each of the last three years were:

  Number

  1999–2000

  4,394

  2000–01

  4,388

  2001–02

  4,270

  The scheme administrator and the contracted medical advisers work to agreed service levels for actioning cases at the different stages in the process. The target is to process applications within 25 working days (cumulative). Current performance reports show that the target is
  492W
  achieved in 98 per cent. of cases. Periods during which cases are in abeyance pending receipt of additional information to enable a decision to be reached (most frequently further medical reports) are not included in the 25 day target.

  University Requirements
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what requirements have been(a) placed on and (b) removed from universities in the last year for which information is available. [55083]

  Margaret Hodge
  Universities in England comply with statutory and Regulatory requirements approved by Parliament as well as conditions of grant set by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and requirements placed on them by a number of professional bodies.

  During 2001–02 no additional statutory requirements were placed on higher education institutions by this Department. The Student Support Regulations for 2001–02 replaced those for 2000–01, but these have not appreciably changed the burden on institutions.

  The Secretary of State's priorities for the higher education sector are disseminated annually through her grant letter to HEFCE each November. Some of these priorities, when implemented by the Funding Council, will result in requirements being placed on higher education institutions.

  During this same period, consultations on a new method of quality review in institutions were undertaken and new arrangements will be in place from 2002. This represents a significant reduction in review activity carried out at institutions.

  Key Stage 2
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will review the revised targets for Key Stage 2 national tests for 2004. [55567]

  Mr. Timms
  Primary school standards have improved considerably since 1997, and we are committed to raising standards further. We have set challenging targets for 2004, that 85 per cent. of 11-year-olds should achieve the expected standard, level 4, and that 35 per cent. should achieve level 5. We are confident that we will see further improvements in the Key Stage 2 results this year, which will provide a good platform for achieving the 2004 targets.

  Teachers
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many local authorities operate their own schemes to supply teaching staff to schools; and if she will list the authorities which do not operate schemes to provide teaching staff to schools. [55180]

  Mr. Timms
  This information is not collected centrally. However, most local education authorities support schools in a variety of ways to find supply cover, and to recruit teachers. This includes traditional supply
  493W
  lists, preferred agency suppliers, and full agency-type operations. The Quality Mark for supply teacher agencies announced on 2 May will assist LEAs in identifying options for their schools. 97 recruitment strategy managers are attached to LEAs, co-ordinating recruitment and retention strategies.

  School Governors
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what new requirements have(a) been removed from and (b) been placed on school governors in the last year for which information is available. [55184]

  Mr. Timms
  We have recently introduced a gatekeeping system to help assess and manage proposals for giving new responsibilities to governing bodies. The information in the form requested will not be available until the gatekeeping system has bedded in.

  Correspondence
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she will reply to the letter of 12 March from the hon. Member for Walsall, North regarding St. Thomas More School, Willenhall. [55924]

  Mr. Timms
  The hon. Member's letter of 12 March was not received in the Department until 19 April. I replied on 9 May.

  National Curriculum
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of 14 year old(a) boys and (b) girls reached level 5 in national curriculum tests in (i) English, (b) mathematics and (c) science in each of the past five years. [55418]

  Mr. Timms
  The table shows the percentage of pupils who achieved level 5 or above in the Key Stage 3 tests in England in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001.

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  20011

  English

  Boys

  48

  56

  55

  55

  56

  Girls

  67

  73

  73

  73

  73

  All

  57

  65

  64

  64

  64

  Mathematics

  Boys

  60

  60

  62

  64

  65

  Girls

  60

  59

  62

  65

  67

  All

  60

  59

  62

  65

  66

  Specialist schools capital and recurrent allocations expressed as £ per pupil

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  LEA

  Cap.

  Rev.

  Cap.

  Rev.

  Cap.

  Rev.

  Cap.

  Rev.

  Cap.

  Rev.

  Barking and Dagenham

  —

  100

  —

  109

  —

  111

  27

  100

  —

  113

  Barnet

  —

  105

  30

  95

  —

  109

  —

  109

  23

  103

  Barnsley

  —

  —

  118

  72

  —

  121

  —

  123

  —

  123

  Bath and north-east Somerset

  —

  110

  50

  85

  20

  106

  —

  116

  20

  111

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  77

  47

  —

  96

  —

  107

  56

  84

  Bexley

  —

  110

  —

  112

  —

  122

  —

  123

  44

  85

  Birmingham

  —

  105

  36

  84

  45

  87

  36

  113

  4

  135

  Blackburn and Darwen

  —

  —

  70

  151

  —

  91

  —

  127

  —

  130

  Blackpool

  —

  100

  48

  92

  —

  116

  —

  112

  29

  94

  Bolton

  —

  45

  99

  71

  55

  83

  19

  99

  —

  112

  Bournemouth

  —

  100

  —

  75

  83

  68

  —

  97

  —

  110

  494W

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  20011

  Science

  Boys

  61

  57

  55

  61

  66

  Girls

  60

  55

  55

  58

  66

  All

  60

  56

  55

  59

  66

  12001 data are provisional.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of(a) boys and (b) girls reached level 4 in national curriculum tests in (i) English, (ii) mathematics and (iii) science in each of the past five years. [55419]

  Mr. Timms
  The table shows the percentage of pupils who achieved level 4 or above in the Key Stage 2 tests in England in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001.

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  20011

  English

  Boys

  57

  57

  65

  70

  70

  Girls

  70

  73

  76

  79

  80

  All

  63

  65

  71

  75

  75

  Mathematics

  Boys

  63

  59

  69

  72

  71

  Girls

  61

  58

  69

  71

  70

  All

  62

  59

  69

  72

  71

  Science

  Boys

  68

  70

  79

  84

  87

  Girls

  69

  69

  78

  85

  88

  All

  69

  69

  78

  85

  87

  1 2001 data are provisional.

  Pupil Funding
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average amount of(a) capital and (b) revenue spending was for (i) primary school pupils and (ii) secondary school pupils in each LEA in England in each of the past five years. [55420]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is contained in the tables, which have been placed in the Library.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average amount of(a) capital and (b) revenue spending per pupil was in specialist schools in England in each of the past five years. [55421]

  Mr. Timms
  Information on all capital and recurrent spending in specialist schools is not held centrally. The following table details the additional funding per pupil allocated to schools as a result of their designation as a specialist school:
  495W

  Specialist schools capital and recurrent allocations expressed as £ per pupil

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  LEA

  Cap.

  Rev.

  Cap.

  Rev.

  Cap.

  Rev.

  Cap.

  Rev.

  Cap.

  Rev.

  Bracknell Forest

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bradford

  —

  99

  28

  87

  29

  100

  26

  108

  —

  128

  Brent

  —

  110

  —

  112

  —

  122

  26

  102

  21

  108

  Brighton and Hove

  100

  60

  —

  105

  36

  82

  —

  106

  34

  85

  Bristol

  —

  49

  —

  112

  47

  91

  32

  100

  38

  93

  Bromley

  —

  110

  —

  103

  —

  106

  16

  98

  13

  99

  Buckinghamshire

  23

  100

  —

  105

  19

  104

  43

  95

  9

  105

  Bury

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Calderdale

  —

  110

  —

  109

  —

  79

  74

  63

  42

  91

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  94

  48

  77

  —

  106

  34

  119

  —

  134

  Camden

  —

  100

  30

  94

  22

  97

  —

  108

  —

  108

  Cheshire

  32

  92

  22

  100

  19

  104

  18

  112

  40

  97

  City of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cornwall

  38

  97

  —

  103

  9

  105

  22

  101

  —

  111

  Coventry

  22

  90

  —

  43

  17

  102

  —

  102

  —

  111

  Croydon

  112

  62

  —

  106

  —

  116

  —

  114

  82

  86

  Cumbria

  38

  61

  —

  95

  19

  106

  35

  99

  10

  110

  Darlington

  —

  52

  52

  156

  46

  116

  30

  112

  —

  123

  Derby, City of

  —

  76

  —

  98

  44

  81

  27

  95

  —

  108

  Derbyshire

  23

  98

  —

  111

  20

  102

  43

  86

  —

  112

  Devon

  11

  85

  —

  93

  —

  97

  —

  108

  17

  97

  Doncaster

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  45

  65

  Dorset

  —

  101

  50

  87

  37

  104

  13

  106

  12

  113

  Dudley

  —

  100

  —

  110

  —

  120

  —

  123

  73

  79

  Durham

  133

  121

  30

  79

  17

  98

  9

  119

  8

  120

  Ealing

  —

  78

  39

  71

  28

  95

  32

  92

  13

  102

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  39

  88

  —

  106

  34

  88

  14

  103

  12

  106

  East Sussex

  35

  84

  —

  104

  38

  91

  35

  94

  34

  93

  Enfield

  —

  45

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Essex

  8

  92

  15

  95

  20

  99

  16

  100

  11

  106

  Gateshead

  39

  75

  36

  71

  —

  99

  14

  98

  —

  105

  Gloucestershire

  18

  101

  37

  94

  17

  103

  15

  106

  27

  105

  Greenwich

  36

  82

  —

  76

  18

  78

  —

  160

  25

  147

  Hackney

  61

  79

  61

  91

  —

  120

  23

  110

  —

  121

  Halton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  90

  67

  58

  95

  —

  117

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  100

  74

  —

  107

  —

  107

  Hampshire

  —

  105

  —

  104

  43

  65

  16

  123

  46

  94

  Haringey

  —

  100

  —

  104

  —

  107

  —

  107

  82

  127

  Harrow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  304

  205

  Hartlepool

  121

  60

  —

  112

  51

  86

  —

  113

  27

  96

  Havering

  —

  53

  —

  112

  —

  122

  48

  95

  30

  98

  Herefordshire

  —

  100

  52

  95

  —

  115

  —

  112

  —

  112

  Hertfordshire

  38

  87

  19

  96

  26

  104

  28

  102

  27

  103

  Hillingdon

  46

  91

  31

  93

  —

  109

  —

  109

  —

  109

  Hounslow

  49

  78

  —

  104

  —

  106

  —

  104

  27

  90

  Isle of Wight

  —

  50

  —

  112

  46

  90

  29

  72

  —

  106

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Islington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  111

  68

  —

  113

  —

  113

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  —

  108

  22

  94

  9

  107

  22

  106

  23

  103

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  —

  —

  61

  44

  49

  94

  —

  80

  —

  106

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kirklees

  24

  111

  17

  101

  —

  114

  —

  114

  —

  114

  Knowsley

  142

  60

  —

  112

  60

  97

  32

  96

  —

  115

  Lambeth

  78

  88

  —

  112

  42

  103

  —

  109

  —

  123

  Lancashire

  7

  104

  7

  105

  12

  108

  13

  113

  16

  109

  Leeds

  43

  73

  27

  81

  46

  89

  26

  122

  18

  115

  Leicester City

  —

  —

  95

  60

  31

  95

  18

  93

  —

  111

  Leicestershire

  28

  102

  17

  89

  —

  103

  15

  107

  7

  107

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  17

  85

  83

  433

  43

  91

  43

  94

  20

  115

  Liverpool

  19

  94

  —

  98

  15

  95

  31

  93

  17

  101

  Luton

  —

  110

  35

  67

  —

  105

  —

  107

  —

  77

  Manchester

  23

  90

  —

  109

  38

  95

  —

  114

  11

  108

  Medway

  —

  61

  —

  93

  31

  96

  23

  104

  —

  115

  Merton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Middlesbrough

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  94

  70

  —

  116

  Milton Keynes

  69

  66

  —

  79

  —

  100

  —

  110

  —

  110

  North-east Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  61

  53

  —

  196

  —

  94

  Newcastle

  22

  108

  —

  88

  31

  84

  —

  108

  —

  108

  Newham

  45

  124

  —

  83

  —

  100

  30

  92

  —

  108

  496W 497W

  Specialist schools capital and recurrent allocations expressed as £ per pupil

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  LEA

  Cap.

  Rev.

  Cap.

  Rev.

  Cap.

  Rev.

  Cap.

  Rev.

  Cap.

  Rev.

  Norfolk

  31

  102

  22

  98

  43

  84

  15

  104

  13

  105

  North Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  112

  54

  98

  34

  103

  29

  113

  North Somerset

  102

  60

  43

  78

  41

  84

  17

  103

  13

  101

  North Tyneside

  64

  132

  —

  112

  —

  122

  28

  111

  —

  123

  North Yorkshire

  93

  86

  —

  74

  35

  89

  30

  125

  12

  130

  Northamptonshire

  13

  110

  17

  97

  14

  101

  —

  107

  6

  105

  Northumberland

  35

  114

  —

  99

  43

  99

  12

  110

  —

  116

  Nottingham, City of

  —

  42

  —

  112

  —

  118

  —

  116

  24

  92

  Nottinghamshire

  40

  68

  —

  83

  —

  99

  17

  98

  57

  91

  Oldham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  85

  68

  —

  113

  44

  91

  Oxfordshire

  22

  106

  13

  83

  11

  97

  16

  89

  —

  110

  Peterborough, City of

  —

  —

  —

  112

  —

  118

  39

  86

  25

  94

  Plymouth

  —

  100

  27

  56

  30

  64

  —

  88

  23

  160

  Poole

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  86

  68

  36

  106

  Portsmouth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  79

  62

  41

  84

  Reading

  —

  —

  —

  111

  —

  108

  —

  98

  —

  109

  Redbridge

  —

  100

  —

  98

  26

  90

  32

  91

  —

  107

  Redcar and Cleveland

  —

  91

  —

  96

  —

  102

  —

  103

  37

  82

  Richmond

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  101

  73

  Rochdale

  30

  72

  —

  94

  —

  110

  22

  104

  —

  115

  Rotherham

  49

  82

  —

  107

  —

  114

  41

  87

  —

  113

  Rutland

  —

  110

  —

  112

  —

  121

  —

  123

  59

  97

  Salford

  —

  —

  184

  72

  55

  86

  —

  111

  —

  111

  Sandwell

  68

  63

  —

  97

  —

  111

  —

  115

  —

  115

  Sefton

  42

  85

  —

  97

  26

  91

  —

  110

  43

  103

  Sheffield

  22

  79

  —

  92

  —

  104

  44

  88

  17

  102

  Shropshire

  —

  106

  —

  94

  —

  105

  74

  79

  47

  95

  Slough

  —

  —

  —

  112

  —

  122

  130

  235

  53

  165

  Solihull

  —

  93

  —

  97

  —

  104

  —

  106

  27

  91

  Somerset

  64

  85

  24

  103

  36

  111

  14

  113

  30

  104

  South Gloucestershire

  35

  555

  24

  70

  —

  98

  —

  107

  —

  107

  South Tyneside

  —

  100

  —

  97

  —

  99

  —

  105

  —

  105

  Southampton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  96

  71

  Southend on Sea

  —

  —

  83

  60

  —

  100

  70

  88

  27

  104

  Southwark

  —

  100

  —

  40

  —

  —

  112

  74

  55

  98

  St. Helens

  —

  —

  —

  —

  79

  67

  24

  96

  —

  110

  Staffordshire

  31

  70

  —

  106

  —

  109

  37

  84

  35

  94

  Stockport

  —

  —

  —

  93

  —

  102

  —

  105

  —

  105

  Stockton

  —

  —

  122

  86

  —

  113

  —

  111

  —

  112

  Stoke on Trent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  127

  74

  76

  84

  —

  115

  Suffolk

  60

  103

  21

  110

  26

  101

  32

  99

  —

  115

  Sunderland

  —

  111

  58

  79

  —

  111

  21

  98

  —

  110

  Surrey

  19

  92

  —

  98

  8

  103

  13

  102

  17

  104

  Sutton

  —

  110

  —

  102

  —

  107

  —

  108

  —

  108

  Swindon

  —

  —

  103

  70

  —

  114

  —

  108

  —

  108

  Tameside

  —

  55

  —

  112

  44

  88

  —

  110

  —

  110

  Telford and Wrekin

  —

  —

  —

  110

  —

  120

  —

  123

  —

  123

  Thurrock

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  100

  74

  45

  89

  Torbay

  —

  —

  —

  112

  —

  120

  —

  121

  44

  89

  Tower Hamlets

  60

  77

  —

  112

  39

  107

  25

  102

  —

  101

  Trafford

  58

  142

  —

  106

  —

  110

  40

  97

  17

  90

  Wakefield

  —

  90

  —

  86

  25

  87

  15

  90

  20

  95

  Walsall

  —

  110

  54

  80

  —

  108

  29

  90

  24

  103

  Waltham Forest

  —

  110

  —

  109

  43

  94

  33

  103

  —

  113

  Wandsworth

  —

  100

  —

  91

  16

  79

  —

  146

  —

  148

  Warrington

  37

  122

  —

  79

  25

  90

  —

  111

  19

  104

  Warwickshire

  63

  90

  34

  85

  44

  95

  —

  115

  34

  95

  West Berkshire

  —

  110

  23

  115

  —

  99

  28

  103

  —

  109

  West Sussex

  42

  104

  —

  91

  9

  98

  —

  108

  20

  98

  Westminster

  156

  60

  —

  112

  —

  122

  56

  96

  —

  123

  Wigan

  23

  112

  15

  97

  13

  109

  —

  111

  —

  111

  Wiltshire

  50

  83

  —

  102

  43

  87

  10

  107

  —

  112

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  92

  68

  Wirral

  41

  84

  —

  97

  28

  94

  34

  93

  14

  100

  Wokingham

  —

  —

  85

  61

  —

  101

  46

  90

  —

  112

  Wolverhampton

  —

  101

  —

  96

  42

  103

  —

  129

  —

  129

  Worcestershire

  —

  44

  65

  68

  16

  98

  26

  104

  21

  105

  York, City of

  38

  78

  —

  101

  21

  75

  —

  88

  —

  89

  498W 499W
  Notes

  1. Specialist schools receive a one-off grant of £100,000 in their first year of designation for a capital project to support their specialist schools development plan. This matches the minimum £50,000 sponsorship which they are required to raise from the private sector when they apply for specialist school designation.

  2. In addition, an annual grant is available for the four years of specialist school designation to support the costs of implementing the development plan. Assuming schools are successful in meeting the targets they set out in their initial application they can apply for re-designation for a further three years.

  3. The annual grant is currently calculated at a rate of £123 per pupil up to 1,000 and over 1,200 pupils (special schools designated as specialist schools are funded at five times this rate). Funding in 1998–99 was calculated at the rate of £100 per pupil up to 1,000 pupils and this was increased to £120 per pupil in September 1999 to allow schools to develop the community element of their development plans. A further rise of £3 per pupil was implemented in September 2000.

  4. The 2002–03 figures do not include schools that are currently being considered in the March 2002 competition.

HEALTH

  Christmas Trees
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of potential risks to health caused by the chemical treatment of trees used as Christmas trees. [26702]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department has made no assessment to the potential risks.

  Locum Doctors
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his strategy is to boost the numbers of locum doctors available in(a) primary and (b) secondary care; and if he will make a statement. [48060]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is the responsibility of primary care trusts and NHS trusts to identify their own need for locum doctors in the primary and secondary care sectors respectively. It is accepted that locum doctors are an essential part of the NHS workforce.

  However, the focus of our plans to increase the size of the medical workforce is to increase the number of permanent doctors. Following the spending review settlement announced by the Chancellor in the Budget we have committed ourselves in "Delivering the NHS Plan" to increasing the medical workforce by at least 15,000 more consultants and GPs by 2008. This is on top of the 9,550 increase in doctors in the NHS since 1997.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the programme to improve business efficiency, referred to on page 41 of the 2001 report of the Food Standards Agency. [49229]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) continues to develop ways of improving organisational performance through a co-ordinated programme of activity designed to improve business efficiency.

  A major programme of staff training and development to ensure staff have the knowledge and skills to deliver a higher level of performance in meeting the FSA's business needs commenced in 2001. This provides the basis for the successful delivery of the other strands of the efficiency programme.

  The programme to improve business efficiency also encompasses the implementation of an effective procurement strategy, development and implementation of an e-strategy including the launch of a new 'user-friendly'
  500W
  website, and a critical appraisal of research programmes and management systems. A comprehensive information technology/information systems strategy has been developed leading to the re-letting of the FSA's IT system support contract.

  Dental Therapists
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when restrictions on dental therapists' rights to work throughout the dentistry sector are due to be lifted; [52061]

  (2) what efforts are being made to recruit and retain dental therapists in the NHS. [52062]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Dental Auxiliaries Regulations 1986 need to be amended by affirmative resolution to permit dental therapists to work in all fields of dentistry. We have now laid amending regulations before Parliament and they are to be debated during May. A much wider range of employment opportunities will become available to dental therapists once the restriction is removed which will make careers in dental therapy more attractive. In planning training commissions in the future we would expect workforce development confederations to take account of the contribution that dental therapists can make to dental services.

  Speech Therapists
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the reasons why some NHS trusts listed in the answer of 18 April 2002,Official Report, column 1185W, on speech therapists, are omitted from the list of NHS trusts deposited in the Library following the answer of 2 May 2002, Official Report, column 991W. [55916]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information placed in the Library lists all trusts who employ speech and language therapists.

  The vacancy rates for Royal Free Hampstead NHS trust and Tower Hamlets Healthcare NHS trust were not included because of doubts about data quality. Both trusts recently indicated that their vacancies as at 31 March 2001 were considerably lower than they had originally reported to the Department. Rates for a number of other trusts are not given where the sum of staff in post and vacancies is less than 10.

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Retained Organs Commission Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [53855]
  501W
  (2) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Treatment Agency Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [53861]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service Appointments Commission Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54052]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Care Standards Act 2000 (Commencement No. 2 (England) and Transitional Provisions) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [53840]

  (5) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Special Trustees for the Former United Birmingham Hospitals (Transfer of Trust Property) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [53838]

  (6) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Special Trustees for Newcastle University Hospitals (Transfer of Trust Property) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [53834]

  (7) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54047]

  (8) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Special Trustees for St. George's Hospital (Transfer of Trust Property) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [53833]

  (9) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Isles of Scilly (Primary Care) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [53849]

  (10) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Restriction on Pithing (England) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [53852]

  (11) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Special Trustees for the Former United Birmingham Hospitals (Transfer of Trust Property) Revocation Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54054]

  (12) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Medicines for Human Use and Medical Devices (Fees and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54050]

  (13) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service (General Dental Services) Amendment Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [53839]

  (14) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Special Trustees for the Former United Birmingham Hospitals (Transfer of Trust Property) No. 2 Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54053]

  (15) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [53829]
  502W
  (16) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Health Act 1999 (Commencement No. 10) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [53836]

  (17) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service (Functions of Health Authorities and Administration Arrangements) (England) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [53856]

  (18) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service (Optical Charges and Payments) Amendment Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [53854]

  (19) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals National Health Service Trust (Establishment) Amendment Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54051]

  (20) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Isles of Scilly (Health) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [53851]

  (21) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Disabled Children (Direct Payments) (England) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [53845]

  (22) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Trustees for the North and East Devon Health Authority (Transfer of Trust Property) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [53865]

  (23) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Care Standards Commission (Membership and Procedure) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54048]

  (24) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Feeding Stuffs (Sampling and Analysis) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [53850]

  (25) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Special Trustees for St. Bartholomew's Hospital (Transfer of Trust Property) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [53863]

  (26) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Assistance (Sums for Personal Requirements) (England) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54049]

  (27) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Amendment (No. 2) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54044]

  (28) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service (General Dental Services) Amendment Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [53848]

  (29) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service (Dental Charges) Amendment Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [53846]
  503W
  (30) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Welfare Food (Amendment) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54055]

  (31) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service (Optical Charges and Payments) and (General Ophthalmic Services) Amendment Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [53843]

  (32) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Trustees for the Central Sheffield University Hospitals National Health Service Trust (Transfer of Trust Property) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [53831]

  (33) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Avon and Western Wiltshire Mental Health Care National Health Service Trust (Change of Name) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [53837]

  (34) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Amendment Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [53857]

  (35) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Care Standards Act 2000 (Commencement No. 3) (England) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [53860]

  (36) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service (General Ophthalmic Services) Amendment Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54046]

  (37) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Birmingham Children's Hospital National Health Service Trust (Transfer of Trust Property) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [53842]

  (38) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service (Travelling Expenses and Remission of Charges) Amendment Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [53859]

  (39) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Amendment Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [53847]

  (40) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) (Amendment) (No. 3) (England) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54045]

  (41) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the University Hospital Birmingham National Health Service Trust (Transfer of Trust Property) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [53841]

  (42) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Carers (Services) and Direct Payments (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [53844]

  (43) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Special Trustees for the Royal London Hospital (Transfer of Trust Property) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [53864]
  504W
  (44) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Trustees for the Royal Brompton and Harefield National Health Service Trust (Transfer of Trust Property) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [53862]

  (45) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Care Standards Act 2000 (Commencement No. 4) (England) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54043]

  (46) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) (Charges) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [53853]

  (47) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Health Authorities (Membership and Procedure) Amendment (England) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54056]

  (48) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Special Trustees for King's College Hospital (Transfer of Trust Property) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [53832]

  (49) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Trustees for the Northern General Hospital National Health Service Trust (Transfer of Trust Property) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [53835]

  (50) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Primary Care Trusts (Functions) (England) Amendment Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [53858]

  (51) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service (Pensions Scheme and Additional Voluntary Contributions) (Pension Sharing) Amendment Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54309]

  (52) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the South Tees Acute Hospitals National Health Service Trust Change of Name and (Establishment) Amendment Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54307]

  (53) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the North Mersey Community National Health Service Trust (Establishment) Amendment Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54302]

  (54) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Care Standards Act 2000 (Commencement No. 6) (England) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54308]

  (55) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Adoption of Children from Overseas Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54311]

  (56) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Lowestoft Primary Care Trust (Establishment) Amendment Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54306]

  (57) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Gelatine (Intra-Community Trade) (England) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54305]
  505W
  (58) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Southampton East Healthcare Primary Care Trust Change of Name and (Establishment) Amendment Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54303]

  (59) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Adoption (Inter-Country Aspects) Act 1999 (Commencement No. 5) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54310]

  (60) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Southern Derbyshire Mental Health National Health Service Trust Change of Name and (Establishment) Amendment Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54304]

  (61) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service (General Dental Services) Amendment (No. 3) Regulation 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54301]

  (62) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service (General Dental Services) Amendment (No. 4) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54530]

  (63) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Blood Authority (Establishment and Constitution) (Amendment) Order 2001: and if he will make a statement; [54529]

  (64) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Patient Safety Agency Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54526]

  (65) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare National Health Service Trust (Establishment) Amendment Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54536]

  (66) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Retained Organs Commission (Establishment and Constitution) Amendment Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54531]

  (67) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Southampton Community Health Services National Health Service Trust (Establishment) Amendment Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54537]

  (68) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Health Act 1999 (Commencement No. 11) Order 2001; and if he Will make a statement; [54540]

  (69) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Residential Accommodation (Relevant Premises Ordinary Residence and Exemptions) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54533]

  (70) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Chiropractors Act 1994 (Commencement Order No. 5 and Transitional Provision) 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54541]

  (71) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the General Social Care Council (Appointments and Procedure) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54527]
  506W
  (72) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Daventry and South Northamptonshire Primary Care Trust (Establishment) Amendment Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54538]

  (73) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Medicines (Aristolochia and Mu Tong etc.) (Prohibition) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54532]

  (74) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Uttlesford Primary Care Trust (Establishment) Amendment Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54539]

  (75) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service (Functions of Health Authorities) (General Dental Services Incentive Scheme) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54525]

  (76) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Rotherham Priority Health Services National Health Service Trust (Establishment) Amendment Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54535]

  (77) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the North Sefton and West Lancashire Community National Health Service Trust (Establishment) Amendment Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54534]

  (78) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Miscellaneous Food Additives (Amendment) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54970]

  (79) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service (General Ophthalmic Services) Amendment (No. 2) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54962]

  (80) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service Trusts (Membership and Procedure) Amendment (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54972]

  (81) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Assistance (Residential Accommodation) (Disregarding of Resources) (England) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54946]

  (82) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Poultry Meat, Farmed Game Bird Meat and Rabbit Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54956]

  (83) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Care Homes Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54922]

  (84) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service (General Dental Services) Amendment (No. 7) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54920]
  507W
  (85) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Preserved Rights (Transfer of Responsibilities to Local Authorities) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54971]

  (86) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service Trusts (Membership and Procedure) Amendment (No. 3) (England) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54928]

  (87) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Amendment (No. 4) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54965]

  (88) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Care Standards Act 2000 (Commencement No. 8) (England) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54953]

  (89) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Abolition of the NHS Tribunal (Consequential Provisions) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54967]

  (90) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Colours in Food (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54958]

  (91) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 (Commencement No. 3) (England) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54952]

  (92) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) (Electronic Communications) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54939]

  (93) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Lowestoft Primary Care Trust Change of Name and (Establishment) (Amendment) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54933]

  (94) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Care Standards Commission (Registration) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54925]

  (95) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 (Commencement No. 7) (England) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54935]

  (96) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Treatment Agency (Amendment) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54930]

  (97) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service (Pharmaceutical Services and Misuse of Drugs) (Electronic Communications) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54940]

  (98) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service (General Medical Services) (Electronic Communications) (England) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54942]
  508W
  (99) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Care Standards Act 2000 (Commencement No. 10 (England) and Transitional Savings and Amendment Provisions) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54936]

  (100) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Medicines (Sale or Supply) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54917]

  (101) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 (Commencement No. 5) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54969]

  (102) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Children's Homes Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54923]

  (103) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Care Trusts (Applications and Consultation) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54974]

  (104) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Family Health Services Appeal Authority (Procedure) Rules 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54968]

  (105) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Data Protection (Subject Access) (Fees and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54951]

  (106) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Feeding Stuffs and the Feeding Stuffs (Enforcement) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54955]

  (107) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 (Commencement No 2) (England) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54949]

  (108) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Children (Leaving Care) (England) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54937]

  (109) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Amendment (No 3) Order 200]; and if he will make a statement; [54954]

  (110) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service (General Dental Services) Amendment (No. 6) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54964]

  (111) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Care Standards Commission (Fees and Frequency of Inspections) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54926]

  (112) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Private and Voluntary Health Care (England) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54924]

  (113) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Southern Norfolk Primary Care Trust (Establishment) (Amendment) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54934]
  509W
  (114) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Medicines (Products Other than Veterinary Drugs) (General Sales List) Amendment (No. 2) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54932]

  (115) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Primary Care Trusts (Membership, Procedure and Administration Arrangements) Amendment (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54973]

  (116) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 (Commencement No. 6) (England) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54961]

  (117) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Prescription Only Medicines (Human Use) Amendment (No. 2) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54919]

  (118) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Family Health Services Appeal Authority (Primary Care Act) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54966]

  (119) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Mental Health Act 1983 (Remedial) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54960]

  (120) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Assistance (Residential Accommodation) (Additional Payments) (England) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54947]

  (121) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Prescription only Medicines (Human Use) (Electronic Communications) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54941]

  (122) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service Trusts (Travelling Expenses and Remission of Charges) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54929]

  (123) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Foster Placement (Children) and Adoption Agencies Amendment (England) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54943]

  (124) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 (Commencement No 1) (England) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54938]

  (125) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Assistance (Residential Accommodation) (Relevant Contributions) (England) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54948]

  (126) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Southampton Community Health Services National Health Service Trust (Establishment) Amendment (No 2) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54950]

  (127) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service (Travelling Expenses and Remission of Charges) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54944]
  510W
  (128) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Medicines (Pharmacies) (Applications for Registration and Fees) Amendment Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54921]

  (129) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Health Authorities (Membership and Procedure) Amendment (England) (No. 3) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54931]

  (130) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Amendment Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54927]

  (131) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Care Standards Act 2000 (Commencement No. 9 (England) and Transitional and Savings Provisions) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement. [54918]

  (132) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Health Service Medicines (Information on the Prices of Specified Generic Medicines) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54916]

  (133) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service (Optical Charges and Payments) and (General Ophthalmic Services) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54945]

  (134) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 (Commencement No. 4) (England) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54959]

  (135) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service (General Medical Services Supplementary List) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement. [54963]

  136 what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Assistance (Residential Accommodation) (Additional Payments and Assessment of Resources)(Amendment)(England) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54957]

  (137) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Specified Risk Material (Amendment) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [55760]

  (138) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the North Middlesex Hospital National Health Service Trust (Change of Name) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [55761]

  (139) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Sweeteners in Food (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [55762]

  (140) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 (Commencement No. 1) (England) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [55759]

  (141) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service (General Dental Services) Amendment (No. 5) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [55766]
  511W
  (142) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Primary Care Trusts (Membership, Procedure and Administration Arrangements) Amendment (England) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [55763]

  (143) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service (Dental Charges) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [55758]

  (144) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service Trusts(Membership and Procedure) Amendment (England) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [55765]
  512W
  (145) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Health Authorities(Membership and Procedure) Amendment (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement. [55764]

  Ms Blears
  Costs associated with regulatory proposals are considered at the policy development stage. A regulatory impact assessment (RIA) is completed for regulatory proposals unless there are no or negligible costs, and sets out the impact, in terms of costs, benefits and risks of the proposed regulation which could affect businesses, charities or the voluntary sector. RIAs are available from the Library.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

Middle East
Lord Steel of Aikwoodasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their view on the situation in Israel/Palestine.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, the Government are gravely concerned about the situation in the Middle East. The ongoing cycle of violence has led to the deaths and injuries of too many Israelis and Palestinians and to deeper and deeper mistrust between the two communities. The priority now is to create a safer environment for Israelis and Palestinians to live in and then to move quickly to political negotiations.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, while most of us feel automatic sympathy for a fellow democracy when her citizens are so torn apart by the terrible carnage of the suicide bombers, does the Minister agree that the most effective recruiting sergeant for those suicide bombers is the feeling of hopelessness among the Palestinian people? That has been brought about by the repressive policies of the Sharon government. Is that not likely to be exacerbated by yesterday's Likud executive vote against the very principle of a Palestinian state?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there is a feeling of hopelessness and frustration on both sides. We have
2
said a number of times in this House that there can be no military solution to the crisis. We continue to believe that and we will work with our partners to try to find the best possible solution.
With regard to the second question about the Likud executive put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, obviously that decision was reached internally and related to Israeli politics. What it demonstrates is the complexity of the politics within Israel, but it is important for us to focus on the fact that solid international support has been expressed for a two-state solution in the form of the relevant UN Security Council resolutions.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Baroness mentioned a two-state solution. Can she say whether her right honourable friend is considering recognising a Palestinian state now, rather than waiting for serious negotiations which do not look very much as though they are going to start?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we continue to focus on achieving the UN Security Council resolutions. A number of those resolutions place responsibilities on both sides. We shall continue with political discussions and political dialogue, as well as working with our Arab colleagues—noble Lords will know that discussions have been held around the proposals which have been put forward by Crown Prince Abdullah. I believe that we are all agreed that what we have to do is to ensure that those discussions and the dialogue continue. That is because, as I said in my original Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Steel, we can see no military solution to this crisis.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, while the Likud vote against the idea of a Palestinian state is deplorable, inward-looking and utterly self-defeating, the best path to peace remains the idea of a regional conference put forward by Secretary of State Colin Powell? Can she assure us that, if we can reach the stage of that conference, Britain's experience, skills, strength and

3
knowledge will have a proper voice in it? Our voice should not be lost in or submerged under a more general EU attitude which may not represent and reflect exactly what we have to contribute.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we need to recognise the fact that a number of different discussions are ongoing and that a number of different proposals have been put forward with respect to next steps and a way forward. It is important to focus on the UN Security Council resolutions as well as to support the work being undertaken by our partners, including the proposal from the United States for an international conference. Noble Lords will also know that we continue to play an important role, both in terms of our role within the European Union—my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is today in Brussels for discussions with his European Union counterparts in the General Affairs Council—and in terms of our bilateral role, as it were. Noble Lords will be aware that we were instrumental in some of the events surrounding the situation in Bethlehem. We will play our role within the European Union, but we will also continue to play whatever role we can with the United States and others to try to ensure that a proper, negotiated political solution to this crisis is reached.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I think that my noble friend is probably aware that last week, with the assistance of our consul-general in East Jerusalem, I was able to visit the West Bank with a small group of international MPs and journalists. In Ramala I visited the DfID-supported health and development institution devoted to strengthening civil society—the central aim of DfID. Apart from the disgusting vandalism that had taken place, all the computers had been systematically destroyed with the hard drives taken out. That means that years of meticulous work has been lost.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Rea: Can my noble friend assure me that those computers will be replaced and the bill preferably sent to Israel, without reducing subsequent DfID funding to this and other projects in the West Bank?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I was aware of that visit. We have highlighted our concerns about Israeli attacks on Palestinian infrastructure and it is important that we continue to do all that we can to support the reconstruction of infrastructure in the Palestinian Authority.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it would be a mistake for the British Government to be deflected from their determined role to provide assistance in negotiations between the parties, which she has described, by the internal decisions of sometimes over-excitable political parties and organisations on both sides? Should we not just get on with the job of trying to achieve a settlement?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I think I made it absolutely clear in my earlier answer that we shall
4
focus on trying to find a political solution, working with our international partners. We should not get involved in internal Israeli politics.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords—
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, could we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, first and then definitely from the noble Lord, Lord Janner?
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, do the Government agree that the essence of a true settlement is that the Arab states recognise the right of Israel to exist? As long as people say that Israel ought to be driven into the sea, there is no possibility of a settlement.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have made it clear that we want a two-state solution based on UN Security Council resolutions.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, may I say to my noble friend—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether she accepts how pleased I am that I gave way to the noble Lord who just spoke? I identify myself with almost everything that she said. Does she agree that the suicide bombing began before Sharon took office? Does she accept that if we are going to help towards making peace, as our Government are rightly doing, there have to be people with whom we can negotiate? Does she believe that Arafat's failure to curb the suicide bombing and the terrorism is because he cannot curb it or because he does not wish to do so? In either event, how can anyone negotiate with him?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the UN Security Council resolutions have made it clear that there are responsibilities on both sides. We have to work with President Arafat, who has been legitimately elected by the Palestinians, and with Prime Minister Sharon. We shall continue to do that. A great responsibility lies on the shoulders of both men.

