Sitting of 16 May 2002

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
LONDON DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BILL (BY ORDER)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 23 May.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

    Illegal Imports
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What recent steps she has taken to prevent the passage of illegally imported meat and plants at United Kingdom sea ports and airports. [55113]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): On 21 March I hosted a forum on illegal imports at which all key interests were represented, including fanners, the food industry and enforcement agencies. Subsequent discussions agreed the range of measures included in the detailed action plan, published on 28 March, to reduce the risk of exotic animal and plant disease. That plan included commitments to, for example, giving enforcement officers new powers to search luggage for illegal imports of meat and improving co-operation between agencies. We are pursuing the action plan as a matter of priority.
    Mr. Winterton: The dairy and livestock industries of our country were devastated last year by foot and mouth, which is thought to have entered the country in imported meat or meat products. The countryside and farming remain in crisis. What action is the Secretary of State prepared to take following the recently reported comments of Professor Peter Smith, chairman of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, one of the Government's own bodies, who warned that imported meat products such as pâtés and sausages could contain BSE or other diseases because they are not subject to the same stringent controls as meat produced in this country?
    Margaret Beckett: I have not seen Professor Smith's comments. We have strict controls on meat imports. I will not list them, but all consignments of fresh meat are subject to veterinary inspection, and various documentary
    890
    and physical checks are applied. If Professor Smith has evidence to suggest that there are problems with those checks, of course we will look into it. We are taking steps to strengthen the controls and their enforcement, and we are also carrying out a substantial risk assessment to guide us to where we should put further and more effective measures if those are required.
    It will always be the case, however, that we cannot reduce risk to zero. We have to reduce it to the lowest possible level, however. We also have to ensure that arrangements are in place to tackle disease outbreaks, should they occur. It is a twin-sided problem and it has to be a twin-sided approach.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Five growth stimulants are banned under European Union directives because they are considered to have an adverse effect on the food chain. What action is taken to ensure that there is a level playing field when it comes to imports. so that we can be sure that those growth stimulants have not been used on poultry or other meat products imported to this country?
    Margaret Beckett: There is no special regime for growth hormones, as I am sure my hon. Friend accepts, but there is a regime for control of material for human consumption that comes into this country. That depends heavily on local authority inspection and controls, and every effort is made to ensure that those controls are effective. The enforcing authorities do watch out for the use of growth hormones.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: Can the Secretary of State assure us that meat plants outside the United Kingdom are subjected to the same level of random and notified inspections as our meat plants, to ensure that the highest possible standards are maintained at all times?
    Margaret Beckett: Obviously there are slightly different arrangements depending on whether the plant in question is elsewhere in the European Union or in a third country. There certainly are stringent checks, however. With regard to third countries, the European Commission's food and veterinary office is responsible for carrying out such inspections. Within the European Union, there is a common regime, of which Britain is a part.
    Paul Flynn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is futile to expect any Government to seal our borders? In spite of the strenuous and expensive efforts made by Governments, they have all seen a huge increase in contraband—cigarettes, alcohol and illegal drugs—flowing into this country. It is impossible to ensure that no infected meat gets through. If there is another outbreak of foot and mouth, or some other disease, surely the best way to combat it is by restricting unnecessary animal movements and by the judicious use of vaccination?
    Margaret Beckett: All the issues that my hon. Friend raises about controlling disease once it is detected are kept under careful consideration. On his opening remark, I fear that he is correct. As I told the hon. Member for

    891
    Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), it is not possible to devise a regime that can eliminate all risk. It is a case of reducing that risk to the lowest possible level.
    My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point about the flow of meat and other products within the European Union. Under single market rules, there are not routine checks of every consignment. However, there are random and non-discriminatory spot checks, which are carried out at the place of destination.
    Mr. James Paice: The Secretary of State is right to say that we cannot eliminate risk. However, anyone who has travelled to the United States, Australia or New Zealand, for example, knows that there is a huge gulf between the precautions taken in those countries to minimise the risk of illegal imports and the precautions that are taken in the United Kingdom. Does the right hon. Lady understand that it is a matter not only of powers, important as they may be, but of diligence and commitment on the part of the Government to try to ensure that people understand fully that they should not be bringing in the produce, and that if they do so they will be detected and stopped?
    Margaret Beckett: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but, the circumstances in the countries to which he has referred are different. I am not entirely sure whether there is as great a discrepancy in the precautions that we take as there is in publicity. I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that we are doing what we can to increase public attention, and I hope that we will continue to do more.
    There may not be the same gap in enforcement as there is in perception. We are continuing to discuss with airlines, for example, whether there is more that can be done in terms of travellers, whether at the place where they board, during the flight, or whatever. We are having discussions with other transport operators. They were all part of the discussions that took place at the general meeting that I held.
    There is a major difference between us and the countries to which the hon. Gentleman referred. If he thinks of his experience, information and guidance for travellers is often given through the completion of a landing card. But European Union travellers, including British citizens, do not have to fill out landing cards. We are discussing with the airlines whether there is a procedure that can be adopted. We could not introduce landing cards per se without primary legislation.
    Many of the other players are not keen to take further action, which would be costly and involve a good deal of work for them. Risk assessment is the key to getting their co-operation, if we conclude following that assessment that further action is needed. I hope that we shall obtain that co-operation in the not too distant future.
    Mr. David Lidington: The Department's Minister in the Lords has said that last year, despite the devastation wrought by the foot and mouth outbreak, there were only three prosecutions for offences involving illegal meat imports. Why does the right hon. Lady think the total was so low?
    Margaret Beckett: I would have to examine individual cases. There is the issue of whether controls and
    892
    operations should be directed primarily at enforcement or prosecution. There is scope for prosecutions, and such prosecutions occur from time to time, not least of commercial importers.
    The reasons for the risk assessment are twofold. One is to determine whether the greatest risk comes from commercial imports that are illegal, or from individual imports. The second is to ascertain exactly how we can best target the enforcement that we undertake.
    Perhaps the few prosecutions that take place are evidence of successful deterrence and detection more than anything else. We agree and accept that it is important to keep the right balance. I shall now do what I should have done at the outset, and welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box.
    Mr. Lidington: I thank the right hon. Lady for her kind remarks. I place on record my appreciation of the work done on this brief by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton).
    Surely more than 12 months after the foot and mouth outbreak started, the right hon. Lady should realise that when we have more than 800 seizures of illegal imported meat and only three prosecutions, when the Department's Minister in the Lords is admitting that since the outbreak of foot and mouth disease no additional resources have been allocated for meat import controls at Heathrow airport, and when responsibility for controls and checks on meat imports is still divided between six different public agencies, it is hardly a surprise that the Department, in the view of farmers, especially livestock farmers, has become a byword for delay and incompetence.
    Margaret Beckett: I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman that his question may be based on a misapprehension. I do not have the detailed answer given by my noble Friend in the House of Lords, but I have now turned up the figures on prosecutions and think that the hon. Gentleman may be referring to prosecutions for trade in endangered species, which also involves illegal meat imports and is a completely separate matter.
    Mr. Lidington indicated dissent.
    Margaret Beckett: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that, from memory, I am not aware that there is any evidence of imports of things like bush meat, wrong as they are and much as we must stamp them out, leading to outbreaks of animal disease. However, I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that there are two sides—
    Mr. Lidington: It is in Hansard.
    Margaret Beckett: Well, with great respect, the fact that the hon. Gentleman has it on paper does not mean that it is right. My figures on the three prosecutions in the past year are specifically for international trade in endangered species. Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right that there is a diversity—if he likes, a plethora—of agencies

    893
    dealing with those issues, but that regime was not introduced by this Government. We are dealing with the issue as we find it.
    Mr. Keith Simpson: Blame it on someone else.
    Margaret Beckett: I was not blaming the previous Government; I was simply making a statement. The fact is, the Conservatives presided over the regime of divided responsibilities that we have inherited. We are doing more to give effective powers, for example, to local authority inspectors—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady's reply is far too long. I call Mr. Chaytor.

    Sustainable Development Summit
    Mr. David Chaytor: What action she has taken to influence the agenda of the world summit on sustainable development. [55114]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): As my Department has the policy lead on sustainable development, I have taken every opportunity both within the European Union and internationally to put across the United Kingdom view so that we can ensure that our priorities influence the agenda for the summit. Earlier in the year, I visited South Africa, the host country. to see for myself how the preparations for the summit were progressing. Most recently I held bilaterals with key players in the margins of the G8 environment meeting and will shortly attend the final ministerial Prepcom hosted by Indonesia.
    Mr. Chaytor: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. May I draw her attention to early-day motion 1299, which states the case for making programmes of clean energy a priority of the Johannesburg agenda? Does she agree that it is not a question of environmental objectives being in competition with social and developmental objectives at Johannesburg, and that clean energy programmes are the fundamental prerequisite for successful poverty reduction?
    Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point; there is every prospect of clean energy programmes being a priority at the summit, as that has a great deal of support in the EU and beyond, in the United States and the G8. My hon. Friend is right about what sustainable development means, but it is important that environmental issues be balanced against social and economic issues. I certainly share his view that that is an important and basic issue in tackling poverty; one is not in competition with the other.
    Malcolm Bruce: I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). There is a real will in the developing world for a positive commitment to providing renewable energy for the poorest people, and I hope that the British Government will be instrumental in bringing that about. Given that the right hon. Lady is about to go to the final ministerial preparatory meeting in Bali, will she undertake to return to the House and make a full statement about its results
    894
    and the preparation that will be developed at Johannesburg? We had a good debate in the House yesterday, but seven Members from four political parties were unable to speak because time ran out. It behoves the Government to provide time to tell us what is going on and ensure that the House plays a full part.
    Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman should know that the control of the agenda of the House is no longer a matter for me. To a certain extent, he should make his appeal to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Of course, I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and I am more than willing to consider making a statement to the House if I feel that there is something of substance to say when we return from Bali. I certainly hope that there will be.
    Mr. David Borrow: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and look forward to her return from Bali and a statement thereafter. What provision will her Department be making to ensure that not only Members of Parliament, but members of non-governmental organisations in the UK, will have the opportunity to be consulted between the meeting in Bali and the conference in Johannesburg in September?
    Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Preparations for the summit go back a considerable time, and from the outset, representatives of the business community, non-governmental organisations and others have been involved in preparations for the world summit. My hon. Friend asks me to ensure that that continues. He and the House may like to know that we have kept places on the official UK delegation not only for members from the devolved Administrations, the business community, local authorities and the Sustainable Development Commission, but also for NGOs. We anticipate continuing to keep them briefed during the meetings, as we have done in the past.
    Mr. David Lidington: We wish the right hon. Lady well at the forthcoming summit and hope that there is international agreement that brings about a marked increase in the well-being and quality of life of people throughout the world. We look forward to the right hon. Lady's report back to Parliament on her return. I draw her attention to the recent report of the Labour-dominated Environmental Audit Committee, which pointed out that few Government Departments consider sustainable development central to their activities. Given the importance that the right hon. Lady rightly attaches to that agenda, why have her Cabinet colleagues been so reluctant to take seriously what she and the Deputy Prime Minister have been urging them to do?
    Margaret Beckett: That is not quite what the Environmental Audit Committee's report stated. However, it correctly drew attention to the fact that it is extremely important that sustainable development should be a key goal for all Government Departments, and that there is progress to be made and work to do. We fully

    895
    endorse that and accept that it is part of the job of the Environmental Audit Committee to monitor our progress. We shall, of course, respond to its report in due course.
    Joan Ruddock: Further to her first answer, does my right hon. Friend agree that export credits from G7 countries have greatly added to polluting carbon technologies around the world? Will she speak to her colleagues about that issue and support Globe's campaign to ensure that 10 per cent. of export credit finance is devoted to the support of renewable energy?
    Margaret Beckett: That is certainly an interesting campaign. My hon. Friend is right to say that, in putting sustainable development at the heart of what all Government Departments do, one of our goals must be to ensure that such issues are taken into account, whether in the award of export credits or in other fields. She will know that the Export Control Bill, which the Government have sought to put on the statute book, makes reference to the importance of sustainable development issues, which indicates that we are making progress in the right direction.

    Egg Production
    Mr. Graham Brady: If she will make a statement on levels of egg production in England in 2001. [55115]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): Some 22 million cases of eggs were produced in England and Wales during 2001.
    Mr. Brady: The Government have commissioned research on the potential welfare benefits of enriched cages for egg production and have also promised consultation before introducing regulations. Can the Minister give a guarantee that the consultation will not begin until the outcome of that research has been published; and can he give an assurance to an egg producer in my constituency who has invested £1 million during the past three years in providing four cages that can be enriched, that the regulations will not be gold-plated above the standards demanded by the EU directive when they are introduced?
    Alun Michael: I do not think that I can guarantee that nothing will happen while the research is being undertaken. Improvement in a situation often continues in parallel with specific research. The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the project to evaluate the effect of stock density and cage height on bird behaviour, welfare and performance, as well as to investigate innovative material suitable for dust bathing in enriched cages. This is an important issue, but I am not sure that it would be wise to separate the two.
    Mr. David Heath: I urge the Minister not to forgo the opportunity of consultation with the industry before the research is completed. It is essential that we have a dialogue between the industry and the Government from day one because, as he knows, the industry faces serious competition from the outside world and substantial investment decisions during the next few years. Is it not the case that we need to maintain a
    896
    dialogue between the industry and the Government, and at the same time have the absolute assurance that requirements will not be put on our domestic industry that are not applied elsewhere by competitor nations?
    Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Regulations are being implemented to ensure not that they are gold-plated, but that they are consistent with those applied across Europe. I certainly understand the concern about threats to the industry's viability resulting from the imposition of higher animal welfare standards. The EU has made proposals to the World Trade Organisation to deal with that, and recognition of non-trade concerns within the WTO Doha declaration provides a sound basis on which to pursue it. The hon. Gentleman points to an important consideration.

    Agricultural Tenancies
    Mr. Simon Thomas: What proposals she has to review the law regarding agricultural tenancies. [55116]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): My noble Friend Lord Whitty is currently considering the report produced by the policy commission on the future of farming and food and the report produced for DEFRA by Plymouth university on the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995. Both include a number of recommendations that could lead to changes in the law on agricultural tenancies.
    Mr. Thomas: Does the Minister share my concern that only 7 per cent. of land let under the 1995 Act is to genuine new applicants? In the review of the law, will he consider allowing tenants to have more scope for farm diversification than is currently allowed? Will he also take this opportunity to reject the proposal to increase stamp duty on long-term lets? Will he assure the House that any review of this law will focus on helping new entrants and sustainable family farms, particularly in Wales?
    Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that many of those issues are devolved to the Welsh Assembly, so I shall respond with regard to England. I have met the Tenant Farmers Association, as has my colleague Lord Whitty, and I am particularly concerned about one of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises—the apparent difficulty for some tenants of entering into arrangements to be part of the agri-environmental schemes and to access other schemes under elements of the England rural development programme, which we very much want to address. The Plymouth report confirms that the latest legislation has delivered benefits for tenants and has facilitated restructuring within the industry, but we are carefully considering the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises.
    Mr. David Drew: The report by Seale-Hayne college of agriculture, Plymouth university, is very welcome, but does my right hon. Friend agree that a dialogue should be entered into with tenant farmers, in particular those on county farm estates, to see how those farmers who are most vulnerable to current problems can be helped? Will the Government take a lead and call a conference to bring together local authorities to talk about

    897
    issues such as investment and the future of their tenants, to ensure that this important part of farming continues into the future?
    Alun Michael: I shall draw my hon. Friend's specific suggestion to the attention of my ministerial colleague, Lord Whitty. Many discussions are going on at the moment. I have attended two of the regional conferences to consider the outcome of the Curry commission and the implementation, with stakeholders, of the recommendations in its report.
    On the Plymouth inquiry, if changes can be made to agricultural tenancy legislation to give landlords and tenants more flexibility to respond to the challenges faced by the industry, we will consider them carefully. We shall discuss the way forward with stakeholders in a variety of ways over the coming months.

    Marine Environment
    Lawrie Quinn: What measures she is taking to protect the marine environment for future generations. [55117]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The first marine stewardship report was published on I May. It sets out our strategy for the conservation and sustainable development of our marine environment. Copies have been placed in the Library.
    Lawrie Quinn: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I think that he is aware of the important work that is being done locally in Scarborough and Whitby and along the coastline by Yorkshire Water, in its coast care project. Will he congratulate all the people involved, including those at Yorkshire Water, the contractors, and many members of the local community? My constituency has a long, historic and respectful relationship with the sea. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the Johannesburg summit considers these important issues in a global context, projects such as Yorkshire Water's coast care should be viewed as the way forward in protecting the sea for future generations?
    Mr. Meacher: I am glad to offer the tribute that my hon. Friend requests. It is very important that the water companies recognise their coastal management responsibilities. We have instigated a review of coastal management, but it is for those companies to establish responsible care regimes such as Yorkshire Water's. We certainly intend to draw attention to the matter at the world summit, and we have already established internationally based partnerships between several of our water companies and Governments, to try to encourage in many developing countries the services and skills at which those companies excel.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: The Minister may be aware of the irony of the situation whereby draconian measures will almost certainly be introduced by the Commission for the recovery of cod, hake and other species, yet the total allowable catch of sand eel has been set for at least double the amount that is currently being caught. Although I appreciate that the United Kingdom is
    898
    impotent to do anything about that, other than using our 10 votes in the Council, does the Minister agree that if the sand eel catch—it is industrial trawling, which is extremely damaging to the marine environment—is not dramatically reduced, those draconian measures on cod and hake recovery will be totally meaningless?
    Mr. Meacher: The hon. Lady refers to draconian measures on cod and hake, but I would say that they are largely necessary. Eight stocks, including North sea cod, are fished in quantities that give rise to a severe risk of collapse. Last year, a recovery plan was implemented that closed 40,000 square miles of the North sea to preserve the spawning fields.
    I agree with the hon. Lady about the sand eel fishery. Denmark is the European Union country that engages most in industrial fishing. Our scientists have had extensive discussions with its scientists about its impact. I understand that last December the Agriculture Council agreed that limitations should be placed on industrial fishing, and that certainly applies to the sand eel fishery.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the anxieties of the fishing industry about the threats to the marine environment posed by wind farms at sea, excessive depletion of aggregates and the discharge of pollutant water from oil and gas platforms? Will he ensure that the effects are fully researched and more tightly controlled? Will he also ensure that industrial fishing, which is a major threat to marine ecology, is not more tightly regulated but banned completely?
    Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend's last point is a matter for the EU and the appropriate Council under the common fisheries policy. A complete ban would have wider implications than he suggests, but everyone agrees that the size of nets and fishing methods have to be reviewed if they are not to be utterly counter-productive.
    I agree that coastal management is not only about preserving marine ecology but about trying to ensure a better balance between economic interests and conservation. Discharges from offshore oil platforms, the amount of produced water and other effects of industrial development around coasts can have dramatic consequences. The purpose of our review is better integration of environmental and economic interests, and to get all the players involved in forming policy.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I would like to ask the Minister a question of which I gave him a modest amount of notice. He mentioned the review of the regulatory scheme and system that affect developments in coastal waters, which was announced in the recent marine stewardship report. What does he hope that it will achieve? What is its geographical scope? Will it cover all territorial waters out to 12 nautical miles or be more restricted? If the Government are committed to a review of regulations that affect development in coastal waters,

    899
    what plans do they have for a similar review in waters further from the coast? If they have such plans, what are their likely time scale?
    Mr. Meacher: I am grateful for the notice, albeit after Question Time had started. Perhaps that marks a new concordat in the quality of exchange of information between those on the Front Benches.
    The hon. Gentleman asks a serious question, and I shall try to give him a serious answer. I hinted at it in my previous reply. The purpose of the review of the regulatory system that affects development in coastal waters is to reconcile the divergence of interest that has been apparent so often in the past between economic development and marine conservation. The Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) promoted is designed to do precisely that: designate marine sites of special interest and involve all the economic players—for example, those who want port development, offshore oil development and wind farms. They all need to be involved in developing policy. It is not one or the other; we can do far better than in the past in reconciling interests.
    The hon. Gentleman also asked about the extent of the review. It does not cover our territorial waters out only to 12 miles but to 200 miles. We propose to extend and apply the habitats directive to that distance. Britain is the first country to do that. [Interruption.] I can see that there are further ways of exchanging information; it is slightly novel to receive a further question when answering a question. I shall stick to what I have been asked formally.
    The hon. Gentleman asked about time scale. We will undertake the work in the autumn and we plan to complete it around the end of the year.
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: My right hon. Friend knows that the marine stewardship report received a warm welcome from environmental organisations such as the wildlife trusts and WWF-UK. What is his view of the proposal from those organisations for a marine Act for the UK? Will he confirm that he and his colleagues will continue to press for radical reform of the common fisheries policy to ensure that it takes account of environmental considerations, which are so important to fulfilling the report's objectives?
    Mr. Meacher: I absolutely endorse my hon. Friend's latter point that the common fisheries policy needs a much stronger environmental dimension. Indeed, I would like to see a much closer relationship between the respective Environment and Fisheries Directorate-General in Brussels and the Councils.
    On my hon. Friend's point about a marine Act, the Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill is already going through the House. There has been talk of an oceans Act—we shall certainly raise the issues of world governance and the better protection of our oceans at the world summit —but that possibility would depend on its contents. We have already instigated a more integrated system of coastal management, and we are working under the terms of the Oslo and Paris conventions to tackle pollution from hazardous and radioactive substances. We are also proposing to pilot a framework for nature conservation in the Irish sea.
    900
    At the North sea conference in Bergen, which I attended in March, we proposed—and obtained agreement—to designate marine protection areas belonging to a network of well-managed sites. This is not to say that there are not still gaps in the mosaic, but before we embark on further legislation, the important requirement is to digest and implement effectively the series of measures that have recently been put in place.

    Bovine TB
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If she will make a statement on bovine TB. [55119]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): TB in cattle is one of the most difficult animal health problems we face, and the increase in its incidence is continuing to give considerable concern. The Government are seeking to proceed on the basis of sound science drawn from independent scientific and veterinary experts. Action is centred around a five-point strategy that involves protecting human health, developing a TB vaccine, carrying out research into bovine TB, testing cattle for TB and putting controls in place, and the badger field trial.
    Dr. Lewis: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Outbreaks of bovine TB more than doubled between 1995 and 2000. Does she think that that had anything to do with the decision in May 1997 to abandon the interim badger culling strategy?
    Margaret Beckett: No, I do not. We are examining the risk factors now, but there is strong scientific support for carrying out the long-term research programme that is now under way, to settle once and for all whether there is a reservoir of disease in badgers specifically and in wildlife more generally, and whether there is cattle-to-cattle transmission—something that has not been looked at much in the past. We want to identify the problems once and for all so that we can tackle them.
    Mr. Eric Martlew: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, before the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, Cumbria was a bovine TB-free zone. Since we started to restock, however, there have been 20 reactor cases in the county, which is very worrying. I understand that the Ministry is carrying out major tests on the farms involved, but is being hampered by a shortage of at least 20 Ministry vets in the area. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential that we eradicate bovine TB from Cumbria, and that, to do that, we need money to employ more vets? The cases are a consequence of the restocking following the foot and mouth outbreak, so the cost should surely be borne by the Treasury. Let us do this quickly, before the disease gets into the badger population.
    Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I am grateful to him for raising it. He is quite right to say that there is a different set of concerns following the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, in which so many animals, sadly, had to be killed. I am grateful to him for giving me this chance to encourage farmers who are restocking to ensure that they buy from herds with known disease-free status and that they get their animals tested. As my hon. Friend said,

    901
    there is a testing programme in place to try to detect any incidence of the disease. It had not been drawn to my attention that there might be a shortage of vets to carry out the tests in Cumbria, and I shall look into that.
    Mr. David Curry: The number of cows affected by bovine TB is now a multiple of those affected by BSE. What will happen if the present rate of increase continues, so that the timetable set out in the Krebs research is overtaken by the pace of the disease? The Secretary of State mentioned finding out "once and for all" whether there is a link between badgers and bovine TB. What will happen if, as is entirely possible, we do not get such an outcome once and for all? In that unfortunate eventuality, at what stage would the Government start to draw up an alternative approach?
    Margaret Beckett: Let me begin where the right hon. Gentleman ended. I did say that we were looking at other issues—not just at the badger trial, but at cattle-to-cattle transmission and so forth.
    The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the greater incidence of TB. I think he must have been referring to the results of the recent testing. The programme was of course suspended during the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Although we are paying close attention to what is happening, it is a little early to conclude that some major unforeseen development is in progress.
    I hope the House will accept that it was sensible for the Department to act as it did. Once the testing programme was able to resume, the Department naturally began with the areas where the highest incidence was anticipated.
    Mr. Mark Todd: I agree with my right hon. Friend's answers. It is clearly important for us to continue with the Krebs trials, and do so with determination. It would be unwise to alter that strategy radically in mid-stream. I do, however, suggest two further steps. First, I think the compensation arrangements for those affected by TB should be reviewed. It has been demonstrated that although they seem generous to outsiders, they are insufficient to meet the costs of the outbreak. Secondly, I think the scale and frequency of the testing exercise itself should be reviewed. That, too, has been shown to be insufficient.
    Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. It is of course unfortunate, as ever, that there is an economic as well as a disease consequence where TB is detected. I fear I cannot tell my hon. Friend that the Department will always be able to compensate for every incidence, but, as he says, we must do all that we can to maintain the variety of testing and identification programmes and learn as much as we can about what is a very damaging disease, not only in cattle but in humans.
    Mr. Keith Simpson: The Secretary of State has rightly emphasised the seriousness of the issue. She is aware of what has been said by Members in all parts of the House, and her hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State recently spoke of a serious and growing animal health problem.
    902
    Farmers, animal welfare groups and many Members of Parliament fear that the Government—I emphasise "the Government"—may be failing to devote enough resources to dealing with a problem that continues to grow. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that her Department has enough resources to cope with that growing problem, and can she tell us what is the current backlog of tests for bovine TB, in terms of both the number of tests and the delay?
    Margaret Beckett: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman those figures, but I will send them to him in writing. As for the general issue, it is always possible to argue that more resources would be helpful. Let me repeat what I said to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr.Curry), who chairs the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: although we await the outcome of the recently resumed testing programme with considerable concern, it is not yet clear that we are experiencing a major unexpected incidence of the disease, as opposed to its emergence after a period during which studies did not continue. It is also not clear that we lack resources to deal with it. Obviously, however, we will keep the issues under review.

    Beaches
    Shona McIsaac: What progress her Department is making in making Britain's beaches cleaner. [55120]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): We have made excellent progress in making Britain's beaches cleaner, with a record 95 per cent. of UK beaches complying with the European bathing water directive last year. Compliance in England is even better, with 98 per cent. of bathing waters complying in 2001. Further improvements to meet higher standards will include action to reduce diffuse pollution from agriculture.
    Shona McIsaac: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Cleethorpes beach recently won a prestigious seaside award in recognition of its cleanliness? Will he extend his praise to all who worked so tirelessly to that end? I know that he visited Cleethorpes back in 1997; what plans has he to visit my wonderful beach again to see how effective his Department's investment has been in creating one of Britain's best beaches?
    Hon. Members: Answer!
    Mr. Meacher: That is a very difficult question. Obviously, I sincerely congratulate Cleethorpes and the other towns that have achieved those extremely pleasing results, which are the consequence of a great deal of work by a wide range of partnerships. I will try to arrange a visit to Cleethorpes.
    The biggest cleanliness problem for the UK was Blackpool, and in a rather rash moment several years ago, I did say that when it passed on all counts, I would go up there, don my bathing trunks and plunge into the sea. I was rather alarmed to find out that, last year, that is exactly what happened, so this year I am looking forward to a bathe—at Blackpool, if not at Cleethorpes.

    903
    The subject causes much mirth and merriment, but there is a serious point. By 2005, as a result of successive periodic reviews, we will have invested more than £5 billion in cleaning up rivers and beaches in this country. We should all be proud that the waters— seas, lakes and rivers—in this country are the cleanest since before the industrial revolution.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that Hunstanton—or Hun'ston, as the locals call it—also has an extremely clean beach and. incidentally, that it is a much nicer place than Cleethorpes? I hope that he will find time to visit Hunstanton and to pay tribute to the local staff, who played a very important role in the beach's winning several awards. Does he agree that this country's beaches would be cleaner still if we made greater use of renewable energy? Does he also agree that, although the offshore wind farm applications for the Wash are good news, they must be balanced against the interests of fisheries?
    Mr. Meacher: I am getting a little alarmed by the number of places that I am expected to visit in order to plunge into the sea, but the hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to a very successful effort in his constituency. On balancing the interests—a point that relates to an earlier question—I strongly support offshore wind farms and the principle of offshore development of renewable energy, so long as such wind farms are carefully sited and careful consideration is given to balancing the interests involved. Such development has a major contribution to make.
    I think that the first application for a major offshore wind development was at Scroby bank—
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Sands.
    Mr. Meacher: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend; it is always helpful to have present hon. Members from all over the country who can offer corrections. The development at Scroby sands was the first, but there will certainly be many others. They contribute to the increase in renewable energy that we want to see, but I doubt whether they have much effect on the quality of beach waters. The big issue that we must now deal with is agricultural diffuse pollution, and that is what we are doing.

    Compost Heaps
    8. Jeremy Corbyn: If she will exempt domestic compost heaps from licensing requirements; and if she will make a statement. [55121]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The waste management licensing requirements under section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 do not apply to householders dealing with their own household waste, including domestic compost heaps, on their own property.
    Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Minister for that answer. I was going to suggest that he might care to make a ministerial visit to a compost heap, on top of all the coastal duties that he has to perform. It is obviously good news that hordes of local authority inspectors will not be
    904
    wandering around looking at domestic compost heaps in an effort to define a compost heap, difficult though that would be. However, will my right hon. Friend encourage local authorities to give advice to householders on how to make compost heaps, because they are the best form of recycling of green waste? It is simple, easy to do and does not cost anything. Will he also see what his Department can do to encourage local authorities to provide composting bins free or at very low cost, so that food waste can be composted free of the danger of attracting vermin, which happens when people put food waste on a normal compost heap? If the Minister wishes to see a compost heap, I am sure that many hon. Members could assist him.
    Mr. Meacher: I can assure my hon. Friend that I make a weekly, if not more frequent, visit to my own composting heap. He is right to say that composting is important. The whole thrust of the Government's waste management strategy is to have a major increase in recycling, reuse and recovery, and that certainly includes composting. It is a wad to gain better value from biodegradable waste. It improves soil quality and replaces non-renewable products such as peat. I am keen that local authorities should understand the potential and provide advice and support to people. I am also keen that a standard should be agreed between the Waste and Resources Action Programme, the Environment Agency and the Composting Association, because that would create a real market for organic waste-derived products.
    Mr. Michael Jack: If the Minister would care to join me on Sunday on my allotment he would see the importance of compost to Fylde allotment holders as a key ingredient to successful growing. However, he would also see in vivid terms the difficulty that Fylde and many other local authorities have in providing sufficient resources to sustain and develop the allotments of which they are the stewards. Will he review the support that is given to local authorities to ensure that our allotments remain attractive and not the subject of land sell-offs?
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Meacher: I can feel widespread support for me to travel the country in my bathing trunks, carrying my gardening togs. I support the right hon. Gentleman's wish for allotments to be encouraged and, indeed, composting should take place on all well-kept allotments. If he is aware of particular problems, I would be glad to investigate them, because composting can play a major part in the Government's recycling and waste management strategy.