Ministry of Defence: Use of Consultants
2.45 p.m.
Lord Burnhamasked Her Majesty's Government:
What impact there has been on productivity in the Ministry of Defence, particularly in the department of Defence Logistics Organisation, following the ban on the use of external consultants required to achieve objectives.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, there is no ban on the use of external consultants either in the department as a whole or in the Defence Logistics Organisation. The MoD remains committed to achieving improvements in productivity through a variety of methods. This includes the use of consultants, where appropriate and cost-effective.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, is it not the case that there been some restriction in the use of consultants? Is not the use of consultants largely a method of transferring costs from one budget to another?
Lord Bach: My Lords, there has been no ban. Some tighter controls are being introduced. The noble Lord may be referring to that. There are long-standing rules relating to the employment of external consultants by the MoD, which require the development of a robust business case that has been subject some sort of cost-benefit analysis. There should also be an evaluation after the event to learn lessons and ensure that the use of consultants represented value for money for the taxpayer. There are and always will be circumstances in which it is sensible to obtain external assistance.
Lord Roper: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there can be considerable rationalisation savings in defence logistics by looking at European solutions? In the context of the European security and defence policy and the rapid reaction force, is the Ministry of Defence looking at ways in which those savings could be made?
Lord Bach: Yes, my Lords, we are always looking at ways in which savings can be made in logistics, as in every other area covered by the MoD. The noble Lord will know that the Defence Logistics Organisation was set up in April 2000, two years ago, by combining the three service logistic arms with the Defence Communication Services Agency under a single organisation. The strategic goal is to reduce its cost of outputs by 20 per cent by 2005–06. There are already some good news stories on logistics savings. For example, the rationalisation of the supply of general stores, such as tools, has already generated savings in the region of £120 million.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while consultants are sometimes very useful, their use can be self-perpetuating, as most reports seem to end with a recommendation that further work needs to be done?
Lord Bach: My Lords, my noble friend is right. We try to use consultants—or external assistance, which covers much more than consultants—as seldom as possible. However, sometimes one does not have within the department people who are able to provide, for value, the information needed from external sources.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, what progress has been made in further integrating defence procurement and
6
defence logistics? What progress has been made in developing a more cost-efficient repair and maintenance process within the DLO?
Lord Bach: My Lords, we are constantly looking at the DPA and the DLO, both of which are recent inventions of the past three or four years, to see whether the relationship between them is satisfactory. We believe that on balance it is satisfactory at the moment. As I have said, the aim in setting up these organisations is to save on costs, to ensure that delays are as short as possible and to improve performance. Those are the basic tenets of smart acquisition. They refer to both the DPA and the DLO. We have no plans at present to bring those two organisations together. All our efforts are aimed at trying to reduce maintenance costs.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister on the question of the international integration of logistics chains. In ISAF, for example, there are some 1,600 British troops, 1,000 Germans, 600 French and contingents from another nine EU member states. I was told recently by a Czech civil servant that the overwhelmingly largest cost of maintaining a Czech contingent in Kosovo was the separate logistics chain. What efforts are the British Government making to ensure that, in the vast majority of external operations in which we are now engaged and which are co-operative with other countries, we rationalise our logistics chain?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I can only repeat that we make every effort to ensure that costs, whether at home or abroad, are met and that ISAF's are lowered. ISAF is a unique force. In the period in which it has been successfully in existence—as I am sure the noble Lord will agree—we have done our best to ensure that the costs in terms of logistics, which can be extremely high, are brought down and rationalised with our international partners.

Scientific Research
2.51 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovilasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the present arrangements for passing the results of government-sponsored scientific research to British industry are satisfactory.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, as well as increasing substantially the funds for basic research the Government have taken a number of major initiatives to encourage knowledge transfer. These include the University Challenge competition, Science Enterprise Challenge, the £140 million Higher Education Innovation Fund and a major extension of Faraday Partnerships.

7
These initiatives are beginning to produce an exciting cultural change in our universities. In 1999–2000 there were 199 spin-offs from our universities compared with an average annual rate of just under 70 in the previous five years. But, working with industry, there is much more that we can do.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, rather unusually, I thank the Minister very warmly indeed for that encouraging and useful Answer. Is he aware of the need to press his colleagues to understand the importance of scientific research, the speed at which it goes and the value of its results? Will he particularly keep a weather eye on the Treasury, which has never yet been persuaded that you cannot tell the value of scientific research until you know its results, and that you are unlikely to know its results until the work has been done?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his supplementary question. To receive compliments from him in circumstances where I normally receive the odd criticism about holes in the road is very welcome indeed. I take his point. This is an extremely important area. We are doing work in this area and, as I said, we can do much more. We have introduced the two R&D tax credits for large and small companies and, as part of the DTI review, we have set up a new innovation group to work very closely with industry to try to raise R&D and the rate of innovation. I continue to press with colleagues the importance of this subject. I believe that even the Treasury is now persuaded of its importance.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I declare an interest as chief executive of Universities UK. Tomorrow, at the headquarters of HSBC, Universities UK launches a report which shows how much knowledge transfer takes place between universities and industry. Does my noble friend agree that the performance of UK universities in knowledge transfer compares well with that of their international competitors, particularly the United States? Does he further agree that, as helpful as recent investments of £100 million are in building up these links, more investment is needed through SR 2002 if that growth is to continue?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that, interestingly, our record on spinoff companies stands up very well in comparison with the situation in America. I produce these figures only because people are constantly saying that compared to America and MIT we do not have a good performance. If one compares the size of the two countries, UK universities do very well. We have one spin-off firm for every —8.6 million of research expenditure; Canadian universities in 1999 spun-off one firm from every £13.9 million of research expenditure; and in the US the ratio was one for every £53.1 million. So the story that British universities are not entrepreneurial is no longer true. In America,
8
universities such as MIT have magnificent records, but that is not true of all universities. We shall continue to push for extra funds for both basic research and knowledge transfer as part of SR 2002. Whether or not we have persuaded the Treasury will become clear at that point.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, as the Minister and other noble Lords have indicated, the record of universities in this country has been extremely good. As much as 12.9 per cent of their research funding now comes from business as compared to 10.1 per cent in the US. This is a figure that many people do not know. However, in many countries universities have been at the core of highly dynamic regional clusters of development. One sees it in countries such as Spain, the United States with MIT, and in our country at Cambridge, which has spun-off a large number of small companies. Does the Minister believe that the initiatives taken by the Government are too top-down in that they come from the DTI? Is enough being done to link up with regional development agencies and to get the core support networks developing out of the universities to the local regions?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, on the contrary, all our action now is mainly to support clusters through the RDAs, which have been working very closely with clusters of hi-tech businesses, not only in Cambridge but in Oxford, Bristol, York and Manchester. This is not only about Cambridge. We operate mainly through the RDAs because this is a local activity. Over the past three years, £150 million has been given specifically to the RDAs to support incubators and working clusters.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, is the Minister happy with the percentage spent in R&D on hydrogen-based fuels to replace carbon-based fuels, particularly in the automotive industry?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, this is a very important question. The Chief Scientific Adviser has recently made a study of the energy research carried out across government. This has disclosed some areas where more research should be done, including the area of hydrogen research. That is one of the areas which I believe will receive more support in the future.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, is the money spent on transferring the results of government-sponsored research to business and industry in addition to the budget for basic science, or has it been at the expense of that budget?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the money spent on knowledge transfer is in addition to the expenditure on basic science. We have increased enormously the budget for basic science in this country. It is now in the region of 10 per cent up in real terms on what it was when the Government came to

9
power. If we are to have knowledge transfer it must be on the basis of a strong basic research base. It is interesting that a recent survey of universities revealed that most spin-off companies and knowledge transfer come from the world-class research universities. One would expect that kind of indication.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as the chairman of a Faraday initiative I can testify to the increased efforts now being made to stimulate knowledge transfer from universities to industry. In terms of the amount of money put into civil research, has the gap which used to exist between this country and other major developed countries now been closed?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there is a considerable way to go in terms of the amount of money—not only government research money but, more importantly, business research money—that is put into research. As I said, since coming to government, we have increased the basic science budget by 10 per cent in real terms, and that should be seen in relation to the 17 per cent real terms net decrease which occurred in the previous decade. Consequently, we still have a long way to go to catch up. As regards total expenditure, we are behind France and Germany, the two countries whose performance we would most like to be comparable with. Germany is ahead of us because German industry does much more R&D than we do, and France is ahead because the French Government do much more research than the British Government do. Either way, in making comparisons with those countries, we have to make certain that we treat each country's R&D expenditure as a percentage of GDP.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the Minister continue the attempts, in which I believe him to be already engaged, to explain to Her Majesty's Treasury the distinction between government-sponsored research and government-controlled research? Is he aware of a report in the Independent on Sunday, on 5th May, that the Treasury is now attempting to approve the science councils' research budgets on a line-by-line basis? Does he agree that that is the ultimate proof that the Treasury regards public money as a form of barium meal? Does he agree that the results are about as appropriate as if we should transfer our economic forecasting to a committee of microbiologists?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I think that one should always be rather careful about making statements based entirely on newspaper articles. In this case, however, I was concerned by the report. I therefore spoke to people at the Office of Science and Technology, who, in these circumstances, might be expected to be deeply concerned. They have had no discussions with the Treasury whatever, let alone on a line-by-line basis; they have simply submitted their application for funds under SR 2002. I think that, in this case if no other, the Treasury is utterly blameless.

Digital Television
3.2 p.m.
Lord McNallyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Within what time frame they expect the Independent Television Commission to make a decision on the future of the digital terrestrial television platform vacated by ITV Digital; and what opportunity there will be for parliamentary scrutiny of that decision.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Independent Television Commission is responsible for the award of the licences, under accelerated procedure. Potential applicants must submit to the ITC a confidential expression of interest by this Thursday, 16th May 2002, and their full applications by 30th May. The ITC will then publish the programme proposals of the applications and invite representations, which should be received by 6th June. The commission expects to announce the award of the licences on 13th June. The issue of parliamentary scrutiny will, of course, be a matter for the usual channels.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is more important to get this decision right than to get it done quickly? Does he agree that, as sad as the demise of ITV Digital is, it offers us a wonderful opportunity to provide a free-to-air platform for the 40 per cent of viewers 'who have expressed no wish to purchase subscription digital television?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite correct that it is important to get this decision right. However, we see no difficulties with regard to the procedure. We anticipate that interested parties—who have been aware of the difficulties of ITV Digital for some time—will get their applications in and that the ITC will be able to make the appropriate decision. As for the future, although we all recognise the importance of extending the opportunities for digital television, we see no reason why this present difficulty should last into the long term.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the chances of any commercial television company taking over digital terrestrial are rather slim, and that the only companies that would take it over are companies that we would not want to get their hands on it? Will he therefore encourage the public service broadcasters—not only the BBC, but Channel 4, Channel 5 and ITV—to take it over themselves, in order to use it as a platform to provide digital television services that nearly everyone can afford?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, although my noble friend is very knowledgeable, on this occasion, I shall have to say to him, "Wait and see". The deadline for the submission of applications is in the very near future, and it is anticipated that appropriate bids for the licence will be submitted.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Government's policy of wanting analogue

11
switch-off by 2010 is now in disarray? Does he accept that there is no possibility of that happening by 2010 unless the Government are prepared to dole out free set-top boxes to the 40 per cent of the population who do not want to purchase Mr Murdoch's service? If that is the case, has he persuaded the Treasury to release those amounts of resources?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, on the noble Lord's final point, I can assure him that I have not persuaded the Treasury to do that. Moreover, my efforts to that effect have not been extensive thus far. The obvious point is that the noble Lord is perhaps being overly pessimistic—2010 is still some years away. We should take joy from the fact that digital television has already been extended to a substantial proportion of the population. There would be no question of switching off the analogue signal until a vast majority of the population were able to receive digital.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, will the Minister respond to the question that was asked? Is the Government's analogue switch-off target of 2010 still firm policy or not?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I thought that I had answered the question in a suitably positive manner, despite the fact that there has been a dismal representation from each of the two Benches opposite. The fact is that progress has been made on digital television. Given that the new licence will be awarded in the very near future, there is no reason at all why the Government should not continue to be optimistic about the rate at which people engage in digital television.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, in view of the problems faced by independent digital television and the fact that the quality of terrestrial digital television programmes is improving, and given that we are all aiming to reach the appropriate moment for switch-off, does the Minister agree that a relatively cheap set-top box which allowed access only to terrestrial digital television is one way of reaching that goal? People would see the improved quality and that might encourage a wider take-up of the service.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Baroness's constructive suggestion, and I know that she takes a very keen interest in these matters. However, I must insist on our present position. First, we must see the award of the new licence, and, secondly, we must see the rate at which the British public decide to take up digital television. As I said, the take-up rate has been very encouraging in the first three years in which the service has been available. A very substantial proportion of our population have taken up digital television. Although no one would deny that the current situation is a setback, that does not mean that we cannot recover from the setback to hit the timetable outlined earlier.

House of Lords Reform
3.8 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): With permission, my Lords, I should like to make a Statement on the Government's proposals for taking forward reform of the House of Lords.
The Government began the process of Lords reform with the removal of the great majority of the hereditary Peers, in 1999. We are committed to further reform of the House of Lords, to remove the remaining hereditary Peers and to provide Parliament with a modern, effective second Chamber.
We have listened carefully to the wide range of views expressed in the recent debates on Lords reform in both Houses of Parliament and to the responses to the White Paper. We have taken account of the report of the Public Administration Select Committee. We have also considered statements from all parties that this issue should be considered further by a Joint Committee of both Houses. I hope therefore that the way forward I am announcing today will be welcomed and supported on all sides of the House.
We have decided that, on this vital constitutional issue, which concerns not only the composition of the House of Lords but also the role of Parliament as a whole and the relations between the two Houses, it would be right to invite the two Houses to establish a Joint Committee, in the hope that we can forge the broadest possible parliamentary consensus on the way forward. We hope that the Houses will be able to proceed with the establishment of the Joint Committee as soon as possible. We have noted the recent joint statement of the two main opposition parties that such a Joint Committee would help reconcile differences and seek a principled consensus on the way forward. I therefore hope that we can look forward to their cooperation in setting up the Joint Committee as soon as possible and making a success of its work.
Reform of the second Chamber has implications for the future of Parliament as a whole, and in particular for the relations between the two Chambers. It is right that Parliament itself should record its views on the composition of the second Chamber. For this we believe that a Joint Committee alone is insufficient. We therefore intend to ask the Joint Committee, as the first phase of its work, to report on options for the composition and powers of the House of Lords once reform has been completed. This will define options for composition, to include a fully nominated and fully elected House, and intermediate options. Both Houses will then be asked to record their views on those options in free votes.
In the second phase of its work, on which the committee will report, it will define in greater detail the proposed composition, role and powers of the reformed second Chamber, taking account of the opinions expressed by the two Houses. It should also recommend the transitional strategy for transforming the existing House of Lords into its fully reformed state. This will be particularly important if the recommendation were to be for a significantly smaller

13
House. The Government's intention would then be to bring forward legislation in the light of the report of the Joint Committee and the opinions of both Houses expressed in those free votes.
As both the Royal Commission chaired by the noble Lord. Lord Wakeham, and the Government's White Paper made clear, any proposals on the powers and composition of the House of Lords must flow from a clear understanding of its role and functions. The issues to be considered by the Joint Committee therefore will include: first, the role and authority intended for the second Chamber within the context of Parliament as a whole—there is, we believe, a consensus that its main role should continue to be as a revising, scrutinising and deliberative assembly with the power to delay but not to seek to veto legislation; secondly, the impact of that role and authority on the existing supremacy of the House of Commons and relations with the executive—there is, we believe, broad agreement that the Commons should retain its role as the pre-eminent Chamber and that the test for any government should continue to be whether it can command a majority in the House of Commons; thirdly, the composition and powers of the second Chamber best suited to give effect to the role and authority intended for that House. This consideration should include the implications of a House composed of more than one "class" of Member and also the experience and expertise which the House of Lords in its present form brings to its function as the revising Chamber.
It will also be necessary to consider the most appropriate and effective legal and constitutional means to give effect to any new parliamentary settlement, including any mechanisms required for resolving conflicts between the two Houses. In order to inform the Joint Committee's deliberations, the Government are today publishing the full results of the consultation on their White Paper. We received over 1,000 responses. The full analysis is now available in the Printed Paper Office and on the Lord Chancellor's Department website.
The Government have a major record of constitutional reform. Since 1997 we have created a Scottish Parliament and Assemblies for Wales and Northern Ireland. We have enacted the first House of Lords Act, the Human Rights Act and the Freedom of Information Act. We have given the Bank of England independence in the setting of interest rates. Last week the Deputy Prime Minister set out our plans to allow the creation of regional assemblies in those regions of England that vote for them. We have enhanced the role of the Select Committees, including my right honourable friend's announcement that he will be the first Prime Minister ever to appear before the Liaison Committee. In addition, we are modernising the working practices of both Chambers. Taken together, this is the most substantial programme of constitutional reform for over a century and will stand as one of this Government's historic achievements.
Today's announcement is another important step towards ensuring that reform of the House of Lords ranks alongside those achievements. We must not
14
allow a repeat of past history in which reform has been delayed because those who wanted it could not agree and therefore left the field to those who opposed it.
Our objective is to secure a second Chamber that is broadly representative of the Britain of today, a Chamber which will complement the Commons by reinforcing Parliament's ability to conduct scrutiny and hold the executive to account and which will increase the respect of the public for Parliament. The way forward I have outlined puts responsibility in the hands of Parliament itself in free votes. I urge Members of all sides of the House to respond not as party politicians but as parliamentarians committed to a strong Parliament within a modern democracy.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.17 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the Statement he has made.
The word "historic" is a much overused cliché in this House but on this occasion I can say that it was an historic Statement as it concerns the future of Parliament as a whole and it shows that the Government accept that reform of Parliament does not belong to one party alone. The Statement trusts Parliament and parliamentarians with the responsibility of finding the best way forward to strengthen this House and Parliament itself for the benefit of the country as a whole. That is something we on this side have long argued for and which we now clearly welcome.
No doubt some may be tempted to say, "If only the Government had taken this course before" as, indeed, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wisely promised as long ago as 1997. But I think that 'we must now look to the future. It is not the time to dwell on the past or what was done in the past. Instead, I say to my noble friends that we should welcome the fact that today the Government have held out a constructive hand. On behalf of my party I assure the noble and learned Lord that we shall respond in the same constructive spirit to that gesture.
As the noble and learned Lord said, less than a fortnight ago the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and I made a joint appeal to the Government to abandon a single party approach and establish a Joint Committee. The fact that the Government have now agreed to do what we asked is a statesmanlike and sensible step and I am grateful for that. It would, I believe, have been a disaster to plough on into bitter parliamentary warfare over the reform scheme that was put forward at the end of last year. It would not have served the Government's objectives; it would not have served Parliament and it would not have served the country or the voters' priorities.
In welcoming the Joint Committee, which I hope will be established soon, I make it clear that my party's basic position is unchanged. To us it seems obvious and urgent that the authority of this House—for all its successes since 1999—and the authority of the other place both need to be strengthened in the face of the

15
executive. We have put forward proposals that we believe would strengthen both Houses and we still hope that progress will be made towards them.
However, the purpose of the Joint Committee is to build consensus and reconcile differences, so far as is possible, and to open the way to lasting reform; it is not to enable sensible aspirations for reform to be sidelined or smothered.
Will the noble and learned Lord confirm that the committee will be large enough to include shades of opinion within parties and across parties? In the context of this House, will he assure us that there will be places for Cross-Bench Peers on that committee?
We look forward to early discussions on the composition and remit of the committee. However, will the noble and learned Lord also confirm that the Government's proposals, which we bitterly opposed when they were announced, to reduce the powers of this House have been shelved—and, I trust, shelved permanently?
If the Joint Committee has authority, vision and independence, today could be a very good day for this House and Parliament. The threat of legislation that would have weakened this House and Parliament has been lifted. The Government have shown themselves ready to listen to Parliament—they would gain infinitely from that, if only they were ready to do it more. As a result, we now have a once-and-for-all opportunity to grasp something that eluded us in 1911, 1968 and 1999—a chance to set this House on a secure and lasting footing, as a full partner with another place in upholding the ancient liberties of the British people. All of us on all sides have a high and solemn duty to participate with a will in that work. On this side of the House, we will assuredly do so.
I end by thanking the noble and learned Lord for turning the Government away from the sterile conflict that we were threatened with in December last year. The Statement, if it means anything, could mark an historic moment at which the steady diminution of Parliament at last began to be reversed. Let us hope that it will; if it does not, a rare and remarkable opportunity will have been squandered to the lasting detriment of us all.
3.22 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his Statement. Moreover, I thank him and the Leader of the House of Commons for having piloted through the proposal in what we recognise were controversial and difficult times. We are very grateful for what we believe to be a very exciting and promising way forward.
We appreciate in particular the proposal for a Joint Committee. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who has much to do with this matter, will not object if I mention the name of my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, who persistently pressed in that direction as a way forward
16
for reform of your Lordships' House. Many noble Lords will, on this occasion, wish to appreciate his major contribution.
We on these Benches particularly welcome the use in the Statement of the phrase,
"the role of Parliament as a whole".
We have never sought in any way to compete with the pre-eminence of another place. We recognise that the considerable loss of respect for Parliament since the Second World War must be reversed. One way to do so is to consider the role of Parliament—the role of the House of Commons and the ways in which this House can complement the work of the House of Commons in the most constructive way.
It is incumbent on all of us in this House—on every single Member, not simply those in a particular party—to seize the opportunity that has been granted to us and to approach it as constructively as we can. We believe that the people of this country are looking to both Houses of Parliament to rise to the occasion and to come forward with constructive proposals for reform in a way that will make Parliament once again central to the whole constitutional structure of this country.
I have two questions for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. The first concerns whether the composition and powers of the House and of another place will be taken side by side during the first stage, on strategy, and during the second stage, on tactics. There are innovative and exciting proposals concerning ways in which the powers of this House could be extended into areas that are not currently scrutinised by Parliament in any way. Will that be taken into account by the Joint Committee?
Secondly, will the Lord Chancellor bear in mind the need for at least a reasonable sense of the importance of moving ahead with this reform—if not urgency—when considering the size and balance of the proposed Joint Committee?
I do not wish to detain the House. In conclusion, the position of Parliament is the keystone of the constitutional arch in this country, and has been for centuries. We believe that it is time that that keystone was refurbished and brought up to date. We thank the Lord Chancellor and the Leader of the House of Commons for giving all of us the opportunity to create out of Parliament the institution that all of us would like it to be. For many parts of the world, it has become, over the years, a model of how democracy should be carried out.
3.26 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords—
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the—
Noble Lords: Cross Bench!
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that the procedure of this House is invariable and that when the leaders of both parties respond to a Statement, the

17
maker of the Statement responds at the same time to those responses; thereafter, there is—noble Lords may correct me if I am wrong— minutes for questions from elsewhere in the House.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for their welcome to the Government's announcement. The noble Lord's comments were sweeter than those associated with bitter parliamentary warfare, which the noble Lord, in his most menacing—as well as his most engaging—manner announced is now happily avoided.
I accept that the noble Lord has been calling for a Joint Committee for some time. I also accept that the noble Baroness has often said in her speeches on this subject that reform of the House of Lords should not be considered separately from reform of Parliament as a whole, and that she, too, has called for a Joint Committee. It was right in this context that she should have mentioned the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank.
The Government accept that neither the Wakeham commission nor our White Paper, which was based on it, produced consensus. Now, as part of our continuing effort to achieve consensus, the Government propose a Joint Committee in which parliamentarians of great experience will consider these hugely difficult issues with the benefit of all of the opinion and discussion that has gone before, and will fashion composition options on which free votes will be taken in both Houses.
I assure the noble Lord that the usual channels will discuss the size and balance of the Joint Committee. I agree with him that it must be large enough to include a broad range of opinion, that the Cross-Benchers should certainly be involved and that there should be early discussions between the usual channels on composition. There is no merit, as the noble Lord was good enough to say, in political point-scoring over what has gone before; nor, I hasten to say, has there been any from the noble Baroness or the noble Lord.
The intractability of House of Lords reform has been proved by failure, during virtually a whole century, to achieve progress until the 1999 Act removed about nine-tenths of the hereditary Peers. The noble Lord asked whether the White Paper was shelved. That is a reasonable question and is not point-scoring. The White Paper is not shelved; nor is the report of the Wakeham commission. Neither succeeded in achieving consensus on its own. Plainly, the Joint Committee will wish to consider both with great care. It is a matter for the Joint Committee whether it brings forward options for both Houses to consider that are based on, or which closely resemble, any of the Wakeham or White Paper proposals. We simply have to wait and see, and await the outcome of the free votes.
Finally, I mention that the noble Baroness has said many times that reform of the House of Lords should be seen in the context of wider issues relating to Parliament as a whole. She will therefore have welcomed the sections in the Statement that said that
18
reform of the second Chamber has implications for the future of Parliament as a whole and, in particular, for the relations between the two Chambers.
How fast it will be possible to proceed and how quickly the Joint Committee will proceed is of course a matter for it. But certainly it is the wish of the Government for the momentum to be maintained.
The noble Baroness asked very detailed questions about what the committee may consider in the context of specific powers of this House. She referred, in particular, to areas where there is currently no scrutiny on the part of this House. Although the committee will itself determine the issues which it wishes to consider within its remit, I believe that for the present it is sufficient to say that the passage in the Statement which says that the Joint Committee will be asked, as the first phase of its work, to report on options for the composition and powers of the House of Lords indicates that those issues will be very wide.
I hope that that covers all the major points raised by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. I appreciate the general welcome that they have offered and the description of "statesmanlike" which they applied to this new way forward.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and apologise if I in any way got the arrangements wrong. On behalf of all Cross-Benchers, I welcome very much his indication that the Cross-Benchers will be represented on the Joint Committee. In that representation, I hope that it will be possible to take account of the numerical strength of the Cross-Benchers in your Lordships' House and the fact that the 2:2:1:1 formula does not necessarily guide us as well as it normally does when we come to a reform of this nature. I should also be grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could give some indication as to when terms of reference for the Joint Committee will be available.
The Lord Chancellor: As I have already indicated, the Government are sensitive to the interests of the Cross-Benchers, who are numerous. There is no doubt but that the usual channels will heed with care the representations from the Cross-Benchers about their inclusion in the Joint Committee. I anticipate that the usual channels will now proceed at a considerable pace to settle terms of reference. It will have been obvious to your Lordships that the Statement which I made was intended to, and did, herald the broad outlines of what the terms of reference should be. I do not doubt that they will be settled in that sense and, so far as concerns the Government, as soon as reasonably possible.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I believe that the noble and learned Lord the the Lord Chancellor is well aware that a Joint Select Committee would not have been my first choice in these matters. But I think that he is right to propose one in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. I shall be happy if the noble and learned Lord takes that as a welcome.

19
When the Joint Committee has considered matters and reported, I am afraid that ultimately we shall return to the question of the composition of this House. That is the only really difficult issue. I very much hope that that committee will take heed of three things that we said in our Royal Commission report. The first was that this House functions better if it is relatively free of political patronage. Secondly, the Members who serve here serve for a relatively long time. To us, that almost certainly meant that there should be no re-election. But, thirdly, that does not mean that the percentage that get here in that way need necessarily be the percentage that we recommended—indeed, in our report we recommended three percentages. Thus we had a degree of flexibility in relation to that matter. I hope that the Select Committee recognises the real value to the House of those principles.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have no doubt that the Select Committee will consider with care both the report of the commission led by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and what is said in these exchanges this afternoon. As to any point of detail about what the future may hold and about what the Joint Committee may consider it right to recommend, I do not believe that I should express any specific views myself. The Government should not now be seen to be giving any particular steers to the Joint Committee, given that it is charged to define options for both Houses to vote on in free votes. In fact, I go further. I consider that for me to do so would be misinterpreted at a time when the Joint Committee and its membership are about to be determined.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, like everyone else, I welcome the proposal for a Joint Committee to carry forward the reform of this House. Do the Government accept that, if a Joint Committee is to do justice to the complexity of the challenges ahead, it will be best equipped to do so if it draws its membership from a broad spectrum within this House and that that should include, among others, someone from these Benches?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I agree entirely with what has been said by the right reverend Prelate and by others. The Joint Committee should reflect a very broad spectrum. However, I shall not trespass into matters which are for the usual channels.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may say how much I welcome the fact that the Government now seem to have—I use a neutral phrase—moved away from the proposals in the White Paper. Whether it is still alive and has any breath left in it is perhaps a matter for intricate discussion. But, first, so far as concerns these proposals, I believe that one should broadly give them a welcome.
Secondly, is my noble and learned friend aware that I also welcome the fact that he sees this next procedure as keeping up the momentum for reform? There are
20
two ways in which it could be presented: either as keeping up the momentum for reform or as kicking the proposals into the long grass. I have to say to my noble and learned friend—I am sure he is not aware of it—that, indeed, there has already been some briefing to the effect that this is designed to kick the matter into touch, or whatever other sporting metaphor one wishes to employ. I am very grateful for my noble and learned friend's confirmation that that is not the Government's intention.
Thirdly, if one is going to keep up the momentum, then these matters have to take place within a reasonably brisk measure of time. Is it the Government's intention that the options vote, if I may call it that, should take place before the Summer Recess, if at all possible, or do they intend that it should take a little longer? To me, as a naive and mere Back-Bench Member of this House, the analogy with the hunting Bill does not seem to be all that pleasant. But, broadly, I believe that the House should welcome these proposals as a firm step in the direction that most of us wish to go.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend abandoned the cynicism with which he began and that he ended on a note of optimism, which was well judged. This is not kicking the matter into the long grass; the momentum will be maintained. However, I am not willing to be drawn into saying anything which trespasses either on the functions of the usual channels or, more importantly, on those of the Joint Committee. It is inconsistent to praise the width of the remit proposed to the Joint Committee and, at the same time, imply that it must report the day before yesterday. That is certainly an issue for the Joint Committee. The speed with which it comes forward with its proposals will be a matter for the Joint Committee, but I am sure that it will do so with all deliberate speed commensurate with the huge importance of the subject matter for the future of Parliament as a whole.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, when the Lord Chancellor uses the phrase "the Britain of today", is he excluding Northern Ireland and therefore the United Kingdom? Is he also saying that the Joint Committee will consider the composition of the other place in addition to the composition of your Lordships' House?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not exclude Northern Ireland and the Joint Committee will not consider the composition of the other place.
Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, I give a warm welcome to the Lord Chancellor's Statement. I shall resist asking a number of detailed questions, which would not be appropriate at this time. However, the Lord Chancellor said that the Government do not intend to give a particular steer to the committee. Do I take it that the committee will be allowed to determine its chairman and that the chairman will not come from government sources?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is not a matter upon which any decisions have, as yet, been reached.

21
There will be discussions between the usual channels with a view to agreeing a chairman. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness was making a job application!
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, can I tempt the Lord Chancellor to be a little more specific about what he expects to be the remit of the Joint Committee? The effective legislative powers of this House depend upon the effectiveness of the legislative arrangements of the House of Commons. Does he expect the committee to be able to examine the legislative arrangements in the House of Commons and make reform of this House conditional upon improvement to those arrangements?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is a matter on which I shall not be drawn. The terms of reference of the committee have yet to be settled. Their broad outlines have been heralded by the Statement. Thereafter, it will be for the Joint Committee to interpret its remit.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I welcome the Statement as it lays out a method of taking forward the whole process of reform, which all noble Lords want. Does my noble and learned friend agree that the resolution of differences and conflict between the two Houses is as important an issue to be addressed and resolved as the discussion of the composition of the reformed House?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is certainly so. The Statement itself in terms said that the Joint Committee would have to consider the most effective mechanisms—I paraphrase—for resolving conflicts between both Houses. I believe that the noble Baroness makes an important point. The Government have always stated that no single party should have an overall majority in the reformed House. That means that the government of the day will always be in the minority in this House and, therefore, liable to be defeated at any time. So mechanisms for resolving conflicts between the Houses are critical and that is why the Statement highlighted that the Joint Committee should give express consideration to that issue.
Earl Russell: My Lords, following the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, is the noble and learned Lord aware that the device of a Joint Committee, to which he has had such fruitful recourse, has been used in past centuries for resolving deadlock on the content of Bills? Is that a precedent worthy of re-examination?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in my view a Joint Committee on the subject of House of Lords reform is a sufficient precedent in itself.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord recognise that when his noble friend Lord Richard and I talk about momentum, we may
22
have slightly different views about pace and direction? I endorse the wisdom of his choice of words from the United States Supreme Court that the process of examination should be undertaken with all deliberate speed. But does he consider that change should occur at a pace that does not put at risk the qualities that this House values so highly?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, although this is essentially a matter for the Joint Committee, I agree that it must proceed with all deliberate speed, but commensurate with the gravity of the subject matter that it addresses. As to the second point raised by the noble and learned Lord, I believe that he lures me into the merits much further down the line.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I welcome my noble and learned friend's Statement, which has been greeted with universal enthusiasm. While I fully understand why he does not believe that it is proper for the Government to seek to influence the detailed deliberations of the Joint Committee, does he agree that the first task for the Select Committee, of preparing a list of options—something that most noble Lords could accomplish by this evening—is one that could be achieved fairly quickly? Will he therefore use his influence to suggest that that stage of the committee's work could be carried out expeditiously so that a vote of both Houses could take place before the Summer Recess?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am reminded of what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said on the final Question at Question Time, that it is more important to get things right than to proceed too quickly. With respect to my noble friend, when one considers the history of this House and the colossal difficulty of securing consensus, it is somewhat unrealistic to agree on a Joint Committee and then to crack the whip, to be prescriptive and to say that it is very easy. I prefer to trust the Joint Committee.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, in considering the future composition of this House, will it be within the terms of reference of a Joint Committee to look at the three years' experience of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies? Will it also be able to consider whether there should be more formal links between those assemblies and this House, given that, by pure coincidence, the Presiding Officers of the three assemblies are Members of this place? There is no guarantee that our successors will be likewise beneficially endowed.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the thrust of that question is in sharp contrast to the thrust of the previous question, which was to get on with it the day before yesterday. The thrust of this question is that it would be of advantage to the Joint Committee to consider the practices of the Scottish Parliament and the other Assemblies. That is a matter for the Joint Committee within its terms of reference.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on taking a statesmanlike and

23
welcome decision to set up the Joint Committee. I have two questions. First, does the view that the House of Commons should be pre-eminent put a constraint on the Joint Committee in considering powers, particularly if the Joint Committee wishes to recommend that this House should be wholly elected? Secondly, will the terms of reference be wide enough—I do not imagine that this point will be popular with the House—to enable the Joint Committee to consider whether there is a case for a unicameral system?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Statement said that it is generally accepted, and I believe it to be so, that the House of Commons is the pre-eminent Chamber which should always ultimately have its way. However, I repeat that the Joint Committee is inhibited in its consideration only by its terms of reference, which will be settled by the usual channels in the light of the Statement I have made
Lord Haskel: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that I welcome a free vote on the composition of both Houses? Does he agree that the view of both Houses on the composition of a reformed House, as expressed in a vote, would have to carry a lot more weight than the responses to the consultation to the White Paper?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is a nice question! In one sense, yes. However, proper weight must be given to the responses to the consultation. Obviously the Joint Committee will wish to do that, though it must be said—the question may have implied this—that those who responded to the consultation were self-selecting. It is also the fact that they are fewer in number than the total membership of both Houses. I imagine that Members of both Houses will not only be entitled but will also be interested to vote in free votes on issues critical to the nature and future of Parliament. It is for that reason that we have put responsibility in the hands of Parliament on free votes.

Proceeds of Crime Bill
3.51 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office, (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 72 [Serious default]:
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 76:
Page 45, line 32, leave out "serious" and insert "negligent"
24
The noble Lord said: Under Clause 72 of the Bill compensation is payable to the defendant who has suffered loss in consequence of a confiscation order, a restraint order, the appointment of a receiver or other orders under Part 2 of the Bill. However, before a defendant is entitled to compensation, he or she must show that proceedings were never brought, or he was not convicted of an offence, or his conviction was quashed, or that he was pardoned.
In all those circumstances any confiscation or other order made will be discharged. The defendant's loss may be modest or substantial. It could be that, as a result of the restraint order, he was unable to continue his lawful business; indeed, he may have lost that business as a result, and that loss could have been substantial.
It is right and proper, therefore, that any person suffering such loss, in such circumstances, should be entitled to compensation. However, before being entitled to compensation, that innocent defendant must prove that there has been a serious default by a member of the police force, the CPS, the Serious Fraud Office, a customs officer or an officer of the Commission of the Inland Revenue. A mere mistake is not sufficient. A careless mistake is not sufficient. Only a serious default gives rise to compensation, however disastrous the consequences for the innocent party.
That cannot be right. The powers given to the police force, the CPS, the Serious Fraud Office, a customs officer or an officer of the Commission of the Inland Revenue can ruin people. Those powers can be exercised even when no proceedings are ever brought. The courts are given little discretion in the matter and in some circumstances must make the order where the prosecutor requests.
We believe that, where there are such powers, there must also be accountability on behalf of the public authority; the two go hand in glove. If a member of the prosecution team makes a careless mistake, we do not believe that the innocent defendant should bear any loss as a consequence.
In short, it is important that those who have those powers exercise them as carefully as they can, and that those who supervise them ensure that they do so. If they fail then compensation should be payable. We suggest therefore that compensation should be payable in cases of negligent default and not just serious default. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: I speak to Clause 72 stand part, Amendment No. 77, Clause 142 stand part, Amendment No. 134, Clause 226 stand part and Amendment No. 193. Those are all in the same form respectively as regards England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
We support Amendment No. 76, but we go somewhat further. We suggest that where property is subject to a restraint order then compensation should be paid, whether or not there is negligence, if the order is ultimately refused. The position in ordinary civil proceedings is that, where one party is entitled to or obtains an order from the court to freeze the property

25
of another—normally known as a Mareva injunction—the making of the injunction is conditional upon the party who seeks the injunction giving a cross-undertaking in damages; that is, an undertaking to compensate any other party for any loss suffered as a result of the making of the order.
We believe that that is the right principle and that there is no justification for the Government observing a lower standard of compensation than would be the case in ordinary civil proceedings between private parties. We believe therefore that the appropriate course, where the restraint order is made but is discharged and not replaced by a confiscation order, is for compensation to be paid for the loss which is suffered.
The Government are exercising considerable powers. The power to freeze somebody's property, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said, is one that may cause serious loss. It should therefore be the automatic result that if the order is discharged, compensation is paid. I accept, as would be the case in civil proceedings, that compensation may not be ordered in the exceptional case where the party against whom the order is made has in some way acted so as to cause suspicion and in effect to bring the order on himself. Subject to that there should be an automatic right to compensation.
Lord Rooker: The two groups of amendments spoken to by the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Goodhart, essentially deal with the same part of the Bill but would have a considerably different effect. That is probably recognised in the brief speeches that we have just heard.
The effect of the first group of amendments—Amendments Nos. 76, 132, 133, 191 and 192—would be to make compensation payable where there was negligent default on the part of the enforcement authorities in the investigation or prosecution of an offence, and a loss had been occasioned. The effect of the second group, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, would he to make compensation whenever a restraint order is discharged without a confiscation order being made, no matter why the confiscation order was not subsequently made. It may be useful for the Committee to appreciate that the provisions were debated substantively in the other place, as recorded in Hansard of 29th November at columns 411 to 426.
I turn to the first set of amendments. The Bill as drafted provides that compensation is payable where there is a serious default. The provision is settled and the Bill reflects existing legislation in that respect. There is nothing new about it. The word "negligent" is broader than the word "serious". The amendments would extend the conditions in which compensation was payable from those where one of the enforcement authorities committed a serious default to those in which the authorities committed any negligent act. Clause 72 uses the word "serious" rather than the word "negligent" because the enforcement authorities must not feel unnecessarily inhibited in the exercise of their duties.
26
As the Explanatory Notes point out. the restriction to serious default cases is based on the principle that the restraint and realisation of the property is ancillary to a criminal trial—in the same way as is the detention of a person pending trial. In neither case is compensation paid on acquittal as a matter of course. Many years ago, I remember raising the case of one of my constituents who served his term of imprisonment and had been released before he got his conviction and sentence quashed. He was a former police officer, so it was a highly contentious case, but he could not get a penny from the Home Office. I fear that that is the way of the world.
It is reasonable to make statutory provision for compensation where there is a serious matter, such as the fabrication of evidence, but it would be wrong to hang a compensation scheme around the necks of enforcement authorities for genuine mistakes made in the exercise of their duties. Where the investigating and prosecuting authorities have made mistakes leading to the making of a restraint order, it will be open to those affected to sue them for negligence in the civil courts. In deciding whether or not those authorities owe a duty of care, the courts will take into account the relevant public interest in ensuring that crime is investigated and prosecuted. That is our starting point.
The amendments would discourage the investigation and prosecution of crime and ultimately ensure that more criminals were left to hold onto their assets. We therefore find their wording unsatisfactory and I hope that Members of the Committee will not press them.
As I explained, the second set of amendments would give the courts power to award compensation in any circumstances where property is restrained but no confiscation order subsequently made. They would not provide the courts with any criteria as to how they should apply their power to award compensation. That would be completely unacceptable. I remind the Committee that the serious default test recognises the fact that the restraint is an aspect of criminal proceedings where a similar test applies in general before ex gratia payments are made.
The practical effects of the amendments could be enormous. For example, every defendant acquitted on a technicality could lodge a claim for compensation in respect of alleged loss while his property was under restraint. As I explained in relation to the first set of amendments, enforcement authorities must not be inhibited from performing their duties. The amendments would have precisely that effect. Indeed, they would make the whole Bill unworkable.
Obviously, these matters have been considered since they were debated in the other place, but we are less persuaded of the merits of the second set of amendments than we are of the first, because they would make the Bill entirely unworkable.
We do not think that the comparison with the Mareva injunction made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, applies. We are talking about the possibility of criminal proceedings against a

27
defendant. Restraint will be applied only where there is reasonable cause to believe that a defendant has benefited from criminal conduct. Let me make it abundantly clear that we are not discussing fishing expeditions. We do not have criminal prosecution on the basis of fishing expeditions in this country—and quite right too. The same test for compensation applies as under current legislation. There is nothing new about the principle of the Bill's provisions; it has already stood the test of time in existing procedure.
I hope that, having aired this important issue, Members of the Committee will not press their amendments.
4 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the Minister for his response. There is a curious inequality of approach by the Government between what the Minister said about this part of the Bill and what the Government provide in Part 7. Under Part 7, covering money laundering, which the Committee has yet to discuss, an individual who negligently fails to report a particular transaction will be subject to criminal proceedings. Yet in this part of the Bill, a member of the executive arm in one form or another will not be liable, even in negligence, for failing to observe a duty of care in relation to the particular defendant to which his or her attention is directed.
I submit that that is unacceptable. It is wholly appropriate for public officials exercising their powers under this part of the Bill to be subject to the law of negligence. Clearly, a duty of care must be owed, but once it is established that that duty of care is owed, an appropriate standard of conduct should apply.
I appreciate the careful attention that the Minister paid to the amendment. I shall not press it now, but I shall almost certainly return to it on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 72 agreed to.
Clause 73 [Order varied or discharged]:
[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]
Clause 73 agreed to.
Clause 74 agreed to.
Clause 75 [Criminal lifestyle]:
[Amendments Nos. 78 to 80 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): Before calling Amendment No. 81, I must inform the Committee that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 82.
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 81:
Page 47, line 34, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert—
"(a) it is specified in Schedule (Lifestyle offences);"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 82 to 85 not moved.
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 86:
Page 48, line 4, at end insert—
"(4) The Secretary of State may by order amend Schedule (Lifestyle offences)."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 76 [Conduct and benefit]:
[Amendment No. 88 not moved.]
Clause 76 agreed to.
Clause 77 agreed to.
Clause 78 [Gifts and their recipients]:
[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]
Clause 78 agreed to.
Clauses 79 to 83 agreed to.
Clause 84 [Property: general provisions]:
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 90:
Page 51, line 22, at end insert—
"() interests in property"
The noble Lord said: The definition of property in Clause 84 is too wide. Under Clause 42, the Crown Court may make a restraint order prohibiting any person from dealing with what is described as "realisable property" held by him. Under Clause 83, "realisable property" means,
"any free property held by the defendant".
Clause 84(2)(a) states that,
"property is held by a person if he holds an interest in it".
Under Clause 84(2)(f), an "interest" means,
"any legal estate or equitable interest".
Under ordinary property rules, an interest in property can be owned, but ownership of a particular interest in property does not mean that the owner of that interest necessarily owns the other interests in the same property. The definition in the clause radically extends the ordinary meaning of property. It means that the mere holding of an interest in that property may be interpreted, for the purposes of a restraint order, as including the property itself and all other interests in it. For example, if a defendant rents a house, he has a legal estate in that house: that is an interest. Under the terms of Clause 84(2)(a), the defendant would be treated as holding not only his tenancy of the house but the entire interest in the house itself. If the tenancy is of a flat that is part of a block of flats, it is at least arguable that the defendant is to be treated as holding the entire block.
That would mean that property outside the defendant's ownership or control would be treated by the Bill as being held by him and could be subject to a restraint order. It is not good enough to say that the court would not make a restraint order extending to such property or that the court would not, for instance, make a restraint order preventing dealings with a house in which all that the defendant owns is a tenancy. However, even the theoretical possibility that such a restraint order could be made makes it difficult,

29
for example, for the landlord of a property that has been rented by the defendant to dispose of the property itself.
We should make it clear that an interest in property is itself a form of property. That is recognised in Amendment No. 90. Of course, there is nothing in the least unusual about that. In any ordinary definition of property, an interest in a property is a form of property. An interest in a house—whether it be a tenancy, a right of occupation by virtue of a trust or licence or some form of right of way over the land owned with the house—is, in itself, a separate form of property. However, we propose also to remove paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 84(2), so that only the interest itself can be subject to a restraint order. Thus, a restraint order would be limited to the extent of a defendant's interest in the property and would not extend to other interests in the same property.
The amendment is sensible, realistic and fair. As the Bill stands, the Government's proposals go well beyond anything that is needed or justified. To make property that does not belong to the defendant and is not, therefore, tainted property potentially subject to a restraint order is seriously wrong and could cause serious hardship. I beg to move.
4.15 p m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord has set his case out well. Amendments Nos. 90, 142, 202 and 265H would define property as including an interest in property. Amendments Nos. 91, 143, 203 and 265J would delete the gloss on the words "held" and "obtained".
The amendments would re-draft the definitions of property in Clauses 84, 153, 238 and 335. Amendments Nos. 90, 142 and 202 expand the definition of property to include interests. However, we consider that interests are already covered by the wide definition of property, particularly that given in paragraphs (b) and (c) of Clause 84(1).
Amendments Nos. 91, 143 and 203 would delete the gloss on the words "held" and "obtained" in relation to property. As the noble Lord explained, he does not see why that gloss is necessary if the Bill has already provided that property includes an interest. However, the terms "held" and "obtained" appear regularly in the Bill. If the paragraphs were removed, it might cause doubt about what is meant when the Bill states that a person holds or obtains property.
The gloss on the words "held" and "obtained" appears in current legislation at Section 102 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and Section 62 of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994. If it were not included in this Bill, it might give rise to the inference that we intended the words "held" and "obtained" to have a meaning that differed from that in existing legislation. That is not the case, and it would be unfortunate if the Bill were to be interpreted in that way.
The amendments to Clause 335, Amendments Nos. 26511 and 265J, seem to be unnecessary. They raise concerns similar to those that we have expressed in respect of Clause 84.
30
For those reasons, we cannot accept the amendment, and we hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw it.
Lord Goodhart: The Minister has not really dealt with my arguments on this point. I do not blame him for that; they are, in a sense, highly technical issues of property law. No doubt, the Minister's brief has come from somewhere else. However, there is no doubt about what holding or obtaining property means, in ordinary language. Someone who holds an interest in property holds a form of property. He does not, however, hold a block of flats, simply because he holds a tenancy in the block: he holds the tenancy.
I see no need to resist the amendments on the basis that they would cause any doubt about references elsewhere in this Bill or in other legislation to the holding or obtaining of property. The real problem is that the definition of property in the clause would extend a restraint order beyond the property actually held by the defendant himself and impose a restraint order on any other interest in property in which the defendant held an interest. That goes well beyond anything that can be justified. It is clear that property should be defined in such a way as to mean that all that can be subjected to a restraint order is property held by the defendant himself or tainted property, which can be made subject to a confiscation order. Therefore, I hope that the Government will consider that matter in the interval between now and the Report stage.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord has said and I agree that there is an argument upon which we may need to reflect further. I am prepared to give an undertaking to write to the noble Lord so that we can attempt to reach a common understanding and to answer his point. I can see that this is a useful issue on which we should reach a settled view.
Lord Hope of Craighead: Will the Minister also consider the Scottish position because the same point arises in the amendment to Clauses 152 and 153? I mention the point only because the law of property in Scotland differs in some respects from the law of property in England and Wales and if the matter is being considered in relation to the English property provisions to which the noble Lord referred, it would be right also to consider the Scottish position in order to ensure that the point applies equally.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It would be right to reflect on that point in order to cover both positions.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful for the Minister's comments. I shall wait to see what arrives in correspondence, but if a satisfactory arrangement cannot be reached I shall wish to bring the matter back on Report. In the meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 91 not moved.]
Clause 84 agreed to.
Clauses 85 to 87 agreed to.
Clause 88 [Drug trafficking offences]:
On Question, Whether Clause 88 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Rooker: I rise to ask the Committee to delete Clause 88 from the Bill. I beg to move.
Clause 88 negatived.
Clause 89 [Money laundering offences]:
Lord Rooker: I rise to ask the Committee to delete Clause 89 from the Bill. I beg to move.
Clause 89 negatived.
Clauses 90 to 93 agreed to.
Clause 94 [Making of order]:
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 92:
Page 55, line 30, leave out "three" and insert "four"
The noble Baroness said: In rising to speak to Amendment No. 92, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 94, 112 and 116 to 118. Amendment No. 92 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 94, which returns in principle to one of the most important issues of the Bill; that is, judicial discretion.
Members of the Committee will remember that during the course of the first day in Committee, our Amendments Nos. 11, 13, 93, 97, 98 and 144 proposed that the court should have a discretion as to whether an investigation should take place. That proposal was rejected by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General on a number of grounds. First, he explained that it was a mandatory process that was not new. Secondly, he said that the provision was the only way to make legislation workable and effective. Thirdly, he said that it was unlikely in the extreme that prosecutors would consider it appropriate to spend the time or resources on pursuing confiscation orders where that was "plainly inappropriate".
The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General went on to refer to Clause 11 relating to criminal lifestyle, whereby once an investigation has already begun safeguards exist to minimise incorrect assumptions and instances under which the court may consider that there would be a serious risk of injustice if the case were to continue. Those safeguards could be triggered only after an investigation has begun. That said, the discretion of the courts could not be exercised.
Our Amendments Nos. 15, 97, 98 and 146 proposed an alternative which could give the judge a discretion whether to make a confiscation order once the court had had the opportunity to decide whether the defendant had a criminal lifestyle; in other words, the court could exercise discretion once the judge had before him the information which underlay the reason for the prosecutor's request for an investigation. We believed that that was a sensible compromise which would retain some expressed modicum of trust in our judges and would undoubtedly save time and money. The Minister rejected that alternative on the ground
32
that if the defendant had a criminal lifestyle, that was that. The defendant should pass over his money and then seek to persuade the court why he should have it returned.
Turning to the clauses in the Bill relating to Scotland, we are proposing in the amendment another possibility to exercise discretion at an early stage. The effect of the amendment inserts a fourth condition which must be taken into account before the court acts. Clause 94 is central to the confiscation procedure in Part 3 and lists three conditions which must be fulfilled before the court will make a confiscation order. First, the accused must have been convicted of an offence either in solemn or summary proceedings. Secondly, the prosecutor must ask the court to act under that section. Thirdly, the court must decide to order a disposal in respect of the accused. If all three conditions are fulfilled, the court will act under that clause.
The difficulty with that procedure is that no evidence will have been laid before the court at that stage to establish the prosecutor's grounds for asking the court to act under the clause. Clause 104 makes provisions regarding the statement of information which is to be given to the courts by the prosecutor. As currently drafted, however, information under Clause 104 will be provided to the court only after a decision to proceed under Clause 94 has been made.
Our view is that the statement of information should form an integral part of the initial assessment of the case and we therefore suggest that a fourth condition is added to Clause 94 stating that the court will act only after considering a statement of information.
Adoption of that procedure will ensure that the conditions specified in Clause 94 will mirror the procedure detailed in Clauses 107, 108 and 109. In those clauses, the court will not proceed unless it has considered the evidence presented to it by the prosecutor. The inclusion of that fourth condition in Clause 94 would therefore ensure consistency of confiscation procedure throughout this part of the Bill.
As regards Amendment No. 112 and consequential amendments, if it is accepted that the court should receive a statement of information from the prosecutor before acting under Clause 94, the prosecutor will be required to provide a statement at the stage when the confiscation is sought. This amendment and those related seek to reflect the proposed altered procedure. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Hope of Craighead: I support this amendment since it has the support of the Law Society of Scotland. One bears in mind that the second condition is that the prosecutor must ask the court to act under the clause. I believe that in practice a prosecutor would not think it right to take that step unless he was in possession of information which would justify proceeding beyond the opening of the procedure in Clause 94 and carrying it through to the end. Therefore, in practice I suspect

33
that the prosecutor would be in possession of the information called for in the additional condition mentioned in the amendment.
If there were practical reasons why the prosecutor could not at the initial stage provide the information then the position would be rather different. My own experience suggests that in practice the prosecutor would be in a position to do this at the outset. There is much to be said for the point made that it would be better to have the position clarified at the outset so it is established before the procedure gets under way.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My understanding is that the issue was fairly debated in another place and given quite a lot of consideration. As the noble Baroness said, subsections (2) to (4) of Clause 94 set out three conditions which must be satisfied if the court is to act. As the noble Baroness said, these amendments insert a fourth condition, that the court must first consider the evidence contained in the prosecutor's statement of information.
Our argument is that Amendments Nos. 92 and 94 are unnecessary. The prosecutor's statement, which sets out the Crown's calculation of an accused's proceeds of crime and assets, will in practice always be served on a convicted person and also lodged with the court. Accordingly, the court will always have before it a prosecutor's statement, so that point is satisfied.
If the convicted person has neither a proceeds of crime figure nor assets, then the Crown would not pursue confiscation. Amendments Nos. 92 and 94 would therefore not provide any further safeguard because the protection is already in place. The remaining Amendments Nos. 112, 116 and 118 are consequential on Amendments Nos. 92 and 94.
I am not an expert on the Scottish situation. It is only the prosecutor who can make such a Motion. The court itself cannot instigate confiscation proceedings of its own volition. In addition, confiscation proceedings are only alive and running when the prosecutor makes a Motion and pursues that course. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary in any event. We see the point which the noble Baroness makes, but we believe that the situation is already covered. I hope that those assurances are sufficient and that the noble Baroness is encouraged to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. I accept entirely what he has said, which has given me food for thought. I shall consider it with care and at Report stage we shall consider the contrasting position for England and Wales, which may be very helpful to us. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 93 to 98 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 99:
Page 56, line 23, at end insert—
"() In making representations to the court under subsection (8), any person whom the court thinks is likely to be affected by the order shall he entitled to appear before the court."
34
The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks to ensure that those persons who are likely to be affected by the making of a confiscation order will have an opportunity to appear before the court to make representations. In essence, it is a probing amendment. While we welcome the expressed position in the Bill, supported by the Law Society of Scotland, to enable third parties who are likely to be affected by a confiscation order to make representations to the court, we believe that it should also be clear from the Bill that such parties can appear before the court to make representations. That should ensure that any confiscation order made will be for the correct amount and that delays in the realisation of the proceeds will be kept to a minimum. Perhaps the Minister can clarify why the reference to representations does not expressly allow for it to be in person. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I hope that I shall be able to satisfy the noble Baroness. The amendment seeks to expand on Clause 94(8) but it does not add anything to it. Subsection (8) provides that, before making the confiscation order, the court must take into account any representations made to it by any person who the court believes is likely to be affected by it. In practice, any person who may be affected by such an order is entitled to appear before the court and make out a case. That is a well-established procedure in Scotland and it is endorsed by the courts.
The proposed amendment does not afford third parties any greater rights than are already afforded to them under subsection (8). I realise that the wording might not give that impression, but in practice it is exactly the same. We are like minds on this matter. The amendment is unnecessary to achieve the purpose to which the noble Baroness referred. I have put it on record that it has no effect and that no one will be denied the opportunity to put their case.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response which I accept with pleasure. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 100 not moved.]
Clause 94 agreed to.
Clause 95 [Time for making an order]:
On Question, whether Clause 95 shall stand part of the Bill?.
Lord Rooker: Later, I shall ask the House to delete this clause. Before doing so, I shall speak to Amendment No. 110A. This amendment and others mirror amendments already agreed to by your Lordships' House when we discussed Part 2 of the Bill. The equivalent of Clause 7 in Part 2 of the Bill has already been deleted and the related amendments arise out of concerns expressed in the other place about the drafting of the postponement provisions.
As presently drafted', Clause 95 states that a confiscation order must be made before sentence. However, that is subject to Clause 103, which makes it clear that if confiscation proceedings are postponed

35
under Clause 102, a confiscation order may be made after sentence. In practice, confiscation proceedings are usually postponed and the sentence will normally be passed before a confiscation order is made. That implies that a confiscation order will normally be made before sentence and that confiscation proceedings will be postponed only exceptionally. The terms of Clause 95, as drafted, are extremely confusing.
The amendments are designed to improve the practical and flexible operation of the Bill and mirror the changes already made in Part 2 of the Bill.
Clause 95 negatived.
Clause 96 [Recoverable amount]:
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
Clause 96 agreed to.
Clauses 97 and 98 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 102 not moved]
Clause 99 [Assumptions to be made in case of criminal lifestyle]:
[Amendment Nos. 103 to 105 not moved.]
Clause 99 agreed to.
Clause 100 agreed to.
Clause 101 [Disposal of family home]:
The Earl of Mar and Kelliemoved Amendment No. 106:
Page 60, line 3, at end insert—
"(ba) the needs and financial resources of a person of the same sex as the person concerned, who is and has been for a period of not less than six months living with the person concerned in a relationship which has the characteristics, other than that the persons are of the same sex, of the relationship between husband and wife, or if the person concerned is in custody, had so lived with the person concerned until the person was so remanded;
(bb) the needs and financial resources of any member of the person concerned's family who is, and has been, for a period of not less than six months, living with the person concerned in the family home, or if the person concerned is in custody, has so lived with the person concerned was so remanded;"
The noble Earl said: This group of amendments apply the admired provisions for the treatment of the family home in Scotland. Amendments Nos. 106 and 108 are the substantive amendments; the remainder are consequential.
Amendment No. 106 seeks to extend the protection currently afforded to spouses, former spouses, children and grandchildren, to other members of the accused's family—for example, siblings—and also to same sex partners of at least six months' standing. Anyone for whom the dwelling is home ought to have such protection and a right of representation. Why should there not be equal treatment? All those who live in the dwelling should have their needs and financial resources considered before the decision to dispose of the home is taken. On the subject of same sex partners, I should point out that their relationship has been recognised in the Scottish Parliament's legislation under Section 87(2) of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000.
36
Amendment No. 108 would require the court to take into account any representation made to it by anyone for whom the dwelling in question is home. It would do so by widening the list of such people under subjection (3) of Clause 101. Elsewhere in the Bill, interested parties are expressly given the opportunity of representation—for example, under Clause 94, which deals with the making of a confiscation order, and under Clause 126, which relates to the protection of persons affected by any action taken by the administrator.
Given the consequences of the sale of a family home for anyone, it is only reasonable that all those involved should be treated equally. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I support the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, to which I have attached my name. The amendment would extend the protections currently available to the spouse and children of the accused's family under Clause 101 to same sex partners of the accused who have been living with the latter for no fewer than six months; and to those members of the accused's family who have been residing with him or her for a similar period.
In expressing my support for the noble Earl, I must reiterate his reference to situations where it is most important to consider both the needs and financial resources of other members of the family who have been residing with the accused in the family home. Let us take, as an example, siblings who could have been residing together for a period of time in a house that is registered in joint names.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Rooker: In some ways, we return to some of the points made in a previous debate on this complicated area of the Bill dealing with rights to the family home. As the noble Earl said, Amendment No. 106 seeks to extend the protections available to the spouse, the former spouse, and the children and grandchildren of the accused's family under Clause 101 to same sex partners of the accused who have been living with the latter for no fewer than six months; and, indeed, to any member of the accused's family who has been residing with him or her for a similar period. As the noble Earl pointed out, some amendments in this group are consequential.
I took advice on this amendment, because my original notes did not indicate whether the matter had been raised in the other place. We are dealing with an important area of the legislation, and I make no complaints about the issue being raised again. However, Clause 101 provides a degree of protection to the accused's spouse, or former spouse, and to any child or grandchild of the accused against the disposal of the family home. That replicates the existing provisions in the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995, which, in turn, mirrors the provisions of Section 40 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985.
The Government and the Scottish Executive believe that any changes in this area of law should not be made in a piecemeal way—I do not mean that in a pejorative

37
sense —but rather as part of a coherent consideration of all the issues involved. To that end, the Scottish Executive intends to issue a draft family law Bill, based on the 1992 report on family law of the Scottish Law Commission. I understand that the intention is to try to produce that draft around the end of this year.
For the convenience of the Committee, I should point out that the matter was raised on Report in another place on 26th February, at cols. 609 to 624 of the Official Report, when exactly the same point was made. We believe that this area of law should be considered in the round rather than in a piecemeal way by tagging it on to this Bill. We need to await a full and proper deliberation and consultation, based upon some draft legislation issued by the Scottish Executive. Given my explanation of the position, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am grateful to the Minister for his response, which I shall certainly want to consider. My instincts are that the Bill is too narrowly drawn, although I take the point that other legislation is similarly narrow. However, if the report of the Scottish Law Commission recommends changes`, we need to know whether that would automatically change this Bill. Indeed, when this Bill is enacted, can the Minister say how it can be subsequently changed?
Lord Rooker: For the avoidance of doubt, I should emphasise the fact that the Scottish Law Commission produced a report in 1992 on family law. The Scottish Executive intends to issue a draft family law Bill based upon that 1992 report. Legislation may, or may not, flow from that process. Obviously I cannot pre-empt a draft Bill to which I am not party and which has not yet been produced—and which, of course, would require consultation and parliamentary approval in Scotland. However, that would be the vehicle for change because it is primary legislation. That is the role of the Scottish Executive in relation to Scottish matters.
Lord Goodhart: Before the Minister concludes, am I right in thinking that there would perhaps be a problem with amending the legislation that will result from this Bill because we are dealing with a United Kingdom Act to which the Scottish Parliament would not be able to make consequential changes? Is there perhaps a case for introducing a power to amend this clause by way of secondary legislation to coincide with Scottish legislation?
Lord Rooker: I do not know the answer to the noble Lord's question. We are legislating here in respect of areas of Scottish law under the agreed devolution settlement proposals. The Scottish Executive agreed that we could deal with this legislation; in other words, we, the Westminster Parliament, are dealing with Scottish arrangements on behalf of the Scottish Executive. I do not know whether it is a two-way process, but, from a practical point of view, I suspect that is must be so. However, that is not a definitive answer.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: We have had a brief but interesting debate. Clearly, we need further to consider the matter. At this point in the proceedings, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 107 to 110 not moved.]
Clause 101 agreed to.
Clause 102 [Time for making confiscation order]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 110A:
Page 60, line 44, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
"(1) The court may—

(a) proceed under section 94 before it sentences the accused for the offence (or any of the offences concerned), or

(b) postpone proceedings under section 94 for a specified period.

(1A) A period of postponement may be extended "
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 102, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 103 [Effect of postponement]:
[Amendment No. 111 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 111 A:
Page 62, line 1, leave out subsection (6).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 103, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 104 [Statement of information]:
[Amendments Nos. 112 to 117 not moved.]
Clause 104 agreed to.
Clause 105 [Accused's response to statement of information]:
[Amendment No. 118 not moved.]
Clause 105 agreed to.
Clause 106 [Provision of information by accused]:
[Amendment No. 119 not moved.]
Clause 106 agreed to.
Clause 107 [No order made: reconsideration of case]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 119A:
Page 64, line 38, leave out "sections 94(4) and 95 do" and insert "section 94(4) does"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 107, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 108 [No order made: reconsideration of benefit]:
[Amendment No. 120 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 120A:
Page 66, line 20, leave out "sections 94(4) and 95 do" and insert "section 94(4) does"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 108, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 109 [Order made: reconsideration of benefit]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 120B:
Page 67, line 12, at end insert—
"(aa) there is evidence which was not available to the prosecutor at the relevant time,"

39
The noble Lord said: This group of government amendments deals with the ability of the prosecutor to return to court within six years of the accused's conviction for an increase in the confiscation order or a new confiscation order where none was made at time of the original trial. They mirror the amendments that we have already made to Part 2 of the Bill.
The amendments have three purposes. First, under Clauses 107 and 108, the prosecutor is allowed to apply to the court for a revaluation of the accused's benefit from crime only if he has new evidence. There is currently no requirement of this kind in Clause 109. In theory, an application could be made to the court on the basis of evidence held back in previous proceedings. The first purpose of the amendments is, therefore, to bring Clause 109 into line, so that the prosecutor will be able to apply only if there is new evidence.
Secondly, our intention has always been that more than one revaluation should be possible under Clause 109. In looking again at the reconsideration clauses, we doubt whether the wording of the clause currently achieves that intention. It appears to allow for only one application. We have accordingly taken the opportunity to make it quite clear that there may be more than one revaluation under Clause 109. We have also made changes to Clause 110 making it clear that more than one application can be made under Clause 110.
Finally, Clause 110 permits the prosecutor to apply to the court for an increase in the confiscation order where more realisable property comes to light.
Arguably, the clause does not allow such an application to be made where a confiscation order has been varied under Clause 109. We have taken the opportunity to put it beyond doubt that such applications are permissible.
These are fine-tuning amendments. However, I hope that they will send the same message to the criminal fraternity; namely, that we are coming after them for the proceeds of crime. They will certainly help to ensure that the Bill will operate in Scotland exactly as we would wish. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: Has thought been given to the inclusion of the words, "even if he had made reasonable inquiries"? In other words, the prosecutor could not have known about the evidence in the first instance even if he had made reasonable inquiries. It seems that at present one can have a second bite of the cherry without having to demonstrate that one made an effort in the first place to discover whatever the evidence might be. Surely that cannot be the case unless an effort was made in the first instance.
Lord Hope of Craighead: Perhaps I may intervene in that connection. The noble Baroness's point matches a provision that allows an accused person to appeal on the ground of fresh evidence. That right to appeal is qualified by a provision which disables him from doing so if the evidence on which he seeks to rely was not available to him or was not reasonably available to him. That qualification has often proved to be
40
valuable in doing justice. So there is some force in the noble Baroness's point—namely, in achieving some kind of symmetry between the various provisions that operate in the various branches of the criminal law.
Lord Rooker: Before replying to those points, perhaps I may repeat the point I made earlier. Under Clauses 107 and 108, the prosecutor is allowed to apply to the court for a revaluation of the accused's benefit only if he, the prosecutor, has new evidence. As I said, in theory, he could apply to the court on the basis of evidence that had been held back in previous proceedings. I cannot envisage such circumstances, although I suppose that they must arise. The idea of holding evidence back in earlier proceedings in order to have a go at someone later sounds slightly weird.
The provision is subject to the court's discretion. So the court will not grant an application where it deems it to be inappropriate. It will be for the prosecutor to make the case to the court. It is not as though the prosecutor has carte blanche in this situation.
I re-emphasise the fact that the court will have the discretion. If it thinks it inappropriate for the prosecutor to return to make the case on the basis of new evidence, it will be up to the court to determine that, not the prosecutor.
On Question, amendment agreed to
Lord Rookermoved Amendment 120C:
Page 67, leave out line 15 and insert "relevant amount"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 121 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 121A:
Page 67, line 18, leave out "on which his belief is based"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 122 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 122A:
Page 67, line 40, leave out from first "the" to fourth "the" and insert "relevant amount"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 122B:
Page 68, line 20, at end insert—
"(10A) The relevant time is—

(a) when the court calculated the accused's benefit for the purposes of the confiscation order, if this section has not applied previously;

(b) when the court last calculated the accused's benefit in pursuance of this section, if this section has applied previously.