    Tail Docking
    Mr. Chris Bryant: When she will bring forward legislation to outlaw the unnecessary docking of animals' tails. [55122]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): We have just completed a consultation exercise on animal welfare law and know that there is considerable concern

    905
    about the practice of tail docking of dogs. We are now considering whether any changes need to be made to the law.
    Mr. Bryant: I do not wish to hound the Minister on this point, but is not the practice of cutting dogs' tails off purely for cosmetic reasons unnecessary and barbaric? Is not it time that we acceded to the European convention on the protection of pet animals and gave dogs back their right to wag?
    Alun Michael: I shall not refer to the dogged determination with which my hon. Friend pursues his point. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' code of professional conduct states that docking should not be carried out except for therapeutic reasons or to protect the dog from disease or injury. Given the prevalence of dogs with docked tails, it would appear that the royal college's guidance is not being followed uniformly by the profession, and that is one of the issues that we will consider as the outcome of the consultation is considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

    Nitrate Vulnerable Zones
    Paddy Tipping: If she will make a statement on the introduction of nitrate vulnerable zones. [55123]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): We are currently considering the responses made by individuals and organisations to our recent
    906
    consultation paper, before taking a decision on how best to implement the nitrates directive in England. I hope to announce a decision shortly.
    Paddy Tipping: I accept that the 1991 directive needs to be implemented more comprehensively and there are strong arguments for 100 per cent. coverage across England. Given that, however, will my right hon. Friend do what he can to help farmers and landowners by allowing them sufficient time to resolve the planning issues and to construct storage? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend maintain and extend the existing grants system?
    Mr. Meacher: We certainly will do what we can to give assistance, and to allow as much time as possible. My hon. Friend is right to point out that the directive went through in 1991. We are subject to infraction proceedings if we do not implement it in full, and non-compliance fines could run as high as £135,000 a day.
    Those constraints are unavoidable, and we have delayed implementation as long as possible over a period in which agriculture has been hit by foot and mouth, but we now risk fines and therefore have to act. However, the first closed period for spreading certain organic manures on vulnerable soils will not begin until the autumn of next year.
    My hon. Friend asked about assistance. To assist farmers—especially intensive livestock and dairy farmers—we have put in place the farm waste grants scheme, which covers up to 40 per cent. of costs, to a maximum of £85,000. That will go a long way towards assisting farmers in this difficult situation.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House give the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The business of the House for next week is as follows:
MONDAY 20 MAY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Adoption and Children Bill.
TUESDAY 21 MAY—Opposition Day 14th Allotted Day]. Until 7 o'clock there will be a debate on "Truancy and Discipline in Schools" followed by a debate on "Special Educational Needs". Both debates arise on an Opposition motion.
WEDNESDAY 22 MAY—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill followed by a motion relating to the House of Commons Members' Fund.
THURSDAY 23 MAY—Remaining stages of the State Pension Credits Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 24 MAY—Motion on the Whitsun recess Adjournment.
The provisional business for the first day after Whitsun recess will be:
MONDAY 10 JUNE—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the National Insurance Contributions Bill.
I shall announce the business for the remainder of that week next Thursday, depending on progress in Committee.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for June will be:
THURSDAY 13 JUNE—Debate on the report from the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee on passenger rail franchising and the future of railway infrastructure.
THURSDAY 20 JUNE—Debate on equal opportunities in the Armed Forces.
THURSDAY 27 JUNE—Debate on the report from the Science and Technology Committee on the research assessment exercise.
The House will wish to know that on Wednesday 12 June 2002, there will be a debate relating to the strategy for a future chemicals policy in European Standing Committee A. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 12 June 2002:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union document: 6671/01; Strategy for a future chemicals policy. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 28-xii (2000ߝ01)].
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Leader of the House. May I remind him that on 7 May, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport made a statement on Wembley stadium? In it, she said:
"I fully recognise the public and parliamentary pressure for an end to the process and the start of the construction of a world-class stadium. I will therefore make a further statement to the House before the Whitsun recess."—[Official Report, 7 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 22.]
908
I am sure that the Leader of the House will recall that undertaking. Will he reassure the House, and give us his guarantee, that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will not come to the House on Friday 24 May with that statement? Although I and all other Conservative Members will be in our places here, I suspect that the Government believe that many of their friends and supporters may not be in theirs, as that is the day before the recess. Will the right hon. Gentleman say definitely that the statement on Wembley stadium promised for before the Whitsun recess will be made in Government time, and before Friday 24 May?
On 14 May we had a series of votes on resolutions concerning House matters. One motion stated:
"That this House considers that there should be no differences in remuneration among Members who are not Ministers of the Crown beyond those already authorised."
Some 197 Members voted against it and 175 voted in favour, so the motion was defeated. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the House has opined that it is proper that there should be differences in remuneration among Members who bear different responsibilities. I support that proposition. and as I said in interventions during that debate, I will support it going further. Although we voted that Select Committee Chairmen should be paid more, I urge the Leader of the House to consider ways of establishing whether there might not be other categories of Members bearing additional responsibilities—
David Winnick: The shadow Leader of the House.
Mr. Forth: Modesty forbids me, Mr. Speaker, but if hon. Members were to urge upon me additional pay, I cannot give an undertaking that I would not take it.
The serious point is this: given the view expressed by the House in the two motions of 14 May, will the Leader of the House give some thought as to whether we should look at this in a broader context to see whether it would be proper, reflecting the view of the House, to pay Members who bear additional responsibilities appropriately?
In today's edition of The Independent, that highly respected commentator, Donald Macintyre —a man who is familiar with matters within the Labour party—made a shocking statement. I want to quote it at some length, because I want the Leader of the House to look into the matter and come back to the House following his investigations. Mr. Macintyre said that
"on Tuesday, the Labour majority on the Treasury Select Committee caved in to government pressure and decided to delay consideration of the five economic tests of British euro entry. No doubt Gordon Brown feels he needs such an examination like a hole in the head. If he pressed the Labour majority, including the committee chairman, John McFall, not to undertake one, he was probably just doing his job."
That is a reference to the Chancellor. The article continues:
"What is clear, however, is that by acceding to this pressure—on what is after all the biggest issue of this parliament—the Labour members of the committee are very definitely not doing theirs."
Given all the praise that was larded on to Select Committees the other day and the fact that we have said that Select Committee Chairmen should be paid more for discharging their responsibilities, this is a very serious

909
allegation. I ask the Leader of the House to investigate the matter and report to the House on whether the Government put undue pressure on members of the Treasury Select Committee and whether that Committee caved in, to use Mr. Macintyre's words, to that pressure. It is a very serious allegation, and if we are to take our Select Committees seriously, we must be guaranteed that that is wrong and would never happen.
Mr. Cook: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming the business for next week. I shall try and respond to the points that came after that point of unity between us.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is well aware of the statement that she made to the House, and the matter is under active consideration. I note the right hon. Gentleman's proposal that there should be no statement on Friday 24 May; I am sure that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will be here, of course, busily pursuing their duties. I have no doubt that many Opposition Members will be here too, and I look forward to a full report from my colleagues on the number of Opposition Members who attend.
I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. He will be aware that the matter concerns talks not only inside but outside Government and that others necessarily have to come to agreement before we can make a statement. However, I infer from what he said that he would find it more convenient if the statement were made on Tuesday 22 May, which is the Opposition Supply day.
I note what the right hon. Gentleman said about other people in the House who might merit enhanced pay. I find it slightly mysterious that one of the few people outside the Government who receives enhanced pay is the Opposition pairing Whip. I certainly concur with the right hon. Gentleman that, given the fact that the Opposition pairing Whip receives a supplement, and that he must have at least as much to do as the Opposition pairing Whip, the entitlement to enhanced pay might also be due to my shadow—
Mr. Paul Tyler: Shadows.
Mr. Cook: I seemed to be carrying my audience with me when I held out a helping hand to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), but I do not detect the same sympathy from the House for going beyond that.
The effect of the decision that we took on Tuesday is that the matter of pay for Chairs of Select Committees will be referred to the Review Body on Senior Salaries—the SSRB. Giving evidence or making a submission to the SSRB is of course open to any Member of the House—
David Winnick: Or the shadow Cabinet?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend really must not pinch all my punch lines. I was about to say that I look forward to the shadow Cabinet coming to a collective view on the matter so that we can know precisely where its members stand and so that the SSRB can take that into account. I warn them that it is often the practice of the SSRB to print the submissions that it receives and we look forward to reading that one.
910
Mr. Don Macintyre is a journalist of distinction, with a well-crafted and well-pointed pen. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst quoted from a graphic and colourful interpretation of an event, but that event involved a majority on the Treasury Committee deciding that they did not wish to pursue a particular line of inquiry. I must point out that only two weeks ago the right hon. Gentleman stood at the Dispatch Box and praised the Select Committee for what it did. He cannot have it both ways—one week welcoming what the Committee says while in the next week deploring the views reached in that Committee by a majority of independent Members of the House.
Mr. Tyler: Will the Leader of the House consider the mechanism whereby Parliament learns of important new Government developments? There are, of course, statements and written answers, but will he consider topical questions? As an illustration, I understand that yesterday a consultation document on combined heat and power was released on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs website, but it appeared nowhere in the House. Will he consider that?
Reverting to the report in The Independent by Don Macintyre, does the Leader of the House acknowledge that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have consistently supported the Modernisation Committee's proposals to give Select Committees greater independence, integrity and authority, but that, according to my reckoning, eight Ministers, 28 Parliamentary Private Secretaries, nine Government Whips and 12 ex-Government Whips in effect joined the Conservatives in the Lobby on Tuesday night?
Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that the Prime Minister has to go on television to talk about the euro and Lord Heseltine has to use the pages of the Daily Express to talk to his Conservative colleagues to advance the case for it, but that our Select Committee, which reports to this Chamber, has no such opportunity to consider the advantages and disadvantages of entry? Is he aware that the Treasury Committee seems to have been nobbled by the Treasury itself? Indeed, is he aware that the Treasury seems to have access to the private discussions of the Select Committee?
I pray in aid material collected by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) under the data protection legislation. When I put on my specs I shall read what the Treasury has been saying about my hon. Friend. Not only did the Treasury refer to his questions as "whiskery", which seems a curious description, but, back in January, it identified him as "the prime mover" in the Select Committee behind the request for the "Five Tests inquiry". The Treasury could have known that only if it was receiving leaks from the Committee. What does the Leader of the House have to say about that?
Mr. Cook: I will consider the point that the hon. Gentleman made about the combined heat and power announcement. Websites are available in this building, however—although I should never accuse the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst of having such a thing anywhere in his office.
Mr. Forth: No.
Mr. Cook: I was confident of that. However, websites are widely available in the House, and sometimes putting

911
something on a website is a sensible way of ensuring that it can be put before the House. Not everything that a Department does necessarily merits a statement, or even a planted question. It will always be a matter of judgment as to which is the most appropriate way of making an announcement. No one can claim that that was a secret or concealed statement.
Don Macintyre will be intensely flattered by this morning's exchange in that he has been quoted so often. I would not wish in any way to detract from the praise given to him by all three of us who have taken part in those exchanges, all three of whom hope that we will be mentioned in a future column by Mr. Macintyre in suitable terms.
I was glad that, on Tuesday night, we had a Labour majority for the reform that I proposed on the Committee of Nomination, and I regret the fact that the very large Conservative majority against it succeeded in tilting the balance the other way.
Mr. Tyler: Both sorts of conservatives were involved.
Mr. Cook: Indeed, but there was a much larger Conservative balance. An alliance between the Conservative party and old Labour would be formidable. It would, of course, be a matter for wider political comment; Mr. Donald Macintyre might wish to reflect on it in a future column.
If there has been any impropriety in the Treasury Committee, the House has the remedy available through its own Select Committee system. That is not a matter for me in the first instance. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) complained about the Treasury's describing one of his colleagues as "whiskery", but I can only say that, after 40 years of sporting a beard, I think that "whiskery" is one of the highest forms of praise.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I acknowledge that my right hon. Friend is an ardent supporter of proportional representation, but some of us are against it to the point that we do not like what is happening in Scotland, where power has been handed over to the Tories, and in Wales —
Mr. Keith Simpson: The Tories?
Mr. Skinner: Yes. The Tories got seats in the Scottish Parliament as a result of PR—they could not have got them any other way.
The new-fangled Select Committee system would have handed over power to the political enemy—the Tories—who were going to sit on a joint committee to select Labour Members of Parliament. They are the same Tories who closed every pit in my constituency. Does not my right hon. Friend understand that some of us do not need official Whips to tell us what to do? As for that tinpot Liberal there, the hon. Gentleman should ensure that he gets his information right. Yes, there were people on the door arguing for old-fashioned socialists to stop the drift to giving power to the political enemy. I was one of them. Unlike the Tories who want money for their shadow Cabinet—that is why they voted for the money—I am an unofficial Whip who declares, "I don't want none; I'll do it for nowt."
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is in fine voice today. I have known him for almost 30 years in the House, and
912
it never once crossed my mind that any improper influence could be brought to bear on how he voted on Tuesday, or any other night in his long, distinguished career in the House. I only remind him—sotto voce, because I see no point in replaying all the arguments of last Tuesday—that I was in the House on 17 July, when it responded to the lists put before it for the nominations to Select Committees, and I do not think that there was a preponderant feeling in the House that night that the existing system was a strong, old-fashioned socialist one. I regret that the House passed up the opportunity for reform when it had the chance on Tuesday.
Of course my hon. Friend is right that I support PR. I make no bones about that. I understand entirely that I have some way still to climb on this side of the House to make progress with that—and an awful long way to climb on the other side of the House. As he mentioned the Scottish Parliament, I should like him to reflect on how the PR system and the fact that the Scottish Parliament represents the whole of Scottish public opinion has helped to build a consensus, which will ensure that no one will ever dare try to abolish the Scottish Parliament.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate early next week on today's alarming news that the Bank of England's reserves are more than $450 million—£300 million, or £26 for every family in Britain—lower than they otherwise would be because of the Chancellor's decision to instruct the Bank to sell its gold and put 40 per cent. of the money into euros? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that this is a serious issue and that, if we do not have a debate, it will give the impression that the Government want to hold debates on things that are going well, but are not prepared to face up to the issues when a horrible mistake that costs the taxpayer a fortune is made?
Mr. Cook: I can say only that the hon. Gentleman has again lived up to his reputation by raising an issue that is three years old. Of course, the sale of the gold had nothing to do with the overall level of the reserve and everything to do with the rebalancing between liquidity and gold. As he raises the issue, let me say that I am delighted, because I feel much more secure and sleep much better in my bed in the full knowledge that a much lower debt hangs over the Bank of England and the Government. Indeed, he gives me the opportunity to remind the House that the Government that he supported, and, from time to time, aspired to be a member of—indeed, that he supported that Government from time to time is also probably a fair rider—doubled the national debt. This Government have halved the national debt. If he is looking for prudence, it lies in our record and not his.
Mr. Keith Vaz: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the enlargement of the European Union? He will know that Commissioner Verheugen has published a report indicating that the applicant countries may be in the EU by 2004. Clearly, although hon. Members want to debate the euro and the five economic tests, other European issues can be discussed. Enlargement is an important issue.
Mr. Cook: I fully agree with my hon. Friend on his observation about the importance of the enlargement of the European Union. It depresses me that there is not more

913
press, media and public interest in what is an enormous historic and strategic change in the European Union. The British Government have sought to be a champion of enlargement, which will be reinforced next week when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister meets the new Prime Minister of Hungary. We will continue to do everything that we can to make sure that we achieve the targets, for which we argued and secured agreement, that candidates who are ready should be admitted in time for the next European parliamentary elections in 2005. I assure my hon. Friend that everything possible is being done to achieve that, and we would welcome an opportunity, should it arise, of reporting on that to the House.
Mr. George Osborne: The Leader of the House's legendary powers of persuasion persuaded me to vote with him on Tuesday in the Division Lobby.
Mr. Forth: So my hon. Friend was one of them?
Mr. Osborne: Indeed I was. I ignored the advice of the shadow Leader of the House. Has the Leader of the House had the chance to reflect in the last couple of days on why those legendary powers of persuasion failed to persuade a single member of the Cabinet, apart from the Chief Whip. to join him in the Division Lobby?
Mr. Cook: I was about to thank the hon. Gentleman for his support, but I shall put that on hold in the light of his final line. As to the Cabinet, I must admit that, when I was Foreign Secretary, I was rarely present in the House on the occasion of an open vote. I regret that, as one of the things that I enjoy enormously about my current job is the opportunity to be present in the House for all the time that I want. We must be realistic: Cabinet Ministers have a lot of other things to do. Although I was pleased to have the hon. Gentleman's support, I was, if anything, even more pleased to have the support of the majority of the Labour Members who voted that night.
Ann Clwyd: I know that my right hon. Friend is aware of early-day motion 826, which calls for a committee of Members of Parliament to be set up to provide prior scrutiny of certain contentious arms export licences.
[That this House believes that specified defence export licence applications should be subject to prior scrutiny by a committee comprising honourable Members of Parliament.]
The subject of arms licences has caused considerable dissent at various times in the House. Four Select Committees of the House decided unanimously to support a committee providing prior scrutiny, and both the United States and Sweden have such a committee. Next week, in the other place, there is an opportunity on Third Reading to support an amendment calling for prior scrutiny. The early-day motion has been signed by 304 Members of the House, and my right hon. Friend will agree that that is a strong expression of opinion supporting the setting up of such a committee.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend will be aware that I have spent much time debating this matter with her and other members of the Quadripartite Committee. I welcome the interest that has been shown by the Quadripartite
914
Committee in arms exports decisions, and I am modestly pleased that there was only one occasion when there was a substantive difference of opinion between the Quadripartite Committee and the Government on the decision taken by Government.
Prior scrutiny would raise many separate constitutional questions, because the traditional way in which the Government are accountable to this place and to its Committees is to take a decision and to be held to account for it. Involving the House in the decision-making process, particularly in the case of individual decisions and applications by commercial companies, would be a new venture. However, I am proud of the fact that this Government have provided both the Quadripartite Committee and everyone in the House with more opportunity to hold us to account for decisions on arms exports by providing the most transparent, comprehensive and detailed reports on our decisions on such exports of any European country.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Does the Leader of the House share my concern about the results of the Dutch elections yesterday? It now looks likely that the third Government in Europe with an extreme right-wing element will be set up, joining the crypto-fascists in Austria and Italy. While I accept that our Government have to have a working relationship with Governments of that political colour, surely it should not be a special relationship such as that advocated by the Prime Minister with Italy. May we have an opportunity to debate in Government time their relationship with emerging right-wing Governments in Europe, so that we can examine how we can work with those Governments and the people of the countries concerned to persuade the European political consciousness to reject that right-wing ideology?
Mr. Cook: My concern about the elections in the Netherlands yesterday is, if anything, even greater than the hon. Gentleman's, since I have a number of good friends and political colleagues who lost their seats, which I deeply regret.
Mr. Forth: Excellent.
Mr. Cook: While I do not expect any sympathy—indeed, I anticipated that reaction —I do not anticipate that the right hon. Gentleman would have supported the election of List Pim Fortuyn, which is what contributed so much to that defeat.
I hear what the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) is saying. He properly recognises that we will have to have a working relationship with whatever Governments are elected by other European Union member states, but that does not mean to say that we share any of the values or policy objectives of those who were elected from the extreme right. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister never said anything about the special relationship with Italy. If I remember rightly, that language was used by the Prime Minister of Italy, not the Prime Minister of Britain. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will have correct relations with the Netherlands, but he is right that we will want to work with our colleagues throughout Europe to ensure that the poisonous doctrine of the far right is defeated.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Leader of the House has worked seriously to improve and increase the powers of the House of Commons and to modernise them. Is it not a matter of considerable regret, however, that on Tuesday when the House was presented with the opportunity of a truly free vote on giving power back to Back-Bench Members to decide the membership of Select Committees, the Whips Office—the Government Whips Office — made a concerted effort to encourage Members of Parliament into the Aye Lobby. Will he consider that interesting definition of the words "free vote"? We seem to have lost an interpretation of the words that could be clearly understood.
Mr. Cook: Of course, I regret the fact that the motion that I put before the House did not command a majority. If I may put in a good word for the Whips, I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Keith Hill) joined me in the Lobby on Tuesday. That confirms my judgment that he is a man of discretion, wisdom and vision—if only I had had more such Members in the House on Tuesday night I would have been very content. The House has spoken and I have taken careful note of what was said by those who voted against. The next time that they are unhappy about the membership of a Select Committee, I shall remind them of what they said on Tuesday.
Sir George Young: Further to that reply, does the Leader of the House have any plans to revisit the business that the House debated on Tuesday? Does he agree that, whereas last July the House took the view that the Whips had too much patronage, somewhat perversely on Tuesday night the House voted to give them even more? Will he consider with the Modernisation Committee the specific proposition that the House rejected on Tuesday to see whether it might be amended to reflect the concern of the House? Will he then bring a fresh proposition back to the House, so that we can move away from the present position, which is unsatisfactory? [Interruption.]
Mr. Cook: I should warn the right hon. Gentleman that he is being heckled vigorously by those on his Front Bench. I thought I should put that on the record in case he failed to observe it.
The proposition that I moved on Tuesday was not plucked out of thin air over a few hours; it was the product of several weeks of painful negotiation and compromise with the Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means, and discussion with others in the House. During the debate, I offered to rebalance it further to take account of the concerns of newer Members. It was therefore the product of pretty intensive effort. I have to be honest: I do not think it will be possible to come up with a proposal that will command wider acceptance. The House was given an opportunity on Tuesday to vote for a different system or to stick with the present one; it voted to stick with the present system. It will be some time before I feel able to revisit it and will only do so if I am given more encouragement than I am getting from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: Two days ago the Government announced a consultation on energy policy. In an accompanying press release, the Prime Minister said:
"I hope that this report will launch a thorough debate."
916
The Minister for Industry and Energy said:
"I am determined to make the consultation process as open and inclusive as possible."
I have asked the Leader of the House this before, and I ask him again: will he organise a full day's debate on energy policy, either in this Chamber or in Westminster Hall, so that Members can participate fully in the consultation process?
Mr. CookI hear what my hon. Friend says and am well aware of the wide interest in the House in the future of energy policy, which has been raised a number of times in business questions. At present, as is common at this phase in the parliamentary Session, we have a great deal of legislative business to take on the Floor of the House in order to maintain the legislative programme. I am aware of the interest in debating energy policy, and I take note of my hon. Friend's comments.
Bob Russell: In the spirit of joined-up government, will the Leader of the House find time next week to debate listed buildings, in particular the fact that one Department granted listed building consent as recently as March to buildings at Bishopsgate goods yard, while another Department is planning in the next week or two to sanction sending in the bulldozers? Not only will we lose some of our major national heritage, but many jobs will be lost. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the relevant Minister to find time to come to the House and explain why joined-up government is not working in respect of our listed buildings?
Mr. Cook: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having found a subject on which the entire resources of Whitehall had not thought to offer a brief in advance. In the circumstances, I shall refer his comments to the two relevant Departments and invite them to respond.
Julie Morgan: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the Government's plans to have a single equality commission that will encompass the Commission for Racial Equality, the Disability Rights Commission and the Equality Opportunities Commission, and which will also consider age, sexual orientation and religion? The Government's plans are probably the most practical way to proceed, hut there is understandable concern among the different groups involved that their particular interests will be lost. Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate that important proposal?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend draws attention to the fact that we can be proud of the Government's record post-1997 and, indeed, of the record of previous Labour Governments, of taking through all the legislation on the statute book which opposes race discrimination and promotes equality of opportunity for women. We want to build on that fine record of achievement in opposing inequality and discrimination.
My hon. Friend will be aware that the idea of a merger has been floated. At the moment, it is no more than that. It will require considerable debate and I have not the slightest doubt that views will be expressed by people on both sides of the argument, including those who are worried about maintaining the focus of those bodies.
Mr. Robert Walter: I should like to follow up on that subject. The Leader of the House will

917
be aware that my Sex Discrimination (Amendment) Bill is listed for Second Reading on Friday 21 June—alas, it is No. 6 and will not be reached. However, an identical Bill was introduced in the Lords on 13 March. when it had its Second Reading. It has completed its Committee stage and will complete Report and Third Reading next week. It received the support of all those on the Front Benches in that House and there are indications of support from Cabinet Office Ministers here. Can the Leader of the House give an idea of how much time he thinks that Bill will require to be passed in this House, and when he is likely to make an announcement on that?
Mr. Cook: I am sympathetic to the substance of the hon. Gentleman's Bill. As he knows, some of my colleagues in government have already expressed their sympathy with the purposes of the measure.
As Leader of the House, I have to say that the hon. Gentleman must be realistic about the prospects of progress for a Bill that is slated as No. 6 on the last day for private Members' business in this Session. I wish him much luck; I will be happy if he succeeds. However, it is not for me to intervene to provide the opportunity for that to happen. If I were to do so. those with an interest would wish Bills Nos. I to 5 and 7 to 19 to feature in next week's business statement.
John Cryer: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 1206?
[That this House commemorates Workers' Memorial Day on 28th April and recognises its value in helping trade unions and work place safety and health campaigners in over 100 countries to draw attention to the one million three hundred thousand people who die annually due to poor working conditions often forgotten and publicly unremembered; and welcomes this year's UK theme of improving public health through stronger safety and health measures, access to effective occupational health services and empowering safety representatives to do an even better job in the work place.]
The motion stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham). It draws attention to the fact that 1.3 million people die because of poor health and safety conditions every year throughout the world.
The British building industry has always been notoriously dangerous. At present, two construction workers die each week because of poor health and safety conditions. Some construction workers who have suffered under these conditions, and who will suffer in future, live in my constituency, which provides many construction workers for east London and the rest of the south-east. Will it be possible to have a debate, perhaps in Government time, on health and safety conditions on building sites?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises an important and serious issue. I share his view that the legal process, the political process and Parliament should pay more attention to and put more effort into considering serious loss of life at work, including on building sites. It is important that we all back the Health and Safety Executive in its measures to ensure that we provide, as best we can, the safest possible working environment for those who
918
undertake tasks that often turn out to be more dangerous than was anticipated when they were designed. I wish my hon. Friend every success with his campaign. I am sure that he will find other opportunities in Parliament to raise it.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a Foreign Office Minister next week to correct the record of the House at column 332 on 9 December 1998?
The House, including the right hon. Gentleman, will recall the murder of four hostages —British Telecom workers—in Chechnya in 1998. One of those people, Mr. Rudolph Petschi, was one of my constituents, and on behalf of his widow I pursued information through debates and questions. After two years I gave up because I felt that the responses I received were inadequate. I referred the case to the parliamentary ombudsman, who has now reported.
As a result of that investigation, I have received a letter telling me that Foreign Office practice in London and in our embassies will be changed in respect of how communications are dealt with at weekends. In addition, on 21 March I received a letter of apology from the permanent secretary, Mr. Michael Jay. He apologised to Mrs. Petschi and me for the confusion in the way Ministers answered my questions. I have sent a copy of the letter to you, Mr. Speaker.
I wrote to the Foreign Secretary on 22 April but have received no response to that letter, let alone an apology. The need for an apology is twofold. First, I obviously accept the permanent secretary's apology, but I do not think that it is correct for Ministers to allow civil servants to apologise on their behalf for what happens in the Chamber. In addition, the very nature—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mrs. Browning: I will be brief, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that the hon. Lady is raising a sensitive matter, but I must stop her. This is business questions. I call the Leader of the House to reply.
Mr. Cook: I shall read the ombudsman's report and the correspondence to which the hon. Lady has referred. She will be well aware of my interest in it at the time. I have not seen the papers, and therefore would not wish to give the House an off-the-cuff response. The matter deserves to be considered fully and in detail. Having said that, I remind the hon. Lady and the House that, from my recollection of events, even if procedure that weekend had been different, there is no evidence that it would have had the slightest bearing on the tragic outcome for those four people.
Mr. James Wray: Given that we are a Government of strong family values, why the haste in introducing the Adoption and Children Bill? We have not had any consultation with any Churches or any of the children's committees. What kind of psychological effect will the Bill have? Will it erode the civil liberties of children who have been adopted by homosexual partners? Is it right for a Labour Government to introduce

919
such a Bill? Because there has been very little consultation, as I have said, will the Leader of the House postpone it?
Mr. Cook: I will not do that. The Adoption and Children Bill, which we shall consider today and next week, is the only Bill this Session that we have dealt with in Special Standing Committee, which enabled everybody with an interest to give evidence to Committee members. Moreover, the proposal before the House to provide for unmarried couples to adopt children is supported, I believe, by every children's charity. If we are serious about providing a home for those children and making sure that we tap those who are willing to work with them and the charities to provide a secure environment in which they can be brought up, we have to move with the times and recognise that a growing number of couples out there are not married, but are living together in a stable, albeit unmarried, relationship. It may not be right for the House to tell them that, for that reason, they cannot adopt a child and at the same time tell the children that we cannot find them a home because we will not work with those people.
Mr. Charles Hendry: The Leader of the House, with his characteristic respect for Parliament, won plaudits from both sides of the House when he recently apologised to the House for giving incorrect information, albeit inadvertently. We read in today's papers that the Home Secretary won respect from police officers when he apologised yesterday for the way in which he has treated them in recent months; we look forward to his making a similar apology in the House shortly. Now that we know that the Transport Secretary is on his way out, will the Leader of the House and the Home Secretary take him to one side, preferably in a remote, darkened and sound-proof room, and explain that the only way for him
920
to gain respect in the House is to follow their lead and apologise for his errors and the way in which he has treated the House?
Mr. Cook: I think that I went seven minutes on that question with John Humphrys last Friday, which was as testing as anything that I have encountered during business questions. There is no dispute whatsoever about the fact that at that meeting in February Martin Sixsmith and the permanent secretary discussed resignation; there is a dispute between the permanent secretary and Martin Sixsmith about how far they got in settling the question of resignation. It is the case that I came to the House and apologised; I did so because I had been given misleading information, and the person who provided that information was Martin Sixsmith.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Although recently there has been a welcome trend for Ministers to admit mistakes, it is nevertheless unusual for the Prime Minister to admit that his policy does not work, as he did this week with drugs policy. Will the Leader of the House allow us to have an early debate before the summer recess on drugs policy and what it should consist of, as the Prime Minister has clearly admitted that the policy we have been employing is not working?
Mr. Cook: If I may say so, no one in the Government is more vigilant in guarding against complacency than my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. When we find that a policy is not producing the results that any of us would wish, it is right to look at it again and consider alternative ways of developing it. That is the responsible way to do it, but I must tell my hon. Friend and the House that anyone who pretends that there is an easy, simple and guaranteed answer on drugs has not considered the problem and the reality with which we deal in many of our inner-city communities.
Several hon. Membersrose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Afghanistan
1.14 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I should like to bring the House up to date on recent developments in Afghanistan.
On Monday, taskforce Jacana—the force based around 45 Commando Group, Royal Marines —completed the first major operation in Afghanistan, Operation Snipe, but before I report on what Operation Snipe has achieved, I should say a few words about the medical situation at Bagram air base.
Over the past three days, 18 military personnel serving with 34 field hospital at Bagram air base have been taken ill with an unidentified feverish illness. The precise nature of the illness is not yet known and medical tests are being urgently conducted to isolate the cause. The symptoms are consistent with enteric febrile illness and the illness appears to be contagious.
Two people are very seriously ill, but fortunately their conditions have stabilised overnight. One has been returned to the United Kingdom for treatment and the other has been evacuated to a United States hospital in Germany. One other person remains seriously ill. He is being cared for by the remaining medical staff at Bagram. This patient and five others are scheduled for aeromedical evacuation to the UK today for further treatment and convalescence. Six other patients are under close medical supervision at 34 field hospital. Four patients have already been discharged.
In response to the outbreak, a number of actions have been taken. As a precaution, the field hospital has been closed to all but similarly infected patients, and strict barrier nursing protocols have been implemented. The occupants of the tent in which the disease first appeared have been placed under quarantine. Fresh rations are no longer being supplied; only operational ration packs are being used. An environmental health officer and his team have been deployed to Bagram, and an infection control nurse has been deployed from the United Kingdom. A consultant in infectious diseases is to be deployed as soon as possible.
Advice has been sought from the consultant adviser in communicable disease control, who in turn has consulted other national experts. An epidemiological study has commenced to investigate the origins of the infection and the pattern of its spread. A consultant physician, an anaesthetist and two intensive care unit nurses have been deployed to reinforce 34 field hospital. In the interim, the German hospital based in Kabul will provide hospital cover for British troops based in Afghanistan.
The situation is clearly very serious. We are, however, encouraged that there have been no new cases over the past 22 hours. We will keep the House informed of further significant developments, as appropriate. I know that all right hon. and hon. Members will join me in wishing all those who have been taken ill a full and rapid recovery.
I should also like to take this opportunity to bring the House up to date on the international security assistance force in Kabul. ISAF has been doing excellent work under British leadership. On 29 April I told the House of Turkey's decision to take over as lead nation. On 7 May, Turkish Foreign Minister Cem wrote to the United Nations Secretary-General to confirm this. We are now discussing the final details of the leadership transfer and are working towards achieving that by the end of June.
922
On 9 and 10 May, Turkish and UK authorities co-hosted an ISAF force generation conference in Ankara, focusing on the next phase of the deployment. Twenty-six nations made offers covering almost all the force requirements. These nations are now making their final assessments of what capabilities they might be able to contribute. That includes the United Kingdom. It is too soon to say what will be the likely size of our future contribution to ISAF, but it will be a considerably smaller contribution than the number of UK personnel who are now deployed with that force. I am confident that, under Turkish leadership, ISAF will remain the well-balanced and capable force that it is today. I congratulate Turkey on its decision.
I turn now to Operation Snipe. The House should recall the context of the overall objectives of our action in Afghanistan, which we set out in detail when military action began. These are to bring Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders to justice; to prevent Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network from posing a continuing terrorist threat; to ensure that Afghanistan ceases to harbour and sustain international terrorism; and to effect a sufficient change in the leadership to ensure that Afghanistan's links to international terrorism are broken.
Those objectives still hold and have been substantially achieved. The Taliban have been removed from power and replaced by the Interim Administration under Hamid Karzai. He is moving Afghanistan along the road towards the Loya Jirga, which will shape the Government of Afghanistan for the next stage of their constitutional development.
We have gone a long way towards ensuring that Afghanistan ceases to harbour and sustain international terrorism, and we have made progress towards preventing al-Qaeda from posing a continuing terrorist threat elsewhere, but these objectives have not yet been fully secured. Previous offensive operations, including the US-led Operation Anaconda, did real damage to al-Qaeda and Taliban forces, which have been effectively destroyed as dominant organised forces in Afghanistan.
But al-Qaeda and the Taliban have not completely disappeared. The terrorists have not been finally defeated. Elements of these organisations continue to pose a threat inside Afghanistan. The enemy still exists. We need to keep up the pressure and prevent them from re-establishing themselves in Afghanistan. We have good evidence that small groups of terrorist forces continue to prepare for and conduct operations and to attack opportunity targets. In recent weeks there have been a number of—fortunately ineffectual—attacks against coalition bases throughout Afghanistan. Left to regroup, these terrorists would easily pose a direct threat—even, ultimately, to the people of the United Kingdom.
That is why ISAF has been deployed to Kabul, to help the Interim Administration to maintain security in these difficult early days. That is why, with allies, we continue to work with the Interim Administration on wider security sector reform, to ensure that the Afghan people are able to take on the responsibility for the long-term security of their country.
It is also why there is a continuing need to prosecute offensive operations against al-Qaeda. It is why, in March, we deployed the 1,700 strong group formed around 45 Commando, Royal Marines, to Afghanistan to play its part, with other coalition forces, in countering the threat