(10B) The relevant amount is—

(a) the amount found as the accused's benefit for the purposes of the confiscation order, if this section has not applied previously;

(b) the amount last found as the accused's benefit in pursuance of this section, if this section has applied previously."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 109, as amended, agreed to.
5 p.m.
Clause 110 [Order made: reconsideration of available amount]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 122C:
Page 68, line 34, leave out from third "the" to fourth "the" on line 35 and insert "relevant amount"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rookermoved Amendments Nos. 122D and 122E:
Page 68, line 39, leave out "(when the confiscation order was made)"
Page 69, line 8, at end insert—
"(7) The relevant amount is—

(a) the amount found as the available amount for the purposes of the confiscation order, if this section has not applied previously;

(b) the amount last found as the available amount in pursuance of this section, if this section has applied previously.

(8) The amount found as the accused's benefit from the conduct concerned is—

(a) the amount so found when the confiscation order was made, or

(b) if one or more new calculations of the accused's benefit have been made under section 109 the amount found on the occasion of the last such calculation."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 110, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 111 to 117 agreed to.
Clause 118 [Appeal by prosecutor]:
[Amendments Nos. 123 to 126 not moved.]
Clause 118 agreed to.
Clauses 119 to 121 agreed to.
Clause 122 [Conditions for exercise of powers]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 126A:
Page 76, line 23, leave out from first "the" to end of line 24 and insert "relevant amount (as defined in that section)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 126B:
Page 76, line 31, leave out from first "the" to end of line 32 and insert "relevant amount (as defined in that section)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 122, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 123 [Restraint orders etc]:
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 127:
Page 77, line 15, at end insert—
"() to specified parts of the realisable property held by the specified person"
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 127, which I can do telegraphically. In considering what property would be affected by a restraint order, in our view due regard must be given to the principle of proportionality. In that respect, consideration should be given as to whether it is necessary to restrain all realisable property or only specified parts. This
42
amendment seeks to ensure that any action taken is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: In response to the noble Lord's final point, I have every reason to believe that this provision is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The certificate on the front of the Bill is not in any way qualified and thus makes a fairly hold statement. I received good advice that I could sign the paper which declared the Bill compatible and I am satisfied that that advice was sound.
The noble Lord has raised an important point. However, Clause 123(2)(a) provides that a restraint order can apply to all realisable property held by a specified person. This amendment seeks to provide that a restraint order need only apply to specified parts of the realisable property. We believe the amendment to be unnecessary. Clause 123(1) already makes it clear that not all the realisable property need be restrained. In other words, the court in exercising its discretion already has the power to order restraint against only specified parts of the realisable property. Given that, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: So far as concerns opinions about compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights, there are those that are certified and there are those that are certifiable. I cannot accept the view expressed by the noble Lord in the context of this amendment. I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
5.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 127) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 143.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Geddes, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Glentoran, L.

Biffen,L.

Goschen, V.

Blackwell, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Boardman, L.

Hanham, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Burnham, L.

Henley, L.

Buscombe, B.

Higgins, L.

Byford, B.

Howe, E.

Caithness, E.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Howell of Guildford,L.

Chadlington, L.

HuntofWirral,L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Kimball,L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Kingsland, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kirkham, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Lucas, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Denham, L.

Marlesford, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Marsh, L.

Elles, B.

Monson, L.

Elton, L.

Montrose, D.

Flather, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L

Freeman, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Naseby, L.

43

Northesk, E.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Stewartby, L.

Onslow, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Swinfen, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Thatcher, B.

Prior, L.

Trumpington, B.

Rawlings, B.

Vinson, L.

Saatchi, L.

Vivian, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

WadeofChorlton, L.

Selborne, E.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hayman, B.

Addington, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Ahmed, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Alli, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Andrews, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hoyle, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Bach,L.

Barker, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Barnett, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Berkeley, L.

Jones, L.

Billingham, B.

Jordan, L.

Blackstone, B.

Judd,L.

Boothroyd, B.

Layard, L.

Borrie, L.

LeaofCrondall,L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lipsey, L.

Brennan, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Brett, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brookman, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Burlison, L.

Mclntosh of Hudnall,B.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Chester, Bp.

McNally,L.

Christopher, L.

Maddock, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Clement-Jones, L.

Masham of Ilton.B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

David, B.

Miller of Chilthome Domer, B

Davies of Coity,L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Mitchell, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Desai, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dholakia, L.

Newby, L.

Dixon, L.

Northfield, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Orme, L.

Dubs, L.

Paul, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Pendry, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Peston, L.

Filkin,L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gale, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gavron, L.

Puttnam, L.

Gilbert, L.

Radice, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Razzall, L.

Goodhart, L.

Rea, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Goudie, B.

Rennard, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Richard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rooker, L.

Gregson, L.

Roper, L.

Grenfell, L.

Russell, E.

Grocott, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

St.John of Bletso, L.

Harrison, L.

Sandberg,L.

Haskel, L.

Sawyer, L.

Haskins, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

44

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Sharp of Guildford.B.

Walmsley, B.

Sheldon, L.

Warner, L.

Shutt of Greetland,L.

Warwick of Underclifle, B.

Simon, V.

Whitty, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Wilkins, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seat)

Tenby, V.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.15 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 128 to 130 not moved.]
Clause 123 agreed to.
Clauses 124 to 130 agreed to.
Clause 131 [Enforcement administrators]:
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 131:
Page 82, line 6, at end insert "and in so doing, to appear before it"
The noble Baroness said: I shall be brief. This amendment is similar in principle to previous amendments. It would ensure that those persons likely to be affected by an enforcement order under Clause 131 would have an opportunity to appear before the court to make representations.
We have been in consultation with the Law Society of Scotland, which welcomes, as we do, the express provision in the Bill to enable third parties who are likely to be affected by orders of the court to make representations to the court. We feel that it should be clear from the Bill that such parties can appear before the court to make those representations. The aim of the amendment is to ensure that those who will be affected by the actions of an administrator under Clause 131 will have such a right. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I can be equally brief, because the answer is virtually the same as on the previous amendment. The amendment would not add anything to the clause. Subsection (11) provides that before giving an enforcement administrator the power to manage or realise any realisable property, or before ordering a person to make payments to the administrator, the court must give persons who have an interest in the property an opportunity to make representations to it. The aim of the amendment is to give such persons a right to appear before the court.
However, in practice, any person who may be affected by an action of the court in that regard is entitled to appear before the court and make out their case. This is a well-established procedure in Scotland and is endorsed by the courts. The amendment would not afford third parties any greater rights than are already afforded to them under subsection (11). The question is the same, legitimately asked, and the answer is the same. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his full reply, which I accept entirely. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

45
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 131 agreed to.
Clauses 132 to 140 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 141 agreed to.
Clause 142 [Serious default]:
[Amendments Nos. 132 and 133 not moved.]
Clause 142 agreed to.
Clause 143 [Confiscation order varied or discharged]:
[Amendment No. 134 not moved.]
Clause 143 agreed to.
Clause 144 agreed to.
Clause 145 [Criminal lifestyle]:
[Amendment No. 135 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 135A:
Page 89, line 9, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert—
"(a) it is specified in Schedule (Lifestyle offences: Scotland);"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 135A, I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group.
These amendments mirror similar amendments that have already been discussed in relation to Part 2 of the Bill. The new Scottish and Northern Ireland schedules determine which single offences will attract a criminal lifestyle and, as a consequence, the application of the assumptions in Clauses 99 or 166 of the Bill. The various offences set out in the Scottish and Northern Ireland schedules correspond to those set out for England and Wales in the schedule we have already debated.
I am quite happy to give a more detailed explanation of the individual amendments but, given my brief explanation of what these amendments seek to do and bearing in mind what has already been done in other parts of the Bill, I hope that they will meet with the Committee's approval.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: We certainly approve of the schedule proposed in Amendment No. 140A because of the clarity it will bring to the legislation in describing "criminal lifestyle".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 136 to 139 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 139A:
Page 89, line 23, at end insert—
"(3) The Scottish Ministers may by order amend Schedule (Lifestyle offences: Scotland)."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 140 not moved.]
Clause 145, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 140A:
Before Schedule 3, insert the following new schedule—
"LIFESTYLE OFFENCES: SCOTLAND
Money laundering
1 An offence under either of the following provisions of this Act—

(a) section 327 (concealing etc. criminal property);

(b) section 328 (assisting another person to retain criminal property).

Drug trafficking
(2). An offence under any of the following provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (c. 38)—

(a) section 4(2) or (3) (unlawful production or supply of controlled drugs);

(b) section 5(3) (possession of controlled drug with intent to supply);

(c) section 8 (permitting certain activities relating to controlled drugs);

(d) section 20 (assisting in or inducing the commission outside the UK of an offence punishable under a corresponding law).

(2) An offence under any of the following provisions of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (c. 2) if it is committed in connection with a prohibition or restriction on importation or exportation which has effect by virtue of section 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (c. 38)—

(a) section 50(2) or (3) (improper importation of goods);

(b) section 68(2) (exploration of prohibited or restricted goods);

(c) section 170 (fraudulent evasion).

(3) An offence under either of the following provisions of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (c. 5)—

(a) section 12 (manufacture or supply of a substance for the time being specified in Schedule 2 to that Act);

(b) section 19 (using a ship for illicit traffic in controlled drugs).

People trafficking
3 An offence under section 25(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) (assisting illegal entry etc).
Arms trafficking
4 (1) An offence under either of the following provisions of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (c. 2) if it is committed in connection with a firearm or ammunition—

(a) section 68(2) (exportation of prohibited goods);

(b) section 170 (fraudulent evasion).

(2) An offence under section 3(1) of the Firearms Act 1968 (c. 27) (dealing in firearms or ammunition by way of trade or business).
(3) In this paragraph "firearm" and "ammunition" have the same meanings as in section 57 of the Firearms Act 1968 (c. 27).
Conterfeiting
5 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 (c. 45)—

(a) section 14 (making counterfeit notes of coins);

(b) section 15 (passing etc counterfeit notes or coins);

(c) section 16 (having counterfeit notes or coins):

(d) section 17 (making or possessing materials or equipment for counterfeiting).

Intellectual property
6 (1) An offence under any of the following provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)—

(a) section 107(1) (making or dealing in an article which infringes copyright);

(b) section 107(2) (making or possessing an article designed or adapted for making a copy of a copyright work);

(c) section 198(1) (making or dealing in an illicit recording);

(d) section 297A (making or dealing in unauthorised decoders).

(2) An offence under section 92(1), (2), or (3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (c. 26) (unauthorised use etc of trade mark).
Pimps and Brothels
7 An offence under either of the following provisions of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 39)—

(a) section 11(1) (living on earnings of prostitution or soliciting for immoral purposes);

(b) section 11(5) (running of brothels).

Blackmail
8 An offence of blackmail or extortion.
Inchoate offences
9 (1) An offence of conspiring or inciting the commission of an offence specified in this Schedule.
(2) An offence of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of such an offence."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 146 agreed to.
Clause 147 [Tainted gifts and their recipients]:
[Amendment No. 141 not moved.]
Clause 147 agreed to.
Clauses 148 to 152 agreed to.
Clause 153 [Property: general provisions]:
[Amendments Nos. 142 and 143 not moved.]
Clause 153 agreed to.
Clauses 154 to 156 agreed to.
Clauses 157 and 158 negatived.
Clauses 159 and 160 agreed to.
Clause 161 [Making of order]:
[Amendments Nos. 144 to 147 not moved.]
Clause 161 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 148 not moved.]
Clause 162 negatived.
Clause 163 [Recoverable amount]:
[Amendment No. 149 not moved.]
Clause 163 agreed to.
Clauses 164 and 165 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 150 not moved.]
Clause 166 [Assumptions to be made in case of criminal lifestyle]:
[Amendments Nos. 151 to 153 not moved.]
Clause 166 agreed to.
Clauses 167 to 169 agreed to.
Clause 170 [Postponement]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 154:
Page 100, line 29, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
"(1) The court may—

(a) proceed under section 161 before it sentences the defendant for the offence (or any of the offences) concerned, or

(b) postpone proceedings under section 161 for a specified period.

(1A) A period of postponement may be extended."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 170, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 171 [Effect of postponement]:
[Amendment No. 155 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 156:
Page 102, line 3, leave out paragraph (b).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 171, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 172 [Statement of information]:
[Amendments Nos. 157 to 159 not moved.]
Clause 172 agreed to.
Clause 173 agreed to.
Clause 174 [Provision of information by defendant]:
[Amendment No. 160 not moved.]
Clause 174 agreed to.
Clause 175 [No order made: reconsideration of case]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 161:
Page 104, line 21, leave out paragraph (b).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 175, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 176 [No order made: reconsideration of benefit]:
[Amendments Nos. 162 and 163 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 164:
Page 106, line 18, leave out paragraph (b).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 176, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 177 [Order made: reconsideration of benefit]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendments Nos. 165 to 167:
Page 107, line 10, at end insert—
"(aa) there is evidence which was not available to the prosecutor or the Director at the relevant time,"
Page 107, line 13, leave out from first "the" to end of line and insert "relevant amount"
Page 107, line 16, leave out "on which his belief is based"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 168 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 169:
Page 107, line 42, leave out from first "the" to end of line 43 and insert "relevant amount"
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): I must inform the Committee that there is a mistake in the Marshalled List. Amendment No. 169 should read as follows:
"Page 107, line 42, leave out from 'the' to 'the' in line 43 and insert 'relevant amount'
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 170:
Page 108, line 25, at end insert—
"(11A) The relevant time is—

(a) when the court calculated the defendant's benefit for the purposes of the confiscation order, if this section has not applied previously;

(b) when the court last calculated the defendant's benefit in pursuance of this section, if this section has applied previously.

(11B) The relevant amount is—

(a) the amount found as the defendant's benefit for the purposes of the confiscation order, if this section has not applied previously;

(b) the amount last found as the defendant's benefit in pursuance of this section, if this section has applied previously."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 177, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 178 [Order made: reconsideration of available amount]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendments Nos. 171 to 173:
Page 108, line 43, leave out from third "the" to fourth "the" in line 44 and insert "relevant amount"
Page 109, line 2, leave out "(when the confiscation order was made)"
Page 109, line 18, at end insert—
"(7A) The relevant amount is—

(a) the amount found as the available amount for the purposes of the confiscation order, if this section has not applied previously;

(b) the amount last found as the available amount in pursuance of this section, if this section has applied previously.

(7B) The amount found as the defendant's benefit from the conduct concerned is—

(a) the amount so found when the confiscation order was made, or

(b) if one or more new calculations of the defendant's benefit have been made under section 177 the amount found on the occasion of the last such calculation."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 178, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 179 to 182 agreed to.
Clause 183 [Defendant convicted or committed]:
[Amendment No. 174 not moved.]
Clause 183 agreed to.
Clause 184 [Defendant neither convicted nor acquitted]:
[Amendment No. 175 not moved.]
Clause 184 agreed to.
Clauses 185 and 186 agreed to.
Clause 187 [Appeal by prosecutor or Director]:
[Amendments Nos. 176 and 177 not moved.]
Clause 187 agreed to.
Clause 188 [Court's powers on appeal]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendment. No. 178:
Page 114, line 30, leave out paragraph (b).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 188, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 189 [Appeal to House of Lords]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 179:
Page 115, line 44, leave out paragraph (b).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 189, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 190 to 194 agreed to.
Clause 195 [Conditions for exercise of powers]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendments Nos. 180 and 181:
Page 119, line 38, leave out from first "the" to end of line 39 and insert "relevant amount (as defined in that section)"
Page 120, line 1, leave out from first "the" to end of line 2 and insert "relevant amount (as defined in that section)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 195, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 196 [Restraint orders]:
[Amendments Nos. 182 to 184 not moved.]
Clause 196 agreed to.
Clauses 197 to 211 agreed to.
Clause 212 [Restraint orders]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 185:
Page 131, line 4, leave out from "appointed" to end of line 5 and insert "in respect of the property under section 202, 204 or 206"
The noble Lord said: This is a purely technical amendment which brings the wording of Clause 212(5) into line with that of Clause 58(6). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 212, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 213 to 221 agreed to.
Clause 222 [Applications and appeals]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendments Nos. 186 to 189:
Page 135, line 23, leave out "is authorised to do so by" and insert "falls within subsection (2A).
(2A) An accredited financial investigator falls within this subsection if he is one of the following or is authorised for the purposes of this section by one of the following—"
Page 135, line 26, leave out "or"
Page 135, line 33, leave out "is authorised as mentioned in subsection (2)" and insert "falls within subsection (2A)"
Page 135, line 41, leave out "is authorised as mentioned in subsection (2)" and insert "falls within subsection (2A)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 222, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 223 agreed to.
Clause 224 [Committal by magistrates' court]:
[Amendment No. 190 not moved.]
Clause 224 agreed to.
Clause 225 agreed to.
Clause 226 [Serious default]:
[Amendments Nos. 191 and 192 not moved.]
Clause 226 agreed to.
Clause 227 [Order varied or discharged]:
[Amendment No. 193 not moved.]
Clause 227 agreed to.
Clause 228 agreed to.
Clause 229 [Criminal lifestyle]:
[Amendment No. 194 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 194A:
Page 139, line 34, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert—
"(a) it is specified in Schedule (Lifestyle offences: Northern Ireland);"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 195 to 199 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 199A:
Page 140, line 4, at end insert—
"(4) The Secretary of State may by order amend Schedule (Lifestyle offences: Northern Ireland)."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 200 not moved.]
Clause 229, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 200A:
Before Schedule 3, insert the following new schedule—
"LIFESTYLE OFFENCES: NORTHERN IRELAND
Drug trafficking
1 (1) An offence under any of the following provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (c. 38)—

(a) section 4(2) or (3) (unlawful production or supply of controlled drugs);

(b) section 5(3) (possession of controlled drug with intent to supply);

(c) section 8 (permitting certain activities relating to controlled drugs);

(d) section 20 (assisting in or inducing the commission outside the UK of an offence punishable under a corresponding law).

(2) An offence under any of the following provisions of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (c. 2) if it is committed in connection with a prohibition or restriction on importation or exportation which has effect by virtue of section 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (c. 38)—

(a) section 50(2) or (3) (improper importation of goods);

(b) section 68(2) (exportation of prohibited or restricted goods);

(c) section 170 (fraudulent evasion).

(3) An offence under either of the following provisions of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (c. 5)—

(a) section 12 (manufacture or supply of a substance for the time being specified in Schedule 2 to that Act);

52

(b) section 19 (using a ship for illicit traffic in controlled drugs).

Money laundering
2 An offence under either of the following provisions of this Act—

(a) section 327 (concealing etc. criminal property);

(b) section 328 (assisting another to retain criminal property).

People trafficking
3 An offence under section 25(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) (assisting illegal entry etc.).
Arms trafficking
4 (1) An offence under either of the following provisions of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (c. 2) if it is committed in connection with a firearm or ammunition—

(a) section 68(2) (exportation of prohibited goods);

(b) section 170 (fraudulent evasion).

(2) An offence under Article 4(1) of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/155 (N.I. 2) (dealing in firearms or ammunition by way of trade or business).
(3) In this paragraph "firearm" and "ammunition" have the same meanings as in Article 2(2) of that Order.
Counterfeiting
5 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 (c. 45)—

(a) section 14 (making counterfeit notes or coins);

(b) section 15 (passing etc counterfeit notes or coins);

(c) section 16 (having counterfeit notes or coins);

(d) section 17 (making or possessing materials or equipment for counterfeiting).

Intellectual property
6 (1) An offence under any of the following provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)—

(a) section 107(1) (making or dealing in an article which infringes copyright);

(b) section 107(2) (making or possessing an article designed or adapted for making a copy of a copyright work);

(c) section 198(1) (making or dealing in an illicit recording);

(d) section 297A (making or dealing in unauthorised decoders).

(2) An offence under section 92(1), (2) or (3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (c. 26) (unauthorised use etc of trade mark).
Pimps and brothels
7 (1) An offence under any of the following provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 (c. 69)—

(a) section 2 (procuring a woman or girl);

(b) section 3 (procuring a woman or girl by threats or false pretences);

(c) section 8 (detaining a woman in a brothel);

(d) section 13(3) (letting premises for use as a brothel).

(2) An offence under section 1(1) of the Vagrancy Act 1898 (c. 39) (man living on the earnings of prostitution).
(3) An offence under that Act as extended by section 7(4) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1912 (c. 20) (woman exercising control over prostitute).
(4) An offence under section 21 of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 (c. 34) (causing or encouraging prostitution etc of girl under 17).
(5) An offence under Article 8 of the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 (S.I. 1982/1536 (N.I. 19)) (living on the earnings of male prostitute).

53
(6) An offence under Article 122(1)(b) or (c) of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (S.I. 1986/595 (N.I. 4)) (procuring or causing prostitution by woman suffering from severe mental handicap).
(7) An offence of keeping a bawdy house.
Blackmail
8 An offence under section 20 of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 (c. 16) (blackmail).
Inchoate offences
9 (1) An offence of attempting, conspiring or inciting the commission of an offence specified in this Schedule.
(2) An offence of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of such an offence."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 230 and 231 agreed to.
Clause 232 [Gifts and their recipients]:
[Amendment No. 201 not moved.]
Clause 232 agreed to.
Clauses 233 to 237 agreed to.
Clause 238 [Property: general provisions]:
[Amendments Nos. 202 and 203 not moved.]
Clause 238 agreed to.
Clauses 239 to 241 agreed to.
Clause 242 and 243 negatived.
Clauses 244 to 247 agreed to.
Clause 248 [General purpose of this Part]:
5.45 p.m.
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 204:
Page 147, line 32, leave out from "proceedings" to end of line 33.
The noble Lord said: I had to watch myself carefully to make sure that I did not say "not moved" on this occasion. This amendment is a landmark for two reasons. First, it is the first occasion for what seems to me about an hour and a half—it must seem a good deal longer than that to the Deputy Chairmen of Committees—on which we are having a substantive debate on an amendment. Secondly, and rather more importantly, this is the first occasion on which we are debating an amendment to Part 5. Part 5 is a highly important part of the Bill which, unlike Parts 2, 3 and 4, is not foreshadowed by existing legislation.
In moving Amendment No. 204, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 224A, 233 to 236, 237 to 251, 252, 253 and 254 which are grouped with it. The purpose of this group of amendments is to ensure that there is a single mechanism for the recovery of property which is obtained by unlawful conduct. Under the Bill there are two entirely different procedures. One applies to property other than cash, or property which includes cash but does not consist solely of cash, in which forfeiture will take place via a recovery order in the High Court or the Court of Session. The second kind of procedure applies where the property which is to be forfeited consists solely of cash. In such a case forfeiture will take place by means of an order made in England, Wales and Northern Ireland by a magistrates' court or in Scotland by a sheriff.
54
There seems to me no logic in having those two separate procedures. Under the present law there is power in some cases relating to money which is suspected of being used in drug or terrorist offences to seize and forfeit cash. But there is no power—until this Bill comes into force—to make a civil recovery order in the High Court or the Court of Session. It seems to me that once the High Court or the Court of Session has been given power to make a recovery order that power should apply to all recoverable property. It seems to me that to make a forfeiture order of this kind is not appropriate for magistrates although I recognise that at present in certain circumstances that can be done.
The forfeiture orders will apply to large sums of money. As I understand it, the Government are likely to make regulations which will ensure that forfeiture orders are not sought for cash sums of less than £10,000. Difficult issues may arise. I think that all of us would agree that this is not by any means an easy Bill; it is an extremely lengthy and complicated one. I believe that it will raise issues which are better dealt with by a higher court than the magistrates' court. The High Court or the Court of Session will have the necessary expertise.
I accept that a power to order the seizure of cash, as opposed to its ultimate forfeiture, can properly be left with justices of the peace. An order for seizure is not a final order. I accept fully that speed is of the essence and that it may be quicker to get a seizure order from a justice of the peace than to seek an order from the High Court. However, I believe that forfeiture of cash should be dealt with by the same method as forfeiture of other assets. I can see no possible logical distinction for forfeiting cash by one method and forfeiting, let us say, the contents of a bank account by another method. If the High Court order is the right method of forfeiting money which is sitting in a bank account, it seems to me that it is still the right method if the respondent takes the cash out of the bank account in £50 notes. For the purpose of achieving a logical and simple system I believe that it would be very much preferable to have a consistent procedure that applies to all forfeiture in civil actions. I beg to move.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): Before discussing the detail of the amendments, I want to make a general point about what we are trying to achieve in the Bill, particularly because this is the first amendment relating to Part 5, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said. We are trying to remove the proceeds of unlawful conduct from circulation. As has been said in this place previously, we want to make it clearer than ever that crime does not pay. In order to ensure that, it is necessary for us to use ends that are fair and effective.
The civil recovery scheme is a new proceeding to recover properties of all kinds other than cash that are found by the police or Customs and Excise. However, the cash forfeiture scheme in Chapter 3 is a development of a scheme that has been successfully

55
operating for more than 10 years. That is an important consideration in relation to the venue for those proceedings.
The existing cash seizure, detention and forfeiture proceedings—that is, all stages of the process—under the Drug Trafficking Act 1994, which was previously the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990, take place before the magistrates' court. The venue for the scheme for terrorist cash—the provisions were recently introduced in the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001—is the same; that is, the magistrates' court.
Magistrates are therefore familiar with the concepts that are involved in cash forfeiture proceedings and have shown themselves able to deal with those concepts to good effect. Just over £3 million was forfeited in 2000–01 under the drugs legislation, which demonstrates that the scheme is successful in practice.
The cash forfeiture element of this part of the Bill is simply an extension of and replacement for the existing Drug Trafficking Act scheme. As I said, that scheme uses the magistrates' court for all parts of the process, and it has done so successfully. We therefore do not agree that there is any reason to alter such a fundamental part of the existing scheme in relation to court venue and cash forfeiture.
I turn to the objections to the amendment and our reasons for opposing it and those amendments that are grouped with it. First, experience has shown, and it is to be expected, that arguments in the magistrates' court in relation to the cash forfeiture scheme will be narrower than those in relation to the new civil proceedings involving other types of property. They are likely to be narrowed to the derivation or destination of the cash; that is, to whether or not that fits the definition of recoverable property. The Government believe, and experience bears out, that the magistrates' court is an appropriate level for such considerations and proceedings. It is expected, therefore, that the cash forfeiture schemes will be quick and simple and that there will be little room for complex arguments. Having different venues for civil recovery, where the issues are likely to be more complex, and cash forfeiture, where they are likely to be more straightforward, seems appropriate. It is not the case, as the noble Lord suggested, that that arrangement is illogical; it appears to us to be logical.
Property law, for example, which can arise under the civil recovery scheme in relation to real property or other forms of property, can be very complex. The Government's view is that those potential complexities, including, for example, the position of interests in property mortgages or tenants, make it appropriate for the High Court. However, cash does not raise the same complex issues and it is appropriate to retain the arrangement in the magistrates' court.
There are also practical considerations that add further weight to the decision to keep cash forfeiture in the magistrates' court. If the amendments were agreed to, the higher courts would be unduly occupied by a potentially large number of inappropriate cases. That
56
would result in delays in listing cases and case costs would soar. That is not desirable in terms of making the legislation effective and it will not be in the interests of those who will be affected by it.
There are, of course, important protections. The most important protection that I should mention at this stage is that a decision by the magistrates' court is subject to an appeal to a higher court—to the Crown Court in England and Wales. I emphasise that that appeal involves a rehearing, so that the issues can be ventilated again; the matter is not limited in some way simply to a point of law. The limited number of matters to be decided and the safeguards that are provided in the scheme justify, in our view, the decision to keep cash forfeiture proceedings in the magistrates' court. That deals with Amendments Nos. 204 and 233 to 254.
I turn to Amendment No. 224A, which is also in this group of amendments. Clause 285 provides for certain exemptions from civil recovery proceedings. Subsection (4) establishes that civil recovery proceedings may be taken only if they involve property other than cash that is held by the same person. Proceedings involving cash alone—in effect, where cash is identified and seized by the police or Customs and Excise in the circumstances that are provided for in Chapter 3—are to be brought under the cash forfeiture proceedings.
Subsection (4) is intended to avoid confusion about which scheme applies to cash that is found within the United Kingdom that is alleged to be recoverable property. The amendment raises the possibility of confusion and could lead to inconsistency in relation to the way in which cash alone is treated—sometimes it would be dealt with under Chapter 2 through proceedings in the High Court and sometimes it would be dealt with under Chapter 3 through proceedings in the magistrates' court.
Chapter 3 has been designed specifically for cash alone. It has provisions in relation to the continued detention of cash—for example, as Members of the Committee will have seen, in relation to placing the moneys in an interest-bearing account. Those features are specific to cash and do not appear in Chapter 2.
Those features reflect the fact that we have established procedures for dealing with cash that is found by law enforcement officers that are effective, as they have previously proved to be, and which can have quick results. In those circumstances, the Government's view is that it would be wrong to confuse the situation, as Amendment No. 224A would do. In other words, we should continue to make it clear that cash forfeiture involving the police and Customs and Excise can be dealt with quickly and efficiently through established and tried methods in the magistrates' court. The civil process will be applied to more complex cases, which do not involve cash alone. Those are the reasons why I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hope of Craighead: I hope that the noble and learned Lord will deal with one or two points that are

57
of particular interest north of' the Border. First, an appeal by way of rehearing, which, as he rightly said, is available in the case of an appeal from a magistrates' court, is not available in Scotland. If there is an appeal from the sheriff court to the Court of Session on appeal, that is not an appeal by way of rehearing. That line of reasoning does not carry the same weight in Scotland.
Secondly, there is a power given to sheriffs under general legislation to enable them to refer difficult cases to the Court of Session. Those cases will be heard at first instance in the Court of Session. So far as I can see, there is no provision in the Bill to enable the sheriff to operate that procedure if he felt that it was appropriate for the first hearing, on the facts, to take place in the Court of Session and not before him. Will the Government consider introducing that element of flexibility?
I am afraid that I remain completely unclear on my third point. What happens if one discovers in the repositories of the person involved—the person who is said to have been involved in unlawful conduct—that there is a combination of property and cash? Under the Scottish system, it would be for the same person—the Crown—to take the initiative and bring the proceedings. It would seem strange if it were necessary to bring proceedings at first instance in regard to property in one court and in regard to the cash element in another. If I am wrong about that, I should be relieved, but if I am right about it—if there is a possibility of having to bring parallel proceedings in two different courts at different levels—some element of flexibility would be wise, I respectfully suggest, to enable the sheriff to refer the matter to the Court of Session so that the whole matter could be dealt with in one process.
6 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: I suspect that the noble and learned Lord will forgive me if I say that the answers to some of his questions are not immediately obvious to me, given that they relate to the procedure in Scottish courts. Sadly, that is not within my knowledge or experience. I certainly want to consider what he said but perhaps I may deal, so far as I can, with the points that he raised.
In the course of dealing with the last of the amendments, I referred to Clause 285(4), which provides that:
"Proceedings for a recovery order may not be taken in respect of cash found at any place…unless the proceedings are also taken in respect of property other than cash which is property of the same person".
The assumption underlying that clause may well be the answer to the third question that the noble and learned Lord raised. But, in relation to his first two questions, I shall have to seek his indulgence and come back to him.
Lord Goodhart: I hear what the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General says, although I am not
58
fully convinced by it. In particular, it seems to me that, although some—probably only a few—magistrates may be familiar with this procedure, it is unlikely that a large proportion of them will be. I accept. of course, that this group of amendments relates entirely to procedure and does not affect the substance of the law. That being so, while I find the division illogical, it is not an issue on which, as a whole, I wish to press the Government much further.
However, I believe that there are a number of more limited issues which we should consider again. I am particularly interested in those raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, in relation to Scotland, where I, too, am very much at a disadvantage.
It seems to me, first, that there is in England. Wales and Northern Ireland at least a good ground for suggesting that there should be a right for the magistrates' court to say, "We think this is an unsuitable case for us to deal with", where it involves, as some cases will, complicated legal issues, such as property law, which can apply to cash as to other kinds of property. Indeed, in some cases, it may be appropriate to allow the enforcement authority to bring its proceedings again in the High Court if that authority believes that legally it is a difficult case. It might, for example, wish to have an authoritative decision which it could cite in other cases.
I am also somewhat concerned by the nature of the appeal, which at present is to the Crown Court. Again, it seems to me that, while the Crown Court will have experience of dealing with confiscation orders, the Government have maintained throughout that a civil recovery order under Part 5 is a civil action and not a criminal penalty. I believe that, even if the primary jurisdiction for cash forfeiture is left with the magistrates' court, an appeal should go to the High Court rather than to the Crown Court.
Those more limited issues are ones to which I may wish to return further at. subsequent stages. As I said, I do not believe that I am likely to come back in the very wide form in which my amendments are now set out. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 205:
Page 147, line 36, at end insert—
"() No powers conferred by this Part are exercisable in relation to any property which is, or represents, property obtained through unlawful conduct prior to the coming into force of this Part."

59
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 205. Clause 316(3) provides the following:
"For the purpose of deciding whether or not property was recoverable at any time (including times before commencement), it is to be assumed that this Part was in force at that and any other relevant time".
As a consequence of that provision, it is possible for a recovery order to be made with respect to a criminal offence committed before the commencement of the Bill. We believe that that is likely to be a breach of Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That article provides that:
"No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed".
It is the last sentence that is relevant. That sentence prohibits a measure imposing a heavier penalty in respect of a criminal offence than the penalty applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed. If a recovery order is a penalty, then it is a plain breach of Article 7.
We believe that a recovery order is likely to be a penalty. There is no suggestion in the Bill that any property recovered is to be treated as compensation for the victims of the offence. If any property is recovered, it is to be sold and the proceeds paid into the Consolidated Fund. The defendant against whom a recovery order is made is plainly penalised and no compensation goes to the victim. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: I did not put my name to this amendment but I rise to support it. I entirely share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that there is a serious risk here that the civil recovery order under Part 5 could be held to be a criminal penalty for the purposes of the European Convention on Human Rights and, therefore, subject to the restriction on imposing punishments that were not available at the time that the crime was committed.
I appreciate that a superficially similar argument has been raised in respect of confiscation orders and that those have been held not to apply by the courts. However, the reason for that is, in so far as the confiscation order is a penalty, it is a penalty for the crime which leads to the confiscation order being made. Therefore, necessarily it can apply only to offences that are committed after the Bill comes into force. Although the money may be the product of earlier offences, the penalty is applied in respect of the offence for which the offender is brought to trial and convicted and for which a confiscation order is then applied.
That is not the case in relation to a civil recovery order under Part 5 because the only offence which is required is that which gave rise to the benefit. That offence may have occurred long before the Bill came into force. The Bill will give power for civil recovery orders to be made in respect of criminal benefits which
60
are obtained from unlawful conduct some time in the distant past, subject only to the 12-year limitation period.
That being so, it appears to us that the Government are sticking their necks out in assuming that they can properly do what they have done, which is to impose a recovery order in respect of benefits arising from crimes committed some time in the past, even if no crime has been committed subsequent to the enactment of this Bill. That point was considered by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Although the committee did not come to a positive conclusion that it would be a breach of the European convention, plainly it was an issue about which it had concerns. I believe that the Government should ensure that their position is secure by accepting the amendment.
Lord Goldsmith: In resisting the amendment I want to distinguish between two important facts: one is the policy and the other is the law and the European convention. With great respect to both noble Lords, neither the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, nor the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, dealt with the policy. The Government's position is that they are dealing with a problem that is here and now; that at present there are people who have in their possession large sums of money that are the proceeds of crime committed by themselves or by others.
In late 1999 a survey was carried out by the Government of law enforcement agencies—the matter is public so I am able to refer to it—of how useful the civil recovery mechanism would be. The answer of the law enforcement agencies was that, according to their information, there was about £440 million held by some 400 individuals which they believed was suspect. They may be wrong about that, but that is an indication of the size of the problem.
This amendment proposes that the civil recovery process should be enacted, but that it should not be allowed to bite except on the proceeds of property acquired as a result of someone's criminal conduct after the Bill has been enacted. That means that it could not touch any of the moneys to which I have referred. If the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is right, it probably could not touch even the further profits of moneys which have been taken as a result of crime and which are invested in some way that is not itself criminal but which will swell the proceeds.
I suggest that the policy question is a straightforward one. If, after the passing of the Act, it can be proved to the satisfaction of a court—it must be proved to a court—that property being held by an individual is the proceeds of crime—it may be the proceeds of drug trafficking or money laundering or racketeering or serious crime—should that individual have any right to continue to hold on to it? The Government's view is that such a person should have no right to continue to hold those proceeds. He should never have had them in the first place and he should not be allowed to hold them now. The policy argument is quite straightforward: should property that can be

61
demonstrated to be the proceeds of crime be allowed to remain untouched in the hands of people who hold it at present?
The Government have not gone so far as to say that there should be no time limit. By analogy with civil proceedings, as is apparent from Clause 290, there will be a time limit of 12 years in relation to property. So the position is not unlimited, but by analogy with civil proceedings there would be a limitation period. No doubt one could say, parenthetically, that the older the case, the more difficult it may be to establish to the satisfaction of the court that certain property is the proceeds of crime. That is an evidential matter.
Further, an important element of the policy and of the law is that there is no retrospective definition of unlawful conduct. In other words, when considering whether property is the proceeds of a crime, the conduct considered by the court will be conduct that must have been illegal and criminal at the time. We are not trying to re-invent crimes retrospectively. It could be drug trafficking, organised crime or something that was at the time undoubtedly a crime.
For those policy reasons and having considered the matter carefully, the Government's view is that it is right that there should be some limitation, but that the limitation should be as for civil proceedings—12 years. They also believe that it is right that the Act should bite now and not have a limited effect so that it operates only in relation to future conduct.
The second matter is that of law. It has been asserted by both noble Lords that by reason of Article 7 of the European convention this attempt by the Government will not be effective. As noble Lords know—this point has arisen before—the Government take the view that such proceedings are not caught by Article 7 because they are in the nature of civil proceedings and not criminal proceedings. They are not in the nature of proceedings for a penalty; they are in the nature of civil proceedings.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will not mind my picking him up for saying that the Government are wrong in assuming that. The Government are not assuming anything; they have considered the position. I am sure that the noble Lord did not intend to suggest otherwise by his choice of language. I am grateful to him for confirming that with a nod of his head.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights, as the noble Lord said, did not reach a conclusion. It said—I hope I summarise accurately—that it did not find the case law conclusive either way. I entirely accept that it looked at that issue and rightly so because it is an important one. However, based on a series of cases of the European Court in Strasbourg, of the Privy Council, and of the House of Lords, to which I have referred previously in Committee and at Second Reading—although the cases before the House of Lords and the Privy Council are not exactly in point—the Government's view is that they point strongly to the conclusion that such proceedings are civil and not criminal.
62
If that is right, the argument based on Article 7 of the convention falls away. If the Government are wrong, no doubt the courts will hold that. It is said that the Government may be taking a risk. Where there may be legal uncertainty, the Government may be doing that, but they are not doing so as a result of an assumption, but having carefully considered the position and in the belief that the policy rule is right. For those reasons I hope that the noble Lords will grapple with the policy consideration. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, to withdraw his amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his full response to my amendment and to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. We are sympathetic to the Government's policy. We accept that it is wrong that in certain circumstances those who have made ill-gotten gains from a particular criminal activity before the Bill becomes an Act should be entitled to hang on to those gains. We accept that as a policy.
The difficulty that the Government face is that, by their own initiative, the European Convention on Human Rights has been incorporated into English law. The view that the noble Lord. Lord Goodhart, and I take, and, I suspect, also the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, is that, at least on the balance of probabilities, it is more likely than not that this part of the Bill breaches Articles 6 and 7 of the European convention.
Of course, it is true that under the 199'7 Act, the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House is not bound by decisions of the court in Strasbourg. It is also true—in recent history illustrated by the case of Liversidge v Anderson—that the Judicial Committee has, from time to time in times of crisis, been influenced by policy matters when applying the law. I am not saying, of course, that if this issue comes to be considered by the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House, it is certain that that committee will adopt the noble and learned Lord's interpretation rather than mine.
Lord Goldsmith: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I noted his reference to policy and its effect on the judicial mind. Will he accept that it is no part of my argument that the law would be stretched, strained or twisted? The Government's view is that, on the existing case law, to be found in a number of cases, proceedings which confiscate property constitute civil proceedings and that will be the outcome by an application of European law both in Strasbourg and in the courts of this country. Will the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, accept that that is the reasoning behind my argument? Also, if he is sympathetic to the policy, will he accept that the Government ought to be allowed to make that proposition good by the Bill going ahead in its current form?
Lord Kingsland: I have already said to the Committee that I am sympathetic to the policy.

63
However, it is the Government's duty to balance whatever policy they wish to promote with the individual rights of the citizens of this country, and those rights have been enhanced by the Government as a result of the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into our law.
The Government are under a duty in relation to this legislation, as in relation to all other legislation, to certify that each clause conforms with the European Convention on Human Rights. I accept that it is the noble and learned Lord's judgment that Part 5 does so conform. It is simply that, in my judgment, on a balance of probabilities and for the reasons that I have given, it does not. That is why I tabled the amendment.
I ask the Government to think again about their judgment in relation to these clauses. In my submission it is more likely than not that the Government are wrong. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 206:
Page 147, line 36, at end insert—
"(3) The Scottish Ministers must make a code of practice in connection with the relationship between and the order of priority to be given to the criminal confiscation, civil recovery and revenue functions under Parts 3, 5 and 6 of this Act.
(4) Where they propose to issue a code of practice, they must—

(a) publish a draft;

(b) consider any representations made to them about the draft; and

(c) if they think it appropriate, modify the draft in the light of any such representations.

(5) They must lay a draft of the code before the Scottish Parliament.
(6) When they have laid a draft of the code before the Scottish Parliament, they may bring it into operation by order.
(7) They may revise the whole or any part of the code issued by them and issue the code as revised; and subsections (4) and (6) apply to such revised code as they apply to the original code.
(8) The code is admissible in evidence in criminal or civil proceedings and is to be taken into account by a court or tribunal in any case in which it appears to the court or tribunal to be relevant."
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 206 was inspired by the Scottish Law Society. It makes provision for a code of practice which will specify the relationship between criminal confiscation, civil recovery and the revenue functions contained in Parts 3, 5 and 6 of the Bill.
As I understand it, assurances were given by Ministers both in the Scottish Parliament and in another place that there will be a hierarchy of proceedings; and that a criminal investigation will be given priority over civil recovery. However, as a number of Members of the Committee pointed out in earlier proceedings, that policy intention is not reflected on the face of the Bill.
If the new procedures are to operate effectively and evidence essential to a criminal trial is not to be prejudiced, then the relationship between, and the interaction of, civil and criminal powers should be
64
fully explained in a code of practice which has the force of statute. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: It is not often that I oppose something inspired by the Law Society of Scotland. But Amendment No. 206 is not only a breach of devolution practice, it is also, and even more so, a breach of the Sewel convention.
The inflammatory word for me occurs three times in subsections (3), (4) and (5); that is, the word "must". Members of the Committee will be familiar with spending half an hour discussing the merits of "may" or "shall"; but "must" should generate perhaps a greater length of time. I am not sure that I have ever seen it before. I cannot support the amendment therefore on the grounds of the terminology used.
Lord Kingsland: I am grateful to the noble Earl for drawing my attention to that point. Were the amendment to be redrafted on Report to contain the word "shall" rather than "must", would the noble Earl's intervention be different?
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am certain that I would be able to read the amendment in a more calm frame of mind for me to make a decision about it.
Lord Goldsmith: A difficulty exists in addition to that referred to by the noble Earl; that is, that the proposed amendment breaches yet a further convention. It puts upon Scottish Ministers the obligation to give instructions or guidance to the Lord Advocate on criminal matters. That would be inappropriate.
The practical answer is that Scottish Ministers have already published draft guidance on this matter. The draft guidance has been placed in the Library of your Lordships' House. A copy was made available to the Scottish Parliament for the purpose of the Sewel Motion by which that Parliament agreed to Westminster legislating on devolved matters. The guidance sets out the key principles which will govern the operation in Scotland under the powers contained in Parts 3, 5 and 6. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, read it and had no difficulty with its content.
Therefore, given that that guidance will be published in final form after the Bill receives Royal Assent by the Scottish Ministers and copies placed in the Scottish Parliament, the only question is whether it is right that it should appear on the face of the Bill. For the reasons given by the noble Earl, but also because we regard it as unnecessary in circumstances where Scottish Ministers have provided eminently satisfactory draft guidance which will be published, we oppose the amendment. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Kingsland: I am grateful to the Minister. When he responded to a testing and apposite intervention by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, about half an hour ago, he disclaimed any knowledge

65
whatever of Scottish law or procedure. He has clearly spent the past half-hour on the Bench most productively—because in response to me he demonstrated the most extraordinary and intimate knowledge of the workings of both the Scottish legal system and the Scottish constitution.
Lord Goldsmith: If the noble Lord will forgive me, the position is exactly the same in England. I would not accept any Minister giving me instructions as Attorney-General in relation to my prosecution functions. In that respect there is commonality between the two systems of law.
Lord Kingsland: In any event, I am sure that the Scottish Law Society will pay close attention to these proceedings in Hansard, and no doubt between now and Report will express a view as to whether or not this matter should be pursued further. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question. Whether Clause 248 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.30 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: At Second Reading I had hoped to galvanise the Opposition Front Benches to mounting an all-out attack on Part 5 of the Bill. That has not happened. Therefore I am left to take up the cudgel still alone.
It is true that some useful amendments have been tabled, some of which have already been debated—two in particular—and they are extremely important. But in my view those amendments are doing no more than chipping at the edges of the problem. The defects in Part 5 are too deep-seated to be dealt with in that somewhat piecemeal way.
Part 5 is objectionable on three different grounds. When I refer to Part 5, I am really referring to Chapters 1 and 2, not Chapter 3, and I shall not be drawn into the question already discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead of whether there may or may not be some overlap between the civil recovery order and the forfeiture of cash under Chapter 3. The three reasons why I regard Part 5 as objectionable are: first, that it is incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998; secondly, that the net is cast so wide that it is likely to give rise to cases of grave injustice; and, thirdly, that I doubt whether it will ever be cost-effective in practice and may even prove to be unworkable—like so much of recent criminal legislation, I regret to have to say.
I shall take the three points in turn. I start with the example of a respondent whose unlawful conduct is in issue—in other words, a respondent who is himself alleged to have obtained property through his own drug dealing, racketeering or whatever offence is in question. In such a case, I suggest that a recovery order under Part 5 would in every respect be equivalent to a confiscation order under Part 2, even though he would not have been convicted of any offence in a criminal
66
court. Instead, he would be found guilty of the offence in question by a civil court on a mere balance of probabilities. For unless he has been found guilty of unlawful conduct, the recovery procedure under Part 5 will not get off the ground. I hope that when he replies, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will accept my argument at least to that point.
But the next step is that if a recovery order under Part 5 is in those circumstances the equivalent of a confiscation order—I suggest that no other view is possible—it is clear that the confiscation order would be a penalty under Article 7 of the convention. If it is a penalty, it is equally clear that the penalty is intended to be retrospective, as the Attorney-General accepted in reply to an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland.
The Attorney-General referred to the limitation period of 12 years in Clause 290. The Committee will notice that 12 years is distinct from the normal period of limitation of six years. That in itself is a strong indication—among many others—that we are here discussing criminal sanctions, not civil reparations. The Attorney-General also drew attention to the fact that the Government do not intend to make retrospective conduct unlawful. Well, thank goodness that they do not, but that is not the question. The question is not whether conduct is made unlawful retrospectively, but whether the penalty is retrospectively made greater than it would otherwise have been.
If all that is so, it follows that the first retrospective recovery order made against a respondent whose own unlawful conduct is in issue will be bound to be challenged in the European Court of Human Rights under Article 7 and the challenge is bound to succeed. I am sorry to sound so definite when the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, talked about the balance of probabilities and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, spoke in a somewhat hesitant manner, hut it seems to be as definite as that. I look forward to hearing from the Attorney-General why that is not so.
At that point, I might simply say, "Quod erat demonstrandum", and sit down, but I think that I should try to anticipate some of the further arguments that the Attorney-General may advance and deal with those that he has already advanced. At Second Reading, he referred to three recent decisions: one of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; one of the House of Lords; and one of the European Court. I should have thought that he would by now have accepted that those cases do not help his argument. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, they do not bear even a superficial similarity to what we are discussing. They were solely concerned with the scope of Article 6(2) of the convention on a case in which the defendant had already been charged with and convicted of the offence. I am at present concerned not with Article 6(2) but with Article 7. The three cases to which the Attorney-General referred simply do not touch on the question of Article 7.
At Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord also referred to an Irish case, which I have considered" but again, it does not help. The question there was whether

67
a civil recovery procedure was or was not unconstitutional. The question of whether it would have been caught by Article 7 of the convention simply did not arise for the good reason that the European Convention is not incorporated into Irish law. It was purely a question of Irish domestic law whether the procedure was constitutional or not.
Why, then, am I so confident that a confiscation order is a penalty within the meaning of Article 7? Simply because that very point was decided by the European Court in the case of Welch. It was argued in that case on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that the purpose of the confiscation regime was preventive and reparative, not punitive. Those are the very arguments advanced by the Home Office in its memorandum of January 2002. At Second Reading, I was on the point of describing that argument as rubbish. Happily, I refrained in time. Instead, it may be less offensive if I say that that argument was unanimously rejected by the court in Strasbourg. In those circumstances, I am somewhat surprised to find it being raised yet again.
It cannot be said that the Welch case was wrongly decided. There may be an attempt to distinguish it on the grounds that it was concerned with a confiscation order—as, clearly, it was—not with a recovery order. However, that misses the point. Everybody agrees that the European Court of Human Rights considers what a piece of legislation does, not what it is called. Otherwise, it would be all too easy for a state to get round convention rights.
I am reminded of an observation made, I think, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, in a different context. He said that if we design an agricultural implement for digging and it has a handle and four or five prongs, we have designed a fork. We can call it a spade, if we like, but it remains, in fact and in law, a fork. Likewise, if we design a piece of legislation with the object of depriving a man of some or all of his possessions, after he has been found guilty of unlawful conduct under Part 5, we can describe that as a recovery order, but the European Court will call our bluff and will call it what it is—a confiscation order by another name.
Part 5 is incompatible with the convention rights. It is not good enough for the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General to say that, although it may be incompatible, he is prepared to take a risk and see what happens.
In raising my second objection, I must say something about the requirements of justice. In the other place, the Minister made much of the major criminal figures—400 in all—who had become untouchable by criminal prosecution and who organised and financed criminal activity without committing particular crimes. The noble and learned Lord referred to the same 400 major criminal figures. If that is the case, it is time that we changed the substantive criminal law, as we did in the Terrorism Act 2000. Under that Act, organising, financing and
68
directing a terrorist organisation is a substantive offence. Why should not we do the same in other branches of the criminal law?
If we were still to have difficulty convicting those major criminals, because of problems with getting evidence together and putting it before the court, we should change our law of evidence. For example, we could make telephone intercepts admissible in criminal proceedings, as they should always have been. It is far better to do that than twist the civil law to make it do a job for which it was never intended.
What happens if we do all that and there is still not enough evidence to charge and convict those 400 major criminals before a jury, although there is just enough evidence to persuade a judge on a mere balance of probability? How would the Director of Public Prosecutions put his case? He would say, "I think that you have committed serious offences"—drug dealing, living off immoral earnings or whatever—"and are, therefore, guilty of unlawful conduct under Clause 249. Unfortunately, we cannot put you in prison, because the evidence is not strong enough. I can, however, take your goods instead. In your case, the judge will have no discretion, because he will be bound to make a recovery order under Clause 270". Surely, the defendant is entitled to reply, "I deny that I am guilty of any wrongdoing. You have got the wrong man. If you, representing the Crown, think otherwise, I am entitled to have that matter decided by a jury".
I ask the noble and learned Lord two questions. Does he accept that, in such a case, a person whose serious criminal conduct is in issue ought to be entitled to have the matter decided by a jury? Does he accept that the right to trial by jury is one of our ancient liberties—they were referred to earlier—but that it would seem to be overridden by Part 5, in so far as it applies to a respondent whose own criminal conduct is in issue?
My third objection is that there is a danger that Part 5 will, all too soon, become a dead letter. There may be one or two high-profile cases, but, as soon as the director begins to discover some of the pitfalls connected with Part 5—there are many—and has been taken to Strasbourg once or twice, he may take the view that his time and money would be better spent pursuing convicted offenders under Part 2. That is where his efforts should be concentrated.
It is fanciful to suppose that the 400 major criminals will stand around waiting for an interim receiving order to be served on them under Clause 254. If they are sophisticated enough to have become untouchable by the criminal law, will they not also be sufficiently sophisticated to get round the provisions of the civil law? They might take all their possessions to Ireland; I do not wish to suggest to them what they might do. There must be many ways in which those 400 criminals could avoid the effect of the civil procedure that is proposed. We will then have yet another piece of criminal legislation that looks good on paper but is useless in practice. We all remember a provision now incorporated into the Terrorism Act 2000 that was

69
supposed to secure the conviction of the Omagh bombers. Not only has it not done that but it has done nothing, so far as I know.
The Proceeds of Crime Bill is an admirable and much needed Bill. However, the Government have gone a step too far in Part 5. It is incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998, for the reasons that I have given. That was the view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, as I read paragraphs 17 to 24 of its further report. I hope that the Minister will think again about whether he was justified in making the statement that appears on the face of the Bill.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, has performed a valuable service, in drawing attention to some of the difficulties that will arise if Part 5 is allowed to stand as it is. My point is fairly brief, and I shall confine myself to Chapter 1 of Part 5. Until I retired from the Bar at the age of 66, roughly a third of my practice was in criminal law. I also spent eight years as a recorder and was sometimes engaged in other judicial criminal court work.
In addressing my main point, I invite the Committee to look at Clause 248(2). It states clearly that:
"The powers conferred by this Part are exercisable in relation to any property (including cash) whether or not the proceedings have been brought for an offence in connection with the property".
Under English law, the offence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt but under Clause 249 there appears to be a strange mix-up in relation to the burden of proof. It is clear enough where there has been a conviction, but subsection (3) states:
"The court of sheriff must decide on a balance of probabilities whether it is proved".
That is quite different from the normal burden of proof under our law in the United Kingdom in criminal cases. I therefore believe that we cannot allow Clause 249, with its variation in the burden of proof before there is liability.
We must also bear in mind that Clause 249(2) states:
"Conduct which…occurs in a country outside the United Kingdom and is unlawful under the criminal law of that country…is also unlawful conduct".
That is, if the conduct occurred in a part of the United Kingdom, it would be unlawful under the criminal law of that part. I find that a confusing piece of drafting and we need to apply our minds to it.
I admire the Government's intention—and I believe it to be valid—of trying to enable property to be recovered which has been obtained by unlawful conduct. That is a sound proposition, but we must be careful to be consistent in the circumstances in which it is proved that conduct has been unlawful and therefore the circumstances in which the property can be recovered.
Lord Goodhart: I rise to speak because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, said that he sought our support for the Motion but we were unable to give it. I believe that I should therefore explain why that was so.
First, the noble and learned Lord's reference to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, about forks and spades brought back some extremely painful memories. The remarks were made by him in a case in which I appeared for the respondent in the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House and unfortunately the appeal was allowed. Hearing those remarks again brought back unhappy memories.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, gave three grounds for why the clause should not be allowed to stand. His comments were far-reaching because his real objection was not merely to the clause but effectively to the whole of the part of the Bill, as he made clear. It is therefore by far the most fundamental and important amendment with which we have had to deal. The noble and learned Lord made three points. First, that Clause 248 was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights or the Human Rights Act. Secondly, that it might give rise to injustice. Thirdly, he doubted whether it would be cost-effective in practice. The third of those reasons is perhaps the least important and we on these Benches would be prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt about it.
I believe that Clause 248 may well be incompatible with the Human Rights Act in so far as it operates retrospectively as discussed in the previous debate. However, in future there will undoubtedly be many cases brought for a civil recovery order in which on no footing can an element of retrospectivity arise because the unlawful conduct complained about occurred after the enactment of the Bill.
In such cases, I find it difficult to see any fundamental incompatibility between Clause 248 and the Human Rights Act. A civil recovery order may well be justified where, for example, a criminal has assets which are within the jurisdiction but he has either gone to ground and disappeared; or he may have gone to some other country from which he cannot be extradited; or he may have died and cannot on any footing be prosecuted. A civil recovery order may also be useful where recovery is sought from a person into whose hands the property has passed and where that person is not the wrong-doer. Therefore, I regard the incompatibility as being partial rather than complete.
As regards the ground that Clause 248 might give rise to cases of injustice, there is undoubtedly a risk. That is perhaps best dealt with by pressing various amendments to this part of the Bill which would reduce the risks of injustice. That may be done by, for example, re-examining the standard of proof necessary in order to activate Clause 248. The question of injustice may be assisted if we narrow the circumstances in which an interim recovery order may be obtained, which is a potential injustice.

71
While I have to some extent considerable overlap of agreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, it does not go so far as to justify a root and branch objection to what would in effect be the whole of Part 5 of the Bill.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, for what I am sure the Committee will agree was a remarkable intervention. I wholly endorse the analysis made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, with respect to the first of the noble and learned Lord's points. As regards retrospectivity, I believe it highly likely that Clause 248 contravenes the European Convention.
As regards subsequent Acts following the passage of the Bill, serious questions remain about compatibility with Article 6. The reason that I felt, at least at this stage of the proceedings, that I was unable to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, was that, at the end of the day, compatibility is a matter for the courts. Given the fact that we, on the Opposition Benches, broadly support the Government's policy in Part 5 of the Bill, at this stage we have taken the view that, although we would prefer the Government to make the appropriate amendments now, on balance it is better to leave matters to the courts at a later stage.
However, that judgment has now been tempered by the perspicacious analysis of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, with regard to his second head—the issue of grave injustice. The noble and learned Lord is surely right in saying that the effect of Part 5 will be to deny individuals, who have not previously been convicted of a criminal offence, their cardinal right under English law, which is their right to trial by jury. I found that point quite telling. I shall be reflecting on it between now and Report stage and will look afresh at any further intervention that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, may like to make as regards Clause 248 when the time comes.
7 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: Notwithstanding that ultimately the noble and learned Lord's proposition is not supported at this stage—I note what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said—by either of the two opposition parties, it is obviously right that the careful analysis which the noble and learned Lord put forward should be addressed properly. I thank him for that. I shall seek to address it head on. Indeed, we have had a discussion about this already for which I am grateful to him
Before turning to the three points that he makes, I would like to emphasise one or two aspects which run through what I want to say. It is clear from what has already been said on this Bill here and in another place that it is the Government's view, supported until now by the other parties, that Part 5 of the Bill is needed to fill an important gap in the law. Without it and civil recovery, however well meaning and whatever innovative ideas one has about the criminal law the process cannot otherwise be achieved.
72
But it is important—and this is at the heart of the Government's approach—that the civil recovery process is focusing exclusively on the origin of property. It is to be a proprietary remedy, which attaches to the property. It will not be dependent on the person who holds the property having been convicted or, more to the point, having committed any offence. I illustrate that by some of the examples in which that will operate. It is not a form of prosecution. Its purpose is not to secure a conviction against any person and it cannot do so. The result of civil recovery cannot be, for example but most pointedly, a sentence of imprisonment on someone for committing serious crime. It is because civil recovery focuses on property rather than on conduct that it is properly, in the Government's view, a civil procedure. It is also why the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, about the justice of the situation, in our judgment, are inapposite.
First, I want to emphasise, therefore, the hierarchy. The prosecution of offences will remain the priority in all cases. The noble and learned Lord suggested that the director—which I understood to be the director of the assets recovery agency—should prosecute. It is very important to note that the director will have no power to prosecute. The power to prosecute will be the power of the existing prosecution agencies in England and Scotland. It is clear from the hierarchy which has been identified that the prosecution of offences will remain the priority in all cases. That is not intended as a soft option. For example, it is made clear in the draft guidance that it would not be a proper exercise of the prosecutorial discretion—there are two tests for prosecution, the evidential and the public interest test—to say that in the public interest there is no need to prosecute because there is the alternative of civil recovery.
However, in what kinds of cases may civil recovery take place? One example would be where the law enforcement authority has carried out a criminal investigation and consulted the prosecuting authority and a decision not to institute criminal proceedings has been taken applying normal evidential and public interest criteria. I acknowledge that that would be such a case, but I emphasise that the decision not to prosecute would be taken without regard to whether civil recovery may be available.
But there are many other examples which do not even touch on the possibility that the respondent is actually himself or herself being accused of criminal conduct; where the person suspected of the unlawful conduct through which property was obtained is not available because that person is dead or abroad and there is no reasonable prospect of securing their extradition. That is even before any advice has been given to such people to leave the jurisdiction.
A related example would be if a person had been convicted of an offence abroad, for example, for drug-related crime, but had recoverable property in the United Kingdom. The important point is that law enforcement and prosecution authorities will ensure that the possibility of bringing criminal proceedings has been fully considered in every case.

73
The second point is that when the civil recovery process takes place it will be governed by the normal civil procedure rules. There will be court proceedings in the High Court and civil procedure rules will apply. In Northern Ireland it will be according to the rules of the Supreme Court and in Scotland, I understand—without fully understanding what it means—according to the petition rules of the Court of Session. We shall obviously look at the detail of the procedural scheme set out and the safeguards which apply.
There is one aspect I wish to return to. But this part of the Bill is aimed at the need to deal with the problem, the "corrosive effect", referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, at Second Reading, of proceeds of crime and of depriving people of the working capital by which further crime, drug trafficking and more serious and organised events can take place.
I turn to the three points made by the noble and learned Lord. The first was that the Bill is incompatible. I am not going to take the point that the clause to which he refers also deals with cash forfeiture. That is not a feature of Part 5 of the Bill to which, I understand, the noble and learned Lord takes objection. Technically, his opposition to the clause standing part of the Bill would cut out that part of the Bill as well. I know that that is not his intention.
It is not the case that what I have been saying is that the Government believe that this may be incompatible. The Government's view is that it is not incompatible. I have been happy to accept that there is a degree of uncertainty. But that, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said, would be for the courts to determine. The Government would not be going into this matter unless they believed that it was compatible.
Therefore, I beg to differ fundamentally and strongly with the view of the noble and learned Lord that there will be a challenge which would be bound to succeed in Strasbourg. First, the jurisprudence to which I referred previously is, at the very lowest—to use the expression of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart— at least superficially in point. However, we believe that it goes further. What is being said there, and, indeed, has been said by the courts in Strasbourg, in the Privy Council and in the Judicial Committee of this House, is that when there are proceedings after a conviction but which relate to the proceeds of conduct that has not been the subject of a conviction, that constitutes a civil procedure, not a criminal procedure. I emphasise the fact that that applies not just to the case where the confiscation is in relation to the proceeds of the crime for which there has been a conviction, but conduct for which there has not been a conviction.
Secondly, there is other jurisprudence. For example, there is a decision of the European Court in a case called Raimondi, in Italian law—the reference of which I shall, of course, give to the noble and learned Lord—which does not appear to be that dissimilar when dealing with Mafia situations; and which, again, is helpful. I also mention the case of Welch to which the noble and learned referred. This is not the occasion for
74
the full-blown debate as to compatibility that may well take place in court. However, I make the following suggestion to the noble and learned Lord.
The key question in the two cases mentioned was whether or not this was a criminal or a civil matter. That is a very important question, not just for Article 6 but also for Article 7 purposes. Moreover, the particular point in Welch was that there had in fact been a conviction, and what was being done was following as a penalty for that conviction. That is the area in which the criminal confiscation procedures—the forfeiture—differ in a way that puts them on one side of the line from the present case. There will he no conviction in those cases. Therefore, the reasoning in Welch that found it was a penalty for a conviction would simply not apply. I give way.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I am obliged. Does the noble and learned Lord accept that one cannot get the civil recovery procedure off the ground unless there has been a finding of unlawful conduct? It does not worry me whether or not one calls that the equivalent of a conviction. There will have to have been a finding of unlawful conduct, which means a criminal offence, made by a civil judge.
Lord Goldsmith: I should like to make a point in reference to the noble and learned Lord's second point and, indeed, to the helpful and important observations of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. There are civil processes all the time that may involve consideration of conduct that is criminal, but in the course of civil procedure that does not mean that they are then subject to trial by jury or that they are to be determined by the criminal standard. When we debate the amendments relating to the burden of proof and the standard of proof, I shall say, as before, that the courts have made it clear that the balance of probabilities standard is a flexible one, and can involve the requirement for more persuasive proof in circumstances where what is being suggested is unlawful conduct. That is a large part of the answer, but it does not make any of that criminal process.
I turn to the noble and learned Lord's second point. From what I have suggested thus far, it is clear that there will be many cases in which the conduct in question is not the conduct of the individual who is the respondent. Further, it is not the case that the court is bound to make a recovery order. I draw the attention of the Committee to Clause 270(3)(b), which provides an important exception in the case where "Convention rights" would be infringed.
In that context, the noble and learned Lord made two points. First, he asked whether I accepted that, in such a case, serious criminal conduct ought to be decided by a jury. The right to trial by jury is an ancient liberty. I do not dispute the proposition about trial by jury for today's purposes—no more than in a case that involved libel, or a property claim by an individual saying that the property had been taken from him by theft. Indeed, no more than in those cases would it be trial by jury, and, therefore, no more in the civil process should it be trial by jury. In other words, if the

75
process is one to recover property, which this is, it is entirely appropriate that it should be decided by the court that deals with civil process.
Secondly, the noble and learned Lord stated that Part 5 of the Bill would become a dead letter. I respectfully beg to differ both fundamentally and profoundly with him in that respect. The experience in Australia, in Italy, in Ireland, which I have seen for myself, and in the United States is that this process is an effective and important one; and, indeed, that it does work. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, that is very much a matter for government to judge. Government have judged that this is an important part of the legislation, which represents an important element in the present law.
I hope that I have substantially covered the points made by the noble and learned Lord. I, too, recall the observation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman. That is not because I was involved in that case, but because it recalls to me the trenchant way in which the noble and learned Lord was often able to dismiss arguments put by others. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: By way of reply, perhaps I may point out that the noble and learned Lord won that particular case, while the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, lost it. I am most grateful for the observations made by the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Kingsland. I am especially grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for the care that he has taken to deal with my arguments. However, for the moment, I shall leave the matter.
Clause 248 agreed to.
7.15 p.m.
Clause 249 ["Unlawful conduct"]:
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 207:
Page 148, line 3, at end insert—
"() Civil proceedings will not be available if there has been an acquittal or conviction in criminal proceedings in relation to the same behaviour alleged or relied on."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment—in a sense, the point flows from the immediately preceding debate—is to prevent civil proceedings becoming a second bite of the cherry. There is nothing currently in the Bill to prevent the assets recovery agency—the ARA—from bringing civil recovery proceedings at the conclusion of an unsuccessful criminal prosecution. That must be wrong in principle. Someone acquitted at the criminal standard should not, subsequently, be made subject to lengthy asset recovery procedures at the civil standard of proof. Moreover, there is nothing in the Bill that would prevent civil proceedings being brought simultaneously with criminal proceedings. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: One of the amendments in this group is Amendment No. 209, which stands in my
76
name. I wish, therefore, to support the remarks just made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. As the Bills stands, it is open to the state in the form of the Crown Prosecution Service and the enforcement authority to bring criminal charges, and then, following the acquittal of the defendant by the jury, to come back for a second bite by way of an action for a civil recovery order based on the alleged "unlawful conduct", of which the respondent to that claim has been acquitted. That seems to me to be very close to double jeopardy; indeed, altogether too close to be permissible. Again, even in civil proceedings, a final decision between the parties is binding and the issues cannot be relitigated unless the first decision was obtained by perjury, by fraud, or by something similar.
Where a defendant is acquitted of, for example, murder, I recognise that there have been cases in which the family of the victim has brought a civil action for damages against the murderer and succeeded, despite the acquittal. However, in such a case, the criminal proceedings and the civil proceedings are brought by different parties. What the family seeks is not a penalty but compensation for loss.
Some confusion is being caused here by the use of the word "recovery". It is not, in any real sense that I am aware of, recovery that is being sought. What is happening is that the state, which has actually lost nothing, is forfeiting money that has been acquired by criminal means. That is an entirely different matter from compensation for loss.
In the case of an unsuccessful prosecution followed by a civil recovery order, the prosecutors in the criminal proceedings and the enforcement authority in the civil action are both organs of the state. If a jury is not satisfied that the respondent is guilty of unlawful conduct, it should not leave the state with the power to come back via the enforcement authority with a retrial of exactly the same issues. In these cases, the Crown Prosecution Service and the enforcement authority should work together.
I have serious questions about whether, in a case where there was real doubt whether a prosecution would succeed, it should properly be open to the prosecution to elect not to proceed with the charges and, instead, leave the authority to proceed for a civil recovery order. Even if that is permissible, clearly, where the prosecution has elected to go for a criminal prosecution and that is unsuccessful and leads to acquittal by a jury, then the prosecution should be required to live by its election and it should not in such a case be open to proceed on exactly the same facts which were an issue before a jury to seek a civil recovery order.
Lord Goldsmith: In speaking to Amendments Nos. 207 and 209 perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 211 and 212.
In relation to Amendments Nos. 207 and 209, I believe that the relationship between civil and criminal proceedings is clear from what I have said so far. The prosecution of criminals will continue to take priority, but there will be cases where there has not been a