923
from al-Qaeda and Taliban remnants. And that is why these Royal Marines carried out Operation Ptarmigan, from 13 to 18 April, and Operation Snipe, from 1 to 13 May.
The decision to deploy the Royal Marines on Operation Snipe was taken on the basis of clear military advice. As the Chief of the Defence Staff has set out, its strategic objective was to ensure that al-Qaeda and Taliban remnants were not able to regroup and launch new offensives against the Interim Administration or coalition forces. This is even more important as the country moves towards the Loya Jirga.
Operation Snipe's objectives were to search the area of operations, 220 sq km of land, for terrorists and terrorist infrastructure—the caves and bunker complexes, the arms caches, and supply dumps—and, when found, to destroy them. Had the Royal Marines encountered any terrorist groups, they would have dealt with them. The area of operations for Operation Snipe was chosen carefully as part of a wider coalition plan to deny space in Afghanistan to the terrorists. The area was chosen specifically because we knew it was where terrorist forces had operated, and where they were still capable of operating. It was chosen because it was somewhere that coalition forces had not previously operated.
This was a major operation, the largest offensive ground operation UK forces have undertaken since the Gulf conflict. In all, around a thousand personnel were involved—mostly drawn from 45 Commando, Royal Marines, ably supported by 3 Commando Brigade's brigade reconnaissance force; the 105 mm guns of 7 Battery, 29 Commando Regiment; 59 Independent Commando Squadron, Royal Engineers; the Commando Logistics Regiment; and Chinook helicopters from 27 Squadron.
This was a powerful, balanced, and capable force operating in close co-operation with other coalition forces. They worked closely with the Afghans, who provided guides, and also with American forces. They came under the local command and control of the United States 10 Mountain Division. US forces also provided helicopter support and, had it been required, were ready to provide close air support, a divisional reserve in the event of serious opposition, and medical support in the event of casualties.
The Royal Marines who deployed on Operation Snipe displayed the skill and professionalism that we have come to expect. Once again, they proved just how fortunate we are to possess forces of such high quality. They scoured terrain as rugged as any in the world, at extremely high altitudes—between 8,000 and 13,000 ft above sea level for two weeks.
The success of Operation Snipe should not be measured by the number of dead al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters. No terrorists were killed or detained by the Royal Marines. There were no close contacts with the enemy, but to say this means that somehow the operation was a failure or a waste of time, as some have suggested, is quite wrong.
One obvious and tangible proof of the operation's success was the destruction of a massive arms cache. The Royal Marines found 2,300 rocket-propelled grenades, 1,200 mortar rounds of varying calibre, 200 land mines, and 30,000 other types of munitions ranging from heavy
924
machine gun bullets to 155 mm artillery shells, spread over 10 caves, bunkers and other sites. Other than a small quantity of bullets and mortar rounds that were transferred to the new Afghan national army, this has all been destroyed. That means that Afghanistan is a safer place, as a direct result of Operation Snipe. The cache belonged to al-Qaeda or the Taliban, not to a local warlord. The types of munitions found, the fact that the area is one where we know that terrorists have operated in the past, and the location of the weapons and munitions at a point where the territories of three rival warlords intersect all indicate that they belonged to terrorists.
But it was not just the discovery of those weapons that made Operation Snipe a success. Two hundred and twenty sq km of land that provided a safe haven for terrorists has been checked and cleared for the first time in this campaign. Also, taskforce Jacana gained valuable intelligence, which is still being assessed. Moreover, al-Qaeda and Taliban members have been prevented from carrying out offensive operations from the areas covered by Operations Ptarmigan and Snipe. That is particularly important at a time when the country is moving towards the Loya Jirga. I ask the House to bear it in mind that the direct distance from Khost to Kabul is just under 100 miles. Operation Snipe there fore achieved its objectives.
There are those who may have been disappointed that there were no contacts with the enemy. Certainly, some Royal Marines were frustrated by that, but that does not detract from what they have achieved. Clearing country like this is hard, slow, difficult and dangerous work. It is not glamorous, nor is it spectacular, but it played, and continues to play, an important part in denying a large area of Afghanistan to the remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
On 16 October last year, when some were questioning the shape of the military campaign, I explained to the House that what was in prospect in Afghanistan was not a classical military campaign—because we were not, and are not, facing a standing army—so the phasing, tempo, and scale of operations differed from what would be used against a conventional opponent. That remains the case. One of the lessons of unconventional campaigns of the past is that ultimate success depends on action on many fronts—political, social and economic, as well as military—and cannot be measured in days. At the military level, comparable campaigns have been marked not by pitched battles, but by prolonged periods of patient, painstaking patrolling and information gathering. At times, direct offensive action may be required—Operation Anaconda was an example of such action—but that tends to be the exception, rather than the norm.
Operation Snipe must be seen in the context of a developing pattern of operations. Those operations will be intelligence-led and will vary in scale and intensity. Brigadier Lane, the commander of taskforce Jacana, was right when he said that offensive operations like Operation Snipe were drawing to an end. Taskforce Jacana is now in a period of recovery and preparation for further operations. The House would not expect me to set out where or when those operations will take place. They may look rather different from Operation Snipe— sometimes there may be no visible activity—but they will all be focused on the destruction of the terrorist infrastructure and, where terrorist groups are encountered, of the terrorists themselves. By conducting such operations, we will seek to ensure that al-Qaeda and

925
Taliban remnants cannot regroup in a way that allows them to launch operations to undermine the stability of Afghanistan or to disrupt the emergency Loya Jirga—or, indeed, to threaten lives elsewhere.
To ensure that we are able to carry out continuing operations, we are announcing today the compulsory call-out of medical reserves. Five anaesthetists and two surgeons will be called out in mid-June for deployment in early July, and a further four surgeons will be called out in mid-July for deployment in early August. The period of call-out will be three months —they will then be replaced by others. Reservists play an increasingly important part in current operations. Those personnel will provide essential medical support to operations.
Ultimately, the future of Afghanistan is a matter for the Afghan people. It is their right, and ultimately their responsibility, to govern themselves in a society free of oppression or the malign influence of terrorists. We shall continue to support the Afghan people as they begin the long process of restoring the stability and prosperity of their country.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and I am grateful for sight of it in advance.
I shall not dwell at length on the outbreak of illness among personnel attached to 34 field hospital, but I entirely echo the sentiments expressed by the Secretary of State and his concern for those infected and for their families. We wish them a speedy recovery, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will do everything that can be done to assist them. There will inevitably be questions to answer about the cause of the outbreak. For example, is there any connection between this outbreak and the soldier who contracted something similar two weeks ago? Could a local person who was being treated in our hospital have brought in the infection?
Although the Army takes pride in lightly equipped deployments, as they extend from weeks to months are we cutting corners and adding to health risks by refusing to replace trench latrines and basic washing facilities with portakabins containing proper showers and flushing toilets? The contrast between our operations in Kabul and those of other nations brought that matter to light when I was there a month ago.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that an inquiry will be undertaken into the outbreak, and that it should not rule out any possible source of the infection? I look forward to its conclusions.
Is not the compulsory call-out of Territorial Army medical staff a good reminder of the valuable role that the TA plays in our armed forces?
The statement has much greater import, too; I suspect that the Secretary of State felt the need to make it so as to respond to the chorus of media disenchantment with recent operations in Afghanistan. Many commentators share the palpable frustration of the Royal Marines, to which the Secretary of State referred, because they did not get the engagements with the enemy that we had been led to expect. However, I agree with the Secretary of State and the Government that that does not mean that Operations Ptarmigan and Snipe have been a waste of time.
In the areas at the heart of al-Qaeda's state within the state, those operations have denied the ground to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Is not al-Qaeda dispersed and disrupted
926
a much better prospect than al-Qaeda massing to destabilise the new Government in Kabul? Is that not a success? The terrorists ran away from the British Royal Marines, whereas previously they felt able to stand and fight. Is that not a testament to the fearsome reputation for bravery and professionalism of our Royal Marines? We should congratulate all those in taskforce Jacana on a job well done.
What now? Where does the war on terrorism go from here? The Secretary of State referred to the continuing need to prosecute offensive operations. He said that we were not considering a classical military campaign and stressed the need for better intelligence. He mentioned the varying scale and intensity of operations, and said that there was sometimes no visible activity. He described the focus on terrorist infrastructure and the disruption of the terrorists' ability to operate. Is that not a description of what is becoming a classic counter-insurgency war? Is not better intelligence the key to successful operations?
What is the Secretary of State's assessment of the strength, capabilities and current activities of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and especially in Pakistan and elsewhere? It is obvious that its members are not simply hiding in Afghanistan; they have fled. What is his latest assessment of the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden? As the right hon. Gentleman reminded us, his capture was the Government's stated objective at the outset. Where does all that leave our future commitment?
What relationship will the United Kingdom and ISAF have with the new permanent American headquarters, which is being set up with 500 staff at Bagram? That signals a long-term United States commitment to Operation Enduring Freedom. What is our commitment? What is its duration? What progress is being made on training an indigenous Afghan army? It has been said that Afghanistan needs an army of 60,000.
The Secretary of State referred to action on many fronts—political, social and economic. What further military and other activities will the UK undertake to continue what the Government have started—the stabilisation of the Government of Afghanistan? I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the frustration that the British military expressed when I was in Kabul last month. They said that it was often hard and complicated to use British aid money to fulfil projects such as getting the electricity back on or repairing the water supplies. Those are projects for the population among whom our soldiers have to live and work. We promised so much that any failure to deliver may make them a focus for frustration and ultimately a target for public disappointment and protests.
We welcome the fact that Turkey will take over the leadership of ISAF, but when will the Government make a clear statement about the way in which a military civil aid programme will be delivered? All we hear is that the Secretary of State for International Development is reluctant to co-operate with projects led by the military—and that the problem is not that she cannot help, but that she will not help.
Is the Secretary of State aware that many of our soldiers feel a bit used because of the involvement in what might be called "eye-catching initiatives", while small sums are denied for less glamorous projects that could make a big practical difference to the people whom the British armed forces are there to help? Will he explain to the House how this frustration can be resolved?

927
The lessons of previous successful counter-insurgency operations in Kenya, Malaya, Borneo and Oman teach us the need to win over the hearts and minds of the indigenous population. If that is the road that the Government are choosing to go down, that is the task that we must put at the top of the agenda.
Mr. Hoon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful and considered comments on the medical outbreak at Bagram. I know that his good wishes will be well received by the people affected and by their families. I assure him that, as I said in my statement, a determined effort will be made to identify the cause of the outbreak. Obviously, we need to understand its cause to ensure that no similar outbreak can occur again.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the invaluable role played by the Territorial Army; that is a subject to which we are likely to return shortly. I want to emphasise the commitment that the Government give to reservists of all kinds, and how much we appreciate the efforts that they make.
The key to the general military operation is certainly intelligence. The extent of al-Qaeda and Taliban activity, particularly along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, continues to cause concern. Any future operation will be specifically directed towards dealing with the ability of terrorists to operate freely in that area. I can confirm that Osama bin Laden and the leadership of al-Qaeda and the Taliban continue to be targets for our operations.
I am not in a position to be able to answer directly the hon. Gentleman's question about the duration of the commitment; I am sure that he did not expect a specific answer. All I can say is that we have a continuing responsibility to prosecute offensive operations against those who would seek to destabilise not only Afghanistan but the peace and security of the world, and we will ensure that ours is an appropriate contribution.
As for the other activities being pursued right across government, there is a significant aid programme and we have pledged economic support to the Interim Administration, policing training is being provided by Germany, and we are involved in an extensive programme of military training—although the United States is firmly in the lead there. There is, therefore, a determined joined-up effort right across government to ensure that there will be a reconstructed Afghanistan. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept, however, that the key to this lies with the Afghans themselves, which is why it is so important to give such strong support to the Loya Jirga and to the process of rebuilding the Government and the Administration of that country.
If I may say so, I think that the hon. Gentleman was unfair to the Department for International Development and inaccurate in his comments about the co-operation between the Ministry of Defence and that Department. On a number of occasions it has been possible for forces that arrive early in a situation that requires stabilisation to carry out reconstruction tasks with funding from DFID. That is perhaps the best example of joined-up government that I can give. Such activities also occurred in Sierra Leone, and I anticipate that they will occur again in Afghanistan. I have seen for myself the British forces in
928
ISAF engaged in rebuilding schools and creating the conditions in which the people of Afghanistan can again live a full and peaceful life in that society.
Mr. Paul Keetch: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for giving me notice of his statement. I also thank his colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the consultations and the advice that I received on this subject yesterday.
May I also send my best wishes and those of my colleagues to the people involved at Bagram and their families? Our first hope is that they all make a speedy recovery. Those affected and their families will want to know whether this outbreak could have been prevented. Our forces have encountered medical problems on deployment before. In Sierra Leone, for example, 159 of them returned with malaria. Were any lessons learned from that incident, and can the Secretary of State assure us that all our forces in Afghanistan were fully inoculated before they left? Are other nations also involved? Are troops from other nations suffering such problems?
The Secretary of State mentioned the defence medical services. The shortages have been highlighted by many Members, not least my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). We understand that there are only enough staff from the regular forces to maintain one field hospital, and that, given a strategic defence review target of 14 deployable field hospitals, we can muster only five at a push for the reserve forces. Is it not the case that unless we get the manning in the defence medical services right, there may come a time when we will not be able to deploy on combat operations because we will not have proper medical support?
May I give the Secretary of State a chance to scotch some of the more ridiculous rumours that appear to be coming out of Bagram, especially those about the number of people in quarantine? I have heard journalists mention figures ranging from 60 to 300. Can the Secretary of State tell us roughly how many people are in quarantine? Can he confirm that all those in quarantine are medical staff, and that none are combat staff—or even special forces, as has been suggested in the press? Is it not the case that if our combat staff were being detained in quarantine, Operation Veritas would be considerably affected?
I am pleased that Turkey is taking over the leadership of ISAF. How long does the Secretary of State expect that to last, and what preparations are being made for another nation to take over? Does the Secretary of State share my hope that some of our European partners will consider taking over, as they have the ability to do so?
I join the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), in congratulating our forces on Operation Snipe. They did an excellent job. The Secretary of State mentioned other nations, however. Do we not know that many al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists are hiding in Pakistan? What possibility is there of cross-border co-operation with Pakistan? Might our forces have hot pursuit into Pakistan, or would there be Pakistan forces on that side of the border to deal with the terrorists?
I welcome the call-up of reservists from the Territorial Army. It shows once again how heavily we rely on the TA.

929
Finally, let me assure the Secretary of State of our continued support for the operations in Afghanistan.
Mr. Hoon: As I said in answer to earlier questions, it is vital for us to understand the cause of the outbreak to ensure that no further difficulty occurs in future. The hon. Gentleman specifically mentioned the way in which malaria affected operations in Sierra Leone. I assure him that checks have been made in relation to the forces in Afghanistan to ensure that appropriate medication has been available.
As far as we know, this is an isolated outbreak not affecting the forces of other countries. We are, however, working hard to understand the nature of the illness, and we will take appropriate steps.
Let me emphasise that all appropriate action has been taken in relation to quarantine measures. I have described a series of steps that have been taken. The hon. Gentleman has had a copy of my statement, and I assure him that the best possible medical and prevention advice has been made available and acted on.
As for the defence medical services, I have spoken a number of times in the House about the difficulties that we inherited with regard to that vital contribution to our armed forces. We are making determined efforts to improve the position—which indeed already has been improved. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) is muttering about the time that that has taken. He knows, or should know, how long it takes to train doctors and others with appropriate experience; if he does not know, I must tell him that it takes rather longer than five years. None the less, we are taking appropriate action to resolve the problems affecting that important contribution to the health and success of our armed forces.
I hope that the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), and the House, will bear with me, but ensuring that Turkey takes over the ISAF leadership has been a long and careful process. If the House will forgive me, I will not speculate on what further negotiations might be necessary in the future. I congratulate Turkey on its decision, and feel that, as a European nation, it is making an important contribution to ISAF.
As for co-operation with Pakistan, it is important that we work with Pakistan's forces, as we have done in the recent past. They have played a valuable role along the border, and in that regard I should like to see improvement.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations about reservists.
Mike Gapes: I join others in congratulating our forces on their work in Afghanistan, and on their efforts to liberate the Muslim people of Afghanistan from Taliban tyranny. The Secretary of State mentioned the wider, non-military aspects of the campaign. Does he agree that one of those is the information campaign, and that it is vital that we redouble our efforts internationally to correct the distortions and downright fabrications put out by some organisations? In particular, I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to ummahnews.com—a website edited by Faisal Bodi, terrorist apologist and columnist for The Guardian—which includes articles claiming that the attacks on 11 September were carried out at the instigation of the CIA
930
or Mossad. Will my right hon. Friend therefore ensure that the international information campaign is redoubled so that, in the Muslim world in particular, such lies are taken into account?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who clearly has rather more time available for surfing the web than I do. He raises an important issue that is not limited to websites; difficulties with information distortion also occur rather closer to home. He rightly points out that it is crucial that we set out our aims and objectives, and that they are properly understood and represented.
Hugh Robertson: The Secretary of State is right to highlight the successes of Operation Snipe, but he will be the first to admit that such an operation will necessarily be less effective without the existence of operations of equal, or greater, intensity on the other side of the border. He touched on that matter in his reply to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), but could he tell us more about operations conducted by Pakistan's military, or by other forces, on that side of the border to root out al-Qaeda terrorists?
Mr. Hoon: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not go into too much detail about the precise nature of those operations. However, with his characteristic common sense on such matters, he has identified an important change in the way in which those particular deployments will be made. They will be much more responsive to intelligence on the ground, and the concept of operations will reflect not only the nature of information about current conditions, but the importance of co-operation of the type that he rightly identifies as necessary.
Lynne Jones: I agree with my right hon. Friend that by destroying weapons and terrorist infrastructure our troops are playing a valuable role, and I join others in wishing those who are ill in quarantine a speedy recovery. Does the announcement that medical reservists will be called up imply that our troops are likely to be involved in combat in the near future, and is it still a campaign objective to apprehend and bring to justice Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders? My right hon. Friend said that had the troops engaged in Operation Snipe found terrorists, they would have dealt with them. What does he mean by that phraseology? How will the British Government ensure that terrorists who might be detained in such circumstances receive justice by due process?
Mr. Hoon: I assure my hon. Friend that medical reservists have been called up to ensure that appropriate medical cover is available to our armed forces in the event of their being engaged in combat and requiring appropriate treatment. There is no specific connection between the two issues, other than the importance of having available the right people to deal with any problems as they arise. The specific reasons for the call-up at this stage are to give those who have been serving in the area so far a break, to allow us to rotate new people into that theatre and related theatres, and to ensure that we have appropriate resources available for the length of the current operation.

931
In connection with encounters with al-Qaeda and the Taliban, I used the words "dealt with" advisedly. In the event of suspect terrorists surrendering, they will be dealt with according to proper procedures under international law, which has always been the British Government's position. In the event of the terrorists offering resistance to our armed forces, we have robust rules of engagement that will allow them to deal with any threat effectively.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: I thank the Secretary of State for his very long-winded statement, and I agree with him that Operation Snipe was clearly a success in that it denied the ground to al-Qaeda. An important role remains to be played—not dissimilar to that carried out with great brilliance and distinction by British troops in Sierra Leone—in the increasing stabilisation of Afghanistan, and allowing its fledgling Government to take root and their writ to run throughout the country.
However, all the indications and suggestions from this end that this was to be a major operation, in which it was likely that casualties would be sustained and contact would be made with the enemy, were ill judged. The hyping of military operations is unhelpful, and causes great anxiety to the families and frustration to the soldiers. There was no reason to assume that they would bump into al-Qaeda. On this occasion our intelligence was not good, because it is difficult to have good intelligence on the ground in Afghanistan.
Will the Secretary of State consider bringing the Royal Marines home and allowing some of our other first-class infantry regiments of the line to go out and gain some experience in harsh terrain?
Mr. Hoon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who normally deploys good sense and sound judgment in his military observations, has allowed himself to make an uncharacteristic misjudgment of the nature of the operations. Perhaps he has been away from the Ministry of Defence for too long; I would certainly allow him the opportunity to refresh his knowledge and understanding, because he normally speaks with much thoughtfulness.
I invite the hon. Gentleman to return to the statement that I made at the start of the operations and read what I said to the House. He would, rightly, have been the first to criticise me if I had not warned the House of the potential risks of such an operation. If he thought a little more carefully, he would bear in mind that it followed Operation Anaconda, in which the United States conducted a similar sweep through territory in Afghanistan in order to conduct the same sort of operation as the Royal Marines have recently undertaken, but instead of taking to the hills or fleeing to Pakistan, al-Qaeda stood its ground and fought fiercely. That was the context in which I made the statement to the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, whose statements are not usually long-winded, will reflect on what I have said and return to his normal good humour and good form.
Mr. Marsha Singh: It would be a serious mistake to look at the present situation and claim that al-Qaeda had fled in the face of the brilliance of our Royal Marines—although I have no doubt that they are
932
brilliant. It is clear that al-Qaeda and the Taliban are in Pakistan and other countries waiting to launch raids and attacks across the border when the time is right. If those raids start and we do not have the right of hot pursuit into Pakistan or other countries, how will we deal effectively with such incursions into Afghanistan? The long and medium-term aim should be to equip Afghanistan with its own army and security forces, because we cannot be there for ever.
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend has touched on two vital points. It is right to say that al-Qaeda and the Taliban are still operating in Pakistan, and that they are also operating across the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The purpose of my statement was in part to inform the House of the need for further action to deal with that. As my hon. Friend noted, co-operation along that border between allied forces and the forces of Pakistan is vital.
That is why it is important that Afghanistan should ultimately be in a position to deal with security issues itself. In my statement, I mentioned the help and support that we have received already from Afghan nationals. We are participating in a training programme for the Afghan army, which is being led by the US. In due course, we want Afghanistan to be in a position to be responsible for its own security, especially along its borders.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Does the Secretary of State agree that close co-operation between the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development is vital to the future development of a peaceful and stable Afghanistan? Will he confirm absolutely that there has been no breakdown in communications between the two Departments?
The Secretary of State has access to information from more than 3,000 pairs of eyes in the area, so will he comment on a report that I received late last night from Kabul that there are acres and acres of poppy fields alongside the road between Jalalabad and Kabul—the road that all visitors travelling by the overland route use. That report directly contradicts what the Foreign Office said on Tuesday.
Mr. Hoon: On the aid point, I have mentioned the nature of the co-operation that existed in the past between the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development. The Department for International Development now has a specific liaison officer based with the ISAF headquarters, whose specific task is to resolve matters such as those that the hon. Gentleman and others have raised. I therefore anticipate that co-ordination will not be a problem in the future.
As for the poppy fields, the House knows the difficulties suffered by the international community at the hands of those who grow, transport and supply the products of Afghanistan's poppy fields. It is thought that 90 per cent. of the heroin sold in the UK originates in Afghanistan. Britain and other members of the international community have achieved considerable success in reducing the supply from the current crop. Recent estimates suggest that about one third of the crop has been destroyed, but it is clear that we need to maintain the pressure and deal with the problems that poppy cultivation has caused not only in recent times but over a very long period of Afghanistan's history.
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: My right hon. Friend may not be aware that a delegation of

933
parliamentarians from the Iranian Parliament has been meeting British parliamentarians this week. The Iranian delegation strongly made the point that unless security is established across Afghanistan, the 2 million refugees from Afghanistan who are currently in Iran will not feel able to return home. Will my right hon. Friend say what steps the British component of the next phase of ISAF deployment will take to help the Afghan Government to establish security across the whole country?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is right to say that security is crucial in Afghanistan, and is also vital for refugees. I am not so familiar with the problem on the border with Iran as I am with the situation on the border with Pakistan, but I can tell my hon. Friend that refugees are streaming away from the camps in Pakistan and returning to their homes and livelihoods in Afghanistan. That is an enormous and positive contribution to their country. I shall look at the situation along the border with Iran to see whether more action can be taken in the parts of Afghanistan that are close to it to give refugees the security and confidence that they require to return home.
Mr. Michael Weir: On behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, I should like to add our good wishes for those who are ill in Bagram. I also thank the Minister of State, who last night made the effort to tell me personally about the outbreak. Although no members of 45 Commando, based in my constituency, are affected, the Secretary of State will appreciate that their families are concerned about the outbreak. I know that the Minister of State was due to visit Arbroath today to meet the families, and I hope that he will rearrange that visit for the near future.
As for Operation Snipe, despite what is said in some sections of the media, I—and, I am sure, the families of the troops involved—greatly welcome the fact that the Marines have been able to deny territory and ordnance to the enemy without suffering any casualties themselves. What is the Secretary of State's assessment of the ability of al-Qaeda to come back into that area, given the amount of ordnance that has been destroyed in the operation?
Mr. Hoon: In fact, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is not in the House today because he has gone to Arbroath to fulfil the commitment that he entered into previously. I take this issue seriously, because of the support that members of our armed forces receive from their families, and I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Gentleman has raised it.
The destruction of the arms cache has denied a valuable prize to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. It is part of the reason why I am confident that we can say that Operation Snipe was a considerable success. It clearly undermined the
934
ability of al-Qaeda to deliver its threat—but that does not mean that we can lessen our vigilance, because there may be other caches or stores to deal with.
David Hamilton: I should like to pass on my congratulations to all our armed forces on the work that they are doing in the region. I have supported this campaign from the beginning—although I am not likely to support others—and they are doing an excellent job.
My right hon. Friend indicated that the reservists have been pulled across because they are needed in the area. Does that mean that our armed forces are overstretched? If so, would it not be better to diminish our nuclear capability so that we can pay our armed forces a decent wage and give them decent conditions?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. On his specific point about reservists, I emphasise that it is unlikely that any who have been called out by the announcement that I made today will go to Afghanistan. The important point is to have enough people available to cover the requirements of our armed forces in their various deployments across the world. Certainly, we have never tried to disguise the fact that when it comes to medics and medical support, we do not have as many people as we would like. We have to improve the necessary degree of support for our deployed armed forces.
Dr. Andrew Murrison: Our thoughts are very much with those who have fallen ill in Bagram. I suggest that the Royal Army Medical Corps must by now have a fairly good idea of what is causing the illness. It is very important to have our troops vaccinated properly. I should like to draw the Secretary of State out concerning a comment made by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence in the armed forces personnel debate on 11 April. In answer to an intervention by me, the hon. Gentleman said:
"Nowadays nobody is deployed who has not had their vaccination and health status properly checked."—[Official Report, 11 April 2002; Vol. 382, c. 220.]
Does that advice still stand?
Mr. Hoon: There are considerable advantages in having ministerial experience of the medical world in dealing with this kind of outbreak. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the work that he has done in dealing with this difficult issue. There are a number of ideas about the cause of the illness but, as I said earlier, it is important that we get to the bottom of the specific cause of the outbreak if we can, so that we can take appropriate action in future. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he requires regarding the preventive steps that are taken elsewhere.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I realise that these are important matters but we must move on to the main business.

Adoption and Children Bill (Programme) (No. 4)
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Before we discuss the programme motion, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that three amendments on today's amendment paper have been incorrectly numbered. Two amendments tabled to clause 58 on page 1676 in the name of Kevin Brennan have been incorrectly numbered as 309 and 310. They should instead be numbered as 320 and 321. An amendment tabled to schedule 3 on page 1701 in the name of Mr. Secretary Milburn has been incorrectly numbered as 308; it should instead be numbered as 322.
2.5 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): I beg to move,
That the Orders of 29th October 2001 (Adoption and Children Bill (Programme)), 23rd January 2002 (Adoption and Children Bill (Programme (No. 2)) and 20th March 2002 (Adoption and Children Bill (Programme) (No. 3)) shall be amended by substituting for the Table, so far as relating to the second and third allotted days, the following—

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

Second allotted day

Amendments relating to Clauses Nos. 1 and 17 to 40

3.45 p.m.

Amendments relating to Clauses Nos. 41 to 51, 53 and 64 to 74

6.00 p.m.

Amendments relating to Clauses Nos. 52, 54 to 63, 75, Schedule No. 1,

7.00 p.m.

Clauses Nos. 76 and 77. Schedule No.

2, and Clauses Nos. 78 to 80

Third allotted day

Amendments relating to Clauses Nos. 81 to 88, 121, 122 and 125

Three quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill

New Clauses relating to the remainder of Part 1, amendments relating to Clauses Nos. 89 to 100, 105, 106, 114 and 115

One and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill

New Clauses relating Part 2, amendments relating to Clauses Nos. 107 to 113

Three and a quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings of the Bill

New Clauses relating to the remainder of Part 3, amendments relating to Clauses Nos. 101 to 104, 126, Schedules Nos. 3, 4 and 5, Clauses Nos. 127 to 134, Schedule No. 6, Clauses Nos. 135 to 137, remaining new Clauses, new Schedules and remaining proceedings on consideration

Four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill.

I hope that I shall not disappoint the House, as I rose only to move the motion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Tim Loughton: I doubt that I shall get a similar cheer even if I speak for only a little longer than the hon. Lady.
The Opposition do not intend to oppose the programme motion, although we are against programme motions in principle. We are grateful for the additional allocation of two full days for consideration of the Bill after the
936
abortive first day when, due to an emergency debate—also on Afghanistan—our deliberations were curtailed and we had only two hours for debate.
I want to record, however, that we are not entirely happy with the events of recent days, which have led to our having to confront a large number of amendments and new clauses during the allotted two days. A total of 319 amendments and 16 new clauses were tabled previously and a good many of them were dispatched during the two-hour debate on 20 March, including many Conservative amendments on substantial subjects. Those amendments were not debated and were all subject to the guillotine that fell after two hours.
Nevertheless, during the rest of today and the next allotted day on Monday, there are still left for debate 210 Government amendments and five Government new clauses, 11 Conservative amendments and three new clauses, seven Liberal Democrat amendments and one new clause—although they are purely on the subject of adoption by unmarried people—and 47 Back-Bench amendments and four new clauses. A total of 275 amendments and 13 new clauses are to be debated—more than all the amendments tabled during the entire Committee stage.
We are especially aggrieved because the vast majority of the Government amendments have appeared only during the past few days: 136 were tabled last Thursday, 18 on Monday and a handful on Tuesday. We only received on Monday a letter from the Minister, dated 10 May, by way of explanation of some of those amendments. We have had only a few days to start studying some detailed and extensive new amendments.
I remind the House that the Committee stage ended on 17 January—four months ago. There were 24 Committee sittings between 6 November 2001 and 17 January 2002 when the Government could have considered those matters in more detail. We tried to start our consideration on Report on 20 March, so why have the Government taken so long to come up with all these new amendments? Why have they tabled them at such a late stage in the Bill's proceedings, thus giving the Opposition very little time to scrutinise them properly before the two days on Report?
The Bill is not party political. We have supported it throughout its passage and we intend to continue to do so. We have made many constructive and positive amendments to try to improve it. However, the current situation is extremely unsatisfactory. There are some huge groups of amendments—the third group contains no fewer than 59—but we have only limited time to debate them. We have many meaty subjects to debate today, but all the Conservative amendments have been timetabled today, leaving less contentious issues for debate on Monday, so that timetabling is questionable.
I do not want to detain the House any longer because, for the reasons that I have mentioned, we need to get on and maximise the time that we have to debate the Bill. In the few minutes that I shall take, it is worth putting on record that this is not the most courteous way in which the Government could have treated the House, particularly those hon. Members who have spent many weeks and months living and breathing the Bill. We have done so for the past six months, but debate is now being curtailed to just two days even though we have an extraordinarily

937
large amount of work to do—much more than was originally intended. I will not oppose the programme motion, although we have problems with it in principle.
2.10 pm
Dr. Evan Harris: I should like to take this opportunity to associate myself with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) about the number and the short notice of the Government amendments, and therefore the crowding of today's agenda in particular.
In addition, many hon. Members will think it regrettable that it is not possible to vote today on amendment No. 158, which deals with the substantive definition in relation to unmarried couples. Unfortunately, it appears that, by virtue of the programme motion, the decision on that amendment can be taken only on Monday, so dissociating the decision from the debate. For those reasons, I, too, am concerned about the programme motion, but for the same reasons as those given by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, we do not propose to press the motion to a Division.
Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Adoption and Children Bill
    2ND ALLOTTED DAY
    As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.
    2ND ALLOTTED DAY
      Clause 1

        CONSIDERATIONS APPLYING TO THE EXERCISE OF POWERS
        2.11 pm
        Mr. Andrew Turner: I beg to move amendment No. 162, in page 1, line 9, after "life", insert—
        ', and that of any sibling or half-sibling of the child, having regard to their age and relationship.'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 159, in page 2, line 16, after "the child" insert—
        '(4A) The court or adoption agency may not have regard to any estrangement of the child from his parents caused wholly or substantially by the application of provisions of this Act or of the Children Act 1989.'.
        No. 1, in page 2, line 19, after "background", insert—
        ', subject to the proviso that such consideration shall be secondary to the matters to be considered in subsections (2) and (3).'.
        Mr. Turner: When I became a Member of Parliament, I did not expect to have to deal with a large number of inquiries in my constituency surgery relating to child care and adoption issues; but, in my first few months here, they were some of the most significant issues that came before me. I am glad therefore to have this opportunity to move an amendment based on my experience before and after my election.
        It is said that hard cases make bad law, but it is certainly true to say that bad law makes hard cases. I hope that amendments Nos. 162 and 159—the two very simple amendments that I have proposed—will alleviate two possible injustices in the Bill. Indeed, if such provisions had been effective previously, they may have alleviated injustices that may have taken place.
        It is obviously not my intention to refer in detail to any case, but I shall refer to my long association with one of the families involved—it dates back to 1999. It is almost difficult to understand, certainly from my lay position on such matters, that a decision on a child taken into care at the age of nine months in 1997 was not taken until September 2000. In other words, he spent three years and four months in a sort of limbo because of the toings and froings of the judicial and child care process, which concluded with the decision that he should be adopted.
        The Bill could address two issues that may or may not have made a difference to the decision in that case, but they would certainly have made the proceedings fairer, and I address those issues in my two amendments. Amendment No. 162 relates to families where one child is being put forward for adoption, but other children may not be. Clause I clearly states:
        "The paramount consideration of the court or adoption agency must be the child's welfare, throughout his life."