77
prosecution. If there is a prosecution and a conviction, then criminal confiscation, under provisions in the earlier part of the Bill, will be the normal method of recovering the proceeds of crime. But if no conviction can be obtained, the director may consider civil recovery.
There may be some cases where the outcome of criminal proceedings will mean that civil recovery proceedings are not possible. I shall return to that subject. It will be for the director to decide in the circumstances of each particular case whether that is so. We certainly do not accept that, where a criminal case has not resulted in a conviction, civil recovery action should automatically be barred.
Where a person is acquitted of a specific offence charged in the criminal proceedings, there may be compelling evidence that some of his assets were none the less derived from unlawful conduct by himself or others. For example, he may be charged with theft of property or with handling property. It may be absolutely proved to the hilt that it was stolen property, but he may deny some particular knowledge or participation in the theft and therefore be acquitted. Why should he then, notwithstanding that, be able to hold on to that property? There may be other processes, hut surely the civil recovery process would be entirely appropriate?
New evidence may also come to light after a trial that may show a link between particular property and unlawful conduct. Although a second criminal trial would not be possible, that should not mean that civil recovery proceedings should be barred.
We recognise that there are lifestyle criminals who may avoid conviction because of witness intimidation or for other evidential or procedural reasons; or because of the distance that they put between themselves and the criminality supporting their lifestyle. We believe that it should be open to the state to attack the assets that they hold if there is evidence—sufficient to satisfy the court— that those assets are tainted. The mere fact that a person may not have been found guilty of an individual offence should not act as an automatic bar.
Amendment No. 207 would also prevent proceedings taking place where a person had been convicted in relation to the unlawful conduct. That is at first sight an odd provision, because the person would then have been found guilty. But it is important to note that Clause 310(9) already prevents the civil recovery of property that has been taken into account in deciding a person's benefit from criminal conduct for the purpose of a confiscation order following a conviction. Clause 281(9) provides that where property has been taken into account in this way the confiscation order counts towards whether the enforcement authority's right to recover has been satisfied. If the property has been taken into account, there cannot be double recovery; but if it has not been taken into account and the person has been convicted of an offence, why should the civil recovery process to obtain that property not be available?
78
We do not accept that Amendment No. 207—or Amendment No. 209—is correct, even from a position where the respondent to the civil process has been the defendant in the criminal process. But the amendment goes further. Not only would it prevent civil recovery proceedings being taken against the property of the individual who was the defendant; it would also prevent such proceedings being taken against any other person who may have property arising out of that unlawful conduct. So, for example, someone could be prosecuted as a thief and might be convicted as a thief. Against him, the court could only make orders in relation to property that he had, but it would be impossible to take civil recovery proceedings in relation to other people who were holding the property that that person had stolen. That cannot be right.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 211 and 212. They approach the issue in a somewhat different way. They would prevent civil recovery proceedings where a court had decided not to make a confiscation order.
Lord Kingsland: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. When I spoke to Amendment No. 207, I ought to have said that we shall not be moving Amendments Nos. 211 and 212.
Lord Goldsmith: That is very helpful. In those circumstances, I can simply invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment, and ask the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, not to move Amendment No. 209.
Viscount Goschen: Before the Minister sits down, he gave examples of where the criminal proceedings and the civil proceedings might be on a different basis. For example, the drug dealer who has been acquitted of a specific offence may well have other property which has been acquired by nefarious means. The Minister put powerful arguments in such cases. But how would the noble and learned Lord ensure that an issue of double jeopardy could not arise if the two were directly related?
I refer, for example, to the case of a racketeer who has been acquitted of racketeering or of a drug smuggler who has been acquitted of drug smuggling, and yet civil proceedings can be brought against such people on the very same basis. Surely under those circumstances the director of the asset recovery agency could pursue action against an individual which would constitute double jeopardy. How can the noble and learned Lord ensure that in such circumstances that could not happen?
Lord Goodhart: The noble and learned Lord dealt mainly with Amendment No. 207. My Amendment No. 209 is rather more targeted and would eliminate the kind of problem referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: I apologise for lumping the noble Lord's amendment together with another amendment. So far as concerns Amendment No. 209, although I accept that not all of the points I made in respect of

79
Amendment No. 207 go to Amendment No. 209, most are essentially the same. While I accept that the amendment would focus more clearly on the relationship between the conduct of a person at issue in the civil recovery and the decision reached in the previous criminal proceedings, there could still be many different reasons why it would be appropriate to continue with the civil recovery.
I do not shrink from the fact that one of those reasons could be, for example, that either new evidence may come to light after a trial which could not be used to bring further criminal proceedings, or simply that evidence could be available in the civil process which was not available in the criminal one, or that evidence is available in the civil process which would satisfy a court, even though it did not satisfy the criminal process.
Why is that not double jeopardy? So far as the proceeds are concerned, there will not be double jeopardy because the same property cannot be recovered twice. It is not double jeopardy otherwise because the consequence of civil recovery will not be a conviction—a sentence of imprisonmentx2014;against the person whose conduct is at issue.
However, I have indicated that there will be cases where the director may well take the view that, having regard to the way in which the criminal trial proceeded, it would not be appropriate to continue with any form of civil recovery. As I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, that would be a matter to which the director would have regard. He is a public authority subject to the Human Rights Act 1998 and he would have to operate in a proportionate manner. There is no reason to think that the director would proceed in a manner inappropriate in the sense of the civil proceedings then brought. However, I hope that the examples I cited earlier would indicate that there will be many cases in which, whether or not there has been a conviction, it would be entirely appropriate to pursue civil recovery if the evidence is available.
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for his reply and I apologise to him for not indicating at the outset that I did not intend to pursue Amendments Nos. 211 and 212.
Of course I am not happy with what the noble and learned Lord said in response to our Amendment No. 207; but on Report I shall be content to abandon it in favour of Amendment No. 209, promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. It has all the marks of the mind of a Chancery lawyer with the accompanying refinement that one might have expected from that class of practitioner.
It also has the happy coincidence of linking with a telling point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, in his intervention during the reply made to him by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. He spoke of the necessity of being able to identify unlawful conduct. Until unlawful conduct is identified, Chapter 1 of Part 5 would not be
80
triggered. I would submit that that important observation links extremely well with Amendment No. 209 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
In our deliberations on Report, therefore, we shall be backing the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on the assumption that he will re-table the amendment. If he does not do so, then we shall adopt it. In the meantime, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 208 and 209 not moved.]
Clause 249 agreed to.
Clause 250 agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begins again not before 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Offshore Chemicals Regulations 2002
7.35 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillerose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th March be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the regulations before the House today apply the provisions of a decision by the OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic. This decision covers a harmonised mandatory control system for the use and reduction of the discharge of chemicals employed in the offshore oil and gas industry. It was adopted in June 2000 and represents an international commitment which we propose to meet through these regulations under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999.
Under the regulations, operators of offshore oil and gas installations will need to apply to the Secretary of State for permits covering their use and discharge of chemicals. A major component of each application will be a risk assessment of the effect on the marine environment of the discharge of chemicals from the installation. These risk assessments will be examined by my department's technical advisers who will make recommendations about the acceptability of what is proposed and, if necessary, recommend particular conditions in permits. All offshore operations involving the use and discharge of chemicals will be covered—daily production, the drilling of wells, discharges from pipelines and discharges that may occur during decommissioning activities.
These regulations will build on voluntary arrangements that have been in place for many years. Under the voluntary offshore chemicals notification scheme, offshore operators notified my department of chemicals use and discharge which enabled us to provide advice on those chemicals and on the amounts

81
that could be discharged. In applying the voluntary scheme, offshore operators have adopted a sensible and pragmatic approach to safeguarding the marine environment. The time has come, however, for a more comprehensive regime for chemicals used by the offshore industry.
The stated purpose of the OSPAR decision is to,
"ensure and actively promote the continued shift towards the use of less hazardous substances (or preferably non-hazardous substances) and, as a result, the reduction of the overall environment impact resulting from the use and discharge of offshore chemicals".
It seeks to achieve this through the screening of chemicals against specified criteria to identify ones that might be hazardous and for which substitutes should be sought. It also calls for the ranking of chemicals according to their potential hazard to allow informed selections to be made by operators and the appropriate issuing of permits. The Government support these new requirements and believe that they will ensure even greater protection for the marine environment.
There has been wide and extensive consultation on the regulations, on the accompanying guidance notes and the regulatory impact assessment. We are therefore aware of and have taken into account the views of stakeholders to ensure that introduction of the regulations will go as smoothly as possible. In addition to the mandatory consultation, my department has held a number of workshops with the industry as well as carrying out informal consultation on various aspects of the regulations such as the charging scheme and the regulatory impact assessment. The responses to the various consultations have supported the introduction of these new controls and virtually all the comments received related to points of clarification rather than points of real substance.
Inevitably, these comments have raised among other things the question of costs. As the regulatory impact assessment shows, the costs to the industry will arise from two areas—the administrative costs to government which will be subject to full cost recovery and the additional costs to industry of preparing permit applications. Over the first two years of the regulations, the costs to government are estimated to amount to £1.2 million and the additional costs to industry £2 million. Obviously, those are not insignificant sums, but I do not believe them to be excessive, particularly in the context of the overall costs of offshore operations—in 2001 the offshore industry spent a total close to £8 billion—and the benefits they will bring in ensuring that the environment is further protected. The offshore industry has acknowledged that once it has become more familiar with the permitting process, those costs will reduce.
We have sought to keep to a minimum the burden that the regulations pose. For example, we accepted the industry's suggestion that only one permit should be issued to the operator of an installation where there are fields tied back to that installation. We have also accepted the industry's suggestion that permits
82
covering daily production should be open-ended, with a review every three years. That means that operators would, in effect, have to apply for permits only once. We have also accepted their request that only in certain circumstances should applications for permits be subject to public notice. We appreciate the constructive nature of those comments from the industry and I believe that we have arrived at a set of regulations that strike a sensible balance between enhancing protection of the marine environment and the concerns of the offshore oil and gas industry. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th March be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these technical regulations and for the clear guidance notes that were provided by the department. Not only do we on these Benches welcome the proposals and accept the need for them, but we also note the wide consultation that has taken place with the industry and with other interested parties such as the Atlantic Frontier Environmental Network.
When these draft regulations were discussed in the other place last week, my honourable friend the Member for Salisbury asked the Minister for Industry and Energy a number of questions. Although the Minister responded sympathetically, I am not certain whether he replied to some of them definitively. 11 shall repeat some of them.
The guidance notes refer to representations being made by members of the public on applications for licences. There seems to be no provision for such representations to be made electronically, even though the industry is going to be required to make its applications by that means. The regulations do not seem to require the applicants to advertise their applications on a website.
It is all very well for an oil company to advertise in the West Highland Free Press, but there may be parties living in other parts of the country for whom that worthy journal is not part of their regular 'weekly reading.
In his response, the Minister in the other place told my honourable friend:
"I will consider the hon. Gentleman's point about electronic responses".
Has that consideration yet taken place, and if it has what conclusions have been reached'?
I am also a little concerned about a further observation of the Minister in another place to the Committee that:
"we must protect the right of people not equipped to respond in that way".
I hope that that does not mean that the Government will refuse to allow that form of response in order to cater for the lowest common denominator. That is apart from the fact that e-mail is becoming an increasingly common form of communication, as the Post Office is finding out to its cost. Facilities are

83
available at commercial outlets—the so-called Internet cafés—or at public libraries for members of the public who do not own a PC. Will the Minister assure us unequivocally that the public will be able to respond electronically and tell us where and how that will be made clear to the public? This is an important precedent for future regulations.
The other point raised by my honourable friend concerned the possibility of the use of chemicals at very short notice, when it may be impractical for the operators to apply for permits within the prescribed time limits. That possibility is referred to in the guidance notes. Presumably, that would be as a result of an unforeseen and unforeseeable emergency. The Minister told the Committee that,
"operators should consult my Department as soon as possible".
He went on:
"We have experts available at all times to respond throughout the year. I should perhaps clarify whether that is at all hours of the day and night".
I should be most grateful if the noble Lord were able to give us that clarification now.
The Minister also assured the Committee:
"we will apply these provisions sensibly and flexibly. There is also a defence in the regulations available to operators about what to do if they had made best efforts to inform".—[Official Report, Commons Sixth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 8/5/02; cols. 9–10]
He concluded that passage by saying, "We will clarify that". I assume that he was referring to Regulation 18(2)(b), which says that it shall be a defence to prove that the contravention
"was due to something done as a matter of urgency for the purposes of securing the safety of any person".
I should appreciate that clarification from the Minister today, because I wonder what defence is to be available in an emergency that does not affect the safety of any person, but affects the environment—a major oil spill, perhaps—which might occur totally outside the department's office hours, perhaps at 2 a.m. on Christmas Day.
I repeat that, even with those questions, we welcome the regulations.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, I welcome the regulations and the Government's decision to introduce them to reflect their obligations under the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic. I look forward with interest to the Minister's responses to the noble Baroness and I shall not repeat some of her questions, which were raised in another place.
Geography obviously plays a significant part in the effects of an oil or chemical spillage. The United Kingdom will be affected not only by what happens off our waters, but also by what happens in other adjacent territories. What action are other relevant countries on continental Europe taking to comply with their obligations under the same convention?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness and the noble
84
Lord for the regulations. I shall try to deal with the points that they have raised. The format of the public notice has to cover the use of newspapers, because not everyone has websites, but there is no reason why the company cannot put it on their website. I think that the noble Baroness's point was about the response of people to that. As I understand it, responses to those applications can be made to an official named in the notice by letter, by fax or by e-mail. Only for the notice do we think that newspapers should be used.
The noble Baroness also asked about unforeseen events. We will have experts available at all times, day and night, 365 days a year. That covers the point that she raised. We are prepared to move quickly on that issue.
Other countries are moving on the issue. It has taken a long time to put measures in place. Other countries are moving at a similar pace. Different countries are doing different things. Some can use current legislation and others will need to introduce new legislation.
The point of the regulations is that the permit will be installation-specific. The fundamental point is that the marine environment is not the same throughout. There are different water depths, different currents and different life forms, so the permits will be specific to particular installations.
I hope that that answers the main points that have been raised. I believe that the regulations will add to the protection of the marine environment in a manner that is compatible with the continuing success of this country's oil and gas production. They will fit in well with enhanced existing offshore environmental practices. They have been framed to meet the legitimate concerns of the offshore oil and gas industry and consequently strike a proper balance between those concerns and our international commitments.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, does he have the answer to my question about what our continental neighbours are doing to comply with the convention?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I hope that I covered that in general terms. If it would be helpful, I shall write to the noble Lord setting out specifically what individual countries are doing.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Building (Amendment) Regulations 2002
7.50 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdalerose to move, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to revoke the regulations laid before the House on 5th March (S.I. 2002/440).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I speak to the Motion standing in my name and explain my angst at the regulations, I understand that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who was to respond to the debate, is unfortunately unable to do so because of

85
a death in the family. We have a very able replacement in the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, who, since he was appointed to government, has become something of a multi-role combat Peer in that he seems to shift from subject to subject with great ease and great effect.
I am sure that the House would wish to express its condolences to the noble and learned Lord on the death of his father. I would certainly like to move and join in those condolences.
As to my angst, I wish to call attention to a curious lapse in DEFRA's consultation process with regard to Part L of the building regulations concerning certain operations which can be self-certified in areas of the building trade by organisations specifically set up for that purpose. The statutory instrument in question is that recorded on the Order Paper, 2002/440, the Building (Amendment) Regulations 2002.
As the House will readily observe, the regulations give effect to four self-certification schemes in the building trade. They are: solid fuel combustion appliances and associated equipment; oil-fired combustion appliances and associated equipment; foul and surface water drainage; and, last but not least, replacement windows. Self-certification means that the operation in question does not have to be inspected and passed by the building inspector of the local authority and is by its nature deregulatory, and therefore to be highly commended.
Highly commended, that is, if there has been wide consultation within the industry and the relevant sector of the industry has set up a suitable scheme to operate the deregulation in question. Before the Government decided to set up a self-certification scheme for the first three operations I have mentioned, they did indeed do just that—not once, but twice—in 1997 and again in 1999. As a result, HETAS, OFTEC and the 10P approved persons schemes came into effect for solid and oil-fired combustion appliances and associated equipment and for foul and surface water drainage respectively. Their appearance in the schedule to the 2002 regulations therefore came as no surprise to anyone.
However, I am reliably informed that in those consultations no mention was made of replacement windows. To many of those in the building industry, these came as a complete surprise. Not even a hint that new glazing was to be covered was given by the department in the three years that have elapsed since the previous consultation in 1999. It therefore comes as some surprise that the regulatory impact assessment states in paragraph 9:1 that:
"The representatives of small businesses were consulted".
Anyone coming fresh, as I did, to these words would assume that they were to be interpreted as meaning that a representative selection of members of the building trade were consulted, probably through their trade organisations. That is certainly true as far as the first three items in the schedule are concerned, but, alas, the same cannot he said of replacement windows. In this connection I observe that the Building Advisory Council, as an agent of government, consulted the House Builders Federation, an
86
organisation concerned with new houses. Why on earth should the department consult that federation about replacement windows, a matter of no concern to new building but of obvious concern to other small businesses in the building trade, such as the Federation of Small Businesses or, even more appropriately, the Federation of Master Builders? Neither was consulted on re-fenestration, even though they had been on oil and solid fuel and surface and foul drainage, as indeed they should have been.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, of which I am proud to be a member, decided that even though the regulations are dependent on the Building Act 1984 it would not as a committee complain about the limited exercise of powers. However, that does not prevent me, as a Member of your Lordships' House, from doing so. In my view, the situation I have described comes very close to that. Section 14(3) of the parent Act states:
"Before making any building regulations concerning substantive requirements"—
Which of course these are—
"the Secretary of State shall consult the Building Regulations Advisory Committee"—
I am sure that the department did—
"and such other bodies as appear to him to be representative of the interests concerned".
I do not want to take a vast amount of time over this. I shall merely ask the Minister this question—why the tunnel vision I have described? I rest my case. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to revoke the regulations laid before the House on 5th March (S.I. 2002/440).—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am conscious of the opportunity that we have been given by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to discuss this important issue. I am grateful to him for taking the initiative and providing the opportunity.
I declare what was an interest. Until 10 years ago I was the parliamentary adviser to the Federation of Master Builders but I gave up the post when I became the Chief Whip. Although since then I help the federation in any way that I can I am not a paid parliamentary adviser—it is more a declaration of a non-interest. But that is why I am interested in this issue.
I pay tribute to the manner in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, responded to my inquiries. He sent me a long letter, which I have passed to the Federation of Master Builders. I am sorry to tell him not that it did not believe a word of it—of course it did—but that it was not satisfied with his explanation.
The news that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has suffered a bereavement in his family came as a complete shock to me. I join the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in his expression of sympathy.

87
The Federation of Master Builders states:
"The FMB has no problem with the thrust of the changes to Part L of the building regulations. However, there are serious concerns about the implementation of those changes and particularly the introduction of the FENSA self—certification scheme".
I shall deal more with the consequences of what the FMB asserts has been a lack of consultation. It states:
"We believe that the consultation process prior to the drafting of Statutory Instrument (SI) 440 was inadequate. Instead of limiting consultation to Building Regulations Advisory Committee and specialist associations, the consultation should have been much wider to include the representatives of the tens of thousands of construction firms that work in the general building trade".
The Minister should listen to the next few words very carefully. It continues:
"The FMB and the FSB were not consulted".
However it is perceived by the ministry and the Minister that they were involved in a consultation process, I can say on behalf of the FMB, through a letter I have received from a Mr Andrew Large, that the FMB and the FSB were not consulted.
I have read the documentation and I can understand that assumptions were made, but the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, hit the nail on the head. The crucial meeting in which they should have been involved was when the GGF made arrangements to consider eligibility for membership of FENSA. Those invited to attend the steering group included, among others, key stakeholders in the glazing industry, the District Surveyors Association, the House Builders Federation, the National Consumer Federation, the Institute of Consumer Affairs, the Trading Standards Institute, the British Board of Agrement, the British Standards Institution, the Law Society and ourselves—that is, the Government. In other words, the group did not include those whose livelihoods depend on dealing with the regulations. Although there are specialist double—glazing replacement firms, almost every member of the Federation of Master Builders replaces windows in the course of his other work. I ask the Minister to address that issue head on.
The cost of compliance is another issue. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer was very careful to point out that small builders have an option: they can either join FENSA, which costs money, or take the local authority route, which also has consequences. One estimate is that compliance could cost £150 per installation. Many small builders employ only one other person, perhaps a son or brother, but they are very proud people. They now face another £150 being added to their costs.
We know about the black economy, and we know about the unscrupulous individuals who tout for business without worrying about charging for VAT. They are otherwise known as cowboys. Small builders, on the other hand, pay VAT. They are law—abiding people. The regulations, however, will further distort the price that they must charge compared with that charged by those who operate in the black economy. The additional costs will put them in serious difficulty.
88
If they join FENSA, they will have to meet additional costs of perhaps hundreds of pounds. If there had been proper consultation, they could have made their arguments and perhaps persuaded the Government or those advising them that the fees should be much lower. The fact is that 20 per cent of the 20,000 small businesses represented by the Federation of Master Builders and the Federation of Small Businesses engage in the type of work covered by the regulations.
I ask the Minister to take on board too the impact of the quality mark scheme, which is unarguably designed to improve standards and to meet our Kyoto undertakings. It is also designed eventually to remove from the air more than 1 million tonnes of pollution. Although the concept behind the Government's regulations is to be applauded and supported, perhaps those advising Ministers should be more sensitive to the fact that people depend on the decisions made by Ministers. In this case, some of those people feel that they have had a very raw deal.
I hope that the Minister will not take offence if I tell him that this is simply not good enough. However, the deed is done. This debate is intended to bring the issue out into the open, but there is no question of trying to thwart the Government's intention. Nevertheless, those people, who are fighting daily for their livelihood, deserve better treatment than this.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for introducing this debate. Like others, I express my condolences to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, on his bereavement. I should also declare a couple of interests. I am a vice—president of the National Home Improvement Council. I am married to the right honourable Alan Beith, Member of Parliament for Berwick—upon—Tweed, who is raising this issue in another place. I am grateful not only to the Federation of Small Businesses and to the Federation of Master Builders, but to him for briefing for this debate.
Noble Lords have clearly expressed people's concerns about this issue. It is not that we do not support the Government's intentions. Noble Lords who have spoken already support those intentions, particularly on energy efficiency. I am particularly supportive of that goal and promoted a private Member's Bill on the very issue. The Government's failure, however, has been to conduct a proper consultation. That is the heart of the issue. Although I believe that they intended to conduct a proper consultation, it is clear from the representations which all noble Lords have received that that has gone slightly wrong. It has gone wrong particularly for small builders, who are most concerned about the issue. I hope that as a result of this debate the Minister will seriously take on board what has been said by noble Lords and by those outside the House about the consultation and see what can be done to minimise the problems. Despite what the Government say, the main concern particularly for small builders is—as the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, said—the cost of the regulations.

89
Another issue that needs to be sorted out is the way in which consultation is conducted. Some consultation has been done by the DTI and some by the DTLR. We need to be rather more careful when consultation affects more than one department.
Many different issues and schemes affect those who are trying to operate within these regulations, one of which, as previously mentioned, is the quality mark. That is one of the reasons why people feel confused. As various schemes are already in place, they wonder why the Government are not using them.
It is unusual to receive such a large postbag on a statutory instrument. However, in our neck of the woods, in Northumberland, several small builders suddenly found themselves affected by the regulations. As the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, explained, the provisions were originally not part of the general consultation. Specifically, it is the FENSA scheme and window replacements that are causing the problems. As a transition will be difficult for builders, I hope that the Government will consider ways in which they can assist them. We have already had some answers from the Government, who believe that they have consulted the right people. However, I think it is clear that there was a breach and they did not consult the right people. I hope that they will admit that and look at ways in which they can help builders.
The regulations' effect on the type of window chosen for installation is another issue. Different regulations apply depending on whether the windows have metal, wooden or plastic frames. Originally, the same regulations were to apply to all types of window. As I understand it, however, subsequent representations particularly from metal frame manufacturers said that different regulations should apply as metal frames tended to be narrower and use more glass, with a consequently greater solar effect. Although wood and plastic conduct heat very differently from metal, I find the figures somewhat surprising. I do not expect the Minister to be able to tell me now, but I should be very interested to know the precise scientific figures. As I suspect we are promoting rather bad science, I should be very interested to see the correct figures.
Builders are looking for the Government to say, "Yes, we fell down at one point in this consultation. However, we will work now with those builders and their representatives to see what we can do to avoid the trap in future and avoid causing confusion and unnecessary expense for small builders. We will make sure that we have a scheme that works". The main point made by the master builders federation and the Federation of Small Businesses was that if the smaller builders' organisations had been consulted perhaps we would have a different scheme. Perhaps we would have a better scheme as a result of consulting the whole range of people involved in this matter.
Let us face it. One often has one's windows replaced by a small firm of builders. If we are serious about energy efficiency—that is what the matter is about—we want a system that works and that we can record to determine whether it is having an effect. There is a question mark as regards whether effective recording
90
will take place to monitor how the measure is affecting energy efficiency. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments. I hope that he will be positive. The representations that have been made to us have been positive in terms of asking for a better way forward.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. As a member of the statutory instruments committee I am well aware—the House will also be aware of this—of the indefatigability of the noble Lord and the vigilance with which he approaches the work of the committee. I hope that my noble friend has taken note of the arguments that have been advanced. The organisation concerned is at the reputable and respectable end of the building industry. The list of consultees seemed to me to be rather long but I hope that it can be extended in future as regards all relevant matters in which this invaluable organisation may be involved.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale who has brought the Motion before the House today. I am grateful to him for doing that in the nick of time as I had heard that there were concerns on the part of both the organisations which have already been mentioned; namely, the Federation of Master Builders and the Federation of Small Businesses.
It is clear from what has been said today that there is considerable concern about the quality of the consultation which has taken place on the regulations. It is not a case of there not having been consultation but of a major part of the relevant consultees having been left out. Although others may have responded for them, they are not grateful for the way that that response has been made on their behalf. They would much rather have responded themselves and, if necessary, had discussions with the Government. There are concerns as regards this matter.
I have absolutely no connection with either of the organisations I mentioned and I do not suppose that any other noble Lord has. However, I have been inspired by their wrath and considerable concern at what has happened by the introduction of the regulations.
It seems to go against all common sense that the self—certification schemes should bring about the presumably unintended result—as seen by the people who are promoting the matter—of small builders facing huge extra costs. I refer to the introduction of the new regulations before the value of the quality mark has been assessed. I refer also to a plethora of self—regulation schemes which will affect small builders far more than large ones. I refer also to a new system which, as I understand it, is unlikely to do what it is intended to do and part of which is designed to protect consumers against rogue traders.
The Kyoto protocol commitment to encourage energy conservation seems to lie behind the proposals. My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, the Federation of

91
Master Builders and the Federation of Small Businesses request that at the very least the Government should agree belatedly to meet the relevant representatives and consider the effect of the regulations. I understand that this is only the first of other potential self—certification schemes. It is nonsensical that they should be introduced against the rationale of at least 20 per cent of members of the business world.
I hope that the Minister will tell us that the appropriate person will be willing to meet representatives of the organisations I have mentioned to discuss the problems they envisage will be associated with the regulations as they do not consider that their case has been heard throughout the consultation process. I hope that the Minister will give us some comfort, albeit that he is standing in, ably as usual, for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to whom I offer our condolences.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to discuss with the House the building regulations and the development of a major and important new initiative of self—certification.
In essence there are good reasons for extending building regulations to other aspects of building works both in the interests of the public in terms of their health and the thermal efficiency of buildings, for example, and in the interests of the responsible end of the building industry. However, were that to be done simply by rolling out the traditional method of extending building regulations and sending applications to building control officers or their private sector equivalents, there could well be legitimate concerns about the increased burden of regulation imposed on builders. It is in that context that the idea of self—certification has been discussed with the building industry from 1997. The aim of it in essence is to allow the building regulations to strengthen the quality of building works to ensure, for example, that we meet Kyoto commitments and to promote competent firms without imposing excessive burden.
The largest and most recent of the self—certification schemes is the fenestration self—assessment scheme, FENSA. We made replacement windows a controlled fitting as a result of changes we made to Part L of the building regulations dealing with the conservation of fuel and power—a total package of changes which will ultimately prevent 1.4 million tonnes of carbon being discharged into the atmosphere. As the House will recognise, there are very serious issues of thermal efficiency and of fuel poverty in the sense that the better the thermo efficiency of our buildings, the less fuel will be consumed. However, it soon became clear that there were 1.2 million replacement window contracts undertaken each year. One can therefore imagine what that would generate in terms of paperwork and process if it was all put through conventional building control. It is in that context that the FENSA scheme, along with others, is considered important.
92
I focus on the nub of the debate; that is, the issue of the quality of consultation. Three distinct consultation processes have been going on at the same time. They all to some extent interconnect. There has been consultation on self—certification as a principle and how it should be rolled out in practice. There has been consultation on the changes to Part L of the building regulations dealing, as I indicated, with conservation, fuel and power. There has also been consultation on the FENSA scheme itself on the part of the Glass and Glazing Federation and others.
I turn first to the consultation on self—certification. As has been indicated, proposals for self—certification were first consulted on in 1997 in a document entitled, Proposals for Reducing the Administrative Burden with the Prospect at the same time of Enhancing Health and Safety. That was followed up in 1999 with a document, Taking Forward Self—Certification Under the Building Regulations. The department invited expressions of interest from organisations which considered that their members could comply with the building regulations and therefore were potential candidates for self—certification. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, rightly said that at that time windows were not mentioned in relation to a potential self—certification scheme because they were not then part of buildings regulations.
The consultation process on self—certification continued and an invitation was open to all. Twenty—nine organisations, including the Federation of Master Builders, expressed interest. The consultation went out to more than 250 organisations, as one would expect. After receiving 29 bids and in consultation with the Buildings Regulations Advisory Committee—BRAC—which is the statutory consultation body that was set up under the Building Act 1984, it was decided to interview 10 organisations. After a lengthy process, which involved interviewing by a BRAC sub—committee, that figure was narrowed down to three others. The regulations deal with that.
I turn to consultation on Part L. The relevant Minister, Mr Raynsford, announced a review of that in February 1998. The first round of formal consultations on it took place in the summer 1998 and suggestions were invited on what measures could be introduced to maximise the contribution that buildings regulations could make to achieving Kyoto targets.
In March 2001, Mr Raynsford announced that consultations on the first round of amendments were complete and that amendments to the regulations would be made as soon as possible later in the year. He also announced that the technical proposition would be published in advance of formal amendment. That was accomplished in April 2001. I point out—I do not believe that this is contested—that changes to the buildings regulations relating to windows have been well known for at least a year. The regulations were laid before Parliament in October 2001. As I said, BRAC has been involved throughout that process, as is required under the legislation.