        939
        Of course, if children come from a family, there may be more than one child whose welfare should be considered. The fact that one child is being put forward for adoption does not in any way diminish the responsibility of the court to take account of the interests of the other children. The clause, however, refers to the child who is the subject of the proceedings; it does not refer at all to children who may not be the subject of proceedings.
        My first amendment therefore proposes that the interests of a sibling or half-sibling should also be of paramount consideration, having regard to their age and relationship to the first child. Clearly, if the sibling is an older brother who is away at university and has little contact with a child of nine or 10 months, the court may wish to place less emphasis on that relationship than on that of, say, a twin, particularly if the twins were six years old. If one is put forward for adoption and the other is not—I realise that this may be unusual—it seems wrong that the second child should not be considered on an equal basis with the first. That is the reasoning behind amendment No. 162.
        2.15 pm
        Ms Meg Munn: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it is important for each child's concern to be considered individually? Their needs in relation to their family relationships with siblings and other family members are dealt with in subsection (4)(c) and (f). That is the appropriate way to consider the needs of siblings.
        Mr. Turner: I agree with the hon. Lady's first proposition but not with her second. The reason for that is to do with the word "paramount". If one child's interests are paramount, those of the other child are, by definition, of less importance—they must be taken account of but they are not equal. I see no reason why two children in the same family who may be of the same age should be treated unequally by the courts in relation to such proceedings. Clearly, an effect on one may be equal on another; indeed, it may be equal and opposite on another. I accept the intention of subsection (4), but it does not deal with the issue of the word "paramount".
        Amendment No. 159—my second amendment—considers the length of time that proceedings can go on and the effect of that estrangement on the natural parents of a child. I should like to refer to the judgment in the case that I have in mind. Among other things, it states:
        "There has been delay in this case"
        three years and one month's delay. It continues:
        "The obvious consequence of this is that"—
        the child—
        "has been able to become more firmly settled in the home of'—
        the prospective adopters—
        "whilst contact with his parents and"—
        his sister—
        "has continued at a level which would usually be regarded as inconsistent with a plan for adoption."
        That is the judgment. It seems incredibly unfair to parents who are simply pursuing their rights, as the local authority is pursuing the rights of the child, under this and other
        940
        legislation, that the passage of time should lead to the estrangement of the child to such an extent that the court may consider that nothing may have been wrong in that relationship except the passage of time. In the case that I have in mind, no charge has ever been preferred against either parent, and no arrest has ever been made of either parent. The only reason that I can see, in reading the judgment, is the passage of time.
        I accept, of course, that three years and one month in the case of a child who was four at the time of adoption is a very long time. That period allows much time for the formulation of bonds with the foster parents and prospective adopters. However, the parents concerned feel deeply that it is unfair that the court should take into account that estrangement, which is not their fault, when deciding on adoption.
        Sandra Gidley: Unfortunately, I feel that the amendments are unnecessary, although I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). Everything that we need is written down in black and white in clause 1(2):
        "The paramount consideration of the court or adoption agency must be the child's welfare, throughout his life."
        The court is considering the child who is being adopted and must put his or her interests first.
        I was moved by the hon. Gentleman's example of a case involving twins, who might be split at birth, which would have a profound effect on them. Ultimately, however, the court must deal with the case before it and put that child first. When considering a placement for a child, the situation of siblings and half-siblings must be taken into account, but all those considerations cannot be paramount.
        Similarly, amendment No. 1, which would downplay considerations of ethnicity and religion, is well meaning, but misguided. It is right and proper that some consideration should be given to the religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background of the child. However, that must not become an absolute credo. Perhaps that is what the amendment is aiming at. In the past, social workers have sought a perfect fit. In today's culturally diverse society, one could search in vain, for example, for someone who is one eighth Pakistani, three quarters Welsh and one eighth Scottish. What is far more important is that the child should find a place in a loving home that can provide the best care and love available for a child in need—nothing more and nothing less.
        I am not a regular churchgoer, but I recognise that for some people acknowledgement of their religion is very important. If a person or a couple felt that they had to give a child up for adoption, the assurance that religion would be a prime concern would be powerful. Christians baptise their children at a very young age and would want to ensure that that commitment was honoured. They would believe that doing so was fundamental to the child's spiritual welfare. It is important that we retain the religious element, whatever the religion.
        Having said that, the amendment would serve a purpose. When a social worker has to decide about a placement, I suspect that it is always a case of balancing all the complex factors and influences in an attempt ultimately to achieve what is right for the child.
        Mr. Julian Brazier: Although I welcome the thinking behind the amendments tabled by my hon.

        941
        Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), I cannot say that I support them. On amendment No. 162, my hon. Friend is right that the welfare of siblings is extremely important and I have also dealt with a number of harrowing constituency cases. None the less, those on the Opposition Front Bench support the view of almost all people concerned with adoption that the paramount consideration before a court must be the welfare of the child whose case is being considered. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) said, there is scope elsewhere to take account of the views of siblings.
        I shall focus on amendment No. 1, which we tabled. Should we not get the assurances that we seek from the Government, I should like a separate vote on that amendment. Almost every critic of the adoption system has focused on the delays. It is extremely rare that an adoption goes through in the 12-month period that is now the Government's target. Sometimes, they can take three or four years. In most cases, they do not happen at all.
        The reasons for the delay are many. One factor that is mentioned again and again is what the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, described as seeking the "perfect fit". No one in this House would disagree with clause 1(5) when it states that the court or adoption agency must pay
        "due consideration to the child's religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background."
        The Opposition's concern is that that consideration is being put on a par with subsection (3), which refers to delay, hence our amendment, which would ensure that subsection (5) should be
        "subject to the proviso that such consideration shall be secondary to the matters to be considered in subsections (2) and (3),"
        that is, the paramountcy and delay provisions.
        I shall give the House two examples, the first of which made the national press. A single mixed-race woman of independent means was approved as an adopter. Through the adoption agency concerned she found a child who had been in care since she was a baby. Babies are the easiest children to place and it is disgraceful that there should have been such a delay in placing a baby. The child was two and a half years old at the time. Although the woman was of mixed race, it was a slightly different mixture from the child, but each of them had a middle eastern and a European element. The woman, however, was Christian and the baby came from an Islamic background. Islam has no tradition of adoption. Children who cannot be cared for by their own parents are normally looked after within the extended family. After a lengthy delay, the woman was turned down on both racial and religious grounds. By that time, the child had been in care for three years. No other adopter was in sight.
        If a court were faced with that case, is clause 1, as drafted, clear? Is what Parliament intends clear—that delay must override those other considerations if necessary? I do not believe that it is and that is why we want those innocuous extra words added to make it clear which subsection overrides which—that delay is more important than those other factors.
        Ms Munn: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the fact that one or two cases of that nature, which are indeed a cause for concern, get into the national press shows that common sense prevails for the vast majority of children? Children are placed in loving families that best meet their
        942
        needs. If those families can match their cultural, linguistic and racial characteristics, that is the best case, but that is not achieved for the vast majority. Therefore, a good match is found and children are placed quickly in loving homes. To suggest that the paramountcy provision is not paramount is nonsense.
        Mr. Brazier: I agreed with the last point made by the hon. Lady, for whom I have the greatest respect, but I could not disagree more strongly on these matters. Study after study in the past few years—including the Prime Minister's own review—has identified the delay that is endemic in the system as one of its greatest single weaknesses. The plain fact is that the vast majority of children in care—even those who have been in care for several years—are not satisfactorily adopted. The most recent figures that I have seen show that about 1,500 adoptive parents are still waiting for children. Therefore, I do not accept the hon. Lady's argument.
        Mr. Gary Streeter: I am sure that my hon. Friend supports the Government's aim to increase the number of these children who are adopted. Those of us whose friends have tried to adopt know that they have encountered bureaucratic difficulties and delays. Adoption is not an easy process for many people at present. Does he agree that if the Government could streamline that process and deal with the problem of delay, we would be well on the way to increasing the number of children adopted, which would be one practical measure to emerge from our proceedings?
        2.30 pm
        Mr. Brazier: My hon. Friend is right. Indeed, the Government have stated that it is their purpose to deal with delay.
        Let me give one more example. A couple who contacted the Adoption Forum lived in a racially mixed' area of central London, which was reflected in their circle of friends. In 1996, they successfully adopted a seven-year-old white English boy into their family. In 1999, they applied to adopt his mixed-race older half-sister who wanted to live with them. The local authority concerned—I will not name it, but it has one of the poorest records on adoption and is at the bottom of the adoption league table—refused the placement on the grounds that she was of mixed race and the couple were white. The ruling has had a detrimental effect on their relationship with the son and, even more so, between the son and his sister. The girl remains in foster care and has suffered because of having to had move many times.
        Jonathan Shaw: We discussed that matter in Committee. One of the key things that we picked up from the evidence sessions, which were many and worth while, was that we do not want hard and fast rules when we deal with adoption. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the keys to increasing adoption to meet the Government's target of 40 per cent. is for adoptions to be successful? I do not want delays in the process, but it is crucial that we get assessments right. Nothing could be worse for a child than to be placed with an adoptive family and for that placement to break down. The consequences of that are perhaps even worse than a

        943
        delay. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that assessment is crucial and that it is vital and paramount to take account of matters in the Bill?
        Mr. Brazier: Assessment is important, but cross-racial adoptions do not always fail, a point repeatedly made by a number of Labour Members. The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety made that point when he was Minister of State, Department of Health. In the debate on the Adoption and Children Bill that fell just before the election, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) asked that Minister's successor, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), to note that
        "a requirement to match the religious background of a child with that of would-be adoptive parents has previously made it difficult to find adoptive parents."
        The Minister replied:
        "We have always made it very clear that we want the system to operate as efficiently and speedily as possible, and that we shall not allow issues to do with political correctness to get in the way of a child's best welfare interests."
        I intervened to say:
        "Just now,
        the Minister
        "was absolutely clear about the need to eliminate unacceptable delay in the process. However, clause 1(4) omits anything about that need. Instead, that subsection includes the words 'due consideration', which, legally, are not absolutely clear cut."
        I then asked the Minister:
        "Could not those words make it possible for courts to return to the very political correctness against which he has rightly and repeatedly spoken?"
        The Minister assured us:
        "Ultimately, however, we have made it very clear that we believe that there should not be unnecessary and unacceptable delay in the process. If that is one of the issues that can give rise to delay, the Bill should address it."—[Official Report, 26 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 704–705.]
        All we want to do is to ensure that considerations are secondary to the paramountcy principle and the problem of delay.
        The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) highlighted some worrying cases from his own experience, but other hon. Members reinforced the Government's position on the amendments. It is clear—we have widespread support for this—that clause 1 ensures that foremost among the principles that govern decisions on adoption is the welfare of the child throughout their life. That should be the paramount consideration. It is not to say, however, that the interests of siblings and, in particular, the relationship that adopted children have with their relatives should not be considered.
        As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) said, subsection (4)(f) explicitly states that courts and adoption agencies are obliged when considering a child's welfare, to consider the relationship that he or she has with relatives and any other relevant person. The definition of relatives makes it clear that that
        944
        includes siblings. There is a wide-ranging obligation to consider the views and wishes of siblings and parents, which is the focus of the hon. Gentleman's amendments. As hon. Members made clear, however, it is not possible both to have paramountcy for the adopted child and to give equal consideration to another issue. That is the fundamental problem with amendment No. 162.
        Government amendment No. 163 suggests that estrangement is a function of delay and should be taken into consideration. The Bill sets out important safeguards to ensure that delay does not happen. In relation to bearing down on delay, it is clear in clause 1 that courts must have regard to delay and Welfare. Clause 105 introduces for the first time timetables in court to avoid delay.
        The hon. Gentleman suggested that when children have been placed for a long time, the decision is, in effect, a fait accompli when they get to court. The point of the placement provisions is to bring forward either the time when parents consent to their children being placed for adoption or the time when that is determined by a placement order so that it happens much earlier in the process. In that way, we expect to avoid the problems that the hon. Gentleman identified.
        On amendment No. I, the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) mentioned delay. We rightly debated that at length in Committee. I share his concern and desire to eradicate delay from the process wherever possible. However, clause 1 sets out the general principles that apply across the adoption provisions. Subsection (3) places a duty on courts and adoption agencies to bear it in mind at all times that any delay in reaching a decision is in general likely to prejudice the welfare of the child. Subsection (5) places an obligation on the adoption agency, when placing a child for adoption, to give due consideration to the child's religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background. It is the interaction of those two subsections that is the focus of amendment No. 1.
        The starting point in considering the issue has to be that the subsections need to be read together. That is their legal effect. Subsection (5) cannot override the obligation in subsection (3) to have regard to possible harmful effects of delay. That overarching provision applies across all decisions relating to the adoption of a child, including the placement decision. However, during the debate in Committee and in interventions today, my hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), for Chatham and fylesford (Jonathan Shaw) and for Sheffield, Heeley made the important point that we must give due weight during the adoption process to the factors set out in subsection (5) that could have a significant impact on lifelong issues of identity—for example, the child's racial and cultural background.
        The clause ensures that that will happen and that there is appropriate consideration. However, the Government share the concerns that have been expressed about eradicating unnecessary delay from the system. We are determined to bear down on that delay. That is why our new national adoption standards make it completely clear that while a child's ethnic origin, cultural background, religion and language should be recognised, we need also to target our recruitment efforts to ensure that there are sufficient numbers of people wishing to adopt to enable children to be placed with families that reflect these factors.

        945
        The standards are equally clear on the harmful effects of delay. They provide explicitly—almost in the words that the hon. Member for Canterbury used—that children will not be kept waiting indefinitely for a perfect family. They set challenging time scales for matching children. They state that a plan for permanence must be made once a child has been in care for four months. That plan must have clear, monitored time scales. We have issued binding statutory guidance to local authorities to enforce that.
        Mr. Brazier: I am well aware of the circulars. The Minister will know how many local authorities ignore these binding instructions. Many children did not have care plans for many years after such plans became a statutory requirement, for example. Why will the Minister not put such provisions into the Bill so that the court rather than the social services department will recognise its duty?
        Jacqui Smith: There is delay before we get to the court. The importance of adoption standards, and the statutory basis for them, is that we ensure that adoption agencies bear down on delay. The standards are not optional extras, which seems to have been suggested. They are statutory guidance, and they will be expected to be in place from April 2003. We have already begun to focus on eradicating delay from the system so that we might make some progress. The average time for which a child is looked after before being adopted has fallen from three years and four months in 1996–97 to two years and nine months in 2000–01.
        That is still too long, and that is why we are taking action—we began to do so after we debated these matters in Committee—to set a challenging new time scale to our adoption PSA target. Our aim will be to ensure that nationally by 2004 95 per cent. of children should be placed for adoption within 12 months of the decision being taken that adoption is in their best interests. That is a further signal of our determination to tackle harmful delay.
        Through legislation and through the wider action that the Government are taking, there has been progress in reducing delay. We shall monitor progress and we shall ensure that continued progress is made to tackle harmful delay. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
        Mr. Andrew Turner: I am happy to withdraw amendment No. 159 on the basis of the Minister's response. The hon. Lady's response to amendment No. 162, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench, illustrates a simple difference of opinion. She and my hon. Friend believe that the interests of one child should be paramount over those of another child. I believe that the interests of two children should be equal and should be considered as such. However, 1 realise that perhaps this is not the time to press the issue. I hope that it will be considered in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: We will move on to discuss Government amendment No. 26, with which it will be convenient to take Government new clause 6.
        Mr. Brazier: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What will happen to amendment No. 1?
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: We have not missed the opportunity to vote on amendment No. 1. We take amendments in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to vote on his amendment in due course.
        Mr. Brazier: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you tell us when we are likely to take a vote? We are not clear.
        2.45 pm
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Amendments and new clauses are debated in certain groupings, but they are voted on in a different order. Amendment No. 1, on which the hon. Gentleman wishes to vote, will be dealt with after we have debated Government amendment No. 26 and Government new clause 6. He will then have an opportunity to vote.
        The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 2, line 5, after "harm", insert—
        `(within the meaning of the Children Act 1989)'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 6—Meaning of "harm" in the 1989 Act.
        Ms Winterton: I am pleased to move the amendment and to discuss the new clause, which I believe will assist in tackling the scourge of domestic violence and the terrible effect that it can have on children. One woman in four experiences domestic violence at some point in her lifetime. A survey undertaken in 2001 showed that one in five applications for contact with children involved allegations of serious domestic violence. We know also that 70 per cent. of children in care are likely to have experienced violence at home at some point.
        I thank in particular the Women's Aid Federation of England, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Barnardo's and the NCH for the candid and constructive way in which they have entered into discussions with me and officials from the Lord Chancellor's Department on this important subject.
        I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley), who have all campaigned for greater protection for the victims of domestic violence.
        As a result of the campaigning and our own research, the Government are acutely aware of the concerns that have been raised. We believe, as many organisations have made clear, that it is right that the interests of the child are protected and are paramount in the court process. That is why we want to clarify the provisions in clause 1, which set out the key principles that are to apply throughout the adoption provisions.
        Clause 1(4) sets out a checklist of factors to which courts and adoption agencies must have regard in considering the welfare of the child. Government amendment No. 26 makes it clear that the meaning of

        947
        "harm" in subsection (4)(e) of the checklist is to be the same as that used in the Children Act 1989. In other words, harm includes ill-treatment or impairment of development. We think that it is the interpretation that the courts would use anyway, but one of the aims of the Bill is to bring adoption law into line with the Children Act. It is appropriate that we spell it out for the avoidance of doubt.
        During the proceedings of the Special Standing Committee, a number of children's charities and organisations, which I have already mentioned, expressed concern that not enough account was being taken of the impact on children of domestic violence. On 17 January, in Committee, I made it clear that the Government were seriously considering how these concerns could be met. First, the Government considered the approach in Northern Ireland, which seeks to ensure that domestic violence is considered in all applications for contact or residence. However, we want to go further and ensure that the impact on children of witnessing abuse is considered in all proceedings under the Children Act when the welfare checklist is used, in both public and private law. As I said, Government amendment No. 26 would extend that to adoption proceedings.
        At present, a court, when deciding whether to grant contact between a parent and child, has to take into account the welfare checklist in the Children Act, which includes considering whether a child has suffered or is at risk of suffering any harm. New clause 6 amends the definition of harm in the checklist to include a harm that a child has suffered or is at risk of suffering as the result of witnessing the abuse of others, including domestic violence and violence which, while not domestic, may nevertheless have affected the child, such as a parent continually being harassed or intimidated or a parent harassing or intimidating others.
        The definition of ill-treatment is already provided for in the Children Act; it is broader than physical violence, and includes sexual abuse and forms of ill-treatment that are not physical. However, the Government recognise that amendments to primary legislation are not enough on their own; I certainly accept concerns that existing provisions in primary legislation are not being applied consistently. We therefore have in hand a broad programme of work that will provide more effective protection for children and victims of violence. I pay tribute to the president of the family division, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, who has done a lot of work to ensure that it is aware of action that courts should take.
        We hope to take a number of steps, such as amending court application forms to include specific questions about violence or ill-treatment of children. We shall also amend court rules to oblige courts to determine whether violence or ill-treatment has taken place if an allegation has been made and, if so, what impact that has or is likely to have on the child. We are also looking at the way in which we can disseminate more effectively the guidelines on parental contact with children in cases of domestic violence, which were produced by the Children Act sub-committee of the Lord Chancellor's advisory board on family law.
        We are aware of the many concerns about the availability of support at contact centres. We are working with the National Association of Child Contact Centres,
        948
        and the Lord Chancellor's Department has launched a consultation so that we can define more effectively the support provided by such centres.
        Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Will the hon. Lady give the House an assurance that she is satisfied that the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service will have sufficient officers on the ground if supervision is required? I agree entirely with what she is saying and accept wholeheartedly what the Government are doing in that area, but will she nevertheless assure the House that there will be sufficient funding and manning in that part of the CAFCASS operation?
        Ms Winterton: When meeting CAFCASS staff, I have been extremely impressed with their ideas on contact centres. Our priority is to ensure that we are using existing funding for contact centres effectively. Many cases involve possible domestic violence or violence against a child, so we have to make sure that proper services for supervised contact are available. We are therefore working with the National Association of Child Contact Centres to make sure that we have a good definition of such contact and eventually, through CAFCASS, can ensure that there are clusters of contact centres in each region.
        I accept that we need to undertake further work, but we can make immediate changes with the amendments and secondary legislation. I hope that we will continue to work with voluntary organisations, making use of their experience and expertise to develop our proposals. The amendments send a clear message about the Government's determination to tackle domestic violence and protect children. I very much hope that that message is reinforced by support from Members on both sides of the House.
        Mr. Llwyd: I wholeheartedly welcome the amendments, which, if overdue, are based on good research. A 1999 survey of 130 parents by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children found that during contact 76 per cent. of the children were abused; 10 per cent. were sexually abused; 15 per cent. were physically abused; 62 per cent. suffered emotional harm, with which I suspect we are dealing in the amendments; 36 per cent. suffered neglect; and 26 per cent. were abducted. There is therefore a clear need for the amendments, and I am sure that they will receive wholehearted acceptance. The hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) has campaigned long and hard on this issue, as have other Members.
        The Minister said that the thrust of the Bill was to bring a particular area of law into line with the Children Act 1989; the checklist and the proposals in the amendments are both useful and helpful. Experience tells me that some of the most damaged children have witnessed violence being perpetrated on others—typically, but not exclusively, violence by the father on the mother. Often, those youngsters have not suffered physical violence per se, but have undoubtedly suffered emotional damage. I therefore welcome the amendments and the consequent change to the Children Act.
        The amendments will go some way towards addressing the awful problem of emotional harm inflicted on young people and children. Like me, other Members may have

        949
        received a letter from a lady from Essex. I do not have her permission, so I shall not give her name, but last week she wrote to me:
        "My ex-husband received five years' imprisonment for GBH."
        During his imprisonment, her ex-husband applied for contact. There were obviously good grounds for objections but, in due course, he gained unsupervised access, which is ridiculous. A violent person with a history of violence against many different people who breached a number of undertakings is unfit to have any contact at all. The lady concludes:
        "Remember, contact/residence is the child's right, not the parent's. Children should never be forced to have contact."
        That is quite right. I know that other Members wish to speak, so I conclude by saying once more that I wholeheartedly agree with the amendments, which are a considerable step forward.
        Margaret Moran: I warmly welcome Government new clause 6 and the comprehensive set of measures being discussed to tackle a difficult and sensitive issue. The Government have taken a landmark decision to recognise in child protection legislation the impact of domestic violence on a child and the harm that a child may suffer as a result of witnessing domestic violence.
        3 pm
        The further amendments to which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary referred require the courts, when they make contact orders, to decide whether domestic violence has taken place and, if so, its present and possible future impact on the child. That is a significant step forward in protecting our children, which is warmly welcomed not just by many hon. Members, but by a coalition of children's charities, including the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, NCH Action for Children, Barnardo's, the Children's Society and the Women's Aid Federation. The wide scope of the measure, which deals with violence and other forms of abuse that may harm a child, is particularly welcome.
        The Bill extends the right of contact to unmarried parents. It is right that parents, married or otherwise, should have contact with their children in all normal circumstances, but we must ensure that where such contact takes place, the child's welfare is paramount and the necessary safeguards are in place. I welcome the restatement of that principle in my hon. Friend's remarks today.
        The courts must ensure that the welfare of the child is taken seriously. The Government and children's charities recognise that as a major issue. In more than half the cases in which court welfare reports are produced, domestic violence occurs where contact is ordered. The new clause recognises the trauma caused to a child by witnessing ill-treatment.
        As my hon. Friend knows, there is concern about whether case law precedents have distorted the intended meaning of the Children Act 1989. I refer to three cases in which that concern has been raised. In re H and R (Child Sexual Abuse) 1995, the House of Lords ruled that a higher standard of proof than the simple balance of probabilities is required in family law cases involving serious allegations of abuse of children. That raises concern about the welfare safeguards in the Children Act.
        950
        Similarly, in re 0 (Contact: Imposition of Conditions) 1995, the Master of the Rolls ruled that contact is almost always in the child's interest. Many children's charities are worried that these cases, alongside A v. N (Committal: Refusal of Contact) 1996, have to some extent resulted in the courts, when making contact orders, attaching insufficient importance to the welfare of the child, and particularly the safety of the child. We therefore need to restate the paramount importance of the child's welfare, and consider further ways of making that clear, whether through regulations, best practice or other measures.
        We know from research carried out by the Women's Aid Federation and others that despite guidelines intended to tighten up contact proceedings and to prevent contact where there is evidence of violence or abuse to the child, it still takes place. The courts continue to grant contact, frequently unsupervised contact, to violent or abusive parents. A recent survey revealed cases in which orders for unsupervised contact were granted to schedule 1 offenders and to parents whose behaviour had resulted in children being placed on the child protection register.
        In two recent cases, three children were put on the child protection register after one of them was assaulted by the father during a contact visit. Despite that, the court subsequently granted unsupervised contact to the father, and recently there has been another violent incident involving the children. The mother, who was diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome as a result of that man's violence towards her, says that she is not opposed to contact, but has repeatedly asked for visits to be supervised. One child told his teacher that he has nightmares about his mother being killed, and that he wants to die.
        In another case that illustrates the point, a woman was advised by her solicitor that there was no point in contesting her violent ex-partner's application for a contact order, because the father and child had the right to see each other. The solicitor gave that advice knowing that the father is a convicted schedule 1 offender. The mother reluctantly agreed to an order that specified unsupervised contact every fortnight.
        Similar cases go through the courts all too frequently. I welcome the moves in the new clause and, I hope, in subsequent discussions to consider further measures to ensure the safety of our children and to prevent them from being put at risk of severe harm, violence or abuse.
        I hope that when we consider the measures that my hon. Friend outlined, we will examine closely the training of the judiciary. I understand that members of the judiciary are required to undertake only 30 minutes of statutory training in relation to domestic violence, even though more than half the cases with which many of them deal are domestic violence cases. Such minimal training cannot be acceptable for those dealing with such difficult and sensitive cases.
        Mr. Andrew Turner: I am pleased that the amendments have been tabled, and like many hon. Members, I have been asked to support them. However, I am concerned about a certain imbalance in the hon. Lady's—and, for that matter, the Minister' s—presentation, which tended to emphasise violence by the man against the woman. I am sure that the hon. Lady will accept that the reverse is possible. Will she clarify whether the amendment is designed to cover mental

        951
        cruelty as well? I see that the Minister agrees. Does the hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) agree that mental cruelty can be perpetrated by the parent with care against the child by slagging off the parent without care?
        Margaret Moran: Of course I concede that there are instances of violence by the mother in the circumstances under discussion, although research has shown that that is infinitely less frequent than violence by the father. The new clause is gender-neutral. We are all endeavouring to prevent violence and harm to a child from either parent. Domestic violence by men against women is more prevalent; one in four women are likely to experience some sort of domestic violence during their lives.
        The courts seem to believe that the Children Act 1989 contains a strong presumption of contact almost always being in the best interests of the child, but that needs to be balanced against the possible risks to the child's safety. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that she is doing, in conjunction with her ministerial colleagues in the domestic violence inter-ministerial group, to address such serious issues as the lack of definition and standards for supervised and unsupervised contact.
        I warmly welcome the work that is being undertaken to ensure that proper contact centres are available when and where they are needed, given that only 12 per cent. of contact centres currently offer supervised contact, and most are run by excellent and worthy, but possibly less experienced, volunteers. I also strongly agree that we need to ensure consistency in court practice and make it clear to the courts that the welfare of the child means just that. I welcome the amendments and I hope that we shall have continuing dialogue on how to ensure that every measure is taken to protect our children in these circumstances.
        Tim Loughton: I support the Government's amendments, and I do so briefly, mindful of the fact that we have 94 amendments and one new clause to deal with before 3.45 pm. A later group of amendments also deals with parent contact and I hope that if we do not reach that, this important subject will be revisited in another place.
        In Committee, we supported the intentions of the amendments. The Minister did a lot of work subsequently into how they could best become part of the legislation. I am glad of that, and I welcome the resulting Government amendment No. 26 and Government new clause 6. I also fully appreciate the great experience of and work done by the hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) in furnishing her own amendments. They are based on much detailed work, and I am sure that the pressure that they have brought to bear has enabled the Government to move further along the road, although not as far as many of us would have wished. However, it is a good start.
        We are all aware of horrendous cases of domestic violence and its effect on children—the subsequent break-up of families, homelessness problems and the psychological effects on children who are scarred for many years thereafter—many of which we heard about in Committee. We heard many alarming accounts of the
        952
        injury that can be inflicted on children during contact with violent parents—mostly men, but not exclusively—resulting, in the most horrendous cases, in the death of a child. We heard some truly awful stories.
        I, too, congratulate the women's refuges, the Women's Aid Federation and the Children's Society on their intensive, sensitive and effective lobbying. I declare an interest as patron of Brighton's women's refuge, which does a good job in my part of the world.
        I particularly welcome the fact that the amendments extend the definition of harm to include the damage done to children witnessing the results of domestic violence between parents in the home without their having to be an eye witness to that domestic violence. That is domestic violence, although not in the strict sense of the definition that we have had. It is right that the Minister has taken account of that because it all constitutes ill-treatment and abuse, which has devastating effects on children who may then end up being the subject of adoption orders.
        I know that there will be problems of definition in the courts. I, too, have spoken to family division judges who have said that it is already a problem. However, the amendment and the new clause send out a clear statement of intent to judges and to the courts that the Government take the problem seriously. as do we. It is right that those factors should be taken into account when considering contact orders and what is best for the child's welfare, which is, after all, what is at the heart of the Bill.
        As the Minister says, the amendment goes further than the Northern Ireland model and much of this will also have a bearing on the sort of adoption support services that are structured within the Bill. I echo the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), who was an active member of the Committee, including his concerns about the staffing of CAFCASS, which has been a problem and to which reference was made in Committee.
        This is the first time that domestic violence has been legally recognised as a child protection issue, and I associate myself with that development. I realise that much work remains to be done and that we need to go a lot further, but that is for a more specialised piece of legislation dealing primarily with the subject. I hope that, in due course, the Government will revisit the subject, giving a greater airing to the complicated problems of domestic violence. The amendment and the new clause are a good start. They have the Opposition's full support and I congratulate the Minister on them.
        3.15 pm
        Sandra Gidley: I want to join the love-in and congratulate the hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) on highlighting the issue so effectively in Committee. As a result of her work the Minister has been brought on board and introduced the relevant measures.
        I was initially pleased to add my name to the extensive new clause 10, but that has been withdrawn because it needs considerable further work. I hope that that will be done in the other place, but I do not know whether there will be sufficient time.

        953
        In most cases, I agree that the interests of the child are best served by maintaining contact with both parents, but, unfortunately, as it stands, the system fails to protect children from abusers who are known to them.
        The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) mentioned the lobbying that has taken place. I suspect that all hon. Members have been deluged with mail from charities and women's refuges. One cannot fail to be moved by some of the cases. Many of the letters were the same, but there were some heart-rending personal stories, including cases of children who have been murdered during unsupervised contact. That sounds melodramatic, but the 1999 survey of parents found that 76 per cent. of the children of parents interviewed had been abused in some way during the contact visits ordered by the courts. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) broke those figures down even further. That is a powerful message that we must keep sight of.
        In many ways, it is a great sadness that it is necessary to introduce the amendment at all, because it means that in the past we have failed. In particular, we have failed children who are too vulnerable to take care of themselves. Since being elected it has been a huge sadness to me to hear from parents who have just gone through a divorce. Invariably, children are used as pawns in an unattractive game in which the parents score points against each other. It is not uncommon for a parent, or even a grandparent or set of grandparents, to make serious allegations about the behaviour of the other party, which may be unfounded.
        It is essential that strenuous efforts are made to establish the truth. I cannot emphasise that enough. If someone gets it wrong, it means that an innocent parent is being prevented from seeing their child. The balance is a fine and difficult one, but it is up to us to try to strike it. The question is vexed. We must protect our young without creating a climate where we encourage ever-escalating litigation and counter-litigation.
        I support new clause 6, which improves the definition of harm in the Children Act. It is essential that we highlight the fact that domestic violence is unacceptable. Writing this speech, I was worried that if I banged on about men beating up women I would receive letters from men saying, "Hey, what about us. We get beaten up by our wives as well." But we must acknowledge that domestic violence against women is a bigger problem, and I make no apology for saying that today. However, any violence is unacceptable.
        If children regularly witness domestic violence, they believe that it is the norm. Children believe that their immediate environment is the usual one and they have no experience of a kinder world. It is essential that this self-perpetuating cycle is broken and we must do all that we can to achieve that. I welcome new clause 6.
        3.19 pm
        Mr. Robert Walter: I welcome the amendment and the new clause. I congratulate the hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) on all the work that she has put in on the subject. I have been pleased to be associated with her in tabling amendments in Committee and new clause 10, which we have now dropped.
        These are important amendments. That fact was brought home to me within the past month in my constituency surgery, when a distraught mother came to
        954
        see me about a contact order that had been granted to her ex-husband although he had a record of violence and sexual abuse. The court welfare officer was indifferent to that, and the judge dismissed it out of hand and granted unsupervised access to the children.
        The Government have more work to do, but if we can get this message into the Bill perhaps in time they can introduce further measures.
        Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: The discussion of contact is welcome because it was one of the most important matters that we did not discuss at all in Committee, owing to Government timetabling. That is an important point to make, not least because members of the Committee received more letters on the topic than on any other. That said, I note that the contact provisions themselves are so far down the selection list that they will probably again fail to be discussed, so it will be left entirely to the other House to review the matter.
        I do not want to add much to what has been said, partly because we need to move on. I speak to many people who are not as knowledgeable as hon. Members present about the process of adoption, and they often assume that the question of contact does not often arise, because adoption involves the child being permanently taken away from the natural parents. It is important to place on the record that that is absolutely not the case in this day and age. The norm is that there will always be contact, which is right and proper. We should therefore see this as an issue that affects the vast majority of adopted children and one that it is particularly important for us to address.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendment proposed: No. 1, in page 2, line 19, after "background", insert—
        ', subject to the proviso that such consideration shall be secondary to the matters to be considered in subsections (2) and (3):—[Mr. Brazier.]
        Question put, That the amendment be made:—
        The House divided: Ayes 115, Noes 309.

        Division No. 243]

        [3.23 pm

        AYES

        Amess, David

        Collins, Tim

        Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

        Conway, Derek

        Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

        Cormack, Sir Patrick

        Bacon, Richard

        Curry, Rt Hon David

        Baldry, Tony

        Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

        Barker, Gregory

        Djanogly, Jonathan

        Baron, John

        Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

        Beggs, Roy

        Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

        Bellingham, Henry

        Field, Mark (Cities of London)

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        Flight, Howard

        Boswell, Tim

        Flook, Adrian

        Brady, Graham

        Forth, Rt Hon Eric

        Brazier, Julian

        Fox, Dr Liam

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Francois, Mark

        Burns, Simon

        Gale, Roger

        Butterfill, John

        Gibb, Nick

        Cameron, David

        Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

        Cash, William

        Gray, James

        Chapman, Sir Sydney

        Grayling, Chris

        (Chipping Barnet)

        Grieve, Dominic

        Chope, Christopher

        Hague, Rt Hon William

        Clappison, James

        Hammond, Philip

        Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

        Hawkins, Nick

        (Rushcliffe)

        Hayes, John

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        Heald, Oliver

        955

        Hendry, Charles

        Prisk, Mark

        Hoban, Mark

        Randall, John

        Horam, John

        Redwood, Rt Hon John

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Robathan, Andrew

        Hunter, Andrew

        Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

        Jack, Rt Hon Michael

        Rosindell, Andrew

        Jenkin, Bernard

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Key, Robert

        Selous, Andrew

        Kirkbride, Miss Julie

        Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

        Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

        Simmonds, Mark

        Laing, Mrs Eleanor

        Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

        Lansley, Andrew

        Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

        Leigh, Edward

        Soames, Nicholas

        Letwin, Oliver

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

        Streeter, Gary

        Liddell-Grainger, Ian

        Swayne, Desmond

        Lidington, David

        Swire, Hugo

        Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

        Syms, Robert

        Loughton, Tim

        Taylor, John (Solihull)

        Luff, Peter

        Trend, Michael

        McIntosh, Miss Anne

        Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

        MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

        Walter, Robert

        Maclean, Rt Hon David

        Waterson, Nigel

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Watkinson, Angela

        Malins, Humfrey

        Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

        Maples, John

        Wiggin, Bill

        Mates, Michael

        Willetts, David

        May, Mrs Theresa

        Wilshire, David

        Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

        Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

        Moss, Malcolm

        Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

        Murrison, Dr Andrew

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Osborne, George (Tatton)

        Ottaway, Richard

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Page, Richard

        Mr. Laurence Robertson and Mr. Stephen O'Brien.

        Paice, James

        Paterson, Owen

        NOES

        Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

        Cairns, David

        Ainger, Nick

        Calton, Mrs Patsy

        Allan, Richard

        Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

        Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        (Swansea E)

        Carmichale, Alistair

        Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

        Casale, Roger

        Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

        Caton, Martin

        Austin, John

        Cawsey, Ian

        Bailey, Adrian

        Challen, Colin

        Baird, Vera

        Chaytor, David

        Barnes, Harry

        Chidgey, David

        Barrett, John

        Clapham, Michael

        Battle, John

        Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

        Bayley, Hugh

        Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

        Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

        Clarke, Rt Hon Charles

        Bell, Stuart

        (Norwich S)

        Benn, Hilary

        Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

        Bennett, Andrew

        Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

        Benton, Joe

        Clelland, David

        Best, Harold

        Clwyd, Ann

        Betts, Clive

        Coaker, Vernon

        Blears, Ms Hazel

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Blizzard, Bob

        Cohen, Harry

        Blunkett, Rt Hon David

        Coleman, Iain

        Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

        Colman, Tony

        Borrow, David

        Connarty, Michael

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

        Brake, Tom

        Cooper, Yvette

        Breed, Colin

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Brennan, Kevin

        Corston, Jean

        Brooke, Mrs Annette L

        Cousins, Jim

        Brown, Russel (Dumfries)

        Cruddas, Jon

        Bruce, Malcolm

        Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

        Bryant, Chris

        Cummings, John

        Buck, Ms Karen

        Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

        Burden, Richard

        Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

        Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

        Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

        Cable, Dr Vincent

        Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

        956

        Davey, Edward (Kingston)

        Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

        David, Wayne

        Joyce, Eric

        Davidson, Ian

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

        Davis, Rt Hon Terry

        Keetch, Paul

        (B'ham Hodge H)

        Kelly, Ruth

        Dawson, Hilton

        Kemp, Fraser

        Dean, Mrs Janet

        Khabra, Piara S

        Dhanda, Parmjit

        Kidney, David

        Dobbin, Jim

        King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

        Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

        Kumar, Dr Ashok

        Doran, Frank

        Ladyman, Dr Stephen

        Doughty, Sue

        Lamb, Norman

        Dowd, Jim

        Lammy, David

        Drew, David

        Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

        Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

        Laws, David

        Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

        Lazarowicz, Mark

        Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

        Leslie, Christopher

        Ellman, Mrs Louise

        Levitt, Tom

        Ennis, Jeff

        Linton, Martin

        Farrelly, Paul

        Lloyd, Tony

        Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

        Llwyd, Elfyn

        Fisher, Mark

        Love, Andrew

        Fitzpatrick, Jim

        Luke, Iain

        Flynn, Paul

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Follett, Barbara

        McCabe, Stephen

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        McCafferty, Chris

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

        McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

        Foulkes, George

        MacDonald, Calum

        Francis, Dr Hywel

        McDonnell, John

        Gapes, Mike

        MacDougall, John

        Gardiner, Barry

        McGuire, Mrs Anne

        George, Andrew (St Ives)

        McIsaac, Shona

        Gerrard, Neil

        McKechin, Ann

        Gibson, Dr Ian

        McKenna, Rosemary

        Gidley, Sandra

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Gilroy, Linda

        Mactaggart, Fiona

        Goggins, Paul

        McWilliam, John

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

        Grogan, John

        Mann, John

        Hain, Rt Hon Peter

        Marris, Rob

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Hanson, David

        Martlew, Eric

        Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

        Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

        Harvey, Nick

        Merron, Gillian

        Heath, David

        Michael, Rt Hon Alun

        Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

        Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

        Hepburn, Stephen

        Miliband, David

        Heppell, John

        Miller, Andrew

        Heyes, David

        Moffatt, Laura

        Hill, Keith

        Mole, Chris

        Hinchliffe, David

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Hodge, Margaret

        Moran, Margaret

        Holmes, Paul

        Morgan, Julie

        Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

        Mountford, Kali

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        Mudie, George

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Mullin, Chris

        Hoyle, Lindsay

        Munn, Ms Meg

        Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

        Murphy Denis (Wansbeck)

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

        Naysmith, Dr Doug

        Humble, Mrs Joan

        O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

        Hurst, Alan

        O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

        Iddon, Dr Brian

        Olner, Bill

        Illsley, Eric

        Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

        Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

        Owen, Albert

        Jamieson, David

        Palmer, Dr Nick

        Jenkins, Brian

        Pearson, Ian

        Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

        Picking, Anne

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        Pickthall, Colin

        Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

        pike, Peter

        Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

        Pollard, Kerry

        957

        Pond, Chris

        Straw, Rt Hon Jack

        Pound, Stephen

        Stringer, Graham

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

        Stunell, Andrew

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        Price, Adam

        Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Prosser, Gwyn

        Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

        Pugh, Dr John

        Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

        Purchase, Ken

        Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

        Purnell, James

        Tipping, Paddy

        Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

        Todd, Mark

        Quinn, Lawrie

        Tonge, Dr Jenny

        Rammell, Bill

        Trickett, Jon

        Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

        Truswell, Paul

        Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Rendel, David

        Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        Turner, Neil (Wigan)

        Rooney, Terry

        Twigg, Derek (Halton)

        Ross, Ernie

        Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

        Ruddock, Joan

        Tynan, Bill

        Russell, Bob (Colchester)

        Vaz, Keith

        Ryan, Joan

        Vis, Dr Rudi

        Salter, Martin

        Walley, Ms Joan

        Sanders, Adrian

        Ward, Ms Claire

        Sarwar, Mohammad

        Watson, Tom

        Savidge, Malcolm

        Weir, Michael

        Sawford, Phil

        White, Brian

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Whitehead, Dr Alan

        Shaw, Jonathan

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Simon, Siôn

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan

        Singh, Marsha

        (Swansea W)

        Skinner, Dennis

        Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

        Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

        Williams, Roger (Brecon)

        Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

        Willis, Phil

        Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

        Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Wood, Mike

        Soley, Clive

        Woolas, Phil

        Southworth, Helen

        Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

        Starkey, Dr Phyllis

        Wright, David (Telford)

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Wright, Tony (Cannock)

        Stewart, David (Inverness E)

        Wyatt, Derek

        Stinchcombe, Paul

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Stoate, Dr Howard

        Dan Norris and

        Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

        Mr. Tony McNulty.

        Question accordingly negatived.
        Jacqui Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 163, in page 2, line 27, leave out from first "order" to end of line 28 and insert—
        '(or the revocation of such an order), a placement order (or the revocation of such an order) or an order under section 25 (or the revocation or variation of such an order)'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 164.
        Amendment No. 108, in clause 17, page 12, line 19, leave out "section 18 or".
        Government amendments Nos. 166 to 169.
        Amendment No. 109, in clause 18, page 13, line 1, leave out clause 18.
        Government amendment No. 170.
        Amendment No. 110, in clause 19, page 13, line 23, leave out from "the" to "may" in line 24 and insert —
        `making of a placement order under section 20'.
        Government amendments Nos. 111, 172 and 173.
        958
        Amendment No. 112, in clause 20, page 14, line 8, at end insert—
        'or
        (c) each parent or guardian consents to the making of the order.'.
        Amendment No. 113, in page 14, line 9, after "order", insert—
        `under paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2)'.
        Amendment No. 114, in page 14, line 11, leave out paragraph (a).
        Amendment No. 20, in page 14, line 17, leave out "section 23" and insert—
        `sections 23 and 34(1) and (2)'.
        Amendment No. 308, in page 14, line 17, after "23," insert "or 34(1) or (2)".
        Government amendment No. 174.
        Amendment No. 21, in clause 21, page 14, line 29, at end insert—
        'or—
        (e) the child has been returned to them due to the circumstances of section 34(1) and (2).'.
        Amendment No. 309, in page 14, line 29, at end insert—
        '(1 A) A local authority must apply to the Court for a new placement order when a child has returned to them due to the circumstances described in section 34(1) or (2).'.
        Government amendments Nos. 290, 175 and 176.
        Amendment No. 116, in clause 23, page 15, line 33, leave out—
        `each of the following conditions'
        and insert "the following condition".
        Government amendment No. 177.
        Amendment No. 115, in page 15, line 36, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
        Government amendments Nos. 178 and 179.
        Amendment No. 117, in clause 24, page 16, line 5, leave out paragraph (a).
        Amendment No. 119, in clause 25, page 16, line 14, leave out clause 25.
        Government amendment No. 291.
        Amendment No. 118, in clause 28, page 18, line 5, leave out clause 28.
        Government amendments Nos. 191 to 193.
        Amendment No. 123, in clause 29, page 18, line 20, leave out from "is" to "a" in line 21 and insert—
        `subject to a placement order'.
        Amendment No. 128, in page 18, line 21, leave out "the prospective adopters" and insert—
        `any placement made by the adoption agency.'.
        Government amendment No. 195.
        Amendment No. 124, in page 18, line 31, leave out subsections (3), (4), (5) and (6).
        Government amendment No. 196.
        Amendment No. 125, in clause 30, page 19, line 10, leave out clause 30.
        Government amendments Nos. 198 to 201.
        Amendment No. 126, in clause 31, page 19, line 30, leave out clause 31.

        959
        Government amendments Nos. 202 to 206.
        Amendment No. 127, in clause 33, page 20, line 29. leave out clause 33.
        Amendment No. 134, in clause 34, page 21, line 26, at end insert—
        `( ) Where the actions described in subsections (1) or (2) are taken, any placement order in place at that time shall be revoked.'.
        Government amendments Nos. 207 to 210, 250, 251, 220 and 230.
        Jacqui Smith: This large group of amendments deals with some of the Bill's most important provisions: clause 1 and the process for placement for adoption, which is set out in the initial clauses of chapter 3. It is worth emphasising that there are so many amendments not only because we are considering an important part of the Bill but because, given the Government's consultative approach through a Special Standing Committee, it was appropriate to respond through Government amendments to some of the anxieties that hon. Members and stakeholders raised.
        I shall speak briefly to Government amendments Nos. 163 and 164. Government amendment No. 163 clarifies the important phrase
        "coming to a decision relating to the adoption of a child",
        which triggers the obligations on courts and adoption agencies that are set out in the provision. That also covers orders under clause 25 for contact while the child is placed, or the revocation or variation of those orders. Amendment No. 164 clarifies the position on consideration of the decision to dispense with parental consent. It makes it completely clear that the decisions on dispensing with consent should be governed by clause 50(1). Paragraph (b) provides for dispensing with consent if
        "the welfare of the child requires the consent to be dispensed with."
        That is a strong requirement.
        It is worth reminding hon. Members that the aim of the placement system is to try to resolve the substantive issues that relate to parental consent to adoption earlier in the process. That will provide greater certainty and stability for children by dealing as far as possible with the bulk of issues before they are placed. It will reduce the extent to which birth families are faced with a fait accompli at the final adoption hearing, and try to reduce the uncertainty for prospective adopters who currently have to confront the possibility of a contested court hearing.
        Chapter 3 provides two routes for placement for adoption: placement by parental consent under clause 18, and placement through a placement order under clauses 20 and 21. The second route is available only to local authorities. Some of the amendments try to remove placement by consent to ensure a court hearing in every case. Although I understand some of the anxieties behind the proposals, it is nevertheless wrong or unnecessary for reasons that I shall outline. First, the Bill ensures that there are considerable safeguards around parental consent. They include providing for the consent to be witnessed, taken by a CAFCASS officer and reported to the court. There is, therefore, court consideration of the nature of the consent.
        Jonathan Shaw: My hon. Friend rightly says that there has been some concern about these provisions. Does she understand that that is not least because once a persona —mother—makes the decision and crosses the line of consent, there is no going hack, even if the circumstances where the child is placed change? For example, if the couple with whom the child is placed split up, the child's circumstances will become very different from those that pertained when the mother gave consent. Does my hon. Friend agree that requiring leave of the court would at least give confidence to people providing consent?
        Jacqui Smith: I do not accept my hon. Friend's view that there is no going back. In fact, it is important to stress that placement by consent is intended to be entirely voluntary. If the parents withdraw their consent before the final adoption order application is made, the child must be returned to them unless the local authority is under a duty to apply for a placement order. We have listened to the concerns about the removal provisions, in particular those relating to reducing the time limit for returning a child to a parent who has removed consent if that child is not placed, from 14 days to seven.
        Mr. Hilton Dawson: I accept all that my hon. Friend is saying about the way in which the Government have listened to the important issues that have been raised on this complex and difficult part of the Bill. Does she accept that a huge range of children's organisations, as well as Labour Back Benchers, are still extremely concerned about these issues? There will obviously not be time to discuss them today, but will she please ensure that her officials and colleagues in the other place are open to further discussion on this important aspect of this important Bill?
        Jacqui Smith: Of course we have to continue to talk about these provisions. My officials have met—and undoubtedly will meet—people to talk about their concerns. I think it would be worth my while to spell out the changes that we have already made in response to those concerns. I have already talked about the removal provisions. We shall also ensure that local authorities apply for placement orders within the time limit rather than simply saying that they have a duty to do so. On revocation, we have recognised that the one-year test was too rigid, and we have reduced it.
        I have to say to my hon. Friend, and to those who believe that placements should be made only through the court system, that one of the Government's major concerns is the practical issue of whether that would increase the number of court cases. We do not believe, given the safeguards that are in place, that that provision would be necessary. To give people some idea of the scale involved, 16 per cent. of children adopted out of care are currently adopted with consent. If the Government meet their targets, that could necessitate up to 600 extra court cases if we insisted that placement could be made only through the court system.
        Mr. Brazier: I thank the Minister for giving way. We have no time at all to debate this important group of amendments. Does she accept that under the current

        961
        provision, with the Government's amendments, a child could in theory be placed with families over and over again following disruptions prior to an adoption order, without any court overview or input of any kind from an independent representative for the child, such as a guardian ad litem?
        Jacqui Smith: I will come to that issue in a moment. I want to emphasise our concern about introducing the courts into the situation when we all believe that we need to bear down on delay.
        Mr. Dawson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
        Jacqui Smith: No, I will not. I want to respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). Conservative Members were concerned in their amendments about ensuring that placement orders were more specific. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's contention that we need to move away from the general placement order, which has received widespread support in consultations, to what I suspect he is suggesting-namely, the necessity to return to court every time a placement breaks down. That proposal does not recognise that a placement order is about determining whether placement for adoption is right for that child, rather than determining a particular placement. It would also ensure that delay would be brought into the system—the hon. Gentleman earlier rightly urged us to bear down on delay—because, by necessity, if a placement unfortunately broke down, instead of a local authority being able to place the child in another placement, it would have to ret urn to court—
        It being 3.45 pm, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [this day] to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings to be concluded at that hour.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendment made: No. 164 in page 2, line 38, leave out paragraph (c).—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

      Clause 17

        PLACEMENT FOR ADOPTION BY AGENCIES
        Amendments made: No. 165, in page 12, line 19, leave out "only" and insert—
        `except in the case of a child who is less than six weeks old, may only do so'.
        No. 166, in page 12, line 20, after "is" insert "placed or".
        No. 167, in page 12, line 21, leave out "to be treated as".
        No. 168, in page 12, line 21, leave out from second "authority" to end of line 22.
        No. 169, in page 12, line 36, at end insert—
        `( ) References in this Chapter to an adoption agency being, or not being, authorised to place a child for adoption are to the agency being or (as the case may be) not being authorised to do so under section 18 or a placement order'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

      Clause 18

        PLACING CHILDREN WITH PARENTAL CONSENT
        Amendment made: No. 170, in page 13, line 16, at end insert—
        `or
        ( ) a care order or placement order has been made after the consent was given'—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

      Clause 19
        ADVANCE CONSENT TO ADOPTION
        Amendment made: No. 111, in page 13, line 35, leave out "wishes" and insert "does not wish".—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
      Clause 20

        PLACEMENT ORDERS
        Amendments made: No. 172, in page 14, line 6, leave out "or".
        No. 173, in page 14, line 8, at end insert—
        'or
        ( ) the child has no parent or guardian'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

      Clause 21

        APPLICATIONS FOR PLACEMENT ORDERS
        Amendments made: No. 174, in page 14, line 27, at beginning insert—
        `the child has no parent or guardian or'.
        No. 290, in page 15, line 3, leave out "to be treated as".—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

      Clause 23

        REVOKING PLACEMENT ORDERS
        Amendments made: No. 175, in page 15, line 32, after "than" insert "the child or".
        No. 176, in page 15, line 33, leave out from "unless" to end of line 34.
        No. 177, in page 15, line 35, at end insert "and".
        No. 178, in page 15, line 37, leave out paragraph (c).
        No. 179, in page 15, line 40, at end insert—
        `( ) If the court determines, on an application for an adoption order, not to make the order, it may revoke any placement order in respect of the child'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

      Clause 25

        CONTACT
        Amendments made: No. 180, in page 16, line 15, after second "adoption" insert—
        'or placing a child for adoption who is less than six weeks old'.
        No. 181, in page 16, line 17, at end insert—
        'or a child who has been placed for adoption is less than six weeks old'.
        No. 182, in page 16, line 20, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
        `(b) the court may make an order under this section requiring the person with whom the child lives, or is to live, to allow the child to visit or stay with the person named in the order, or for the person named in the order and the child otherwise to have contact with each other'.
        No. 183, in page 16, line 22, leave out "The application" and insert—
        'An application for an order under this section'.
        No. 184, in page 16, line 32, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
        No. 185, in page 16, line 42, leave out from "section" to end of line 43.
        No. 186, in page 16, line 43, at end insert—
        '( ) This section does not prevent an application for a contact order under section 8 of the 1989 Act being made where the application is to be heard together with an application for an adoption order in respect of the child'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick]

      Clause 26

        CONTACT: SUPPLEMENTARY
        Amendments made: No. 187, in page 17, line 7, after "adoption" insert—
        `or the child is less than six weeks old'.
        No. 188, in page 17, line 25, leave out "affording" and insert "allowing".
        No. 189, in page 17, line 28, leave out "affording" and insert "allowing".
        No. 190, in page 17, line 31, leave out "that section" insert "section 25".—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

      Clause 27

        FURTHER CONSEQUENCES OF PLACEMENT
        No. 291, in page 17, line 36, at end insert—
        `unless an application for an adoption order has been made and the parent or guardian has obtained the court's leave under subsection (3) or (5) of section 45,
        (b) if an application has been made for an adoption order, a guardian of the child may not apply for a special guardianship order unless he has obtained the court's leave under subsection (3) or (5) of that section.'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

      Clause 28

        FURTHER CONSEQUENCES OF PLACEMENT ORDERS
        Amendments made: No. 191, in page 18, line 15, after "no" insert "prohibited steps order".
        No. 192, in page 18, line 15, after "order" insert "or specific issue order".
        No. 193, in page 18, line 17, at end insert—
        `( ) Subsection (3)(a) does not apply in respect of a residence order if—

        (a) an application for an adoption order has been made in respect of the child, and

        964

        (b) the residence order is applied for by a parent or guardian who has obtained the court's leave under subsection (3) or (5) of section 45 or by any other person who has obtained the court's leave under this subsection'.

        No. 292, in page 18, line 17, at end insert—
        '(3B) Where a placement order is in force, no special guardianship order may be made in respect of the child unless—

        (a) an application has been made for an adoption order, and

        (b) the person applying for the special guardianship order has obtained the court's leave under this subsection or, if he is a guardian of the child, has obtained the court's leave under section 45(5).

        (3C) Section 14A(7) of the 1989 Act applies in respect of an application for a special guardianship order for which leave has been given as mentioned in subsection (3B)(b) with the omission of the words "the beginning of the period of three months ending with".
        (3D) Where a placement order is in force—

        (a) section 14C(1)(b) of the 1989 Act (special guardianship: parental responsibility) has effect subject to any determination under section 24(4) of this Act,

        (b) section 14C(3) and (4) of the 1989 Act (special guardianship: removal of child from UK etc.) does not apply.'—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

      Clause 29

        GENERAL PROHIBITIONS ON REMOVAL
        Amendments made: No. 194, in page 18, line 20, at end insert—
        ( ) a child who has been placed for adoption by an adoption agency is less than six weeks old'.
        No. 195, in page 18, line 26, leave out from "authority" to "have" in line 27.
        No. 196, in page 18, line 39, at end insert—
        `but those sections do not apply if the child is subject to a care order'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

      Clause 30

        SECTION 29: RECOVERY BY PARENT ETC. WHERE CHILD NOT YET PLACED
        Amendments made: No. 197, in page 19, line 16, at end insert—
        'or a child who has been placed for adoption is less than six weeks old'.
        No. 198, in page 19, line 19, leave out from "him" to end of line 22.
        No. 199, in page 19, line 23, leave out "14" and insert "seven".
        No. 200, in page 19, line 24, at end insert—
        `unless an application is, or has been, made for a placement order and the application has not been disposed of'.
        No. 201, in page 19, line 25, leave out subsection (3).—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

      Clause 31

        SECTION 29: RECOVERY BY PARENT ETC. WHERE AGENCY NOT OPPOSED
        Amendments made: No. 202, in page 19, line 32, at end insert "and".
        No. 203, in page 19, line 33, leave out from "withdrawn" to end of line 35 and insert—
        'unless an application is, or has been, made for a placement order and the application has not been disposed of'.
        No. 204, in page 20, line 5, after "order)" insert "special guardianship order".
        No. 205, in page 20, line 6, after "a" insert "special guardianship order or".
        No. 206, in page 20, line 9, after "a" insert "special guardianship order or".—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

      Clause 34

        RETURN OF CHILD IN OTHER CASES
        Amendments made: No. 207, in page 21, line 38, after "order)" insert "special guardianship order".
        No. 208, in page 21, line 39, after "a" insert "special guardianship order or".
        No. 209, in page 21, line 42, after "a" insert "special guardianship order or".—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

      Clause 40

        RECOVERY ORDERS
        Amendments made: No. 210, in page 24, line 16, at end insert—
        'or
        ( ) that a person has failed to comply with section 31(2), 32(2), 33(3) or 34(2)'.
        No. 250, in page 25, line 5. leave out from "1911" to "(false" in line 6.
        No. 251, in page 25, line 15, leave out paragraph (b).—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

      Clause 41

        CHILD TO LIVE WITH ADOPTERS BEFORE APPLICATION
        Jacqui Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 211, in page 25, line 25, after "Court" insert "or
        ( ) the applicant is a parent of the child'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 212 to 218.
        Jacqui Smith: I feel a bit like the warm-up act in relation to this group of amendments, so I hope that I will be able to warm people up and get on with it.
        These amendments clarify clause 41, which sets out the period that a child has to live with a prospective adopter before an application may be made for an adoption order. They also make minor modifications to the provision in clause 43 that covers the process of giving notice to local authorities in non-agency adoptions.
        In the case of the changes to clause 41, amendment No. 211 corrects an omission in the Bill as currently drafted, by providing that in the rare cases in which a natural parent is applying to adopt their own child, the residence period required will be the same as that for agency-approved adopters, as it is under the Adoption Act 1976.
        966
        Amendments Nos. 212 and 213 improve the wording of subsection (3), which relates to step-parent applications. They make it clear that, when a step-parent is applying to adopt a child jointly with the natural parent, the six-month residence period for step-parent applications is still to apply, as it does for single step-parent applications.
        Amendments Nos. 215 to 218 concern the process of non-agency adoptions. When an adoption is not happening through an adoption agency, the adoptive applicant has to give notice to the local authority in which he has his home, so that the local authority can investigate and report to the court—an important safeguard for children in cases where an adoption agency has not been involved in selecting and matching the adopters for the child.
        These amendments allow for cases in which an applicant fulfils the domicile requirements in clause 47, but does not in law currently have his home in a local authority area. It might be helpful to hon. Members if I explain that this problem was brought to our attention by the Ministry of Defence, because it relates to members of the armed services or, for example, to diplomats temporarily stationed abroad. Obviously, we would not want to block such individuals from adopting under British law simply on these grounds. The amendments would allow us in these cases to prescribe, in regulations, which should be the appropriate local authority in cases where the applicant did not currently have his home in the UK.
        In addition, Government amendment No. 215 makes it clear that, although the report to the court and the investigation are the responsibility of the local authority, it could arrange for elements of them to be carried out by other suitable organisations. For example, in the case of step-parent adoption applications by service families stationed overseas, we would envisage that the Service Families Adoption Agency—a registered voluntary adoption agency—would conduct the investigation and visit the family, as required by clause 41(7), and pass the results to the relevant local authority. If the authority were satisfied, it would then submit the report to the court.
        In conclusion, these amendments clarify the provisions in relation to clause 41, and ensure that an unsatisfactory situation relating particularly to our forces stationed overseas has been satisfactorily sorted out.
        Tim Loughton: For fear of becoming a subsidiary to the warm-up act and being booed off the stage, I do not intend to go into any detail. In any event, we were notified of this raft of amendments late in the day.
        It is difficult to see anything contentious in the amendments. I am especially pleased that the Minister has taken account of the special position of diplomats and members of the armed forces, which we raised in Committee in regard to other provisions. I hope that it will be taken into account in other parts of the Bill, but for now we have no reason to challenge the amendments. No doubt Members will wish to proceed to the next group.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Dr. Evan Harris: I beg to move amendment No. 310, in page 25, line 27, leave out "married".
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 311, in page 25, line 36, leave out "married".
        Amendment No. 312, in page 25, line 43, leave out "married".
        Amendment No. 148, in clause 47, page 28, line 41, leave out "married".
        Amendment No. 10, in page 28, line 41, leave out from "couple", to end of line 42 and insert—
        `(b) an unmarried couple, or
        (c) one person,'.
        Amendment No. 18, in page 28, line 41, leave out "or".
        Amendment No. 14, in page 28, line 42, after "person", insert—
        ', or
        (c) an unmarried couple.'.
        Amendment No. 11, in page 28, line 43, leave out "or 49" and insert—
        '49 or [Adoption by unmarried couples]'.
        Amendment No. 15, in page 28, line 43, leave out "or 49" and insert—
        '49 or [Adoption orders unmarried couples]'
        Amendment No. 149, in page 29, line 1, leave out "spouses" and insert "couple".
        Amendment No. 16, in page 29, line 2, after "section 48)", insert—
        'or one member of the unmarried couple (in the case of an application under section [Adoption orders: unmarried couples]).'.
        Amendment No. 12, in page 29, line 2, after "48)", insert—
        'or one member of the unmarried couple (in the case of an application under section [Adoption by unmarried couples])'.
        Amendment No. 150, in page 29, line 4, leave out "spouses" and insert "of the couple".
        Amendment No. 13, in page 29, line 5, after "48)", insert—
        'or both applicants (in the case of an application under section [Adoption by unmarried couples])'.
        Amendment No. 17, in page 29, line 5, after "48", insert—
        'or both applicants (in the case of an application under section [Adoption orders: unmarried couples]).'.
        Amendment No. 24, in page 29, line 13, at end insert—
        '(6) References in this Act to an unmarried couple will apply only to a man and a woman living together.'.
        Amendment No. 151, in clause 48, page 29, line 15, leave out "married".
        Amendment No. 152, in page 29, line 16, leave out "spouses" and insert "of them".
        Amendment No. 153, in page 29, line 17, leave out "married".
        Amendment No. 154, in page 29, line 19, leave out "spouse" and insert "of the couple".
        Amendment No. 155, in page 29, line 2], leave out "spouse".
        968
        Amendment No. 156, in clause 49, page 29, line 24, at end insert—
        '(1A) An adoption order may be made on the application of one person who has attained the age of 21 years if the court is satisfied that the person is the partner of a parent of the person to be adopted'.
        Amendment No. 157, in page 29, line 27, leave out paragraph (a).
        New clause 2—Adoption by unmarried couples—
        `(1) An adoption order may not be granted on the application of an unmarried couple unless the court is satisfied—

        (a) that both of the applicants are over the age of twenty-one;

        (b) for the period of 2 years ending with the date of the application, the partners have lived in the same household (otherwise than merely by reason of one of them being the other's employee, tenant, lodger or boarder); and

        (c) that the applicants are not close relatives of each other.

        (2) "Close relative", in relation to any person, means his grandparents, parents, children, step-children, uncles and aunts, nephews and nieces, brothers and sisters and step -brothers and step-sisters.
        (3) In relation to any application made under this section, the court may take into consideration the arrangements which the applicants have made, or intend to make in order to safeguard the welfare of the child involved, should their relationship break down.'.
        New clause 3—Adoption orders: unmarried couples—
        `(1) An adoption order may be made on the application of an unmarried couple where both members of the couple have attained the age of 21 years.
        (2) An adoption order may be made on the application by an unmarried couple if the court is satisfied

        (a) that they have been living together for at least two years at time of application,

        (b) that the relationship between the couple is stable and is intended by each of them to be permanent, and

        (c) that the unmarried couple has made arrangements to safeguard the financial and practical security of the child in the event of the ending of their relationship and to meet their joint and individual parental responsibilities.'.

        New clause 13—Suitability of adopters—
        `(1) Regulations under section 9 may make provision as to the matters to be taken into account by an adoption agency in determining, or making any report in respect of, the suitability of any persons to adopt a child.
        (2) In particular, the regulations may make provision for the purpose of securing that, in determining the suitability of a couple to adopt a child, proper regard is had to the need for stability and permanence in their relationship'.
        Amendment No. 158, in clause 131, page 74, line 51, at end insert—
        '(2B) In this Act, a couple means—

        (a) a married couple, or

        (b) two people (whether of different sexes or the same sex) living as partners in an enduring family relationship.

        (2C) Subsection (2B)(b) does not include two people one of whom is the other's parent, grandparent, sister, brother, aunt or uncle.
        (2D) References to relationships in subsection (2C)—

        (a) are to relationships of the full blood or half blood or, in the case of an adopted person, such of those relationships as would exist but for the adoption, and

        (b) include the relationship of a child with his adoptive, or former adoptive, parents, but do not include any other adoptive relationships.

        969
        (2E) For the purposes of this Act, a person is the partner of a child's parent if the person and the parent are a couple but the person is not the child's parent'.
        Amendment (a) to the amendment, in (2B)(a), leave out
        'whether of different sexes or the same sex'
        and insert "of different sexes".
        Dr. Harris: This is an important group of amendments, which if passed could bring hope to thousands of children—hope of a happier life than that provided by serial foster-parenting, notwithstanding the efforts of hard-working, excellent, commendable foster parents; and hope of a happier life than years of childhood spent in residential care. The amendments could give those thousands of children hope of adoption, and of living in suitable homes with loving families.
        The amendments are about putting the welfare of children first. They are about looking at the advice offered to us by adoption agencies, children's charities, local authorities and professionals. All those people and organisations urge us to support the amendments, which are about accepting research evidence and having an evidence-based approach—having a rational rather than an irrational basis for adoption policy.
        Children, after all, must grow up in the real world. They must grow up in the 21st century, in which, whether we like it or not, 40 per cent. of children are born outside marriage, and in which many people who are committed to each other choose not to marry. That applies to 15 per cent. of households, and the figure is expected to rise to 30 per cent. In this real world, loving stable families—in the Minister's memorable words—come in all shapes and sizes. Indeed, dysfunctional families come in all shapes and sizes, including the so-called orthodox. Children do not grow up in an idealised world that never was, but that some Members who are present may wish existed.
        Currently, and according to the unamended Bill, the only people allowed to apply to adopt are married couples or single people. Adoption agencies assess the suitability of applicants, and write a report for the courts that will decide whether the adoptions should proceed. Unmarried couples cannot apply to adopt as couples; single people can apply even if they are part of a couple, but they must apply as single people.
        The arrangement has two impacts. First, unmarried couples cannot currently adopt as co-parents, even if they have their own non-adopted children and are both parents to them. Only one can be a parent, while the other can at best obtain secondary status, which will be recognised only until the child reaches the age of 16 or 18. That in itself has two consequences. The parents are legally unequal, one being second class, which is not in the child's best interests; and some potential adopters are deterred from applying because they cannot do so as a couple. That leaves children in residential care, or in serial foster care, rather than with suitable adoptive families. It does not make the child's interests paramount.
        A higher proportion of unmarried couples than married couples may think of adopting. We hear that about 10 per cent. of potential applicants are unmarried couples who may be put off by the fact that they cannot adopt on an equal basis.
        Sir Patrick Cormack: If a couple are desperate to have a child and if there is no impediment
        970
        to marriage, they have an easy answer. If there is a real ground for their not being allowed to adopt as a couple.
        Dr. Harris: I disagree. The hon. Gentleman must know that in the case of such applications adoption agencies write reports on the circumstances, which the courts take into account. If he is saying, as he appears to be, that no unmarried couples are suitable to adopt as couples—if he is saying that a priori—I do not think he is making the child's best interests paramount. He is putting his own preferences first, and I feel it is incumbent on us all not to do that.
        Mr. Peter Lilley: The hon. Gentleman said he wanted an evidenced-based approach, and that there was evidence that the present legal status deterred unmarried couples from adopting. What is that evidence? It is referred to in a letter from the British Agencies for Adopting and Fostering. When I asked the BAAF what the evidence was, it said that actually it had none.
        Dr. Harris: It certainly does have evidence. I believe the evidence was gathered during national adoption week, when the BAAF recorded the reasons why people who had thought about adopting were put off. I do not want to take up the House's time, because I am sure others with expertise will deal with the right hon. Gentleman's point, but there is no doubt that many unmarried couples would like to adopt as couples, but the Bill, if unamended, will put them off.
        Ms Munn: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we only see adoption legislation approximately every 25 years? Is it not important, therefore, for legislation we introduce to take account of the next generation? Given the change in society, is it not sensible to make our own change now?
        Dr. Harris: Absolutely.
        The second impact of the current position and, indeed, the unamended Bill is that although gay men and lesbians are already able to adopt, and do adopt, they cannot do so as couples. In that sense, the debate on the extension of joint adoption rights to unmarried couples has veered off its original course. Gay adoption per se is not at stake here, although people want it to be. The sexuality of an applicant in itself in no way bars him or her from the right to adopt under current law, as a single person.
        There are three reasons for seeking a change in the law. First, it is not in a child's best interests, when members of a couple play equal parts in his or her life, for only one member to have full legal responsibility. The other parent is downgraded to second-class status, without the power to make vital as well as casual decisions in the child's life that call for legal guardian status. Problems are also caused when the adopter is ill or dies, as no legal relationship is left between the child and the other parent. Especially given that any residency orders are valid only until the child is 16 or 18, depending on the circumstances, that does not make the child's best interests paramount throughout his or her life.
        Secondly, as I have said, many suitable unmarried couples are deterred from applying to adopt. That clearly is not in the best interests of tens of thousands of children in serial foster care, or in care waiting for suitable adoptive families.