93
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked: why the tunnel vision? I turn to the consultation required under the Building Act 1984. It states that before making any building regulations containing substantive requirements, the Secretary of State shall consult the Building Regulations Advisory Committee and other such bodies as appear to him to be representative of the interests concerned. That is the law, and that is what the department did. The Building Act 1984 refers to the changes to Part L. I do not believe that anyone criticises consulting on that.
Substantive requirements deal with technical matters and are distinct from procedural matters. The FENSA scheme essentially involves consultation on procedural matters. That scheme is a procedural option that firms can choose to follow if they wish. Dealing with the administration of building regulations, such as self—certification, is in most cases not covered by the Act. Invariably and properly, however, the department undertakes extensive consultation on possible policy changes or their application, as it did with regard to self—certification. It does not, however, consult on the drafting of regulations, other than with BRAC and other bodies that are directly concerned.
I turn to the nub of the concerns; that is, consultation on the FENSA scheme. When it became clear that the building regulations needed to be changed if we were to meet Kyoto targets—there was a strong consensus that that was sensible—it also became clear that, given the volume of replacement window contracts that were likely to take place, it was important to consider self—certification as the mechanism for dealing with that. As I said, that was not done in the 1999 scheme because at that time the building regulations did not cover windows.
The Glass and Glazing Federation, which had responded in 1999 saying that it was interested in taking forward self—certification if and when it became appropriate, of its own volition came forward again in, I believe, the autumn of last year and indicated its willingness to explore the development of a self—certification scheme. The department responded positively to that because it seemed potentially to be in all people's interests to do so. It therefore created a representative steering group in autumn 2001, which included stakeholders, as my noble friend Lord Graham said. With the benefit of hindsight, one might say that the House Builders Federation might well have been replaced with strong representation from small builders undertaking replacement work rather than builders undertaking new building work.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Glass and Glazing Federation volunteered to do that—it offered to work with the interested parties in the industry. Why did it therefore decide to include the House Builders Federation and to exclude master builders and small businesses, which cater for 20 per cent of the total business involved?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I cannot and should not attempt to second guess what was in the heads of the
94
Glass and Glazing Federation when it formed that working group. The vast majority of replacement windows are carried out not by members of the Federation of Master Builders or jobbing builders but by firms that specialise in replacement windows. One would be a lucky Member of this House if one has not, at some stage, been invited by telephone to have one's windows replaced.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I recognise that what the Minister says is absolutely true. However, is it not the case that under the new building regulations if any window—an odd window here or there—is replaced, it has to be changed? The small builder who does so becomes involved in the process. That is why they feel so aggrieved.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I accept that. I was simply seeking to explain why the working group that was set up to explore the development of a self—certification scheme for replacement windows contained the bodies that it did; my noble friend Lord Graham said that he wished that that had been otherwise. Clearly, I cannot second guess its explanation.
There was a substantial debate in the trade press during that period about the development of a self—certification scheme for replacement windows. Moreover, there was a major advertising campaign to promote a large national event at the Aston Villa Conference Centre in December 2001. At that meeting, the Glass and Glazing Federation publicised its proposals for a self—certification scheme, more than 650 people attended. It was a complete sell—out and it is hard to believe that anyone who was active in the building industry would not have been aware of the fact that, besides the conventional building regulation route, there was the proposal to have self—certification.
My noble friend recognised that there was no issue with regard to Part L changes; I am thankful to him for that. The matter focuses on FENSA's wish to be formally consulted rather than the need to be aware of a larger consultation process. I do not know the relationships between the respective trade organisations in that regard. One has to seek to consult people and wherever possible to make them feel that they have been consulted. That avoids people feeling that they are out of the loop.
My noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, also raised the issue of costs. Self—certification will save people substantial amounts of money. If they do not believe that, they should not take part in it and should apply in the normal way for building control approval from a local authority. They have a completely free choice—that is not forced on them in the slightest. If applying for building control regulations as a result of changes to Part L involves costs, which it does, those costs are a product of the changes to the building regulations and not a result of the FENSA scheme. The FENSA scheme is substantially cheaper than the conventional route. For example, not all FMB members will have to pay for the vetting fee; they will have to pay a registration fee of £100, an annual fee of £50 and then, if they deal

95
electronically, as one hopes they will, the cost will be £1 per certificate. If the FENSA scheme works as well as we hope it will, the pay—back for any builder who replaces one or two windows using that scheme will be considerable.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and my noble friend Lord Graham also raised the issue of small builders feeling that they had not been consulted or their views taken seriously. As indicated, I do not believe that there has been any failure in the consultation process. Nevertheless, I consider it important that the Government bend over backwards to ensure that people feel that they have had an opportunity to have their say.
To some extent, one also hopes that if people believe they are not being consulted, they will shout and express their views rather than wait a long time for change. Certainly when I ran a national organisation, if we considered that we were not being consulted, we knocked on the door fairly vigorously. I believe that it is always in the interests of those who are being consulted not to be passive in the process but to shout fairly early on and express that view.
Having said that, I know that my honourable friend in another place—the relevant Minister, Dr Whitehead—will be very pleased to meet the Federation of Master Builders, both to have a little canter over the history of this matter and also, probably more productively, to talk about the future development of the self—certification scheme, how it might develop and how it might also be in the interests of the general master builder or jobbing builder as well as the specialist trader.
Until now, these schemes have been single—trade issues, but there is clearly a question as to how they will develop in the future and whether a scheme might be extended or developed. I can give no commitment that that would be the case, but it would be fruitful to have discussions in order to discover whether it might be possible. I believe that that touches on some of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, in terms of trying to ensure that what is intended as an efficiency of regulation applies effectively to all respective interests.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, asked me an extremely challenging question on the comparative thermal efficiency of metal frames versus wood and plastics. Unfortunately, I cannot give the thermal coefficients of them all. The Approved Document sets out the thermal properties required for each type of window, taking into account their physical properties. We shall write to the noble Baroness setting out how the thermal values were assessed. They did not involve different regulations, but I shall write in the near future setting that out in greater detail.
In summary, therefore, we believe that the extension of the building regulations in the way that we have talked about is in the interests of the public. Certainly it is in the interests of achieving global warming targets. We also believe that self—certification schemes are very much in the interests of both the public and the responsible end of the building industry.
96
It is important that we see how these early trials—that is what they are—as an alternative to conventional building regulations, develop over the coming months and years. In the process of evaluating them, it will be crucial that we pay very close attention to the interests of all types of operatives, firms and organisations in the building industry, including the Federation of Master Builders. I repeat my offer that the Government will be very pleased to meet the Federation of Master Builders and to consider its past interest and ideas for the future.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and joined me in giving the department a moderately sharp rap on the knuckles so far as concerns consultation of the self—certification schemes in general and the FENSA in particular. I am especially grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord Hardy, for totally different reasons. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, because of his expertise in the building trade, acquired by means to which I have not had access. I am also grateful for the vote of confidence from my fellow member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the noble Lord, Lord Hardy.
I believe that there is still a slight misunderstanding. The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, about costs related to cumulative costs. Thus far, there are four self-certification schemes. In order to practise as a general builder, it would be logical and sensible to be a member of all four. I suppose that that runs into some £400 to £500 a year at present, albeit that the individual costs for each application after that are very small.
The Minister gave a clear hint that this was the beginning of a whole range of self-certification schemes. He said that discussions could be held—I do not believe that he put it any higher than that—in relation to rolling all the certification bodies for the building trade into one. It is clear that the Federation of Master Builders, the Federation of Small Businesses and all those who have already been consulted will be extremely interested in joining in those consultations.
My original complaint concerns the FENSA scheme. The point about that scheme is that it does not cover only double glazing. Much of the debate today has been about double glazing. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, asked about the coefficient of heat expansion—I believe that that is the technical term—of the various surrounds of double glazing units. Schedule 2A to the regulations talks about the installation,
"as a replacement, of a window, rooflight, roof window or door in an existing building",
whether double—glazed, triple—glazed, quadruple—glazed or single—glazed.
Whether the department came up with this scheme as part of its reaction to the Kyoto agreement or whether it would have done so in any case is a moot point. But that does not matter. And when the Minister claims that only a small percentage of the

97
replacement of windows is carried out by the general building trade as opposed to specialists, I am afraid that I find that extremely hard to believe.
In summary, I am very grateful to the Minister for saying that his colleague will be happy to have—indeed, I got the impression that he would slightly encourage—a meeting within the department. I and the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for two, will ensure that that offer is taken up, possibly led by one of us. However, that is for the future. In the meantime, I am very grateful to everyone who has spoken. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Proceeds of Crime Bill
8.39 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 251 [Proceedings for recovery orders in England and Wales or Northern Ireland]:
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 210:
Page 148, line 30, leave out "thinks" and insert "has reasonable grounds to believe"
The noble Baroness said: Under Part 5 of the Bill an enforcement authority can take civil proceedings to recover property which is or represents property obtained through unlawful conduct and cash which is or represents property obtained through unlawful conduct or intended to be used in unlawful conduct. The defendant to such proceedings may be someone against whom no criminal proceedings have been brought. The civil proceedings may be brought against the widow or executors of the person who obtained the property and they may he entirely innocent of any wrongdoing. Such proceedings will be expensive and may be beyond the means of the defendant. The defendant may be forced to spend a considerable amount of time and money in defending such proceedings. All those who have been involved in any civil proceedings will know what a strain that is.
Therefore, we feel that it is appropriate that such proceedings should not be brought unless the enforcement authority has reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant holds recoverable property. Thinking that the defendant holds recoverable property is not, we suggest, enough. The threshold is far too low. Curiously, it is a test that favours the unintelligent because such a person may well think, quite wrongly, that the defendant holds recoverable property whereas a more intelligent person may not. The commencement of civil proceedings should not, we suggest, depend upon the intelligence of the relevant officer of the enforcement authority. Instead, we believe that a more objective test, which will operate in exactly the same way, is appropriate, whoever makes that decision.
We consider it appropriate for proceedings to be commenced if the relevant officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant holds recoverable property. If there are no such grounds,
98
proceedings must not be taken. That is an objective test that is easily understood both by officers of the relevant enforcement authority and by the defendant. Those grounds can be stated in the claim form and if they do not satisfy the test of reasonableness the proceedings can be struck out before any significant costs have been incurred. We believe that that would be fair to both the enforcement authority and to the defendant.
The enforcement authority should not have the right to take civil proceedings unless there are reasonable grounds. Indeed, the defendant should not suffer the strain of being a defendant in the civil proceedings unless there are reasonable grounds. Neither will be prejudiced if there are no reasonable grounds. By contrast, if an unintelligent enforcement officer thinks, quite wrongly, that a defendant holds recoverable property, there will he a substantial injustice to the defendant who will find himself embroiled in costly and time-consuming proceedings that should never have been commenced. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith: I suggest that there is some misunderstanding in relation to this provision. The safeguards that the noble Baroness seeks are to be found elsewhere. Clause 251 introduces a new procedure for civil recovery. It provides for two matters: it gives the enforcement authority the basic power to bring the proceedings and it explains what they are for and who the target is. The expression,
"against any person who the authority thinks holds recoverable property",
identifies the target of the proceedings.
The clause is not intended to introduce a free-standing test of the threshold for proceedings. The reasonableness of the proceedings are safeguarded in an entirely different way, which will depend upon what happens in the proceedings. They could go one of two ways: first, there could be an application for an interim receiving order. If there is such an application, as Clause 254(5) makes clear the order depends upon the court being satisfied that there is a good arguable case. At that stage the court would need to be satisfied that there is a good arguable case to allow it to proceed.
If the director does not seek an interim receiving order, the second route would be for a claim form to be issued, which would set out the basis of the claim. That would have two consequences: first, if it were patently obvious that the claim was without any substance whatever, it could be, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said, struck out. Secondly, if there is no interim receiving order—that is to say that the property is not frozen—the matter will go to court, and the court will grant the order only if the director persuades the court, on the standard of proof set out in the Bill, that the property is recoverable property and that all the other conditions are met.
This provision is not in the Bill to set out a threshold. I suggest that it would be unusual in any other kind of civil proceedings to have a preliminary threshold before someone can make an application. Let the court

99
consider the application when it is made. The amendment would create yet a further hurdle and make it possible for there to be a challenge to the proceedings being instigated, perhaps by way of judicial review or something of that kind, simply by considering whether there are reasonable grounds or whether the director has reasonable grounds. That would not be sensible and would simply add another layer to the process. The substance of the claim will be determined in a different way.
I hope that it will be accepted that the director will bring sensible claims and that the director and his staff will be intelligent. I know that the noble Baroness, by her forensic example, was not suggesting otherwise. That is another practical safeguard that will be in place. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Attorney—General for his response to my amendment. I shall read Hansard with care and consider what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 211 not moved.]
Clause 251 agreed to.
Clause 252 [Proceedings for recovery orders in Scotland]:
[Amendment No. 212 not moved.]
Clause 252 agreed to.
Clause 253 ["Associated property"]:
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 213:
Page 149, line 21, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d).
The noble Lord said: I would like to know why paragraphs (c) and (d) were included in the definition of "associated property" in Clause 253. Clause 253(1) says,
"'Associated property' means property … which is not itself the recoverable property—

(a) any interest in the recoverable property,

(b) any other interest in the property in which the recoverable property subsists".

It goes on to say,
"(c) if the recoverable property is a tenancy in common, the tenancy of the other tenant".
I would have thought that that was plainly another interest in the property in which the recoverable property subsists, so why are paragraph (c) and the corresponding paragraph (d) in relation to Scotland included? They appear to be unnecessary. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith: I was expecting an entirely different challenge to that put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The thinking behind the concept of "associated property" is well understood. It is plainly important that the recovery of recoverable property is not precluded by the fact that it is tied up with associated property. The Bill contains a number of safeguards for the owners of the associated property or those whose interests are affected.
100
Clause 253(1), by listing out the different items, seeks to ensure that all varieties of associated property that might be in issue are covered. In the light of earlier discussions, I would not begin to make any suggestions as to the position in Scotland in relation to paragraph (d) and cannot immediately give a precise answer to the question asked about paragraph (c). Thinking on my feet, it seems to me that it does no harm to ensure that everything is covered. I have no doubt that there was a good reason for taking the view that paragraph (c) was necessary. It may be because of the peculiar rules that relate to tenancies in common; for instance, if the property has been severed where it may be said that there is no interest in the recoverable property.
But I shall not teach chancery points to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. If there is a better answer than the one I have given, I shall ensure that the noble Lord receives it.
Lord Goodhart: I am not sure that the Attorney-General is any wiser than I am as to the exact reason why those two paragraphs appear. However, it is clearly not a point of substance. If the draftsman chose to include it, I do not wish to take the point any further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 253 agreed to.
Clause 254 [Application for interim receiving order]:
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 214:
Page 150, line 13, at end insert—
"() But no interim receiving order may be made in relation to property which is alleged to be associated property unless dealings with that property might substantially prejudice the realisation of reasonable property to which the order relates."
The noble Lord said: I now come to a more substantial point which may well raise the issue the Attorney—General was expecting me to raise on the previous amendment.
The definition of "associated property" is plainly one where both the respondent to the claim and some other person have an interest in the property. So the definition of "associated property" is wide enough—this is clearly intentional—to cover both recoverable property in the hands of the respondent, or indeed of some other person, and non—recoverable property, which is nevertheless associated.
I understand why the Government wish to include in the definition of "associated property" property which does not belong to the respondent and is not, itself, in any sense the proceeds of crime. But there are not enough safeguards in place. The definition is too wide and includes property it should not.
The issue is similar to that which I raised in relation to Amendments Nos. 90 and 91. The main example I raised was that of a landlord and tenant. The tenant—I assume he is the respondent in this case—holds a long lease to a house or a flat. That long lease is plainly saleable as a separate asset. The freehold reversion, certainly in the case of the house and possibly in the case of a block of flats, is another interest in the same property and is therefore "associated property". But in

101
such a case the lease can be realised without the sale of the freehold and the freeholder should not potentially be subject to an interim receiving order.
I accept that there are circumstances in which a clause of this kind is necessary. The obvious instance is that of the tenancy in common which we have just been discussing. If two people—a husband and wife or any other two people—own property by virtue of a tenancy in common, a separate tenancy in common is plainly not marketable and I understand why, in that case, the receiving order should apply to the interest of the other tenant in common.
In moving Amendment No. 214 I am speaking also to Amendments Nos. 220C, 223B and 224. Amendment No. 214 applies to the case of the interim receiving order which freezes the property. Amendment No. 224 raises the same point in relation to the eventual realisation and sale of the property in order to satisfy the civil recovery order. Again it seems to me that the associated property should not be subject to a sale if the recoverable property is, in practice, saleable without the realisation of the associated property.
To return to the example of the leasehold interest in the house, the leasehold is plainly realisable without recourse to the freehold. It is true, possibly, that if the freehold and leasehold reversion of the property were sold together, there might be some marriage value and that would increase the price. But that does not seem to be an adequate reason for saying that the freehold reversion should be sold. One ought not to make either an interim receiving order or an order for the eventual sale of associated property in cases where the recoverable property on its own can be efficiently and effectively realised without recourse to the associated property. The power to sell associated property should be restricted on the face of the Bill to cases such as that of a tenancy in common where the recoverable property is essentially unsaleable unless it is sold together with the associated property. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith: The purpose behind the provisions in relation to "associated property", I apprehend, is accepted and acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. It would therefore be common ground between us that there will be cases where the purpose of the process of civil recovery would be frustrated if it were not possible, in the first instance, to freeze by an interim order; and, secondly, perhaps to realise property without at the same time dealing with the interest of somebody other than the person who was alleged to be holding the proceeds of crime.
One can think of many examples, some of which were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, where associated property is tied up with recoverable property, the proceeds of crime, that make it necessary, in the first instance, to freeze and perhaps, in the second instance, to deal with the two together; for example, different interests in real property, leasehold and freehold, and perhaps mortgages in relation to property. There are other examples. I yield to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
9 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the Minister, but I would have said that freehold and leasehold interests in the same property were a pre—eminent example of a case in which it is unnecessary to realise both assets and where the realisation of one would suffice. A tenancy in common is a different case.
Lord Goldsmith: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention, but the point that I was seeking to make is that there will be many instances, of which only a few have been mentioned today, in which in order to give effect to the process it will be necessary to do something in relation to the associated property either at the interim receiving order stage or at the second stage.
Without going into detail, I want to emphasise that it is of course important—and the Bill so provides—that there are safeguards for those who have the associated property. The Government's difference of opinion with the noble Lord concerning his amendment is simply a question of whether the safeguards already in the Bill, which rely on the discretion of the court, are themselves entirely satisfactory. I suggest that they are.
Let me make clear what I have in mind. First, we would not expect proceedings to be brought in respect of non—recoverable property unless the enforcement authority considered it proportionate to do so, taking into account all the circumstances, including how best to satisfy any right it has to recover the recoverable property. There is no purpose in the enforcement authority proceeding unnecessarily in relation to associated property.
But if the enforcement authority makes an application—we are now considering the receiving order stage—it will be for the court to decide in accordance with its discretion what property is to be covered by the order. I—and, I should think, the noble Lord—would not expect any court to include associated properties in the order unless it saw a case for doing so. But it does not end there, because Clause 260(2) explicitly provides that:
"The court may vary an interim receiving order so as to exclude from the property to which the order applies any property which is … associated property if the court thinks that the satisfaction of any right of the enforcement authority to recover the property obtained through unlawful conduct will not be prejudiced".
I suggest that that entirely meets the noble Lord's point, in the sense that the court can on an application made to vary—which can be issued shortly after the order has been made—the order so as to exclude property if, in the court's view, it will not prejudice the right to recovery. The Bill provides that when an order in relation to associated property is made, the owner of that associated property should receive notice.
Our view is therefore that it is unnecessary-indeed, it is inappropriate-to insert in the Bill the specific test proposed by the noble Lord. It is better to leave it to the discretion of the court and the test referred to in Clause 260(2). But I need to go further than that, because it is then necessary to consider the position at the next stage, which is when an order is made in

103
relation to recoverable property at the final stage, as it were, of the proceeding, when the court decides that it is recoverable property.
Clauses 274 and 275 are pertinent here. Clause 274 sets out a provision to deal with those cases—we may anticipate that they may be frequent—where there is an agreement between the enforcement authority and the person who holds the associated property about how to go about realising the recoverable property without prejudicing the interests of the associated property. One distinct possibility if the property cannot be divided up or separated will be that one person simply buys the other person out. If there is no agreement, Clause 275 sets out what should be the process, which is then for the court to make an appropriate order. As the Committee will see from Clause 275(3), that could include an order by the court that the trustee—that is, the person who will be executing and in charge of the recovered property—must pay an amount to the person who is the associated owner. Indeed, under subsection (5), there is even the possibility of compensation being payable.
Against that background, I shall deal specifically with the amendments. On Amendment No. 214, it is unnecessary to include a specific provision in the Bill—it can be left to the discretion of the court and, as I said, the interim proceeding order can be varied on application.
Amendments Nos. 220C and 223B would add a new subsection to Clause 260 that would set out in the Bill that the court has power to exclude associated property if it thinks that to include the property would unfairly prejudice the rights of the person to hold the property—if that person is not the respondent in the civil recovery proceedings. Our view is that no such provision is needed in the Bill. The court can be relied on to take into account the rights of holders of associated property and may make exclusions on a variation order.
It will be important—this is why the amendment would be wrong—to have regard to the interests not only of the owner of the associated property but of the enforcement authority. At the interim receiving order stage, the property will be the subject of dispute between the state and the holder of assets, so the court ought to be mindful of the effect of any decision that it takes on the potential outcome. As I have sought to demonstrate, it is when the court comes to make a final order that the interests of the associated owner can fairly be taken into account—either by reason of an agreement to which effect is given under Clause 274 or by reason of the provision under Clause 275 for the court to make orders.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 224, which would add a new subsection to Clause 275, to which I have referred. The amendment would include the provision that it was,
"not reasonably practicable to realise the recoverable property without also realising the associated property".
In making provision under Clause 275, the court is already required to have regard to the rights of any person who holds the associated property and the
104
value to him of that property as well as the enforcement authority's interest. If the court makes provision for the disposal of associated property, it will give an order requiring the trustee to pay the holder an appropriate amount and/or compensation. The interests would be well protected at that stage.
The key factor is that neither the court nor the enforcement authority will have an interest in applying a recovery order to associated property if the recoverable property could be realised without undue difficulty without realising the associated property. Why should the enforcement authority pay for associated property that it does not need in order to realise the recoverable property?
Those explanations are a little complex, but I hope that they will be of assistance and will lead the noble Lord to the view that the safeguards are adequate and that he may withdraw the amendment.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his detailed explanation. I accept that there are several safeguards, but I am not entirely satisfied that they go far enough.
The Minister said that the enforcement authority would not ask for an order relating to associated property unless it was necessary to do so. I would not have much confidence in that as a system of protection. In the nature of things, an enforcement authority is likely to ask for an order that covers associated property if it thinks that there is even a remote possibility that that might assist. The enforcement authority has what we might call a professional interest in the matter, and I would not rely on the exercise of discretion by the authority as a safeguard. The position of the court is more important.
I do not see why the owner of the associated property must go to court to ask for a variation of the original interim receiving order. We should make it clear in the Bill that the enforcement authority must make a case explaining why it is necessary for the associated property to be included in the order for the property to be effectively realised.
Lord Goldsmith: I anticipate that the noble Lord will say that he will reflect on the matter. I would expect—I imagine that he would, too—that, without there being anything in the Bill, the enforcement authority, when it asks for an interim receiving order that covers associated property, will want to be satisfied that it makes sense and that there is a good reason for doing so.
Lord Goodhart: That may be the case, but I would like to see it in the Bill. There is nothing in the wording of the amendments that would create a problem for the enforcement authority in getting an order covering associated property if the circumstances required it.

105
The noble and learned Lord also referred to Clause 275(3), which obliges the trustee to,
"pay an amount to the person who holds the associated property"
when there is a sale. That is not a safeguard: it should go without saying. It would be intolerable if the trustee could take the proceeds of the sale of associated property without paying for it. The associated property is not itself criminal property. The noble and learned Lord might have referred more effectively to Clause 275(1) which says that,
"the court may make the following provision if … the court thinks it just and equitable to do so".
Once again, although the point has some force, I would prefer it to be spelt out in the Bill.
I believe that amendments of the kind I am seeking provide for the interests of the enforcement authority. They specify that if it is necessary to sell the associated property or make it subject to a receiving order so as to be able to realise in the long run the recoverable property at a proper market value, the order can cover the associated property. Therefore I see nothing which damages the proper interests of the enforcement authority.
I accept that the difference between the noble and learned Lord the Attorney—General and myself in this matter is not wide. I shall examine the issue and consider whether we need to return to it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 254 agreed to.
Clause 255 agreed to.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 214A:
After Clause 255, insert the following new clause—
"REGISTRATION
(1) The registration Acts—

(a) apply in relation to interim receiving orders as they apply in relation to orders which affect land and are made by the court for the purpose of enforcing judgements or recognisances,

(b) apply in relation to applications for interim receiving orders as they apply in relation to other pending land actions.

(2) The registration Acts are—

(a) the Land Registration Act 1925 (c. 21),

(b) the Land Charges Act 1972 (c. 61), and

(c) the Land Registration Act 2002 (c. 9).

(3) But no notice may be entered in the register of title under the Land Registration Act 2002 (c. 9) in respect of an interim receiving order.
(4) A person applying for an interim receiving order must be treated for the purposes of section 57 of the Land Registration Act 1925 (c. 21) (inhibitions) as a person interested in relation to any registered land to which—

(a) the application relates, or

(b) a restraint order made in pursuance of the application relates."

The noble Lord said: This is a set of technical amendments. Amendment No. 214A provides for the registration of interim receiving orders in the Land
106
Registry for England and Wales. That is to ensure that such orders are registered as pending land actions. Amendment No. 292X is consequential. We intend to make similar provision for Northern Ireland at the Report stage.
Amendments Nos. 220D, 220E, 223C and 223D are designed to ensure that interim and final recovery orders are properly registered under Scottish procedure.
As presently drafted, Clause 263(1)(c) requires the interim receiver in civil recovery cases to register an interim administration order in the register of inhibitions and adjudications. There are, however, no further provisions which make it clear what is the effect of such registration.
Amendments Nos. 220D and 220E therefore set out a detailed scheme in relation to the registering of interim administration orders. In effect, it gives public notice that the property in question is subject to an interim administration order and places an inhibition on any dealing in respect of the property until such time as the Court of Session determines the outcome of the case.
Amendments Nos. 223C and 223D make similar provision for Scotland in respect of recovery orders. Clause 271(3)(b) currently places a responsibility on the trustee for civil recovery in Scotland to register the recovery order in the register of inhibitions and adjudications if it is considered necessary. The intention is to give a clear public notice that the recoverable property now vests in the trustee and inhibits anyone else from dealing with the property.
On further consideration, it is thought to be more appropriate for the clerk of the Court of Session rather than the trustee to register the order. That follows the procedure set out in the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. Amendment No. 223C therefore removes the responsibility from the trustee and Amendment No. 223D places it on the clerk of the court. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Powers of interim receiver or administrator]:
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 215:
Page 269, line 30, at end insert—
"() The order shall not permit the interim receiver or administrator to search for, inspect, copy, photograph, make a record of, take possession of or remove items subject to legal privilege.
() In this section, "items subject to legal privilege" means—

(a) communications between a professional legal adviser and his client; or

(b) communications made in connection with or in contemplation of legal proceedings for the purposes of these proceedings,

being communications which would in legal proceedings be protected from disclosure by virtue of any rule of law relating to confidentiality of communications items subject to legal privilege."

107
The noble Lord said: This is another amendment inspired by the Law Society of Scotland. It ensures that the interim receiver or administrator cannot,
"search for, inspect, copy, photograph, make a record of, take possession of or remove items subject to legal privilege".
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, might like to note that, on this occasion, the amendment utilises the verb "shall" and not "must".
As the Committee is aware, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights enshrines the right to privacy. The doctrine of legal professional privilege protects the relationship between a solicitor and his or her client. In order to preserve that relationship, we believe that provision should be made on the face of the Bill to the effect that the powers discharged by the interim receiver or administrator under paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 will not extend to the disclosure of information subject to legal privilege.
The amendment also provides for a definition of legal privilege which is consistent with that given in Clause 406 of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I do not know whether it is because the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has got the wording right on this occasion, but I have some goodish news for him on this amendment. Because of concerns raised in Committee in the other place, we amended the schedule to make explicit that the duty to disclose information imposed by paragraph 2 of the schedule should not impinge on information subject to legal professional privilege.
The amendment raises a similar concern in respect of paragraph 3 of the schedule. As the noble Lord knows, that paragraph provides that the court may authorise the interim receiver or administrator to enter, search, copy, photograph or record anything which is described in the interim receiving or administration order, or to seize evidence in pursuance of the order.
It is our intention that these powers should respect legal privilege. We will need to reflect on some of the points made by the noble Lord in his entirely convincing peroration and consider whether the current drafting of paragraph 3 secures our policy. In the light of those kind comments, perhaps the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: I hasten to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 256 agreed to.
Clause 257 [Supervision of interim receiver and variation of order]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 215A:
Page 151, line 13, leave out "the respondent and any other" and insert "any party to the proceedings and any"
108
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 215A to 215D are intended to put beyond any reasonable doubt that all persons with an interest in the supervision or variation of an interim receiving order have rights to make an application to the court or to be heard as appropriate. Amendments Nos. 220F to 220J do the same for the Scottish provisions on interim administration orders.
Amendments Nos. 220A and 220B will ensure that where there are other legal proceedings taking place in relation to the same property to which an interim receiving order applies, all parties to both sets of proceedings will have a right to be heard before the court makes a decision. Amendment No. 223A does exactly the same for Scotland.
It was always our intention to ensure that all those with an interest in a court's consideration of an interim receiving order or an interim administration order should have the right to be heard. Having looked again at the provisions in Clauses 257 and 259 and their Scottish equivalents, we were not convinced that we had got this quite right. It is for that simple reason that we have brought forward these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendments Nos. 215B to 215D:
Page 151, line 18, leave out "respondent and any other party" and insert "parties"
Page 151, line 22, leave out "doing so" and insert "exercising any power under this Chapter to vary or set aside an interim receiving order"
Page 151, line 22, leave out "respondent and any other party" and insert "parties"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 257, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 258 [Restrictions on dealing etc. with property]:
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 216:
Page 151, line 33, leave out "any person" and insert "the respondent"
The noble Lord said: I can speak to this amendment and Amendment No. 218 very briefly. Clause 258(3) gives a discretionary power to the court to allow an owner of property which is subject to a receiving order to resort to that property for living or business expenses. We accept that that is correct in the case of the respondent. However, where a person having an interest in the property is not the respondent, we believe that the right of that person to be able to have recourse to that property—or his share of that property—to cover living and business expenses should be mandatory, rather than discretionary.
Someone who has his property made subject to a receiving order, simply because it may be desirable to do so in the interests of the realisation of the recoverable property, should not be placed at risk of being unable to pay his living or business expenses—

109
and, thereby, possibly face bankruptcy—because of the nature of some other persons's parallel interest in the same property. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I support the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in Amendment No. 216. In doing so, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 217 and 219, together with Amendments Nos. 221 and 222, which are consequential.
Under Clause 254 of the Bill, the enforcement authority may apply to the court for an interim receiving order. This is defined as an order for,
"the detention, custody or preservation of property, and … the appointment of an interim receiver".
The interim receiver is given a number of powers that are mainly mentioned in Schedule 3 to the Bill, but he is given the specific power in Clause 256 to,
"require any person to whose property the order applies",
to do anything that he is,
"reasonably required to do by the interim receiver for the preservation of the property".
We suggest that that could be costly; indeed, very costly.
Clause 258 of the Bill allows exclusions to be made when an interim receiving order is made, or on an application to vary an existing order. Subsection (3) provides that an exclusion may,
"make provision for the purpose of enabling any person … to meet his reasonable living expenses, or … to carry on any trade, business, profession or occupation".
However, subsection (3) —and, indeed, the whole of Clause 258—is entirely silent about an exclusion for the purpose of enabling any person to meet the costs of complying with the requirements of the interim receiver for the purpose of preserving the property concerned. The specific exclusions in subsection (3) of the clause do not cover those costs. We believe that such costs should be specifically mentioned in the subsection to avoid any suggestion that those costs should not be the subject of an exclusion under Clause 258. As I have already said, Amendment No. 221 is consequential upon Amendment No. 217.
I turn to Amendment No. 219. Clause 258 allows a court to make exclusions when an interim administration order is made, or on an application to vary the order. Subsection (4) provides that,
"an exclusion may not be made for the purpose of enabling any person to meet any legal expenses in respect of proceedings under this Part".
Presumably, that is because the defendant will be able to use his unfrozen assets, or may be able to apply to the community legal service scheme or the legal aid scheme for his legal costs. However, there will be many instances where the unfrozen assets will not be sufficient and the defendant will not qualify for assistance under either of those schemes. In those circumstances, it could be unjust for that person not to have recourse to the property subject to the interim administration order. That is particularly so because such an order can be made simply because there is a
110
good, arguable case for the property to which the application relates being, or including, recoverable property.
It is possible that the property to which the application for the order relates is not recoverable property, and so should be available to meet any legal expenses in respect of proceedings under this part of the Bill. That is particularly so if the defendant would otherwise be unable to afford to defend the proceedings.
If an exclusion cannot be made for the purpose of enabling any person to meet any legal expenses in respect of proceedings under Part 5, there is a serious risk of injustice if he cannot otherwise meet his legal expenses. If he is in that position, it may well be that the enforcement authority succeeds by default, or merely because the representations made on behalf of the defendant are not as good as they otherwise would have been. The result could be that the enforcement authority succeeds when it would not otherwise have succeeded merely because it has obtained an interim administration order which prevents the defendant from funding his defence.
That is a serious defect. We believe that the provision could be in breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, because there would not be a level playing field. The enforcement authority would have all the resources available to it to prosecute the proceedings in as efficient a manner as possible. In contrast, a defendant whose assets were frozen and who had no other available assets to fund his legal expenses would not be able to afford legal representation to defend a claim. In that sense he would not have a fair trial.
Amendment No. 222 is consequential on Amendment No. 219. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: In replying to Amendment No. 216, I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group. The underlying point relates to the provisions that prevent dissipation of property which is subject to an interim receiving order.
It is essential, if property which may ultimately be the subject of an order as recoverable property is subject to the interim procedure, that it should not be dissipated in the mean time if there is a dispute between the state and the respondent as to whether or not the property should come across to the state. However, we recognise that there are exceptions and exclusions. The question raised by these sets of amendments touches on what those exclusions should be.
I shall deal first with Amendments Nos. 216 and 218, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, which go together. Their effect would be to make it mandatory—to use the noble Lord's word—for the court to make provision,
"to the extent necessary for enabling any person (other than the respondent) … to meet",
the expenses described.

111
I must ask the rhetorical question: in what circumstances would it be "necessary" for the court to make an exclusion when the court would not in the exercise of its discretion make that exclusion in any event? In other words, under the Bill as it stands the court will always weigh the circumstances very carefully as to whether it is appropriate to make an order in favour of the respondent to allow such expenses to be made. If it is necessary to make such an order so that the respondent should meet those particular expenses, presumably that is the order that the court would make under its discretion in any event. So, to introduce an explicit test of necessity seems inappropriate and indeed would introduce an unnecessary degree of rigidity into the process. Again, the court can be left, as a matter of its discretion, to make the order, and particularly in the circumstances envisaged in the noble Lord's amendment.
Amendment No. 217 and the consequential Amendment No. 221, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, deal with the costs of anything that a person is reasonably required to do by the interim receiver for the preservation of the property. If the interim receiving order requires a person to do something in relation to the property and its preservation, it will clearly be in the mind of the court that it will be necessary for that person to have access to sufficient funds to comply with that requirement. Whether that required the making of an exclusion would depend on the court's view of all the circumstances, no doubt including what other assets were available to that person, rather than using the property that was subject to the receiving order, which would sometimes be very difficult, because it might require the sale of an asset in order to realise it.
We are confident that it is not necessary on the face of the Bill to draw to the court's attention that if it makes an order requiring somebody to do something in relation to the property, it needs to consider whether the funds or assets will be available for that to be done. In any event, as the clause stands the court has a discretion as to what exclusions to make. Subsection (3) identifies certain specific exclusions, but it is not an exhaustive list of the exclusions that could be made. The court would be able to make an exclusion for the purpose that the noble Baroness intends if it thought that appropriate. If the amendment were passed, the court would not be obliged to make the exclusion in any event. The amendment does not seem necessary or appropriate.
I hope it is of some comfort to the noble Baroness that under Schedule 3 the interim receiver will have the power to seize and manage the property to which the interim receiving order relates. He will have the power to incur capital expenditure in respect of the property. I envisage that the receiver rather than the property holder will often—I do not say always—incur the main expenditure in relation to the preservation of property. Those are our reasons for resisting Amendment No. 217.
112
Amendment No. 219 deals with a different point. It is an important point that we have touched on before at Second Reading and, I think, in Committee. It relates to the availability of the proceeds of the property that is frozen for the purpose of meeting legal expenses. I would be the last person to suggest that legal expenses were not a desirable way of spending property, but I also recognise that they can be quite substantial.
The problem—which arises in all applications for freezing orders, and in other areas as well—is whether the property is used to meet the legal costs or whether one looks to other funds. The Government have gone for the option that either the respondents and third parties should meet legal costs from assets that were not subject to the interim receiving order—in other words, that property is not dissipated by legal costs—or, where they have insufficient assets to do that, their legal costs should be publicly funded.
It is appropriate to say a word about the nature of that legal funding. The noble Baroness touched on the legal aid arrangements. Funding will be made available to respondents and third parties in civil recovery proceedings. In order to be granted public funding, they will need to satisfy a means test and a merits test. Parties to civil recovery proceedings will need to meet the standard means test, but the standard merits test will be relaxed to the extent necessary to ensure that everyone has access to legal funding who needs it and who qualifies financially. So there should not be a problem because the legal costs should be met either out of assets which are not subject to the receiving order or through legal aid with the adjustment to the merits test to which I have referred. I hope that that will be welcomed by the Committee.
If the director loses the case, the court will be able to order him to pay the respondent's legal costs. That will be towards the end of the process but it is still a very important procedure. Compensation is also payable under provisions in the Bill to which we shall come later.
I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that her fear that the enforcement authority may be able to win the case simply through preventing the respondent or third party having access to the right lawyers to fight it is not well founded. That has been thought about properly by the Government and the process, including the adjustment to the merits test to which I have referred, will be used to ensure that that does not happen.
Those are my responses to the amendments, which I hope will not be pressed.
Lord Goodhart: I shall consider the noble and learned Lord's remarks. It may be that we shall decide not to press the matter further. However, if the noble Baroness's amendments should come back, particularly Amendment No. 219—we have supported similar amendments in relation to confiscation

113
orders—it may well be that we will support them. But that is not a matter for me. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 216.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for his response to Amendments Nos. 217 and 219. With regard to Amendment No. 217, I am not sure that I share his confidence. I heard what he said in regard to the fact that Clause 258(3) is not exhaustive. However, it would be preferable for that to be made clear on the face of the Bill. I shall consider the matter again, along with Schedule 3, and read in Hansard what the noble and learned Lord said.
As to Amendment No. 219, I again heard what the Attorney-General said in regard to the availability of proceeds that are the subject of freezing orders to meet legal expenses in respect of proceedings under Part 5. We have had considerable consultation with both the Bar Council and the Law Society of England and Wales with regard to this matter in Part 5 and also in relation to confiscation orders. It is a matter of some considerable concern. We were not entirely content with the response we were given on similar amendments in respect of confiscation orders. We shall think carefully about whether or not to return to this point at Report stage. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his support.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 217 to 219 not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 220:
Page 151, line 39, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Baroness said: Clause 258 deals with exclusions from an interim administration order. Subsection (3) provides that an exclusion may make provision for a person to meet his reasonable living expenses or to carry on any trade, business, profession or occupation. Subsection (5) provides that if the excluded property is not specified in the order, it must be described in the order in general terms. There is no suggestion in Clause 258 that any property can be excluded.
Clause 260 deals with the exclusion of specific property if for example the court decides that property to which an interim administration order applies is neither recoverable property nor associated property. We suggest that, logically, subsection (5) should not be included in Clause 260 but should be included in Clause 258. Furthermore, we suggest that it would be quite wrong to describe excluded property in general terms because any interim administration order must be sufficiently clear so that any person reading it must know precisely what he can or cannot do. If he is in breach of the interim administration order, he is guilty of contempt of court. He must therefore know with certainty what property is subject to the interim administration order and what property is excluded from it. We have therefore sought to remove subsection (5) from Clause 258 but have not put it into Clause 260 where it otherwise would go.
114
Amendment No. 223 is consequential to Amendment No. 220. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith: Clause 258 makes a simple and practical provision. Its purpose is to allow property which is excluded to be identified in a sensible way. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that it would be inappropriate for an order to be made in such vague or imprecise terms that it was not certain which property was being excluded, for the very reasons that she gave. However, the provision that the property must be described in the order in general terms if it is not specified in the order would not permit the property to be specified in terms that were vague or imprecise and therefore lead to the type of uncertainty that both she and I want to avoid.
"General" does not mean uncertainty. It simply means that the order need not be turned into an unwieldy list, as might otherwise be thought to be the position. We would not want to produce unnecessarily difficult and bureaucratic orders. Therefore, a generic description can be given. Of course it will need to be sufficiently certain and precise. However, it might, for example, allow for the release of a sum of money without having to specify which notes or coins that should entail. That must be sensible. That is the reason for the inclusion of the subsection. We hope that, with that reassurance, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The noble Baroness also suggested that there should be something more in Clause 260. However, 11 am afraid that I did not follow the point and cannot help her on what is missing and, if so, why it is missing. We think that the substantial point is that, when the interim receiving order is made and if exclusions are made, it should be sufficiently clear what the excluded property is. However, that can be defined in general terms, and there is no need to add anything to Clause 260. However, if I have misunderstood the point, I would be happy to be further illuminated.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Attorney-General for his response, and I shall read carefully what he had to say. On that basis, l beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 258 agreed to.
Clause 259 [Restriction on proceedings and remedies]:
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendments Nos. 220A and 220B:
Page 152, line 12, leave out subsection (3).
Page 152, line 20, at end insert—
"() Before exercising any power conferred by this section, the court must (as well as giving the parties to any of the proceedings in question an opportunity to be heard) give such an opportunity to the interim receiver (if appointed) and any person who may be affected by the court's decision."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 259, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 260 [Exclusion of property which is not recoverable etc.]:
[Amendment No. 220C not moved.]
Clause 260 agreed to.
Clauses 261 and 262 agreed to.
Clause 263 [Functions of interim administrator]:
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 220D:
Page153, line 42, leave out paragraph (c).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 263, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 220E:
After Clause 263, insert the following new clause—
"INHIBITION OF PROPERTY AFFECTED BY ORDER
(1) On the application of the enforcement authority, the Court of Session may, in relation to the property mentioned in subsection (2), grant warrant for inhibition against any person specified in an interim administration order.
(2) That property is heritable property situated in Scotland to which the interim administration order applies (whether generally or such of it as is specified in the application).
(3) The warrant for inhibition—

(a) has effect as if granted on the dependence of an action for debt by the enforcement authority against the person and may be executed, recalled, loosed or restricted accordingly, and

(b) has the effect of letters of inhibition and must forthwith be registered by the enforcement authority in the register of inhibitions and adjudications.