        971
        Thirdly, the current law clearly discriminates against unmarried and same-sex couples. Given the stringent application process for adoption and the rigorous assessments that are made on a case-by-case basis, there is no justification for disqualifying a couple from adopting jointly simply because they do not possess a marriage certificate, if they clearly possess all the characteristics that the agencies would otherwise expect from suitable adoptive parents.
        Mr. Streeter: Is it not in the best interests of the child to have a mother and a father whenever that is possible?
        Dr. Harrishe hon. Gentleman may think that in an ideal situation it is in children's best interests to have mothers and fathers who are very wealthy, who have nannies and both of whom have jobs. Children today do not grow up in an ideal world. The hon. Gentleman must decide whether he thinks it better for children to be left in care, or suffer the problems that clearly result from serial foster care, than for them to be accepted into the loving stable environment provided by an unmarried couple, if that is what is on offer.
        Jonathan Shaw: Certainly the most desirable adoptive arrangement is for the child to have a mother and a father who are married, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that in other circumstances it may well be in the child's best interests to be adopted according to other arrangements?
        4 pm
        Dr. Harris: Each child's circumstances are different, and it is not necessary to accept the hon. Gentleman's point of view to recognise that we have to find the best solution in each individual case. I am not willing to condemn unmarried couples who have their own children—I am not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman is, either—and if we take the view that married parents are the ideal, we attack the many thousands of our constituents who choose not to get married for perfectly valid reasons, or cannot do so. Hon. Members can put their views—
        Mr. Djanogly rose—
        Tim Loughton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Dr. Harris: In a moment. The hon. Gentleman will have a chance once I have made more progress.
        What is at stake is making it possible for an unmarried couple to adopt jointly, so that they can both have a legal relationship with the child. It is about recognising the changing structure of social relations, and ensuring that we offer children currently in care the best opportunity of finding a home by allowing unmarried couples to consider adoption in a manner that does not downgrade their relationship. It is also about taking a stance against, and putting an end to, discrimination in whatever form.
        Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman talks about recognising changes in social trends. Does he acknowledge that in 2000 the number of marriages in fact increased for the first time in eight years? For the
        972
        avoidance of doubt about the Liberal Democrats' position, can he clarify matters by saying whether or not he thinks the best possible arrangement is for children to be brought up by a married couple consisting of a man and a woman? Advancing that argument does not diminish the alternatives; it merely states that, where available, that is the best possible scenario. Does he deny that?
        Dr. Harris: This is a pointless debate, and the hon. Gentleman's position is illogical. He cannot raise one group of people to a higher status without implying that another group are of a lower status. If he asked his questions honestly, he would be more likely to find answers to them, but first he must recognise the reality of the proposition that he puts.
        Several hon. Members rose
        Dr. Harris: I am keen to make progress as I am conscious that many hon. Members want to speak.
        I should point out that there are many justifications for recognising that unmarried couples are suitable for adoption purposes. The argument will be advanced that they are inherently more unstable, but it is based on poor research that does not compare like with like. Other types of partnerships who wish to adopt often last longer than many marriages. A generalising, simplistic analysis of figures that do not even compare like with like across socio-economic groups does the debate a disservice. If the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) argues that case later, I shall seek to intervene on her.
        I also question the view that children placed into same-sex partnerships that are otherwise suitable to adopt are damaged in any way. Evidence produced by Professor Golombok, and the review conducted by the American Academy of Pediatrics, makes it clear they suffer no short-term or long-term damage, and do very well in such partnerships. Again, I shall seek to intervene on anyone who tries to argue against that evidence.
        Liberal Democrats are proud to work with like-minded members of other parties to introduce this measure. In our manifesto—
        Mr. Dawson: I may be wrong, but I think this is the first major contribution to the Bill that the hon. Gentleman has made. In the interests of the consensus that he apparently seeks, would he not have done better to align himself much more clearly and solely with the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). who has a solid background in children's issues?
        Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman will find that I alone among Front Benchers raised this issue on Second Reading; indeed, it was amazing that so little other discussion took place of such an important issue. He will know that, although my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) was a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, I was not.
        Tim Loughton: Why was the hon. Gentleman not on the Committee?
        Dr. Harris: I was considering another Bill in Standing Committee, and if the hon. Gentleman inspects the record, he will find that I have contributed to such debates more frequently than he has.

        973
        Given that I am being provoked, I should point out that we had the courage to call in our manifesto for reform of the fostering and adoption law. That lends legitimacy to my argument, so the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) should perhaps question his attack. The manifesto placed emphasis on the suitability of potential adopters and on the needs of the child, rather than on arbitrary rules that are set centrally. We also called for the registration of civil partnerships to be based in part on the legal effects and duties of marriage, including adoption and fostering. The hon. Gentleman cannot claim, therefore, that I am suddenly springing this view on the House. We have no compunction in calling for and supporting these amendments on a party Whip. In terms of the way in which hon. Members vote, it is through the party Whip that a party shares the accountability of its members.
        We know that some sections of the press will pillory us for the position that we take, but it is better to face that and argue the merits of it, rather than hiding behind shifting positions, prevarication and free votes. I am not surprised that the Conservative party has a three-line Whip against the liberalisation of such matters: it is not a liberal party. Conservatives put their prejudices and illiberal views before children's welfare and considerations of fairness.
        Mr. Djanogly: In different ways. the hon. Gentleman repeatedly refers to discrimination. Is he aware that the International Court of Human Rights recently ruled that preventing homosexual partners from adopting is not considered a breach of human rights?
        Dr. Harris: I know of the case to which the hon. Gentleman mis-refers—it was heard not in the International Court of Human Rights but the lower chamber of the European Court of Human Rights. Moreover, the vote, which was four to three against the application, is being appealed, and the British judge was one of the three who voted in favour. The amendments that the hon. Gentleman is likely to support are not compatible, therefore, with human rights legislation—a point on which the Minister doubtless also has a view.
        The failure of the Labour Government to support the amendments is very disappointing, given their high opinion poll rating, their large majority and the admirable interest that the Prime Minister has shown in the matter. I pay tribute to the Minister, her ministerial colleagues, and the hon. Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) and for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) for winning the battle for a free vote, at least. A battle it must have been, given that, on 25 January 1999, the former Home Secretary appeared to agree with the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), who said that his understanding was that there would be no legal adoption by homosexual couples. We can safely say, therefore, that there is no unanimity on this point among the senior ranks of the Government.
        Ms Munn: Given that the hon. Gentleman is so concerned to make progress on this issue, will he withdraw his amendments? If accepted, they could create problems for the rest of the Bill in terms of consequential
        974
        amendments. Will he instead support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe)?
        Dr. Harris: That is a legitimate point, which I shall come to in a moment.
        We should applaud the Secretary of State for Health's personal support for these measures, but we look forward to a time when free votes are offered across the board on genuine points of principle or ethics, and when Governments accept accountability for children's welfare. [Interruption.] I have an important question for the Minister, in which hon. Members will have an interest. If this measure is adopted, what will happen when the Bill reaches the House of Lords and they reject it? Will the Minister give an undertaking now to send it back a second time. Those of us who will vote for these measures want to know that we are not doing so in vain. If necessary, will she use the Parliament Act to force through not just the Bill but the measure? It is important that the Minister replies. We know that, in the end, Governments must be responsible for getting Bills and measures through.
        In answer to the hon. Lady's question, like amendment No. 148, amendment No. 310 deletes the word "married". Amendment No. 158 defines "a couple" either as married, or as two people both over the age of 21 who are not closely related, and who live as partners in an enduring family relationship. We believe that that definition is effective, and that the amendments are good. The hon. Member for Wakefield will himself want to talk about his new clause 3, but I suspect he agrees that the wording of amendment No. 158 is superior to both previous such attempts. Therefore, I have no compunction in saying that I shall not press new clause 2 and its consequential amendments to a division. However, in a sense, amendments Nos. 310, 311, 312, 148 and 147 are all consequential on amendment No. 158—and vice versa—and there is no doubt that amendment No. 310 is necessary. If it is not agreed by the House today, the Government will have to introduce it in the House of Lords. I ask hon. Members why they intend to vote against amendment No. 310, because it is an inevitable part of the measures. That is my understanding from the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, which sent me a letter today stating:
        "BAAF's position is that we want to see the principle of unmarried couples being able to adopt jointly going through the House today."
        That is what amendment No. 310 would achieve. The BAAF continued:
        "We urge MPs to vote for any amendment which will have this effect—I am unclear which will be debated but the principle is what is important at this stage."
        Stonewall, which also has an interest in the issue, e-mailed me today to say:
        "Re: today's vote on the right of unmarried couples to apply to adopt. Stonewall very much hopes that this proposal will be supported today by MPs. I am happy to confirm that if Amendment 310 is put to the vote that we would like to support it, as it will carry with it support for the rest of the amendments associated with it—148-158—which we also support."
        I have had no notice from the Government about any technical problems—although I will listen to what the Minister has to say—but because we have a clear position on the issue, we would like to press amendment No. 310 to a division.

        975
        Amendment No. 24 and amendment (a) are simply wrong. They are discriminatory and incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. They have no place in a modernisation of the law. I understand the sincere reasons of those who wish to press the matter—they want to feel that, even as Conservatives, they can support the general trend of the Bill—but it is unsuitable to victimise a sub-group and refuse to allow children the benefit of being adopted by that sub-group.
        Mr. Robert Walter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because my name appears on both the amendments that he has just mentioned. He has not yet satisfactorily answered the question from my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) so I shall ask him again. Is it the position of the Liberal Democrats that they do not believe that the best environment in which to bring up a child is with a mother and a father?
        Dr. Harris: That is an academic argument, because each case is different. If there is a violent father in the household—it is usually fathers who are violent—it is not a suitable environment. Unless the hon. Gentleman is prepared to say that those of his constituents who do not live together as married husband and wife are less worthy of his consideration, I am not prepared to go any further into what is a sterile debate.
        New clause 13 is important and will assume greater importance. It is the one change proposed by the hon. Member for Wakefield that I cannot support, because it would give new and unnecessary regulation-making powers to the Secretary of State. If hon. Members are serious about scrutinising the Government, they should look at the new clause carefully. General regulation-making powers exist in clause 9 already and could cover that area as they cover the functions of adoption agencies and local authorities, including writing reports for courts. Clause I already provides that agencies and the courts must have paramount regard to the welfare of the child throughout his life. In addition, statutory guidance already exists on the issue, and adoption agencies can provide further guidance. The additional regulatory powers are unnecessary. Moreover, we have not seen the powers, so we could be voting for restrictive secondary legislation based on measures in the Bill. The Minister might even admit that that is exactly the point of new clause 13. If the Government wanted powers in that area, they should have published the regulations before today, which is the last opportunity that the House has to see what it is being asked to accept.
        The amendments are about putting the welfare of children before old-fashioned views of the world as we would like it be rather than as it is. They are about putting fair treatment before unnecessary discrimination, and putting the best interests of children—making their welfare paramount—before prejudice. I urge the House to support the amendments.
        Mr. David Hinchliffe: I shall speak to amendment No. 148, amendments No.149 to 158, which accompany it, and new clause 13. I shall not press the other amendments that stand in my name. I hope that if
        976
        the debate is interrupted by the knife at 6 o'clock, we will have a separate division on amendment No. 148—and, if necessary, on the other amendments that go with it.
        I am pleased to be able to contribute to a debate on this important and welcome Bill. which is long overdue. However, I have been astonished by some of the media coverage of the purpose of the amendments that I have tabled and the changes I have proposed to the Bill. The coverage in the media in the past few days has ranged from grossly inaccurate to frankly outrageous. It has been suggested that the motive behind my amendments is political correctness. I have been told by close friends among hon. Members that I am one of the most politically incorrect Members, so it is an unusual experience for me to be accused of political correctness.
        I have read the article by Melanie Phillips in Monday's Daily Mail that suggested that the amendments were a deliberate attempt to destroy marriage. It states:
        "Ranged behind the BAAF are the Government"
        which does not include me—
        "and the moral bankrupts of the intellectual and political establishment",
        which presumably does include me. That is the first time I have been accused of being an intellectual.
        4.15 pm
        Jonathan Shaw: What about being morally bankrupt?
        Mr. Hinchliffe: I shall not respond to that intervention. The article continues:
        "the interests of vulnerable children are just about the last thing under consideration here … It is the latest salvo in the relentless and illiberal campaign to destroy marriage as the fundamental reference point for family life and to give cohabitation equivalent status."
        That paper is read by many people, and the letters and telephone calls that I have received show that one or two people are daft enough to believe that nonsense.
        I wish to make my personal position clear. My concern is not to undermine marriage. I have a deeply held personal belief in marriage. I am married, and one of my great regrets is the extent of marriage breakdown and family breakdown that I have witnessed in our society. I also regret the failure of society to emphasise sufficiently the importance of marriage and the family in contributing to a decent, civilised and stable society. However, I was encouraged to hear from a Conservative Front Bencher that the number of marriages is going up under Labour. Perhaps we are moving in the right direction.
        I have one simple concern and motivation in tabling the amendments, and that is the interests of the vulnerable children to whom Melanie Phillips refers in her article. Some hon. Members may be aware of my background, which is that before becoming an MP I spent nearly 20 years in local authority social work. I often worked on the approval of adoption applicants, which is a very skilled process. Indeed, I pay tribute to the work of the agencies and individuals involved in a difficult, challenging and important task. I spent many years working as a guardian ad litem on behalf of the courts. The guardian ad litem protects the specific interests of a child who is being placed for adoption. I was also, for several years, a member of the adoption panel for the Wakefield local authority that approved placements for adoption. By and large, it did so very successfully.

        977
        I come to the matter from the point of view of someone who knows about the situation of adoptive applicants. I know about the circumstances facing many children who could be adopted, and how their best interests might be served by a change in the law.
        I entered the House in 1987. With my background, it was a privilege to be invited to serve on the Standing Committee considering the Bill that became the Children Act 1989. I pay tribute to the Conservative Government on their introduction of that fine piece of legislation. It succeeded because at its heart lay what was called the welfare principle—that the best interests of the child should underpin any decision relating to that child's welfare.
        This Bill is a positive measure. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State deserve great praise for being able to find time in a tight parliamentary timetable to put this long overdue provision on the statute book.
        The Bill reflects the personal concerns of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Some two years ago I had an interesting discussion with him, and he told me that his father had been in care. I had had no idea about that, but it is clear that my right hon. Friend has some insight into the concerns of children in that situation. He has initiated what I think is a long overdue and important change in the law.
        I also had the privilege, in the previous Parliament, to be Chairman of the Select Committee on Health when we conducted an inquiry into looked-after children. One of our recommendations was that there was a need to make much greater use of adoption. We also said that the law governing adoption should be reformed. That reform is contained in this Bill.
        The Bill enshrines the welfare principle—the principle on which the Children Act 1989 was founded—in adoption law, but it fails in one key area. Our debate on this group of amendments is concerned with that area of failure—the fact that the Bill does not allow unmarried couples to adopt, even if a child's best interests would best be served by that. The amendments and new clauses in this group are designed to change that.
        I welcome the fact that the Government have recognised that the problem exists, and I also welcome their willingness to listen. I strongly commend their decision to allow a free vote on the matter. It is exactly the sort of issue that should he left to personal conscience. Many Labour Members to whom I have spoken disagree with me on this matter, and many agree. I have talked to Conservative Members about the matter, and some of them would like to go most of the way with what I am trying to achieve. I presume, however, that they are prevented from doing so by what I understand to be a three-line Whip.
        Mr. Dawson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the status quo is unacceptable? At present one member of an unmarried partnership can adopt, yet the other member is left out. Surely that cannot be a basis for a permanent, loving and caring relationship with two adult carers?
        Mr. Hinchliffe: That problem is at the heart of my concerns about the way in which the Bill is drafted. My hon. Friend is right: the law permits adoption by single people and joint adoption by married couples. The
        978
        prohibition of joint adoption by unmarried couples is continued by clause 47. As drafted, the Bill requires that all decisions by the relevant agencies or courts must be based on the principle that the child's welfare, throughout its life, must be the paramount consideration. However, in a small number of cases the agency or court is prevented from making the decision that is most likely to promote the child's welfare. They may be few in number, but those cases are important, and that is why I think that the Bill needs to be amended.
        In practice, a small number of children—possibly as few as 1 per cent.—are placed for adoption with an unmarried couple. Alternatively, a child may be placed with its existing foster carers. There is no requirement that such carers be married, and they may wish to adopt the child. Sadly for the child, in those circumstances only one of the foster parents can in law become the adoptive parent. The other partner may acquire more limited parental responsibility for the child—for example, by being granted a residence order.
        However, such orders end automatically when a child is 16, or 18 at the latest. As a result, the adoptive parent's partner will have no lasting legal family relationship with the adopted child. We have to understand the implications of that. I shall not go into detail, but questions of inheritance, pensions, insurance, and in certain circumstances even nationality, need to be considered.
        Most importantly to my mind, the present arrangements also affect the child's ability to have an equal relationship with both adoptive parents. That is why I propose that unmarried couples should be allowed to apply to adopt and to be approved, where suitable and where there is clear evidence of stability and permanence in their relationship.
        I emphasise those conditions, as I am concerned that we should be aware of the need for permanence in the relationship of any people applying to adopt. It is worth noting that the 1983 adoption regulations for reports to adoption panels and the 1984 adoption rules concerning reports to the courts require comments on the stability of a married couple's relationship.
        I know married couples who do not have an exactly stable relationship, so it is wrong to make the automatic assumption that people who are married have a stable relationship. Sadly, in my experience, that is not always the case.
        Mr. Gordon Marsden: Does my hon. Friend agree with the editorial in The Times today? It commends his amendment, and states:
        "Any couple who can demonstrate financial commitment, enduring love and domestic stability should be free to adopt."
        Mr. Hinchliffe: I have not seen that editorial, but I agree with the sentiments.
        The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) expressed concern about new clause 13. The regulations and accompanying statutory guidance would require specific consideration of the duration and permanence of the relationship between the couple as part of the adopter assessment process. That is very important.
        Dr. Nick Palmer: A constituent sent me an e-mail this morning, in which he stated that he accepted the need to open up the process to include stable

        979
        unmarried couples. However, he wanted to be reassured that the process would not be opened up to unstable couples. Does my hon. Friend agree that the existence of a marriage would offer a certain amount of prime facie evidence for stability, other things being equal?
        Mr. Hinchliffe: Some of the most unstable people that I have met in my life have been married. Marriage does not necessarily indicate stability. However, regardless of whether we are talking about married or unmarried couples, the existence of a stable, enduring and loving relationship is crucial when it comes to adoptive applicants securing approval.
        Ms Munn: Will not new clause 13 make it a requirement, for the first time, that the regulations should cover inquiries into suitability? It is clearly spelled out that adoptive applicants must have a relationship that is stable and permanent, and those conditions apply to married couples, single people and unmarried couples. That requirement has not existed in previous legislation covering adoption.
        Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend is right, and I pay tribute to her for the long and hard work that she done on this measure. Her background is in social work, and she worked in my constituency some time ago.
        Ms Munn: I was chair of the adoption panel.
        Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend therefore knows a bit about this subject, and I appreciate her expertise and commitment.
        I want to say something about the number of children who need adoption. My hon. Friend the Minister of State may have up-to-date figures on the number of children in care, but the organisation British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering has calculated that some 5,000 more adoptive families will be needed in the next year. It is worried that the Government's aim of increasing the number of children adopted from care by 40 per cent. by 2004 will need many more adoptive applicants than are evident at present.
        Julie Morgan: Is my hon. Friend aware of the statement made in the media today by the director of BAAF, to the effect that the organisation can get no applicants at all to appear in its "Be My Parent" book who want to adopt boys of more than five or six years of age?
        Mr. Hinchliffe: The briefing sent by BAAF to Members refers to that point. It is worrying that many children do not have the opportunity of the loving family environment that all or most of us take for granted.
        Mr. Edward Leigh: The hon. Gentleman is giving a very good speech, although I do not necessarily agree with his conclusions. He is at least making the case for stability. It is true that six out of 10 cohabitations turn into marriage, but of those that do not, eight out of 10 break down within 10 years. Does he think
        980
        that it is wise to place a child with a couple when there is a four in five chance of that relationship breaking down? Is that in the interests of the child?
        4.30 pm
        Mr. Hinchliffe: Sadly, many marriages break down within the same period. I worked with colleagues who were involved with adoptions, and sometimes the marriages broke down not long after the children were adopted, which deeply affected the children. I do not think that we can ever predict whether that will happen. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but we cannot guarantee that married people will stay together.
        Jonathan Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that the difference is that an unmarried couple seeking to adopt a child would be subject to a rigorous assessment, and would need to demonstrate stability? We are not comparing like with like, so the example given by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) is not appropriate.
        Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend's background, like mine, is in social work. I suspect that many Opposition Members do not have the depth of knowledge that some Labour Members who have done the job have, about the extent to which such issues are examined. It occasionally results in social workers being accused of prying into issues that they should not investigate. This has to be a thorough process, and I think that the regulations that follow what I hope will be an amended Bill will he thorough on the subject of stability and security.
        Rev. Martin Smyth: I agree with some of the hon. Gentleman's arguments. He said that more people needed to offer to become adoptive parents. Has he any figures to show how many people who seek to adopt and make no progress opt for out-of-country adoption? Are those figures recorded with our lists of those waiting for adoption?
        Mr. Hinchliffe: I do not have those figures; the Minister may be able to offer some advice on the subject. I have deep reservations about out-of-country adoptions. I have a vivid memory of being in Romania 10 years ago in what was supposedly an orphanage. Many people from this country wanted to adopt Romanian orphans, but I found out that most of the kids surrounding me were not orphans but had families who were too poor to look after them. The message that came over loud and clear is that we need to support the countries where those youngsters come from and ensure that they can be fed and cared for by their own families. I do not have the figures but I am uneasy about the idea of inter-country adoptions without very strict regulations.
        Mr. Streeter: I respect the hon. Gentleman greatly for the work that he has done on this matter, although, like my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), I do not necessarily share his beliefs. He has done a terrific job, however, and is making a very good speech. Reference has been made to hard-to-adopt children, particularly boys of five, six and seven. What evidence does he have that if his amendment is passed into law, a queue of unmarried couples will want those hard-to-adopt children?
        Mr. Hinchliffe: I cannot give an answer on individual cases. However, I know that BAAF and other

        981
        organisations have had significant inquiries from unmarried couples. The information sent to all right hon. and hon. Members shows that during national adoption week in 1999, 10 per cent. of the inquiries received came from people who were unmarried and were actively considering adoption.
        The figures discussed in Committee showing how many people cohabit rather than marry nowadays are worthy of note, too. I do not defend those figures—I have made my position clear—but the general household survey shows that in 2000, 11 per cent. of men and 12 per cent. of women between 16 and 59 were cohabiting, and 30 per cent. of women aged 18 to 49. I am told that according to the projections, in 20 years' time—no doubt this legislation will still apply then, because I suspect that, as has already been said, it will be 25 years before there is another Adoption Act, so we need to get it right—the figure for cohabiting couples will be 20 per cent., and may even be higher. Personally, I hope that marriage becomes fashionable—and under Labour, that may happen.
        I want to emphasise the need for the thorough assessment that already takes place with regard to stability and long-term relationships. I believe that that can be delivered by the amended Bill and by regulation.
        I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentlemen who put their names to amendment (a) to amendment No. 158. I worked with them on the Health Committee, and I know their deep commitment to child welfare. However, I urge the House to oppose amendment (a). Sadly, the media interest in this debate has focused on the red herring of same-sex adoptions. Frankly, such arrangements are not my central purpose, but I believe that it could be in the interests of a particular child to be adopted by a same-sex couple, so that should not be ruled out.
        I say that on the basis of the experience that I had in the late 1970s of approving, as de facto foster parents for a particular child, a lesbian couple. I had reservations and Leeds authority, which I worked for and which was in Conservative hands at the time, had very serious reservations. The decision on that placement went to the Conservative chair of the social services committee, and she agreed that the proposal was in the best interests of that child. The lady concerned is still around, and she will confirm what I say. I understand that the child was subsequently adopted by one of the women involved.
        I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members to remember that we are here to deal with the best interests of the child, and those should be paramount in this debate.
        Several hon. Members rose—
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are many right hon. and hon. Members trying to contribute to the debate in a very limited time. We have had two very substantial opening speeches, and I appeal for brevity from other right hon. and hon. Members.
        Miss Ann Widdecombe: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on a speech that was moderation and reason itself compared with the one that we heard from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. I particularly congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his support for marriage as an underlying principle. It is a sad day for British politics when a Front-Bench spokesman
        982
        consistently refuses to say that the best thing that a child can have is a father and mother in a stable married context. That is a great pity, and for that reason alone, I wish that we were going to vote on the hon. Gentleman's amendment first. I do not agree with it and will not support it, but I congratulate him on the very serious way in which he has tackled a difficult subject. He has raised some challenging issues.
        Mr. David Rendel: Does the right hon. Lady really believe that it is better for a child to be brought up in a stable relationship between a man and a woman who are constantly abusing that child than by a couple who are unmarried but who provide warmth, security and love for their children?
        Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman does not even measure up to an 11-plus standard of debate.
        I should like to address the very serious issues raised by the hon. Member for Wakefield. First and foremost, we should be seeking to give any child, but particularly an adoptive child who has already suffered considerable instability and may be very vulnerable, security and stability. It is only by maintaining the current law and by making it the norm that adoption is undertaken by married couples that security and stability can be achieved.
        Mr. Dawson: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
        Miss Widdecombe: I want to make progress, as so many Members want to speak. You have asked for short contributions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall be unable to make mine short if I give way—I say that with respect, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would have made an interesting point.
        In the name of security and stability, I believe that the present law should stand. I shall first consider security. Marriage brings not only privileges but legal responsibilities which, I believe, provide greater security for a child. If two people really wanted to adopt a child, and were considering the interests and security of that child, they should want to marry—unless there was an impediment. For example, unless the cohabitee is joint legal owner of the shared home, she has no rights over the property, but when a married couple split up both spouses have statutory rights over the matrimonial home.
        In the short term, a cohabitee can apply for court orders allowing her—I am presuming that it would be her rather than him, although I realise that it could be the other way around—and the child to stay in the shared home for a maximum of 12 months, whereas a married parent left with the child would be given the right to live in the home until the child reached the age of 18, and would also be granted at least 50 per cent., and sometimes between 60 and 70 per cent. or more, of the matrimonial home in their own right.
        Mr. Llwyd: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
        Miss Widdecombe: I am going to make progress.
        If a cohabitee lives in a home owned by the father of the child—I am presuming that the parent with care is the mother, although I accept that that is not always so—it is possible that he could sell the house from under them, as no entitlement for her to live there would be recorded at

        983
        the Land Registry. Matrimonial rights over property are protected by an entry on the land register. To help provide for a child, a cohabitee can apply for an order that the other party pay a lump sum, or pay for specified items such as school fees, but for a married spouse there is a duty of financial support for the children, and the payments may be substantial.
        The mother herself has no right to maintenance payments if she is a cohabitee, and that could be extremely important if she is left with a child, whereas the courts can make a wide range of financial orders for the support of a spouse in her own right—such awards are not merely dependent on the child.
        Certain basic securities spring from the legal status of marriage that would not be available to protect a child in what is called an "informal relationship".
        Mr. Tom Levitt: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
        Miss Widdecombe: I am sorry. I am not being awkward; I normally give way a lot, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I am following your orders, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that you are delighted that I am doing so.
        I shall now discuss stability. Statistics collected by the Office for National Statistics—not an organisation with an axe to grind—show that 8 per cent. of married couples split up in the five years following the birth of a child, and that 25 per cent. of cohabiting couples who later marry split up. However, 52 per cent. of couples who cohabited and never married split up, so the adoptive parents of a child placed in one of those arrangements would be six and a half times more likely to split up than married adoptive parents.
        The consideration of those clear facts—the type of evidence that we sought and did not get for the contrary argument—leads me to believe that we are right to maintain the security and stability that marriage offers at present. It would be dishonest if I did not tell the House that I also believe that, as a society, we should continue to distinguish in favour of marriage. We should continue to recognise that marriage confers rights but also responsibilities, so I believe that it should be actively promoted by society. The hon. Member for Wakefield would probably agree.
        Mr. Hinchliffe indicated assent.
        Miss Widdecombe: I cannot support the hon. Gentleman's amendment, but I again congratulate him. I do not dismiss either the passion or experience that he brings to the debate, but fundamentally I believe that it is in the interests of the child that married couples be the adoptive parents.
        4.45 pm
        Jonathan Shaw: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) who made an outstanding contribution. He gave a measured speech that encapsulated the feelings of many hon. Members.
        984
        During the Special Standing Committee, we heard evidence from 30 professional organisations. The gathering of evidence from expert witnesses was certainly the best way of ensuring that the legislation was right. As several hon. Members have pointed out, we only introduce such legislation once in a generation and considerable efforts have been made on both sides of the House to get it right.
        I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the current legislation is deficient. We asked all those 30 professional witnesses, representing various organisations, whether they agreed with the proposals that are now set out in my hon. Friend's amendment—I tabled a similar amendment in Committee. Twenty-nine of the witnesses agreed that we should widen the pool, especially if we are to reach the 40 per cent. increase that we all want. We all believe that adoption offers the best opportunity for stability for children.
        There is a hierarchy involved. The optimum is a married couple—a mother and a father. That is first and foremost. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) referred to the number of boys who were included in the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering "Be My Parent" booklet and pointed out how few inquiries were made about them. That is true for many, many children. At present, the pool is not wide enough so we must widen it.
        Mr. Djanogly: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Jonathan Shaw: I want to speak only for a short while.
        We need to face the situation that I have described not only for the present but for future generations. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) asked how many more adoptive parents there might be: we do not know. At present, unmarried couples are unable to adopt, so it is wrong to compare—
        Mr. Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Jonathan Shaw: I shall give way in a moment.
        It is wrong to compare the breakdown rates of cohabiting couples, who are not subject to the rigorous assessments for adoption, with those of unmarried couples who might become prospective adopters. We need to dispel the general argument put by those who oppose my hon. Friend's proposals.
        The key point about such legislation—whether on adoption or child protection—is that we consider it only once in a generation, so we need to ensure that we do the best we can. Are we doing the best that we can for children who want to be adopted?
        I was a social worker for more than a decade. We had permanent adoption plans for many children, but there was not a big enough pool of adoptive parents for them. When I visited such children, they would ask whether I had found them a permanent family: "Have you found me a mummy and a daddy?" I had to say, "Not yet. I had to keep saying, "Not yet, not yet".

        985
        I do not know whether the provision will change that. I do not know whether it will mean that social workers will be able to assess more adoptive families, but I believe that it is worth trying. It is certainly worth trying to ensure that we can widen the pool.
        Mr. Leigh: Has the hon. Gentleman any evidence for the assertion that a tremendous number of cohabiting couples want to adopt? The British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering claims that
        "some adoption agencies process an adoption as if it is by a single person when in fact the person is cohabiting."
        That organisation commissioned Cardiff university to carry out a study of almost 2,000 adoptions, in which it
        "did not record any adoptions by a cohabiting couple."
        I am afraid that any evidence. [Interruption.] Did the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) not listen to the first point that I made? Some agencies deliberately flout the law and process an application
        "as if it is by a single person when in fact the person is cohabiting."
        Not one of the 2,000 people in the Cardiff study was cohabiting. Where is the evidence to show that great numbers of cohabiting people want to adopt?
        Jonathan Shaw: If there is evidence of people flouting the law, people should pass it on to the proper authorities, but we took evidence from 30 professional agencies and witnesses from different spectrums of child care. They were not all of one type; there was a whole variety of people. When we asked, 29 of them agreed with the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and said that we need to do the best that we can.
        There is no assertion that scores and scores of unmarried couples want to adopt, but such an amendment would increase the pool. There is no pure equation, but we have to deal with such things in child care. We have to put our hands on our hearts and say that we will do the best that we can. We have to take a view of the world that we live in. I believe that, to increase the number of children being adopted, we should support amendment No. 158, and I commend it to the House.
        Mr. Andrew Lansley: It seems a long time ago that a small number of hon. Members and I raised precisely this issue on Second Reading. At that time, those on the Front Benches ducked the issue. On this occasion, they have half ducked it, but it is important that, as the Secretary of State for Health said at the time, we have a debate and that the House decides. I do not normally comment on how the usual channels work and how the whipping goes on such things, but this is very much the sort of issue on which hon. Members, from their own experience, are best able to form a judgment. Things would be better done that way, rather than through the medium of a whipped vote.
        I am pleased to follow, among others, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) because, as he rightly said, I was a member of the Select Committee on Health under his chairmanship, when it considered children looked after by local authorities. Indeed, we recommended reform of adoption law. That reform was overdue then. and it is very welcome now.
        986
        I do not repeat what has been said, not least by the hon. Member for Wakefield, with whom I very substantially agree—I shall come on to where and why we disagree—but I want to encourage colleagues, particularly on this side of the House, not to think about this issue as though, by resisting the hon. Gentleman's amendments, we can roll the world back to a situation where the only people who want to be adoptive parents are married couples, or where they would come forward in sufficient numbers, notwithstanding the improvements and reductions in delay that may occur as a consequence of the Bill.
        Following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), let us construct the argument around the best interests of children based on what happens now, not on the proposition that there is an additional pool of prospective adopters—although I happen to agree that there would be some additional potential adoptive parents as a result of allowing unmarried couples to adopt. About 6 per cent. of those who adopt now are single. Overwhelmingly, they are in cohabiting relationships and are unmarried couples—heterosexuals in the great majority.
        So the question is what is in the best interests of the child where those couples are concerned. Having established to the satisfaction of the relevant agencies and the courts that one person in that relationship is the best person to adopt the child, is it in the best interests of the child for the other person in that relationship not to have a long-term, lasting legal relationship with that child? That is not in the best interests of the child.
        Conservative Members have established that, if there is a hierarchy of the best interests of the child, it is that a child should be brought up by a mother and a father, first, in a married relationship, or, if there is not a married relationship, an enduring, loving relationship. That seems to be the best way to proceed. If children are to be placed for adoption with a couple—a mother and a father—but the current constraints of the law provide that only one of those two parents can have the legal relationship with the child, that is not in the best interests of the child.
        It would be advantageous to free up the possibility for couples to adopt, even though they are unmarried. The evidence that I have seen so far from our inquiry and from talking to directors of social services and others in my constituency and elsewhere and from the adoption agencies makes it perfectly clear that a number of potential parents who are unmarried have their own reasons for not wanting to marry.
        Should we see the Bill as some form of social engineering? Is it designed to try to force people to marry in order to become adoptive parents? I think that we should conclude that people should marry if they love one another and if they want to show that to society at large by using that form of relationship. If we do not take that view—I am sorry to tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)— would we really saying that the increasing number of people in our society who have natural children and who, as a couple, do not marry are in some way not considering the best interests of their children? They have their reasons.

        987
        It is not for us to try to use adoption legislation, which should be designed around the best interests of the child, as a mechanism to effect a change in social circumstances in society at large, still less to try to go back to a different time. Many couples have their own many and varied reasons for not marrying. In some cases they face impediments to marriage. There may not be legal impediments, but there could be religious reasons and so on, which make things very difficult.
        Mr. Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Lansley: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman because he is the chairman of the all-party group on children and young people in care.
        Mr. Dawson: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I follow his logic entirely and share his views on social engineering. Do not his arguments apply equally to same-sex couples?
        Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman takes me precisely to my next point. Thus far 1 have agreed with the hon. Member for Wakefield, and my purpose in speaking is not least to say that, if the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) were to be passed, I would want to press amendment No. 24, which is designed to define unmarried couples for this purpose as a man and a woman living together. However, if the hon. Gentleman's amendment is not passed, and amendment No. 148 and the consequential amendments associated with it were passed, I would want to press amendment No. 158(a), which is designed to remove same-sex couples from the definition of couples for this purpose.
        My understanding—you will correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Deputy Speaker—is that the Division on amendment No. 158 will take place not now but on Monday, but we must make the argument now. I hope that hon. Members will understand that we can debate same-sex couples today, but we shall have to vote on Monday. I hope that, on Monday, having indicated that they are prepared to allow unmarried couples to adopt, hon. Members will not, for the reasons that I have explained, extend that to same-sex couples.
        Some of the arguments that I have presented are exactly the same as those that Stonewall has put to me. I have great respect for its arguments and we have had some interesting discussions, but we have not reached the same conclusions. Stonewall says that if a child is placed for adoption with a couple who happen to be of the same sex, why should not both partners in that relationship have a long-term, lasting legal relationship? My purpose in speaking to the amendment is not perhaps the same as that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), whose view may be shared by other Opposition Members. Their view is that they would not wish children to be placed for adoption with a gay person in a gay relationship. That does happen—I am working on the basis of what happens now. On Second Reading, I noted—I probably did not refer to it—that last year's October issue of Be My Parent illustrated, at length, precisely such a relationship: a lesbian couple who had
        988
        adopted, over time, four children. I hope that that is successful; I cannot say anything more than was set out in that newspaper.
        5 pm
        This is the issue: why should we go on to create, for gay' couples, a legal relationship that would not apply in a natural birth family? As a consequence of allowing unmarried couples to adopt, we will create, as one would normally expect, a legal mother and a legal father. As a consequence of the hon. Member for Wakefield's amendment, were it not amended as I propose, we would create two legal mothers or two legal fathers. Some other parts of legislation work on the basis of parents, but I am not persuaded that we have yet reached the point at which all our legislation should treat all parenting as wholly non-gender-specific.
        I accept that there is a degree to which the parenting skill often crosses gender. Some fathers are better at being mothers to their children and some mothers are better at being fathers. By and large, however, most of our legislation, although it may be written in terms of parenting, is understood in terms of the respective responsibilities of mothers and fathers. There tends to be an understanding of how parenting works in that relationship. We should consider very carefully whether to take the novel step of creating two legal mothers or two legal fathers, especially when the provision may he used more often to assist the lesbian partner of someone who has given birth to a child through donor insemination than it ever will be to assist gay couples to adopt children, who may often be older or severely disabled and for whom there is a significant lack of adoptive parents.
        Dr. Palmer: Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the arguments that he advanced for the deficiency of an arrangement in which one partner is the legal adoptive parent and the other is not also apply to a gay relationship? How confident is he that his amendment is compatible with the European convention on human rights.
        Mr. Lansley: I shall make two points in that regard.
        I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has been listening to me carefully, as the essence of my argument is that, although I accept the case in respect of unmarried couples, we would create a whole new legal situation in relation to gay couples. It is not therefore directly comparable with the situation for unmarried couples, so we should not necessarily read across.
        On the European convention on human rights, the case of Frette v. France gave effectively a margin of appreciation to the French Government not to allow a gay man to adopt. I think that that was wrong, and that it was probably incompatible with convention rights.
        My amendment proposes that we do not create in UK legislation at this stage a possibility for there to be two legal mothers at the same time through gay adoption. I suspect that the European Court of Human Rights, were it to consider the matter, would allow at least that margin of appreciation, as we are not precluding gay adoption. Everyone has made that clear—gay adoption happens now. It was established in a case in Scotland, which points to exactly the situation in which gay adoption is most likely to happen.

        989
        In the Scottish case, which established the principle, a nurse who had substantial experience of dealing with a child who had severe disabilities was able to adopt that child. Circumstances therefore exist in which gay adoption happens, and in which it may be in the best interests of the child. As a consequence of that, circumstances exist in which the partner in that gay relationship may seek a joint residence order. A joint residence order may not be all that gay partners want in such a relationship, but it is sufficient for the time being, while we think carefully about the consequences of trying to establish the proposition that one can have two legal mothers or two legal fathers rather than what we have understood to be the case up to now—that we should have parents, which, in British law, implies a mother and a father.
        For that reason, I shall vote for the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Wakefield—I hope that my colleagues will follow me—but I hope that he will understand if, on Monday, I seek to amend it.
        Ms Munn: I shall be brief, because I believe that much has already been said in this debate, and I commend hon. Members on both sides of the House for the way in which this issue is being discussed.
        One of the problems with adoption is that we tend to approach the issue as we would that of two people having a natural child. Years ago, that was perhaps how adoption was most frequently seen—a couple who were unable to have their own children would seek to adopt a child from somebody who could not keep a child. We are now in a very different situation, in which most children who are adopted come through the care system, most are older children, and most have experienced some form of abuse and are likely to have significant emotional problems.
        Today, adoption is about looking for families for children. Nowadays, in our society, families come in many types. In my view, we should not rule out any adult who, after rigorous assessment, is thought to be able to offer a loving, lifelong relationship to a child. We have heard a lot about what is considered the ideal, and about what our ideal would be were we to have children, but that is not what we are talking about. The ideal would be to have enough adoptive parents for all the children who currently seek adoptive families and for all the children whom we would like to seek adoptive families.
        That is not the situation. In fact, there are more children awaiting adoption than there are adoptive parents. It is nothing short of political correctness to rule out unmarried couples whether of different sexes or the same sex. To suggest, as did the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), that it is okay for one person to adopt is wrong—we will be creating new legal relationships whether in relation to unmarried couples of different sexes or unmarried couples of the same sex. Indeed, it was those very technical and complex legal difficulties that delayed consideration of these amendments in Committee, as the Minister said, so I do not accept the arguments of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire.
        We must ensure that the needs of children are put first.
        Mr. John Hayes: The hon. Lady says that we must ensure that the needs of children are put first, and the whole House shares that
        990
        concern. Does she appreciate that not all types of family are equally likely to be stable? While she is right that there are many types of families, they are not all likely to offer the adopted child the same level of security, stability and consistency.
        Ms Munn: I entirely accept that not all families are equally stable, but I reject the idea that certain types of family are less stable. We are talking about individual children being placed in individual family homes. Adoption panels and social workers spend a great deal of time trying to match children with people who can meet their needs.
        I have been involved in placing children in same-sex couples. The process was particularly interesting and that was not because I found that those couples were very different from heterosexual couples. As hon. Members know, a rigorous assessment takes place. There is a full report—sometimes, it is considered to be too intrusive. I have read literally hundreds of those reports. One reads about people's life experience, childhood, work, relationships, what they do at the weekend and their experience with children. The few reports that I have read on same-sex couples struck me because they were extraordinarily ordinary. Their lives are the same as everyone else's.
        Couples who are offering a home to children are focused on exactly that. They want to have children in their lives.
        Mr. David Borrow: I read an article in an American newspaper some two months ago about a young child who was seriously ill and not expected to live and who had been adopted by a same-sex couple. Eventually, the child prospered. When the child reached the age of 10, the authorities decided that it should no longer be fostered but should be adopted. Under the law in that state—Florida—the authorities were not allowed to place the child with a same-sex couple. Legally, they had to take the child from the couple who had raised it since it was very young and place it with a different family.
        Ms Munn: Clearly, in my hon. Friend's example the needs of the child were not properly considered. That has to be the bottom line. We do not have enough adults who want to adopt. We do not have enough people offering families. We have to widen the pool and look to the future by saying that anyone who can offer the love, care and stability that children in care need should be approved and enabled to look after a child.
        Mr. Lilley: I approach this subject in the light of my experience as Secretary of State for Social Security, when it became clear to me, in terms of social problems, that children who had had the advantage of adoption tended to do as well if not better than average, whereas those who remained in care did far worse than average. Four times as many were unemployed. They were 12 times as likely to have no educational qualifications, 40 times as likely to go to prison, 60 times as likely to be roofless and 66 times as likely to have children who had to go into care, thus perpetuating the process.

        991
        I start from a presumption that we should encourage more and speedier adoption. When the British Agencies for Adopting and Fostering wrote to me, saying
        "it does not make sense to exclude a significant proportion of the adult population from consideration"
        for adopting children, I was inclined to agree. I started from the position expressed by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), which was also described very lucidly by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw). Although marriage is undoubtedly preferable—the ideal is that children should be brought up in a loving, married family—if there are not enough loving, married families to go around, in principle I would be prepared to widen the scope. After all, we allow children in care to be brought up by people who may be married or single, cohabiting or not, homosexual or otherwise.
        I agree with the BAAF that it would not make sense to exclude a significant proportion of the adult population from consideration for adoption. However, no one is, in fact, excluded. Under present law, no one is legally excluded from consideration for adoption: one may be married or unmarried, cohabiting or single, gay or lesbian, young or old, or black or white: one is legally entitled to adopt. Last year, 300 single people adopted children—about 6 per cent. of the total number adopting. I do not believe that the change proposed will increase by one person the number of people with the right to adopt. The numbers argument is therefore bogus.
        5.15 pm
        Having vaguely acknowledged the situation, but without making it clear, BAAF went on to say:
        BAAF research shows that many unmarried couples do not come forward for this reason"—
        namely, that they cannot adopt collectively as a couple; they can only adopt if one of them acts as sole legal adoptive parent. I phoned BAAF to ask for the evidence and spoke to Mrs. Felicity Collier, the chief executive of the organisation, who wrote the letter. She said that there was no evidence to that effect as such. In the letter, she was referring to a study of 500 parents during national adoption week. At the beginning of the sample, 15 per cent. were unwed; at the end, only 8 per cent. of those who carried it through to close to completion were unmarried. A disproportionate number of unmarried people had dropped out, but they were not asked why. No information was gathered on that.
        So the assertion in the letter was not backed up by evidence. Indeed, no hon. Member has produced evidence today to support the idea that a significant number of people are put off adopting by the legal situation. It is certainly the case that no one is legally excluded from adopting.
        Jonathan Shaw: I said that we do not know whether there is a large pool. We have to make an assessment, and that is based on what we know—on how society is shaped. We also take account of those people who provide adoptive placements for children. Some 29 of the 30 agencies agreed with the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe).
        Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is honest enough to admit that there is no evidence. I am referring to a
        992
        lobbying body that is pre-eminent in adoption. It wrote to me pretending that there is evidence, which, on closer inspection, does not exist. Why Mrs. Collier, who seemed nice and honest, should put her name to such a tendentious letter, I do not know.
        Mr. Dawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Lilley: I am sorry, but I must continue, for the reasons made clear by other hon. Members.
        There seems to be an agenda to raise the importance of rights above responsibilities—to equate cohabitation with marriage and homosexual relations with heterosexual relations. To some extent, children are being used as pawns in that game. I accept that it would be equally wrong to use children as pawns or a bait for marriage. I am not saying that I believe we should legislate to provide the incentive to marry that only married people can adopt. That is not the reason for our approach. What matters is that we act in the interests of children—not in the interests of married couples, unmarried couples, gay people, elderly people or younger people.
        Mr. Dawson rose—
        Kevin Brennan rose—
        Mr. Lilley: I will not give way, for the reason that I gave.
        The practical effect of the change will not be to bring about a significant increase in the number of people who apply to adopt. What it will do is raise the priority given to unmarried parents and reduce the questions that are asked about whether their relationship is likely to be as stable as a married relationship.
        We know that overall there is a surplus of parents who want to adopt relative to the number of children. It is babies that are in short supply. What we need are more parents who are willing to adopt not the babies but the children who are harder to adopt. They are the most vulnerable children. They have the greatest difficulties and are in most need of stable relationships and a secure environment. In practice, I do not think that many of those 300 or so who have come forward to adopt and who are not married are particularly likely disproportionately to take on those children who are so hard to place.
        Ms Munn: They do.
        Mr. Lilley: I said, "particularly likely." I am not saying there are no examples of that happening, but those couples are likely to displace married couples from applications to adopt and reduce their priority when it comes to adopting babies. That is likely to be the major consequence of the proposed change.
        It has been asked whether Conservative Members are saying that the unmarried are automatically unstable and unlikely to remain together, and so on. In fact, we are talking about statistics. The House will be given statistics showing the frequency with which unmarried couples break up as against married couples. These are statistics, and the differences can be felt. There will be unmarried couples who live together peacefully, harmoniously and lovingly all their lives. There will be unmarried couples who are as committed as any married couple. Indeed,

        993
        from a theological point of view, in the sight of God they are married, because marriage is the commitment and not the public institutionalisation of it. Unfortunately, I do not have the insight of God—none of us has—and so I do not know who is committed and who is not. It is simply more difficult to know if people will not make the commitment public and declare it through the institution of marriage.
        That is the difficulty and the problem. We are asking social workers to assess which of the comparative minority among unmarried couples are every bit as committed, as stable, as permanent and as long term as the average marriage. Of course, some of the wedded couples will break up: some are not committed and should be excluded. If they can be identified ex ante they should be excluded from adoption, although that is difficult.
        It is surely foolish for us to write it into the law that consideration should be effectively uninfluenced by whether or not people make a public commitment to the responsibilities that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) spelled out as being part of marriage and the commitment that is an intrinsic part of it too.
        Children are not trophies to whom anyone has the right. Children are not and should not be tools of social engineering, either by those who pursue a politically correct agenda or by those of us who believe in marriage. The children we are talking about are the most vulnerable, and have the greatest difficulties if they are not satisfactorily adopted. We should be seeking the best for them, and not the best for parents.
        Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: I am a married man and I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I believe also that it is vital as part of the social infrastructure of modern society. I am the father of three young children. I am grateful beyond words that they are brought up in a loving, stable family environment. I also happen to be a Christian. It is because I am a Christian who believes in the family that I strongly support the amendments, whereby non-married couples, including same-sex couples, will be able to adopt children.
        In the shifting values of modern times, there are few, if any, absolute values on which all of us agree. However, one value that comes closer than many to achieving that consensus is, I suggest, the imperative to love and cherish children. It is not only a biblical imperative. It is one that is shared by those of all faiths and of none—people who believe, like me, that the interests and needs of children are paramount and that they should always come first.
        If we hold that view, it would seem that our duties today in this place are clear. First, we must examine the evidence to ascertain whether the interests of children are currently being put first. Secondly, if they are not, we must decide what needs to he done in the real world in which children live to ensure that that is remedied. Thirdly, we must decide for ourselves whether that requires statutory expression through the amendments. I shall look at those three questions in turn.
        First, it is clear that children are not being put first. There are thousands of vulnerable children who are either in care or in need of care. Many of these children are fostered. Many will return to their natural family in due course, albeit sometimes under supervision and protection. Many others—especially older children,
        994
        disabled children and hard-to-place children—will not find long-term foster families and will not return home. They are the lost children of the modern age. For them, there may be three possibilities: the street, institutionalised care homes or adoption.
        Secondly, in the real world, which is the best of the three options if we are to protect children and put their interests first? It must surely be by protecting them from the street, by taking them out of institutionalised residential care, and by placing them whenever possible in long-term loving family environments, with families who are equipped to give them the care, love and support that they need. That must mean adoption on a scale which, at present, we are not achieving; we have to find about 5,000 more adoptive families every year if we are to find homes for those lost children.
        Thirdly, we have to ask ourselves whether there is anything that we can and should do as parliamentarians to meet that need by passing legislation or amendments to it. Current legislation restricts the pool of adoptive families; married couples can adopt, as can single people, whether gay or straight, but unmarried couples cannot. It does not matter how long people have been in such a relationship; it does not matter how skilled and loving those people would be, or perhaps already are, as parents; it does not matter how many children are lost and whose lives are wasted in residential institutions, when they need loving homes; and it does not matter how desperate those children are. None of that matters; unmarried couples cannot adopt.
        In a time of great need for more adoptive families, it is absurd that, by legislation, we are denying a pool of adoptive families who could clearly make a significant contribution any chance of adoption. No one is arguing for a lowering of the rigorous thresholds by which the suitability of adoptive parents is judged. We are talking only about adoptive parents independently judged by the adoption agencies and the courts as having the capacity and commitment to be safe and effective parents. How can it be right to preserve the legislative status quo, thereby ignoring the opportunity offered by that pool of adoptive families? There is no justification whatever for doing so.
        We live in an imperfect world, in which we must do the best that we can to make things a little bit better; we should not strive for perfection or the impossible, as that would mean achieving nothing. Countless marriages end in divorce; indeed, that is one reason why we need more adoption. Many people choose not to marry again and many choose never to marry at all, but numerous people seek loving permanent relationships outside marriage. We may not like it, but it happens; that is the world in which we live. To cut all those people off from the pool of adoptive families—however decent and loving and however secure and stable their relationship may be—is to cut massively and arbitrarily the supply of loving parents who could meet the needs of children.
        How can it be right to allow children to remain in care when they could be in loving, caring families instead? If children who need care can be adopted by a loving single parent, how can it be right that they cannot be adopted by a loving couple? After all, if one mum or one dad is better than none, two must surely be as acceptable as one.

        995
        It is argued that allowing unmarried couples to adopt would demean the institution of marriage: I disagree, because the needs of the child should come first. Any argument that sacrifices the needs of the child to any other public interest, even protecting the ideal of marriage, is misguided. It subverts one moral value, the protection of children, and sacrifices it to another, the protection of the ideal of marriage, which is less realisable and important.
        Protecting that ideal is less realisable than the interests of the child in care, at least from a parliamentary perspective, because while Parliament can vote to enable a child to have a better chance of finding an adoptive family, we can never vote or legislate to make people marry, or keep married couples and families together.
        From a legislative perspective, protecting the ideal of marriage is also less important than protecting the interests of the child, because in any modern democracy we must legislative for everyone. As a Christian, I have a personal view of marriage and believe in its sanctity. I believe that it is a sacrament. I believe that it has spiritual and religious importance, but there are others who do not share my faith, and in our democracy, they have rights too.
        5.30 pm
        I know people who genuinely believe in monogamous partnerships and who believe that that is the natural way of things, but they do not believe that marriage itself is natural. They believe that it is a man-made concept, a religious concept, a social construct of no relevance to them. In a democracy, they have rights too.
        Mr. Lilley rose—
        Mr. Stinchcombe: There are also those who do share my belief in marriage but who find, no matter how hard they try in their own marriage, that they fail and that their marriage does not last. They have rights too, even if they do not remarry. Those rights surely extend far enough to include the right to offer to help to meet the needs of children in care by offering to be adoptive parents to them.
        I do not, however, rest my case on the rights of the parent. I rest my case on the rights of the child. The child has rights too—the right to a family, the right to be loved by a family, and the right to be looked after by a family, even if that family unit does not match our ideal. We, in this House, should not sit in moral judgment over families, nor should we stand in the way of the rights of those children being met, for reasons of political or religious correctness or out of idealism.
        We must strike a balance. We have an ideal, not universally shared and not realisable by Parliament. Against that ideal, we can weigh thousands of damaged, lonely, unloved, abandoned children, currently kept in care and kept out of families, when we might be able to find them a loving home. For me, that balance can yield only one result: the children must come first.
        Tim Loughton: I shall speak to the generality of the amendments—
        Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to take the time of the House or
        996
        of my hon. Friend, but would you please convey to Mr. Speaker that the timetable that the House has been constrained to follow has prevented a proper debate on both sides of the House and on all sides of the argument?
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Speaker has nothing to do with the timetables that are presented to the House.
        Tim Loughton: I have great sympathy with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), but I shall try again to summarise the debate. I shall speak to the generality of the amendments and explain why the official Opposition will not be supporting them and why I shall advise hon. Members to vote against them.
        The subject under discussion has dominated the Bill for far too long—a Bill that has 137 clauses and six schedules and is packed full of many other issues. It is those issues to which I shall direct attention.
        Although the debate has been curtailed, it has been interesting. We have had some excellent contributions from all speakers—certainly as soon as the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) sat down. It was an extraordinary revelation from a political party—the admission that a mother and father figure just happen to be, but are not exclusively, the best bet that children can have. It is astonishing that that is official Liberal Democrat policy.
        We heard interesting contributions about the legal implications, moral agendas, legal rights, equality of opportunity and even reverse political correctness. However, I am not interested in any of that as regards creating a better system for adoption and adopted children, and for expanding that system, which is the subject of the Bill. That is what should concern us today, and what has concerned some of us for the past six months, since the Bill started its passage through Parliament. We have strongly supported the Bill throughout, and I have become closely involved with the subject of adoption and scrutinising the Bill.
        Two over-riding considerations lie at the heart of our deliberations. The first is set out in clause 1(2), which states:
        "The paramount consideration of the court or adoption agency must be the child's welfare, throughout his life".
        The second consideration is whether the changes proposed will improve and expand the system of adoption in this country, and thereby heighten the chances of making clause 1 a reality for more children. That is what we are here to discuss today—nothing else. Now is not the time for political agendas, for promoting gay rights agendas, or even for promoting the moral basis for the desirability of marriage. In that I agree with the comment in The Guardian editorial on 14 March when it said:
        "Adoption should not be used as a means of promoting marriage; it is children's interests which should be paramount."
        By the same token, neither should adoption be used as a means of promoting alternative lifestyles and equal opportunities for adults, as I fear increasingly it has become. In the context of this Bill, the only equal opportunity that I am interested in is the equal opportunity of a child who ends up in care as a result of a broken

        997
        home, domestic violence or sexual abuse, or because their parents are unable to cope, often after a catalogue of personal tragedies and multiple upheavals.
        Jonathan Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Tim Loughton: I will not for the moment.
        Our agenda here must be the equal opportunity of those damaged children to have a second chance to repair their lives and to be brought up in as stable, loving and fulfilling a family environment as possible to give them as fair a chance as the rest of us when they go out into the wide world outside.
        Jonathan Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Tim Loughton: I apologise, but I want to make progress.
        Over recent months, many of us have been heavily lobbied on the Bill by all manner of Christian family organisations and the politically correct social worker brigade. I, like most hon. Members who have spoken today, may have strong views, on those subjects on either side, but the Bill is not the means to promote them.
        We have already wasted far too much time in delaying the Bill since its Committee stage ended some four months ago. We all know that it is because of the debate that has been raging between No. 10 and the rest of the Government over the issue of extending adoption to unmarried couples, which has, temporarily at least, been resolved by a free vote on the Government side, which is perfectly legitimate. But it should not have taken four months. This is desperately needed legislation that we needed yesterday, not tomorrow.
        One interesting point about today's debate is its attendance. When we started the Bill's Report stage on 20 March only a handful of Members were here, mostly those who had served on the Committee. When we spoke about much more important issues earlier today, again few Members were here. Yet those issues have far more serious implications for making adoption work. Media coverage, too, has been purely on the unmarrieds issue. Yet today and on Monday we are debating much bigger issues, such as domestic violence involving children, matters of consent, procedures for overseas adoptions and contact orders.
        Jonathan Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
        Tim Loughton: I said that I wanted to make some progress.
        We are now told that the Liberals were not due to be whipped to be here at all on Monday. They are interested only in the gay rights agenda as part of the Bill, which is disgraceful.
        It is interesting that the BBC, which has been ringing round the expert adoption agencies asking specifically how many complaints they have received from unmarried couples who find that they are unable to adopt jointly, was rather surprised when it reached about the seventh of those adoption agencies to be told that it had not had any complaints about unmarried adoption, to which the BBC said that, funnily enough, nor had anybody else. That
        998
        follows the findings in the Government's 2000 White Paper "Adoption: A New Approach" which listed the 10 main problems to overcome to improve adoption, including delays in the system, inconsistencies in the law and insufficient social worker training, but no mention of the marital status or otherwise of prospective adopters.
        Despite this interesting debate, we shall urge hon. Members on both sides to vote against the amendments and to maintain the status quo, because this issue is a sideshow compared with the real concerns of promoting and improving adoption. All the research, all the statistics and all the sociological evidence show that a family that contains a married couple offers the best chance of providing a long-term stable environment for children in need of adoption.
        Many may argue that long-term stable environments can also be offered by unmarried couples, whether of the opposite sex or the same sex. I am not arguing against that point here. But no one can refute the evidence that shows that married couples offer the best chances, in most cases by a long measure. Of course, it is not exclusively so and many problems still happen within those married families, as the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and others have mentioned. But overall the record is much better.
        Let me quote something.
        "Children in my judgment, and I think it's the judgment of almost everyone including single parents, are best brought up where you have two natural parents in a stable relationship. There's no question about that. What we know from the evidence is that, generally speaking, that stability is more likely to occur where the parents are married than where they're not."
        Those were the words of the Foreign Secretary when he was Home Secretary in 1998. I quote:
        "Marriage is still the surest foundation for raising children and remains the choice of the majority of people in Britain."
        That is from the Government's 1998 Green Paper.
        I quote:
        "The adoption law review, when considering this issue, concluded that joint adoption should remain limited to married couples on the grounds that adoption by a married couple was more likely to provide the stability and security that the child needed because married couples have made a joint, publicly recognised, legal commitment to each other. In addition, marriage provides for mutual legal and financial obligations, and importantly in the event of divorce, the couple must be prepared to have plans for the future of their children scrutinised by the courts. There is no provision in law to protect the child's interests when unmarried couples separate."
        Those were the words of the Minister herself. Currently, 95 per cent. of adoptions are by married people. Seventy per cent. of children born within marriage will live their entire childhood with both natural parents, compared with 36 per cent. of children born to non-married couples. According to the Office for National Statistics, children brought up by married couples are statistically far more likely to have better health, to do better at school, to have fewer behavioural problems and to be less likely to commit a criminal offence.
        Jonathan Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Tim Loughton: I will not.
        By contrast, cohabiting couples are six times more likely to split up than married couples, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said, more than half of cohabiting

        999
        couples split up within five years of the birth of a child. They split up most often when they have children. The statistics go on and on. The figures show that gay relationships are more transitory still. Married couples offer by far the best long-term chances of stability, statistically and sociologically, and that is what we should be concentrating on. We must make it much easier and quicker for married couples to adopt, which is what the rest of the Bill is all about.
        Marriage is on the increase. In 2000, there were 263,515 marriages. About 22 million marriages currently exist. So if we want to increase the current 3,000 adoptees by at least 50 per cent., as we all do, there is plenty of scope in the existing material, and we need to concentrate on why more such people are not coming forward or being approved as adopters.
        All the amendments—apart from amendment No. 24, which is different—miss the point. They would open up adoption to any manner of pick-and-mix couples, including heterosexual cohabitees—even brother and sister—and same-sex couples, who have the worst record statistically.
        New clause 2 also has serious technical problems. How do we define whether people are in a stable relationship? The amendments would create a mess. They would also send out the wrong signals to local authorities, which might present the courts with more unmarried couples instead of concentrating on maximising the availability of existing married couples, against whom there has been too much obstruction from the political correctness brigade in the past.
        We are spending all this time discussing amendments that tackle the wrong problem. In any case, keeping the status quo means that single parent adoptions, which currently constitute 5 per cent. of all adoptions, can still continue. We are not seeking to change that situation. Unmarried couples wanting to adopt have the solution in their own hands—they can commit to each other in a long-term relationship by getting married. I quote:
        "Why would a cohabiting couple not see—not necessarily in church, but under the law—defining their relationship in terms of a more public, legal contract as being a precursor to actually adopting a child?"
        Those are the words of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint).
        No one has a right to adopt, but every abandoned child or child in care has a right to get a second chance of a stable and loving upbringing. Yet I fear that too many Members here today who are interested in this part of the Bill are in danger of putting the interests of adults ahead of those of children. I fear that this part of the Bill is in danger of being manipulated to serve a different agenda that is all about the wishes of adults. I invite all hon. Members to join us in the Lobby to vote against all the amendments that open up adoption without qualification and to put the interests of children first. I invite the Liberals in particular to put aside their whipped agenda for gay rights and to concentrate on what is best for children by voting with us.
        To do so is not to be anti-gay or pro-marriage—for marriage is safe—but to be for the best interests of children. I ask hon. Members to put aside political agendas, moral crusades and issues of equal opportunity,
        1000
        deserving as those may be in a different context. The only equal rights that we should be concerned with in the context of the Bill are those of damaged children to a second chance of a stable and loving upbringing. That is best achieved by keeping the status quo and considering all the other ways of improving and expanding the whole adoption system, which is what the rest of this large Bill is intended to do. We should be getting on with that.
        5.45 pm
        Jacqui Smith: On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State suggested that there should be a debate on adoption by unmarried couples. A good debate on the subject has taken place today, with hon. Members expressing well thought-out and deeply held views. During the Bill's passage, and especially in the consultative Special Standing Committee, we received many representations. We know that the issue is sensitive and difficult. Given the variety of views, the Government have decided to allow a free vote on extending eligibility to apply to adopt jointly. I am disappointed that other parties have not seen fit to do the same.
        I should like to comment on the detail of the amendments. Amendments Nos. 148 to 158 and new clause 13, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) tabled, would, for the first time, allow unmarried couples to apply jointly to adopt children. Hon. Members have understandably concentrated on principles. As a Minister, I am afraid that I have to concentrate not only on principles but on whether the legislation will work.
        Mr. Leigh: Will the Minister give way?
        Jacqui Smith: No.
        Amendments Nos. 148 to 158 and new clause 13 would effect what hon. Members want in a way that is legally sensible and confines the definition of a couple to the Bill. The amendment that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) tabled would not achieve that. Clauses 47 and 48 define who is eligible to adopt. Amendments Nos. 148 to 155 would make the necessary changes, and amendment No. 158 would define a couple. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon will withdraw the amendment. It would not achieve his intention but create considerable difficulties if hon. Members wanted to accept joint adoption by unmarried couples.
        As many hon. Members have said, the amendments would widen the pool of potential adoptive parents so that more vulnerable children have the chance of family life that adoption can bring. Evidence shows that there is a potential supply of couples who are willing to adopt. British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering has evidence showing 41 per cent. of unmarried couples expressing an interest in adopting jointly. However, as other hon. Members have pointed out, only 5 per cent. of adoptions are currently not by married couples. That suggests that there may be a supply of adoptive parents out there.
        As hon. Members have made clear, one of the key criteria for our decision must be whether we believe that we can increase opportunities for children to be adopted

        1001
        into stable and secure families. There appears to he evidence that we could widen the pool of potential adopters.
        Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will my hon. Friend help me to understand why an unmarried couple would refuse to marry if they genuinely wanted to adopt?
        Jacqui Smith: I believe that there are many reasons, as several hon. Members suggested. We do not need to worry about that today. We should consider whether to increase the pool of adopters and how to promote the stability and security that many hon. Members have discussed.
        Mr. Leigh: I very much hope that the hon. Lady, on behalf of the Government, will now provide leadership and advice to the House. That is her duty as a Minister. Will she please confirm that she still believes the statement that she made very firmly in Committee in November 2001? In it, she said:
        "joint adoption should remain limited to married couples on the grounds that adoption by a married couple was more likely to provide the stability and security that the child needed because married couples have made a joint, publicly recognised, legal commitment to each other."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 29 November 2001; c. 383.]
        Will she repeat that statement today?
        Jacqui Smith: I will repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I said in Committee about the Government believing that there was scope for looking at unmarried couples being able to adopt and taking that forward through the partnership registration work that the Government were undertaking. There is nothing inconsistent in my position today.
        We need to be clear about the basis of this argument. A vote for the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield is not a vote to extend the right to adopt to unmarried people or to gay people. They already have that right. The existing legal framework for adoption already provides that single people may adopt regardless of their sex or sexual orientation; only married couples can adopt jointly. If a single person is living as part of a couple, the couple will be assessed jointly. One person will then adopt the child, and the other may acquire parental responsibility for the child by means of a residence order. This is not, therefore, about extending the right to adopt to gay people or unmarried people. Furthermore, if any hon. Members really opposed those ideas, they should, at some point during the passage of the Bill, have made their position clear. Nobody has done so.
        Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) in his very considered speech, argued the case for stability for the child and the importance of the legal relationship that that child has with each of his parents. In the current legal framework, the child is missing having two parents, each with a legal relationship with him. We know from correspondence that we have received that adopted children worry about the difference it would make to them if, for example, their legal parent were to die leaving no one legally responsible for them. That does not provide security or stability for those children who are already living with unmarried couples and with gay people.
        1002
        Residence orders are not permanent. They come to an end when the child reaches the age of 16. Adoption, however, is for life.
        The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made much of the concept of marriage, as did other hon. Members. This Government have supported marriage, and supported assistance for married people. As we have heard, the number of married people has gone up under the Labour Government. I am happily married, or so my husband tells me. This is not an attack on marriage. It is right that we should seek stability for children, and that can be—and often is—provided by married couples. It can also be provided, however, by other families and by other couples. Nothing in these proposals will water down the crucial assessment process that has to be undertaken to determine whether a relationship is stable—whether the couple is married or not.
        Under the amendments, particularly new clause 13, any couple—married or unmarried—wanting to become adoptive parents will need to prove not only that they can provide a loving family environment but that they form a stable and long-term partnership. The provisions in new clause 13 are important. All adoptive applicants must be assessed and approved by an adoption agency before they have children placed with them. That assessment will include a rigorous scrutiny of the stability of their relationship. That is right, because we are talking about stability and security; but I believe that we can deliver stability and security by means of the changes that the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield would make.
        As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health made clear in answer to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn), it is ultimately right for the court to decide whether to make an adoption order. It is right that what we look for in the assessment process is a stable and permanent relationship, but when we find that, it may well be possible to address the need for a larger adoption pool.
        Our concern should relate to the circumstances of individual children, not statistical bantering about particular kinds of relationship. Some of the children we are considering are very troubled, and potentially difficult to place with adopters. Their relationship with specific people, including couples, who might have the skills, the stable homes and the love and care enabling them to offer something more should be at the centre of our debate.
        For many adoption agencies, the choice will be not about placing children with stable married couples or with unmarried couples, but about giving a child the chance to live in a stable loving family rather than being left in care, with all the instability and poor life chances that we know that can bring.
        This has been a wide-ranging debate, in which many Members have expressed the views on all sides of the argument. If the House decides to accept the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, the Government will undertake to table whatever consequential amendments are necessary—a considerable number—to ensure that this works in legislation. Amendments Nos. 148 to 158 and new clause 13 provide a legally workable basis on which to extend the right to adopt to unmarried couples.

        1003
        Ultimately, however, the debate is not about a right to adopt. It is not about political correctness. It is not about gay rights. It is not even about parents. It is about a child's chance of being in a family, and I hope that Members will vote on that basis.
        Dr. Evan Harris: As has been said, this was a good debate, but it was curtailed by the timetable and the speech of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), which was an over-long rant, with no interventions. In that respect, he outdid all his senior Back-Bench colleagues in intolerance.
        As the hon. Gentleman said, this should be about the promotion of neither marriage nor alternative lifestyles but about putting the child first. However, I think that he will come to regret labelling adoption agencies, the NSPCC, Barnardo's, the National Children's Bureau, the Children's Society and the Law Society as the politically correct social worker brigade—just as the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) will come to regret his reference to the use of children in social engineering. I disagreed with his speech and he should have the courage to say that he simply disagrees with me.
        Mr. Lilley rose—
        Dr. Harris: I commend the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe). He put very well—
        Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman mentioned me. Will he give way?
        Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. It is obvious that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) is not going to give way.
        Mr. Lilley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not a convention of the House for a Member who mentions another to give way if the Member who has been mentioned seeks to correct the record?
        Madam Deputy Speaker: I believe a number of criticisms have been made across the Floor during the debate.
        Mr. Lilley: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was asking about a convention of the House.
        Madam Deputy Speaker: That may well be the general convention, but because of time constraints it cannot apply to this particular debate.
        Dr. Harris: I urge hon. Members to support amendments Nos. 148 to 158.
        Mr. Lilley rose—
        Dr. Harris: Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I gave way about 10 times in my speech. I also urge hon. Members to put pressure on the Government to push the
        1004
        measure through the Lords, because we need it. In asking hon. Members to support amendment No. 148, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        It being Six o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER pursuant to Order [this day] to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

      Clause 47

        APPLICATIONS FOR ADOPTION
        Amendment proposed: No. 148, in page 28, line 41, leave out "married".—[Mr. Hinchliffe.]
        Question put, That the amendment be made:—
        The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 133.

        Division No. 244]

        [6 pm

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Clelland, David

        Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

        Clwyd, Ann

        Ainger, Nick

        Coaker, Vernon

        Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Allan, Richard

        Cohen, Harry

        Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

        Coleman, Iain

        Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

        Colman, Tony

        Austin, John

        Cooper, Yvette

        Bailey, Adrian

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Baird, Vera

        Corston, Jean

        Banks, Tony

        Cousins, Jim

        Barnes, Harry

        Cruddas, Jon

        Barrett, John

        Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

        Battle, John

        Curry, Rt Hon David

        Bayley, Hugh

        Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

        Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

        Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

        Benn, Hilary

        Davey, Edward (Kingston)

        Bennett, Andrew

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Best, Harold

        David, Wayne

        Betts, Clive

        Davidson, Ian

        Blair, Rt Hon Tony

        Davis, Rt Hon Terry

        Blears, Ms Hazel

        (B'ham Hodge H)

        Blunkett, Rt Hon David

        Dawson, Hilton

        Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

        Dean, Mrs Janet

        Borrow, David

        Dhanda, Parmjit

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        Dismore, Andrew

        Brake, Tom

        Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

        Brennan, Kevin

        Doran, Frank

        Brooke, Mrs Annette L

        Doughty, Sue

        Bryant, Chris

        Dowd, Jim

        Buck, Ms Karen

        Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

        Burden, Richard

        Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

        Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

        Efford, Clive

        Cable, Dr Vincent

        Ellman, Mrs Louise

        Cairns, David

        Ennis, Jeff

        Calton, Mrs Patsy

        Farrelly, Paul

        Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

        Fisher, Mark

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Fitzpatrick, Jim

        Carmichael, Alistair

        Flynn, Paul

        Casale, Roger

        Follett, Barbara

        Caton, Martin

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Cawsey, Ian

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

        Challen, Colin

        Francis, Dr Hywel

        Chaytor, David

        Gardiner, Barry

        Chidgey, David

        Gerrard, Neil

        Clapham, Michael

        Gibson, Dr Ian

        Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

        Gidley, Sandra

        Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

        Gilroy, Linda

        Clarke, Rt Hon Charles

        Goggins, Paul

        (Norwich S)

        Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

        Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        (Rushcliffe)

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

        Grogan, John

        1005

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        Marris, Rob

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

        Hanson, David

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

        Martlew, Eric

        Healey, John

        Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

        Heath, David

        Merron, Gillian

        Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

        Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

        Hepburn, Stephen

        Miliband, David

        Heppell, John

        Miller, Andrew

        Hesford, Stephen

        Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

        Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

        Moffatt, Laura

        Heyes, David

        Mole, Chris

        Hill, Keith

        Monnie, Dr Lewis

        Hinchliffe, David

        Moran, Margaret

        Hodge, Margaret

        Morgan, Julie

        Holmes, Paul

        Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        Mountford, Kali

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Mudie, George

        Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

        Mullin, Chris

        Hughes, Kelvin (Doncaster N)

        Munn, Ms Meg

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

        Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

        Humble, Mrs Joan

        Naysmith, Dr Doug

        Hutton, Rt Hon John

        Norris, Dan

        Iddon, Dr Brian

        O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

        Illsley, Eric

        O'Neill, Martin

        Irranca-Davies, Huw

        Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

        Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

        Palmer, Dr Nick

        Jamieson, David

        Pearson, Ian

        Jenkins, Brian

        Picking, Anne

        Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

        Pickthall, Colin

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        Pike, Peter

        Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

        Plaskitt, James

        Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

        Pond, Chris

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

        Pound, Stephen

        Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Joyce, Eric

        Price, Adam

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Prosser, Gwyn

        Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

        Purchase, Ken

        Keetch, Paul

        Purnell, James

        Kemp, Fraser

        Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

        Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

        Quinn, Lawrie

        (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

        Rammell, Bill

        Khabra, Piara S

        Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

        Kidney, David

        Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

        King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

        Rendel, David

        Kumar, Dr Ashok

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        Ladyman, Dr Stephen

        Ross, Ernie

        Lamb, Norman

        Russell, Bob (Colchester)

        Lammy, David

        Ryan, Joan

        Lansley, Andrew

        Salter, Martin

        Laws, David

        Sanders, Adrian

        Lazarowicz, Mark

        Sarwar, Mohammad

        Leslie, Christopher

        Savidge, Malcolm

        Levitt, Tom

        Sawford, Phil

        Linton, Martin

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Lloyd, Tony

        Sheerman, Barry

        Llwyd, Elfyn

        Sheridan, Jim

        Love, Andrew

        Simon, Siôn

        Luke, Iain

        Singh, Marsha

        McCabe, Stephen

        Skinner, Dennis

        McCafferty, Chris

        Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

        McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

        Smith, Liew (Blaenau Gwent)

        McDonnell, John

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

        MacDougall, John

        Soley, Clive

        McGuire, Mrs Anne

        Southworth, Helen

        McIsaac, Shona

        Starkey, Dr Phyllis

        McKechin, Ann

        Steinberg, Gerry

        McKenna, Rosemary

        Stinchcombe, Paul

        McNulty, Tony

        Stoate, Dr Howard

        Mactaggart, Fiona

        Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

        McWalter, Tony

        Stringer, Graham

        Mahmood, Khalid

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

        Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

        Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

        Mann, John

        Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

        1006

        Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

        Whitehead, Dr Alan

        Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Tipping, Paddy

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan

        Todd, Mark

        (Swansea W)

        Tonge, Dr Jenny

        Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

        Trickett, Jon

        Willis, Phil

        Truswell, Paul

        Wills, Michael

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Wilson, Brian

        Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

        Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

        Turner, Neil (Wigan)

        Wood, Mike

        Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

        Woolas, Phil

        Vaz, Keith

        Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

        Vis, Dr Rudi

        Wright, David (Telford)

        Walley, Ms Joan

        Wright, Tony (Cannock)

        Walter, Robert

        Wyatt, Derek

        Ward, Ms Claire

        Watson, Tom

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Webb, Steve

        Jonathan Shaw and

        White, Brian

        Mr. Andrew Stunell.

        NOES

        Amess, David

        Heald, Oliver

        Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

        Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

        (Swansea E)

        Hendry, Charles

        Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

        Hoban, Mark

        Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

        Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

        Bacon, Richard

        Horam, John

        Barker, Gregory

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Baron, John

        Hunter, Andrew

        Beggs, Roy

        Hurst, Alan

        Bell, Stuart

        Jack, Rt Hon Michael

        Bellingham, Henry

        Johnson, Boris (Henley)

        Benton, Joe

        Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        Key, Robert

        Boswell, Tim

        Kirkbride, Miss Julie

        Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

        Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

        Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

        Laing, Mrs Eleanor

        Brady, Graham

        Leigh, Edward

        Brazier, Julian

        Letwin, Oliver

        Breed, Colin

        Liddell-Grainger, Ian

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Lidington, David

        Burns, Simon

        Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

        Burt, Alistair

        Loughton, Tim

        Cameron, David

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Cash, William

        MacDonald, Calum

        Chapman, Sir Sydney

        McIntosh, Miss Anne

        (Chipping Barnet)

        Mackey, Rt Hon Andrew

        Chope, Christopher

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Clappison, James

        Maclean, Rt Hon David

        Collins, Tim

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Connarty, Michael

        McWilliam, John

        Conway, Derek

        Malins, Humfrey

        Cormack, Sir Patrick

        Maples, John

        Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

        Djanogly, Jonathan

        May, Mrs Theresa

        Dobbin, Jim

        Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

        Drew, David

        Moss, Malcolm

        Field, Mark (Cities of London)

        Murrison, Dr Andrew

        Flight, Howard

        O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

        Flook, Adrian

        O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

        Forth, Rt Hon Eric

        Olner, Bill

        Fox, Dr Liam

        Osborne, George (Tatton)

        Francois, Mark

        Page, Richard

        Gale, Roger

        Paice, James

        Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

        Prisk, Mark

        Goodman, Paul

        Pugh, Dr John

        Gray, James

        Randall, John

        Grayling, Chris

        Redwood, Rt Hon John

        Grieve, Dominic

        Robathan, Andrew

        Gummer, Rt Hon John

        Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

        Hague, Rt Hon William

        Rosindell, Andrew

        Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Hammond, Philip

        Selous, Andrew

        Hawkins, Nick

        Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

        Hayes, John

        Simmonds, Mark

        1007

        Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

        Waterson, Nigel

        Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

        Watkinson, Angela

        Soames, Nicholas

        Whittingdale, John

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

        Streeter, Gary

        Wiggin, Bill

        Swayne, Desmond

        Willetts, David

        Swire, Hugo

        Wilshire, David

        Syms, Robert

        Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

        Taylor, John (Solihull)

        Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

        Taylor, Sir Teddy

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Tredinnick, David

        Trend, Michael

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

        Mr. Laurence Robertson

        Tynan, Bill

        and

        Viggers, Peter

        Mr. Peter Luff.

        Question accordingly agreed to.
        Amendments made: No. 149, in page 29, line 1, leave out "spouses" and insert "couple".
        No. 150, in page 29, line 4, leave out "spouses" and insert "of the couple".—[Mr. Hinchliffe.]

      Clause 48

        ADOPTION BY MARRIED COUPLE
        Amendments made: No. 151, in page 29, line 15, leave out "married".
        No. 152, in page 29, line 16, leave out "spouses" and insert "of them".
        No. 153, in page 29, line 17, leave out "married".
        No. 154, in page 29, line 19, leave out "spouse" and insert "of the couple".
        No. 155, in page 29, line 21, leave out "spouse".—[Mr. Hinchliffe.]

      Clause 49

        ADOPTION BY ONE PERSON
        Amendments made: No. 156, in page 29, line 24, at end insert—
        '(1A) An adoption order may be made on the application of one person who has attained the age of 21 years if the court is satisfied that the person is the partner of a parent of the person to be adopted'.
        No. 157, in page 29, line 27, leave out paragraph (a).—[Mr. Hinchliffe.]
        Mr. Lansley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that further consequential amendments—amendment No. 158, new clause 13 and amendment No. 158(a), which is in the name of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) and would remove from this group of amendments the possibility for same-sex couples to adopt as a couple—will not be debated today but, according to the order of proceedings, on Monday evening?
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Those amendments will not be debated on Monday but they will be voted on then.

      Clause 41

        CHILD TO LIVE WITH ADOPTERS BEFORE APPLICATION
        Amendments made: No. 212, in page 25, line 29, after "applicant" insert—
        'or one of the applicants'.
        No. 213, in page 25, line 30, after "applicant" insert—
        'or, as the case may be, applicants'.
        No. 214, in page 25, line 44, leave out "afforded" and insert "given".—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

      Clause 43

        NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ADOPT
        Amendments made: No. 215, in page 26, line 31, leave out "investigate" and insert—
        arrange for the investigation of.
        No. 216, in page 26, line 32, leave out "their" and insert "the".
        No. 217, in page 27, line 4, after "are" insert—
        ( ) in prescribed cases, references to the prescribed local authority,
        ( ) in any other case, references'.
        No. 218, in page 27, line 5, at end insert—
        `and "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations'.— [Jim Fitzpatrick.]

      Clause 44

        ADOPTION ORDERS
        Amendments made: No. 270, in page 27, line 15, after "Act" insert—
        `the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 or the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995'.
        No. 219, in page 27, line 32, at end insert—
        `( ) Before making an adoption order, the court must consider whether there should be arrangements for allowing any person contact with the child; and for that purpose the court must consider any existing or proposed arrangements and obtain any views of the parties to the proceedings'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

      Clause 45

        CONDITIONS FOR MAKING ADOPTION ORDERS
        Amendments made: No. 220, in page 27, line 40, after "19" insert—
        `(and has not withdrawn the consent)'.
        No. 230, in page 28, line 23, leave out first "of' and insert
        "in".—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

      Clause 49

        ADOPTION BY ONE PERSON
        Amendments made: No. 221, in page 29, line 33, leave out subsection (3).
        No. 232, in page 29, line 42, leave out from "child's" to end of line 43 and insert—
        being adopted by the applicant alone'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

      Clause 50

        PARENTAL ETC. CONSENT
        Amendments made: No. 222, in page 30, line 22, leave out "freely".
        No. 223, in page 30, line 28, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
        () Consent under section 18 or 19 must be given in the form prescribed by rules, and the rules may prescribe forms in which a person giving consent under any other provision of this Part may do so (if he wishes).
        (9) Consent given under section 18 or 19 must be withdrawn—

        (a) in the prescribed form, or

        (b) by notice given to the agency'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

      Clause 51

        MODIFICATION OF 1989 ACT IN RELATION TO ADOPTION
        Amendments made: No. 224, in page 30, line 40, at end insert—
        'or
        () a child who has been placed for adoption by a local authority is less than six weeks old'.
        No. 225, in page 31, line 6, at end insert—
        'or a child who has been placed for adoption by a registered adoption society is less than six weeks old'—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

      Clause 52

        DISCLOSING INFORMATION DURING ADOPTION PROCESS
        Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No.8, in page 31, line 26, leave out "may" and insert "must".
        Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 254.
        Amendment No. 19, in clause 54, page 31, line 42, after "adoption", insert—
        `which shall include all information necessary to fulfil the duty imposed by virtue of section [Disclosure of information regarding a person's adoption] (2),'.
        Government amendments Nos. 49 to 52.
        Amendment No. 147, in clause 59, page 33, line 37, at end insert—
        '(7) The provisions in this section relating to access to protected -information shall be applicable to any adopted person, regardless of whether the date of that person's adoption was before or after the coming into force of this Act.'.
        Amendment No. 25, in page 33, line 37, at end insert—
        '(7) This section shall apply to all adopted persons, whether adopted before or after the coming into force of this Act.'.
        Government amendments Nos. 53 to 58.
        New clause 1—Right to obtain information: adult siblings

        `(1) Adult siblings by birth of adopted adults who have been adopted at any time from the enactment of the Adoption Act 1926 shall have the right to make an application to an adoption agency, as specified in regulations, to obtain the information under section 77 relating to his relative who was adopted.

        (2) The agency shall make enquiries as necessary to establish the views of the adopted person concerning the disclosure of information to the relative.

        (3) The information applied for shall be supplied by the agency to the applicant unless either—

        (a) the adopted person has refused consent to the disclosure, or

        (b) the agency obtains an order from the High Court which authorises the agency not to disclose the information requested.

        1010

        (4) The High Court may make an order on an application by the appropriate adoption agency, if satisfied that the circumstances are except6lional.'.

        New clause 4—Disclosure of information regarding a person's adoption—

        `(1) This section shall apply only to an adopted person who has attained the age of 18 years.

        (2) The appropriate adoption agency shall have a duty to inform an adopted person that he was adopted, subject to the regulations referred to in subsection (3).

        (3) Regulations may prescribe—

        (a) the method by which adoption agencies shall discharge the duty described in subsection (2), and

        (b) any categories of adopted persons to whom the duty subscribed in subsection (2) shall not apply.'.

        Tim Loughton: We now have all of 44 minutes in which to debate three important amendments and two new clauses tabled by myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends, together with a handful of Government amendments.
        The amendments and new clauses in our name are on important subjects. They would provide full information to prospective adopters, giving rights of information to those involved—[Interruption.]
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Would Members leaving the Chamber please do so quickly, and would others be a little quieter so that the hon. Gentleman can make his speech?
        Tim Loughton: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
        As I was saying, the amendments are intended to give rights of information to those involved in adoption before the Bill comes into force. They would give rights to siblings of adopted people to make approaches to an adoption agency with a view to establishing contact with a long-since adopted brother or sister, and would provide a fundamental right for people to know by the age of 18 that they were adopted if they had not already been told. These subjects were all discussed in Committee, but I think that the Minister may have further comments to make.
        Amendment No. 8 would change a single word in clause 52 from "may" to "must". That may seem like a little amendment, but we spent much time in Committee discussing when a "may" should be a "must". That does not make this "may" any less important, although some of the debates in Committee were extremely exasperating.
        We have made the case that it is essential for a successful adoption that the provision of as much information as possible is made upfront to prospective adopters to make sure that they are going into the adoption process with both eyes wide open, that they make a fully informed decision that the prospective adoptee is the right choice and that they stand a good chance of being able to provide a stable and successful home environment. That is especially important if the child to be adopted has complex needs—learning or behavioural difficulties, educational problems, challenging psychological experiences from a past home environment or physical disabilities. It is no good finding out about those things after the adoption has been formalised and the court processes have taken place—by that time it is too late.

        1011
        It is also necessary to be able to cope with the special needs of those children after the adoption has taken place. During the witness stages of the Special Standing Committee, Professor Triseliotis told us of children who showed extremely strange behaviour at bath time. It turned out that in their previous family existence sexual abuse had taken place at bath time, so it was engrained on their psyche. There were many other examples that showed the importance of knowing all the information.
        The original clause 57 referred to the provision of appropriate information as soon as practicable after the making of an adoption order. To give the Government and Ministers credit, after pressure from the Opposition they rewrote the clause but I still cannot understand why the matter has been left for regulations that would, in effect, make optional the type and nature of the disclosure of relevant information by adoption agencies to prospective adopters. No proper explanation was given in Committee, so we are revisiting that provision. That is why we want to change the word "may" to "must".
        The adoption agencies have given us many examples that show the necessity for that change. For example, Barnardo's was effectively challenged in the courts for not providing enough information before an adoption. In other cases, a family's medical history has serious implications for an adopted person later in life—as regards genetic disclosures and so on. It is essential that a full medical history is available at the outset to adoptive parents so that suitable precautionary medical treatment or checks can be undertaken if there is a problem later.
        There must be a clear commitment that agencies must provide all the necessary information at the time of adoption. That is a legitimate reason for our amendment. We are still not satisfied with the provisions in respect of information for prospective adopters.
        Amendment No. 19 makes an addition to clause 54, which needs to be beefed up to ensure that adoption agencies keep records that are detailed enough to fulfil all their obligations under the Bill.
        I want to move on to a much meatier and more important subject—a matter that touched me and many other members of the Committee when we heard representations on it. Amendment No. 25 would add to clause 59 the words:
        "This section shall apply to all adopted persons, whether adopted before or after the coming into force of this Act."
        The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) has tabled a similar amendment so I am sure that ours will receive his support.
        The clause deals with the disclosure of protected information about adults and was much amended in Committee—thank goodness. For some extraordinary reason, which we have still not fathomed, the Government actually proposed a retrogressive step: to deny people the right of access to information to which they have been entitled since 1976 under the Adoption Act 1976. No one could understand the reason for that. None of the witnesses who appeared before the Special Standing Committee could understand it. None of the representations that we received could explain it. The proposal caused great distress, but I am glad that again—albeit at the 1 1 th hour—the Government had a change of heart and we achieved some improvements in the Bill.
        1012
        The lives of an enormous number of people were irreversibly touched by adoption—as far back as the 1940s, in many cases—but the Bill will have little or no effect on them.
        It is right that we are putting in place new structures for the future. We need to overhaul the whole process to improve the adoption system and the chances of children in care now and in the future to get a proper start in life, but we must also have some regard to the fall-out from some of the past mistakes and problems in the adoption system. That is what the amendment addresses.
        In my involvement with the Bill and the subject of adoption, I have been particularly touched by the approaches from older women especially, including those in my constituency who gave up their children for adoption in very difficult circumstances—often with a high degree of pressure, verging on coercion—to people such as those with whom we are dealing in the Bill.
        In effect, we are talking about a past generation who lived under very different social standards. Many people were worried about the original Bill, which would have prevented the contact between adopted children and their birth parents in the future. As I have said, the Government did a U-turn on that, but we need to apply the Bill to the forgotten generation of birth mothers from the post-war years especially.
        Many mothers were forced to give up their children for adoption because of social stigma, and adoptive parents were encouraged to pass off the child as their own genetic son or daughter. In many cases, the Bill represents the very last chance for those people, in their twilight years, to establish contact with sons and daughters who were given away for adoption, often reluctantly. However, we contend that contact should be established sensitively, and only with all the proper controls and balances through an intermediary third party and only if the adopted adult agrees. Those must he the absolute minimum requirements, but the demand is there.
        We have only to consider the fact that, since section 26 of the Children Act 1975 came into force, 70,000-plus adopted adults in England and Wales have received their birth records, enabling them to establish links with their birth parents if they so wish. Some 90 per cent. of non-searching adopted people agree to have some form of contact with the birth parent who initiates an inquiry.
        I fully appreciate that, in practice, all this will be fraught with problems, not least the deficiencies in past record keeping. We will obviously need to prescribe limitations on the level of search undertaken, but such searches are becoming easier all the time, with far greater access to computerised information, electoral registers going online and so on. I contend that, whatever the mechanical problems, the principle is right. I hope that the Government will accept the principle. I should be happy to withdraw the amendment if the Government want to go away and introduce something that may be more workable in practice.
        So long as we have a proper balance of rights in favour of those adoptees who do not wish to be found, I cannot understand the objections to the amendment. What we are seeking to do, after all, is to give those women the same rights as those enjoyed by women in Canada, New Zealand and, now, Australia—all of which allowed access to birth records in the 1980s and 1990s. I hope that we can use some of the good practice guidance and continue to apply it to future adoptions.

        1013
        That is the crux of amendment No. 25, but if the Government are not prepared to adopt that suggestion, we have provided an alternative: new clause 1, which deals with siblings. We suggest that siblings should be given rather greater powers to be able to approach adoption agencies with a view to establishing contact with their brothers and sisters from whom they were parted at an early age. Siblings are often forgotten in the adoption process.
        Many people argue about whether birth parents were right to give up children for adoption, or whether they had any choice and how much they may have been coerced. Siblings, in all cases, have played no part in the decision-making process, but they have just as much right to make contact with a lost brother or sister, whether they were taken away for adoption while they remained in the family context, or whether children collectively were placed in care and later broken up and adopted individually.
        Siblings in care tend to have more complex families than other children. Research reveals a particular lack of contact with paternal siblings. There are placement problems for sibling groups especially—taking on a whole group of brothers and sisters is a much taller order, and they tended to be split up or to stay in care or in separate foster placements. Research shows that, according to self-reports, the loss of a sibling can involve the loss of a lifetime's close and loving relationship, the loss of support in adversity, the loss of a shared history, the loss of a sense of kinship and the loss of a resource for the individual's development of identity.
        6.30 pm
        This is a poorly researched area of adoption. We lack detailed information about the extent of sibling separations involved in adoptions, and sibling group placement patterns are, typically, not monitored. Surely, however, there is even more justification to give them greater legal standing to try to establish contact with other adopted siblings on an equal basis. That is our case behind new clause 1. This is an important area, and there are many hundreds and thousands of people who have been affected by adoptions in the past for whom the Bill will have no beneficial effect whatever, as it is not retrospective.
        New clause 4 deals with an issue for which there was sympathy on both sides of the Committee. It is an issue of great principle, and the new clause is simple and self-explanatory. It is a fundamental right of individuals to be told that they are adopted if they have not been given that information by the time they become adults at 18. Usually, adopted children should have been told that information before they reach the age of 18. sensitively and at an appropriate time, by their adopted parents.
        The new clause deals only with a very small percentage of adoptions as, increasingly, the Bill will be dealing with older children who obviously know that their adopted families are not their birth parents as they were not babies when they were taken away. Most of the Bill targets such children. Many hundreds of babies will still be adopted each year, however, and will have no knowledge of their origins unless they are told when they are old enough to understand. We want to protect them from all the angst and complications of such a
        1014
        bombshell coming later in life when they eventually find out that they are adopted, having had no clue, inkling or suggestion for many years.
        We have heard of cases, through our research for this Bill, of people who found out that they were adopted only at a very advanced age—in their 60s and 70s—and, in many cases, only after their birth parents had died. Often, that is the trigger to their finding out the information, by which time, of course, they have lost any chance of making contact with their birth parents. It is a fundamental human right for everyone to be told of his or her origins. If that information is not provided by the adoptive parents, the state has a duty to make it available to the adopted person on reaching maturity, through placing a requirement on the appropriate adoption agency. The state, after all, gives legal legitimacy to the status of adoption—a status that is manufactured, for want of a better word—and it therefore has a duty.
        Mr. Dawson: In Committee I described the new clause as ghastly, but not because of the intention behind it, which I acknowledge is good. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that the issue of informing adopted young people about their origins should play a large part in social work training and in the assessment of potential adoptive applicants. I am sure he intends the proposal to lie at the back of everything to ensure good practice from authorities. Is not it too crude to say that the state will tell people this information at the age of 18? Should there not be better ways of approaching this issue than the one he suggests?
        Tim Loughton: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I recall the word "ghastly" being flung around the Committee Room when we discussed a similar subject. This is a last resort provision. As I think I have said—and as I want to finish by saying—it is a revelation that needs to be handled with the utmost sensitivity. People do not want to receive-1 think this was the analogy that I used—on their 18th birthday, along with a tax return and a congratulations card from their MP, a letter in an anonymous brown envelope saying, "Dear Mr. Smith, by the way, you're adopted. Congratulations." Obviously, that is not the way we want to proceed. The best way must he for the adoptive parent to give that information when he or she deems it most appropriate.
        When that does not happen, as a last resort the 18-year-old is entitled to be told that information. The state has a duty of care to ensure that the manufactured relationship of adoption is maintained in everyone's best interest. It is not a question of the state sticking its nose in. We are talking about the state monitoring something that it has created through the legal resources of the adoption process.
        The Minister and other Government Members raised practical problems about the keeping of records. The measure is not retrospective and it is not intended to be. Given all the other requirements that are being placed on adoption agencies in the Bill—keeping proper records, providing proper information for potential reunions, the adoption contact register and the need for ongoing monitoring of adoption to gauge the need for adoption support services —if an agency cannot go to the trouble of keeping track of an adoptee's 18th birthday, it is not discharging its many other responsibilities effectively.

        1015
        The issue has other serious implications. For example, adopted 18-year-olds need the information to avoid incestuous contact with siblings who may be brought up in the same area unbeknown to them. I fully appreciate the argument of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). Much better mechanisms could be used and the issue must be handled sensitively. It is up to the agencies to devise appropriate ways to impart the information. Hopefully, the knowledge that the revelation about adoption will take place at some stage around the adopted person's 18th birthday should encourage adoptive parents to give information to their adopted son or daughter in the fulness of time, at an appropriate moment of their choosing.
        In Committee, the Minister said that she was sympathetic and promised to consider the matter in more detail. Indeed, on 21 March she wrote us a useful and detailed letter, saying that she had taken the point on board and was minded to change regulations as a point of best practice to encourage prospective adoptive parents to sign a form of contract saying that they would impart the information to their children at the most appropriate time. I am encouraged by that and welcome it.
        New clause 4 is still necessary, however, because the Minister's letter and explanation gave no indication of how that process would be monitored. Also, as the letter says, no provision has been made for any legal enforcement process. That is why we are revisiting the matter in the new clause today. It is too important to leave aside. We cannot take the risk that certain adoptive parents, for whatever strange reason, will choose not to give that information to their adopted son or daughter. I am not convinced that the monitoring processes are in place. Certainly, the new recommendations lack teeth as they cannot be legally enforced.
        I am talking about a fundamental human right. If the adopted person is not informed and they find out at an inappropriate time later in life, it could have the most damaging consequences. That is what the new clause attempts to avoid.
        In this group, the Opposition have tabled three amendments and two new clauses, which are well intentioned, and which build on some of the responses that the Minister rightly made to many of the issues that we raised in Committee—I am glad that she has made some positive moves. We want to crystallise those moves and put them more clearly on the face of the Bill to send out the message that that information is an important part of the adoption process.
        Kevin Brennan: I will keep my remarks brief, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) having taken up 23 of the 44 minutes available.
        I remind the House that amendment No. 147, which I tabled, relates to something that I raised on Second Reading—and I note the conversion of the Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen who have taken up the issue and tabled amendments to the same effect. I welcome that. I hope to persuade the Government to undergo a similar conversion, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. I will also comment on Government amendments Nos. 50 and 52.
        1016
        In addition to raising the matter on Second Reading, I moved a new clause in Committee on 18 December 2001 and spoke on the Government new clause introduced in Committee on 10 January, which is now clause 59. I met the Minister in February, along with representatives of agencies, and subsequently corresponded with her on the issue. The Government's position has shifted, which I welcome, because the Bill now contains clause 59, which allows for a mechanism whereby information on adoption can be disclosed to a birth relative when someone reaches adulthood. However, that will affect only adoptions that take place after the Bill comes into effect. So the day that it comes into law, it will apply to and benefit precisely no one, and will not benefit anyone directly for many years.
        If it is right to allow people to have that opportunity in the future, why is it not right to give it to people who have been adopted before the Bill comes into effect, and their relatives? The Government have conceded that legislation can be retrospective. Indeed, that was the case in the 1970s when the original right was given to adopted persons to seek out their birth records. The Government have also conceded that contact is usually welcomed when it has occurred under current provisions.
        My amendment would mean only that people would he asked whether they wanted contact rather than having that contact forced on them. The Minister made it clear to me in meetings and discussions that the provision would divert resources and attention away from the Bill's main purpose. Today we debated one part of the Bill that will get a great deal of attention, but the aspect that I am raising—the problem with birth relatives—has not received enough attention.
        I remind my hon. Friend about Government guidelines issued by the Department of Health on intermediary services for birth relatives. In the context of Government amendments Nos. 50 and 52, is she minded to introduce regulations that would give statutory force to the good practice guidance? That would be welcome, but the intention is not clear. Although I think that that should be stipulated in the Bill, I am interested to know whether it is in part the reason for the amendments. We have to consider why we are doing something in clause 59 which, because of the nature of modern adoption, will benefit a tiny number of people in 20 years' time, rather than helping people now. If the Bill works properly, we will not need the clause for future adoptions.
        Hon. Members will know that about a year ago the National Organisation for Counselling Adoptees and Parents successfully reunited three triplets, Gillian, David and Helena. It had to go to court to do so. Yesterday it issued a press release, which will not be covered by the media because in the glare of perhaps more glamorous events, no one is interested in the issue. However, it is fundamental and serious, and the media should focus attention on it.
        The triplets were reunited because they were allowed to gain the information that they needed to find out about their identity. Mr. Justice Sumner, in his judgment on that case, said:
        "We are still faced with an urgent need to review the legislation that impedes birth relatives' opportunities for search and reunion."
        Mr. Dawson: I support every word that my hon. Friend has said. Is he aware of the work that is coming from the Registrar-General's office? In a praiseworthy attempt to

        1017
        give people privacy, it would seem to be offering the draconian prospect that in future, people who have been adopted will have a great deal more difficulty in tracing their relatives and birth families over a period of 100 years.
        6.45 pm
        Kevin Brennan: Yes, I am aware of that, and I am concerned about it. I hope, with my hon. Friend's help, to draw the matter to the Government's attention over the coming weeks and months. What is proposed would be a retrograde step.
        People have written to me from all over the United Kingdom, and all over the world. I have received letters from Australia, for example. The issue matters even if the media will not cover it. It has an impact on people's lives. We have the opportunity to end the culture of secrets and lies that has surrounded adoption over the years. This is about justice, compassion and the most fundamental thing of all—family. I hope that the Minister will be able to make some helpful remarks. I also hope that if the issue is not pressed to a vote this evening, there will be further discussion later in another place.
        Sandra Gidley: I shall greatly curtail my remarks because I do not want to repeat too much of what has already been said. I support most of the amendments, especially those that seek to provide retrospective permission. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) raised the issue in Committee