(4) Section 155 of the Titles to Land Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1868 (c. 101) (effective date of inhibition) applies in relation to an inhibition for which warrant is granted under subsection (1) as it applies to an inhibition by separate letters or contained in a summons.
(5) The execution of an inhibition under this section in respect of property does not prejudice the exercise of an interim administrator's powers under or for the purposes of this Part in respect of that property.
(6) An inhibition executed under this section ceases to have effect when, or in so far as, the interim administration order ceases to apply in respect of the property in relation to which the warrant for inhibition was granted.
(7) If an inhibition ceases to have effect to any extent by virtue of subsection (6) the enforcement authority must—

(a) apply for the recall or, as the case may be, the restriction of the inhibition, and

(b) ensure that the recall or restriction is reflected in the register of inhibitions and adjudications."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 264 agreed to.
Clause 265 [Supervision of interim administrator and variation of order]:
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendments Nos. 220F to 220J:
Page 154, line 32, leave out "the respondent and any other" and insert "any party to the proceedings and any"
Page 154, line 37, leave out "respondent and any other party" and insert "parties"
Page 154, line 41, leave out "doing so" and insert "exercising any power under this Chapter to vary or set aside an interim administration order"
116
Page 154, line 41, leave out "respondent and any other party" and insert "parties"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 265, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 266 [Restrictions on dealing etc. with property]:
[Amendments Nos. 221 to 223 not moved.]
Clause 266 agreed to.
Clause 267 [Restriction on proceedings and remedies]:
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 223A:
Page 155, line 29, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
"(3) Before exercising any power conferred by this section, the court must (as well as giving the parties to any of the proceedings in question an opportunity to be heard) give such an opportunity to the interim administrator (if appointed) and any person who may be affected by the court's decision."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 267, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 268 [Exclusion of property which is not recoverable etc.]:
[Amendment No. 223B not moved.]
Clause 268 agreed to.
Clauses 269 and 270 agreed to.
Clause 271 [Functions of the trustee for civil recovery]:
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 223C:
Page 157, line 16, leave out paragraph (b).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 271, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 223D:
After Clause 271, insert the following new clause—
"RECORDING OF RECOVERY ORDER: SCOTLAND
(1) The clerk of the court shall immediately after the making of a recovery order which relates to heritable property situated in Scotland send a certified copy of it to the keeper of the register of inhibitions and adjudications for recording in that register.
(2) Recording under subsection (1) shall have the effect, as from the date of the recovery order, of an inhibition at the instance of the trustee for civil recovery against the person in whom the heritable property was vest prior to that date."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 272 [Rights of pre-emption, etc.]:
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 223E:
Page 157, line 40, at end insert—
"() References to rights in subsections (2) and (3) do not include any rights in respect of which the recovery order was made."
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment proposes a minor clarification to Clause 272. The clause makes certain provisions to ensure that a recovery order will have effect even if it conflicts with other proprietary rights that would prevent, penalise or restrict the vesting of the property concerned. It sets out certain protections in respect of such rights.

117
The amendment makes clear that the protections provided for any such right do not apply if the right itself is the subject of a recovery order. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 272, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 273 and 274 agreed to.
Clause 275 [Associated and joint property: default of agreement]:
[Amendment No. 224 not moved.]
Clause 275 agreed to.
Clauses 276 to 284 agreed to.
Clause 285 [Other exemptions]:
[Amendment No. 224A not moved.]
Clause 285 agreed to.
Clause 286 [Compensation]:
[Amendment No. 225 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 226:
Page 166, line 40, at end insert "unless within that period the enforcement authority appeals against the decision, in which case the application for compensation must be made within the period of three months beginning with the date on which the appeal is determined or otherwise disposed of"
The noble Baroness said: Clause 286 provides for the payment of compensation to a person whose property is subject to an interim receiving order or an interim administration order, and it turns out that the property is not recoverable property or associated property. Such a person has a right to apply for compensation if he suffers loss as a consequence of the interim receiving order or the interim administration order. However, if he wants to be paid compensation, he must apply within a very short period. He has only three months from the decision of the court that no recovery order should be made in respect of the property. That is a very short period because the person applying for compensation may well be an innocent third party; but we can live with that.
However, if the enforcement authority appeals the decision that no recovery order should be made in respect of the property, it is not entirely clear whether the period of three months runs from the date of the decision of the court of first instance or from the date of decision of any appeal court. It may well be that in relation to the person who makes the application, the period of three months runs from the decision of the appellate court. That would make sense. However, if the appeal is dismissed, it is arguable that the three-month period ran from the date of the original decision, which would still stand because the appeal was dismissed. The person who makes the application would therefore have lost his right to compensation because he acted sensibly in not making the application until the appeal had been dismissed.
In order to avoid that injustice, we feel that subsection (3) should make it clear that where there is an appeal, the three—month period runs from the decision of the appellate court and not from the decision at first instance. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith: Of course we accept that the time should not run out while an appeal is taking place; it
118
should run from the time when the appeal is determined. There is nothing between the noble Baroness and us on that. The question is whether the amendment is necessary in order to achieve that, having regard to the words that are already used. I propose, if I may, that we take the proposal away. I accept that similar wording to that which she proposed is used in certain legislative provisions. We shall consider whether it would be sensible to put that issue beyond doubt, notwithstanding the existing wording. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that gift at 10 o'clock in the evening!
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. I hope that he will respond positively—he has already begun to—not least because the amendment was suggested to me by a very experienced member of the Chancery Bar. I suggest that it makes sense that the matter should be made clear beyond doubt in the Bill. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 227:
Page 167, line 13, at end insert—
"() If any person other than the person referred to in subsection (1) has suffered loss as a result of any interim receiving order or interim administration order, that other person may make an application to the court for compensation.
() If the court is satisfied that such other person has suffered loss as a result of the interim receiving order or interim administration order, it may, if it thinks fit, require the enforcement authority to pay compensation to him."
The noble Lord said: Clause 286 gives a right to a person whose property is subject to an interim receiving order or interim administration order to apply to the court for compensation in the event that the court decides that the property is not recoverable property or associated property. As many Members of the Committee will recognise, that approach is based on the usual undertakings to damages normally given as a condition of a grant of an interim order in the civil courts. In brief, if a person applies for an interim order but should not have been granted that order, he should have to pay compensation to whoever has suffered loss as a consequence of the order. It is the fair quid pro quo for the order being granted without going into the facts of the case at a trial.
However, in the standard freezing order, it is usual to give an undertaking to pay the costs of any third party who has suffered loss if the court decides that the third party should be compensated for that loss. That is a standard undertaking extracted from an applicant for a freezing order in a civil court.
An interim receiving order or an interim administration order is a more drastic remedy than a freezing order. We believe that, at the very least, there should be a similar provision for compensation as regards innocent third parties who have suffered loss as a result of an interim receiving order or an interim administration order.

119
I emphasise that the right to compensation should not be automatic. Innocent third parties may suffer loss as a result of interim receiving orders or interim administration orders; but not all of them should be entitled to compensation regardless of the circumstances. They may be the authors of their own misfortune, and it would be wrong to impose an unlimited liability on an enforcement authority carrying out a public duty regardless of the circumstances. Compensation should be payable only where the court thinks fit. That is why the amendment is worded in the way that it is. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: In supporting Amendment No. 227, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 228, which raises the question of compensation in perhaps a narrower way. This issue was raised by my noble friend Lord Goodhart during debate on an earlier part of the Bill, but we return to it. The answer given at that time was that an unsecured creditor takes many risks upon himself whenever he enters into a contractual arrangement with another person. Of course, such a person is normally competing with other interests—sometimes with secured creditors; sometimes with other unsecured creditors—and he receives his share of the pot only if there is a pot available at the end of that time.
This is a different situation. In this situation, the state steps in and recovers money or property by way of a punishment with the prospect of terms of imprisonment in default. Presumably the property recovered by the state goes to the state's coffers and not to the unsecured creditor, who, by definition under the terms of the amendment, is a completely innocent party. The unsecured creditor here is the one to whom the debt is owed. Again, by definition in the amendment, the debt was incurred when the applicant had no reason to believe that a recovery order could be made against the respondent. He is an innocent party. I fail to see the logic of the tradesman or the person who is engaged in business in an innocent manner losing out while the state gains all the property that is recoverable. It may be that the unsecured creditor takes risks, but that is one risk that he ought not to take.
Lord Goldsmith: This matter has been the subject of previous discussion. The position remains that the Government do not support the principle behind the amendment. There is a difference between us. The view of the Government is that the effect would be highly prejudicial to civil recovery proceedings. I shall explain both of those points.
It is appropriate to distinguish between different categories of people who may, in theory, be affected by an order that is made. The position of a respondent is covered by the Bill as it stands and a secured creditor will be protected because associated property will be protected like any other associated property, as we have discussed. The Bill also recognises the third
120
category, which is the prior claims of preferential debts. They receive priority over civil recovery. Those categories are dealt with.
The remaining issue is that of unsecured creditors. The proposal behind the amendment is that unsecured creditors also should take priority over the settlement of the recovery order. The Government's view is that they should not. That is the effect of the amendment.
We note that the director will seek to recover the proceeds of unlawful conduct to prevent and to disrupt organised crime. The director will be acting on behalf of the state in cases where there may be no identifiable victim. The underlying principle is that the person in possession of the proceeds of unlawful conduct should not be able to retain that wealth on the basis that it never properly belonged to him. The unsecured lender inevitably exposes him or herself to a wide range of risks. I respectfully differ from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. The fact that the borrower may be subject to a recovery order is but one of those risks to which an unsecured lender puts himself. The borrower or the recipient of goods or services may turn out to be insolvent; he may die without leaving an adequate estate; or he may simply default.
The amendment also overlooks the fact that the making of the recovery order does not absolve the respondent of the obligation to pay his debts. They remain payable out of other property. It will probably be relatively unusual to have a case where the civil recovery results in insolvency of the respondent. The fact that the unsecured lender may lose out is simply a consequence of the fact that he has provided services on credit to someone who turns out not to be sufficiently solvent.
The second point is that this amendment would have an adverse effect in practical terms on the operation of an effective civil recovery system; it would simply invite claims from bogus creditors who, in reality, were associates of the respondent. We are entirely unpersuaded by suggestions previously made in relation to Part 2 that it would be easy to differentiate bogus compensation claims from legitimate claims. For practical reasons, therefore, and also for reasons of principle, the amendment is opposed.
Amendment No. 227 raises some of the same issues as Amendment No. 228. It deals particularly with losses arising out of the making of an interim receiving order rather than the making of a final recovery order. Again, it would clearly bite on the position of unsecured creditors who might try to show that they had suffered a loss as the result of the making of an interim receiving order. But it would potentially go further. It would be open to any person to allege loss and that may include anyone who tried to argue that a proposed joint venture, for example, had been prevented by the interim receiving order.
I also beg to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in suggesting that it is common place that an undertaking in ordinary civil proceedings is given by someone who obtains an injunction in favour of all third parties. My recollection—I am always ready to stand corrected about this—is that the normal order is

121
that the undertaking as to damages is given in favour of the respondent. In the short time since the noble Lord made the point I managed to obtain a copy of the practitioner's bible, which appears to set out the specimen order for an interim injunction and which includes an undertaking in these terms:
"If the court later finds this order has caused loss to a respondent and decides that the respondent should be compensated for that loss, the applicant will comply with any order the court may make".
If that is right, that appears to limit it, as is my recollection, to the position of the respondent and not of third parties generally. But whether or not that be right, for the reasons I have given we oppose the amendments and hope that they will not be pressed.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Before the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, replies to his amendment, perhaps I may say that our Amendment No. 228 envisages, in Clause 2(a), that the respondent is wholly or in part unable to repay the debt. So it is taken as a condition that he cannot pay out of other property, which deals with the first point made by the noble and learned Lord.
Secondly, I find it extraordinary that the noble and learned Lord comes to the conclusion that the court cannot decide an issue as to whether or not a claim is made fraudulently. That is what courts are for.
Lord Goldsmith: Would the noble Lord agree that the problem with this sort of claim is that the only two people who would know the truth would be the person against whom the recovery order had been made and the person claiming to be a creditor? If there is collusion between them, it would be extremely hard for anyone else to discover that fact.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am afraid the courts are making decisions on the credibility of witnesses who come before them day after day in every sort of case. That is what their job is.
I come to my third point. Suppose a criminal uses the funds he has accumulated to build a house. He employs a reputable builder to do that, an architect, solicitors and so on, to whom he owes various fees and costs. Along comes the state and takes the building that has been constructed. Anybody who has quite innocently been involved in the construction of that building, in whatever way, can whistle for his money. It is a question of principle; whether the state should simply add to its coffers or whether people who have genuine claims should be able to recover them where the respondent is wholly or in part unable to repay the money that is owed.
This is a matter to which we shall return because it is a question of principle.
Lord Kingsland: Far be it from me to engage the noble and learned Lord on the subject of civil remedies in general and interim injunctions in particular. But, in my submission, I made a distinction between "the" interim injunction generally and freezing orders in particular, which are a subclass of that category. I shall
122
go away and refresh my memory from the White Book. I shall probably return to the matter on Report but, meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 286 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 228 not moved.]
Clauses 287 to 290 agreed to.
Clause 291 [Searches]:
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 229:
Page 170, line 27, leave out "which"
The noble Baroness said: I shall be extremely brief in moving Amendment No. 229 and in speaking to Amendment No. 230. Simply put—it concerns a small, technical point—we believe that the word "which" is in the wrong place. We suggest that the noble and learned Lord considers subsection (1), where it is in the correct place. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith: A hit, a very palpable hit. I recommend that the Committee accepts the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 230:
Page 170, line 28, at beginning insert "which"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 291, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 292 [Prior approval]:
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 231:
Page 171, line 20, leave out from "officer" to end of line 21.
The noble Lord said: This is a further amendment inspired by the Law Society of Scotland. It would ensure that the powers conferred by Clause 291 could be exercised only with the prior approval of a judicial officer. The amendment is designed to ensure that the provisions of Chapter 3 of Part 5 are compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. Clause 292, as drafted, would allow a judicial officer or a specified senior officer to grant approval for the searches referred to in Clause 291.
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights makes specific provision for the right to privacy and sets out the occasions on which interference with that right can be justified. In the case of searches of property by officials for the purposes of detection and prosecution of serious crime, the European Court of Human Rights has held that in order to satisfy the test of being,
"necessary in a democratic society",
so as to justify the exception under Article 8(2) of the ECHR, prior authorisation by a judge would normally be required. A French law that lacked a safeguard of that type was condemned by the court in the case of Funke v France because it allowed the authorities exclusive competence to determine the scale, the frequency and length of searches in each case.

123
The powers under Clause 291 are being invoked not for the purposes of detection or prosecution of crime but rather for civil proceedings. While the use of such powers could be justified on the basis of another exception contained in Article 8(2), there may be merit in ensuring that the appropriate approval is given by a judicial officer only and not by a senior officer as currently provided by the Bill. That may assist in ensuring that a challenge on that basis would be avoided in subsequent proceedings. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith: This is the first amendment arising from Chapter 3. It relates to the two search powers provided. The first is the power to search premises for cash. It does not include a new power of entry; the customs officer or constable must be on the premises lawfully in the first instance. There is also the power to search persons.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, referred to the approvals necessary before those powers can be exercised. It is right to note, first of all, that the powers can be exercised only in certain conditions set out in Clause 291. For example, the powers must be exercised,
"only so far as reasonably required for the purpose of finding cash"
and
"are exercisable by a customs officer only if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the unlawful conduct in question relates to an assigned matter".
There are other requirements, including those in Clause 291(2) that the customs officer or constable must have,
"reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person … is carrying cash which is recoverable property"
and,
"is not less than the minimum amount".
There are safeguards already built in.
The normal situation would be that if it were practicable to obtain judicial approval before exercising the powers, that is what would happen. Clause 292 provides for that. The powers may be exercised only with the "appropriate approval", unless it is not practicable to obtain that approval in the circumstances. The "appropriate approval" means the approval of a judicial officer or—only if that is not practicable—the approval of a senior officer.
It would be only in circumstances where it was not practicable to obtain approval from a judicial officer that the other route would be taken. One can envisage a situation in which officers are lawfully on premises and it comes to their attention that there may be cash that is recoverable property—the proceeds of unlawful conduct or cash to be used for unlawful conduct—on those premises. There may simply not be time for the officers to leave the premises, go before a magistrate and obtain an order. The officers' purpose would be frustrated if that delay were to take place. The cash would not be there by the time that the order had been obtained.
124
The Bill provides that, in such circumstances, the approval of a senior officer may be sought. It is right to say that there is the possibility that even that may not be practicable, although one envisages that that would be an unusual situation. Normally, a telephone call to the senior officer would achieve the purpose. Although senior officer approval is, of course, not judicial approval, it provides an operational safeguard in the majority of cases in which it is not practicable to get such judicial approval, as noble Lords will agree. Indeed, it will provide an operational safeguard in all cases in which it is not possible to get judicial approval but in which the approval of the senior officer is sought.
It does not stop there. If the power is exercised, the consequence will be either that cash will be detained or it will not. If it is, the matter must come before the magistrates whether approval was sought in advance or not. The magistrates will be in a position to examine the circumstances in which the order was obtained. If they are unhappy and think that judicial approval could have been obtained but was not, they will, at the very least, have something to say about that.
We have also envisaged a situation in which cash is not detained. To ensure that, even in that case, there is a further safeguard, there is an obligation set out in Clause 292. Subsection (6) provides that if no cash is seized, or if it is not detained for more than 48 hours making it unnecessary to go to a magistrate, the person who exercised the powers must give a written report to the "appointed person". That is a senior and independent person who will receive a report and will under Clause 293 be under an obligation to submit a report each year on, according to subsection (2),
"his opinion as to the circumstances and manner in which the powers conferred by section 291 are being exercised in cases where the customs officer or constable who exercised them is required to give a report".
In circumstances in which it is not practicable to obtain judicial approval, that is a very good set of safeguards which come as close as one can to the problem. It is a senior officer and either the matter goes before the court because of detention or there must be a report to the appointed officer. The appointed officer will then make an annual report. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that that provides a strong measure of operational safeguard against abuse of the powers. I also hope that with that explanation and reassurance the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for that full explanation of the thinking which lies behind Clause 292. I accept from what he said that the Government have been alive to the issue I have raised. Bearing in mind the practical difficulties which might sometimes arise in locating a judicial officer, the Government have probably done the best they can to provide a series of substitute procedures. In those circumstances, I shall not be raising the matter at Report stage, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 232 not moved.]
Clause 292 agreed to
Clause 293 agreed to.
Clauses 294 to 299 agreed to.
Clause 300 [Forfeiture]:
[Amendments Nos. 233 to 235 not moved.]
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 236:
Page 175, line 35, leave out "or sheriff"
The noble Lord said: For reasons which are not entirely clear to me, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has put his name to the amendment. Therefore, perhaps I had better move it and hear what the noble and learned Lord has to say. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith: I received a note earlier in the evening indicating the hope that this would not have been noticed! My noble friend's name appears on the amendment as a result of an error. At one stage, another, substantive, amendment was being proposed and this amendment was part of it. I am afraid that I must disappoint the noble Lord and say that I resist the amendment, notwithstanding the existence of my noble friend's name to it.
Lord Goodhart: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 236A:
Page 175, line 35, at end insert—
"() The court of sheriff shall state the reason for making or refusing to make an order or an application under this section."
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 236A does not appear in the list of groupings, but that must be as a result of an oversight. It has not been debated previously and it raises a brief point.
Earlier today I spoke to a large group of amendments, the purpose of which was to transfer the forfeiture jurisdiction relating to cash only from the magistrates' court, or in Scotland, the sheriff's court, to the High Court or the Court of Session. That proposal was not accepted. Amendment No. 236A is tabled on the assumption that those amendments were not going to be accepted and did not form part of the Bill. The effect of the amendment is to require the magistrates' court or the sheriff's court, when it receives an application for forfeiture, to give its reasons for making or refusing to make the order. It seems to me that should be done.
Had the jurisdiction been transferred to the High Court or the Court of Session, then it would have followed as a matter of course that, certainly in the case of the High Court, reasons would have been given. Except for certain interlocutory decisions the High Court always gives reasons. That is not the case with magistrates' courts. I cannot speak as to what the case may be with sheriffs' courts in Scotland. Magistrates' courts are relatively unaccustomed to
126
giving reasons, but it is essential that they should do so in cases of this kind where it is more than likely that very large sums of money are involved. It would be appropriate that the court which hears the appeal from the magistrates should know why the court reached its decision. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith: The amendment would place on the face of the Bill an obligation on the court to state its reasons for making a decision on a forfeiture hearing. I suggest that a court these days would state its reasons and it would be expected to do so. Under the current cash recovery scheme in the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 where this has arisen—we have discussed it before this evening—the court, I am told, retires and returns with reasons for its decision. Indeed, I am told that they are written reasons, but I do not believe that the substance is the question of whether the decision is written, but the fact that reasons are given. We anticipate that procedures under the new scheme would be no different.
One of the consequences of the Human Rights Act has been that the giving of reasons by many courts and magistrates' courts has become much more common. I expect that the Committee will agree that that is a good thing. It is right that people should know the decisions which have been made and which affect them. The position without the need for any amendment at all is, in the Government's view, that such reasons would be given. To spell out in this provision a specific requirement might cast doubt on what might be the more general obligation in other cases. For those reasons I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Goodhart: I welcome what the noble and learned Lord has said. It is clearly essential that reasons should be given. If it is clear that they must be given, even though that is not on the face of the Bill, the position would be sufficiently covered. I take it that what the noble and learned Lord has said would be very clear guidance to magistrates' courts and that they would be obliged to do what is required. In those circumstances I am happy to ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 300 agreed to.
Clause 301 [Appeal against forfeiture]:
[Amendments Nos. 237 to 239 not moved.]
Clause 301 agreed to.
Clause 302 [Application of forfeited cash]:
[Amendments Nos. 240 and 241 not moved.]
Clause 302 agreed to.
Clause 303 [Victims and other owners]:
[Amendments Nos. 242 to 247 not moved.]
Clause 303 agreed to.
Clause 304 [Compensation]:
[Amendments Nos. 248 to 253 not moved.]
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 253A:
Page 177, line 43, leave out subsection (9).
The noble and learned Lord said: As originally drafted, the intention of the Bill was that victims should be able to obtain return of their money, but no additional compensation. The reason for this was that the loss suffered by a victim in these cases would have arisen from the original unlawful conduct, not the operation of the cash recovery scheme. Clause 304(9), as it now stands, would have achieved that result.
Clause 303, which originally applied only to victims, was amended in the other place so as to include certain other owners. Such owners had previously been unable to apply for release of detained cash, but had been able to apply for compensation. Allowing such owners to apply for release of cash under Clause 303 unintentionally brought them within the ambit of Clause 304(9). The amendment now before the Committee will rectify that error.
I should point out that the amendment also goes further. Having reconsidered the position of victims, the Government now accept that there could be circumstances in which a victim has suffered loss as a result of the proceedings, which he would not have done if the cash had been returned at an earlier stage. The framework in Clause 304 already requires the court to consider loss incurred only as a result of the proceedings under Chapter 3. Therefore, the Government are content to leave it to the courts' discretion to consider the circumstances of individual cases, and to order the payment of compensation if the circumstances warrant it. Noble Lords may wish to read my response in Hansard. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 254 not moved.]
Clause 304, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 305 to 309 agreed to.
Clause 310 [General exceptions]:
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 254A:
Page 179, line 28, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: As the Bill stands, under Clause 310(3)(b), where a judgment has been given in civil proceedings but the claimant recovers property on the basis of the defendant's unlawful conduct, the property ceases to be recoverable. However, it remains the case that, because the three conditions in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) in Clause 310(3) are cumulative, the property remains recoverable if the claimant's claim is not based on the defendant's unlawful conduct.
This is, frankly, an extraordinary situation: where judgment has been obtained against the defendant, any payment made under that judgment remains recoverable property unless the claim is based on the specific unlawful conduct of the defendant. Unless there is something in the clause that I have not understood, it seems to me that the consequences of that are extraordinary. Plainly, a payment under a court order should be final and should not be capable of being overridden, except where there is some evidence that the judgment has been obtained as part
128
of collusion to defeat the effect of a civil recovery order. Unless there is some evidence of collusion, surely payments made as a result of a civil judgment should stand and should not be recoverable from the person who obtained the judgment. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith: Clause 310 attempts to ensure that the schemes are proportionate and fair. If property has been transferred as a result of proceedings which are broadly akin in their function to civil recovery proceedings—that is to say that they have the equivalent effect of ensuring the property obtained through unlawful conduct cannot be peacefully enjoyed—it would cease to be appropriate for it to be the subject of a recovery order. It is important in that context that the provision in Clause 310(3)(b) remains. It is that feature which ties the property in question to similar sorts of proceedings to the recovery process.
Perhaps I may explain the matter in this way. Without paragraph (b), which is what the amendment proposes to delete, a number of examples could arise which would fit the conditions in paragraphs (a) and (c) but which would simply be inappropriate to be excluded from the general provisions of this part. For example, if property was transferred from one spouse to another as the result of divorce proceedings, that would put it beyond the reach of the director no matter how collusive the proceedings may have been, or indeed how deliberately evasive the arrangement. It would be a payment made to the claimant or property obtained in pursuance of a judgment in civil proceedings.
Let us take another example. The criminal owner of recoverable real property could obtain the rents from that property, which otherwise would fall to be part of the recoverable property, by suing the tenant. That would be a civil judgment as a result of which the property had been received by him. The amendment would take that outside the effect of the section.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I take the noble and learned Lord's first example, relating to a spouse, but, with great respect, surely the example of the tenant is wrong. In that case, the defendant is the person who receives the payment, not the person who makes it under the judgment. Nothing in the amendment would prevent the rents becoming recoverable property, whether they were obtained without a judgment or as a result of a judgment.
Lord Goldsmith: I shall reflect on whether the noble Lord is right to criticise that example. If he is, I unreservedly withdraw it. However, it was simply an example. He has accepted that the other example is good and I am confident that there are others that would not meet his objections and in which, without the link provided by subsection (3)(b), one would not achieve the objective of excluding from the process proceedings that are similar in effect and purpose to the civil recovery proceedings, but not in fact the same.

129
There are other reasons why recoverable property that has been transferred as a result of civil proceedings may cease to be recoverable. For example, a successful litigant who has no reason to suspect the recoverable nature of the property that he receives will have the benefit of subsection (1), which covers a person who obtains recoverable property in good faith for value and without notice that it was recoverable property.
Without a requirement that tied the particular civil proceedings into the defendant's unlawful conduct, the claimant in civil proceedings would, for no compelling reason that we can see, be in a better position than any other person who had received money or property from the defendant. What matters is the basis for the transfer, not just the fact that there has been a civil process. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, the clause needs to be looked at again. For example, if an impoverished claimant sues tycoon X for libel and receives damages into his hands, it can hardly be said that tycoon X has disposed of the property; he has had a judgment entered against him and had to hand it over. That is not caught by subsection (1). It appears that if tycoon X is subsequently pursued, the libel damages obtained by the impoverished plaintiff would have to be handed over. Is that right?
Lord Goldsmith: Even at this hour of the evening, I do not immediately see why paying the libel judgment is not a disposal of property by the tycoon. One assumes that otherwise that property in the hands of the tycoon would be recoverable. If the poor person who had been libelled obtained it in good faith for value and without notice that it was recoverable property—the value would seem to be the fact that it was compensation for a wrong that he had suffered—it would not be followed into his hands. I do not immediately see the objection that the noble Lord raises.
Lord Goodhart: I am not satisfied with the noble and learned Lord's response. The provision needs to be looked at again. Subsection (1) is plainly concerned with contracts and with property being disposed of in good faith and for value. It seems wholly inappropriate, for example, to cover the question of damages for personal injury, let alone libel. I accept that there must be some guard against, in particular, a collusive claim, or possibly even a non—collusive claim, to settlement of money as part of a divorce case.
The Government must look at this issue again because it is a potential elephant trap. They need to look at the matter very carefully, consider what it is that they are trying to prevent, consider what this clause may do which could be unfair and a potential cause of real injustice, and come back with amendments to draw the clause much more tightly.
130
While obviously I shall ask for leave to withdraw the amendment on this occasion, unless some progress is made on this issue we shall certainly want to come back to it at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 310 agreed to.
Clauses 311 to 315 agreed to.
Clause 316 [General interpretation]:
[Amendment No. 255 not moved.]
Clause 316 agreed to.
Clauses 317 to 322 agreed to.
Clause 323 [Functions]:
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 255A:
Page 188, line 36, at end insert—
"(fa) statutory paternity pay;
(fb) statutory adoption pay;"
The noble and learned Lord said: This group of amendments concerns the taxation provisions in Part 6 of the Bill. They would enable the director to administer statutory paternity pay and statutory adoption pay alongside his other taxation functions. These will become relevant once the Employment Bill, which is currently before the House, becomes law.
The Employment Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland, but the Northern Ireland Assembly will replicate the United Kingdom legislation and regulations once the Employment Bill achieves Royal Assent. The amendments to this Bill take that into account.
Clause 323, to which the amendments relate, clarifies the functions which are included within general revenue functions and the inheritance tax functions which the director is permitted to exercise. It sets out those functions 'which are specifically included and those which are excluded. It is necessary for certain statutory payment scheme functions to be included as it is difficult to separate those from the PAYE process.
The amendments serve only to add the two new statutory payment schemes caused by the introduction of new legislation to those statutory payment schemes already listed—that is, statutory paternity pay and statutory adoption pay. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendments Nos. 255B and 255C:
Page 189, line 16, at end insert—
"(ca) "statutory paternity pay" must be construed in accordance with section 171ZA of that Act;
(cb) "statutory adoption pay" must be construed in accordance with section 171ZL of that Act;"
Page 189, line 26, at end insert
(ca) "statutory paternity pay" must be construed in accordance with any Northern Ireland legislation which corresponds to Part 12ZA of the Social `Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992;

131
(cb) "statutory adoption pay" must be construed in accordance with any Northern Ireland legislation which corresponds to Part 12ZB of that Act;"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 323, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 324 and 325 agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 326 agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at five minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Tribunals and Courts: Awards of Costs
  Tribunals and Courts: Awards of Costs
  House of Lords Appointments: Applicants
  House of Lords Appointments: Applicants
  Castlereagh Police Complex: Security
  Castlereagh Police Complex: Security
  Privy Council Office: Heritage Assets
  Privy Council Office: Heritage Assets
  Provisional IRA
  Provisional IRA
  Northern Ireland: Linguistic Diversity
  Northern Ireland: Linguistic Diversity
  Peers' Expenses Scheme: Motor Mileage and Bicycle Allowances
  Peers' Expenses Scheme: Motor Mileage and Bicycle Allowances
  Labour Party Manifesto Commitments 2001
  Labour Party Manifesto Commitments 2001
  Middle East
  Middle East
  FCO Antiques Register
  FCO Antiques Register
  Zimbabwe: Former British Nationals
  Zimbabwe: Former British Nationals
  Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill: Consultation
  Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill: Consultation
  Internet "Cookies"
  Internet "Cookies"
  Consignia
  Consignia
  3G Spectrum Licences
  3G Spectrum Licences
  Employment Tribunal Membership: Freemasonry Question
  Employment Tribunal Membership: Freemasonry Question
  Mandatory Labelling Schemes
  Mandatory Labelling Schemes
  Strata Florida: Proposed Windfarm
  Strata Florida: Proposed Windfarm
  Women Offenders
  Women Offenders
  Terrorism and International Terrorism: Definitions
  Terrorism and International Terrorism: Definitions
  Brigadier Stephen Saunders
  Brigadier Stephen Saunders
  Russian Federation: Religious Freedom
  Russian Federation: Religious Freedom
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Birth Defects
  Birth Defects
  Food Imports
  Food Imports
  NHS: Workforce Information
  NHS: Workforce Information
  Smallpox Vaccine
  Smallpox Vaccine
  Specified Risk Material
  Specified Risk Material
  National Insurance Contributions: Charities
  National Insurance Contributions: Charities
  Smoking: Public Transport
  Smoking: Public Transport
  State Retirement Pension: Postponement of Receipt
  State Retirement Pension: Postponement of Receipt
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit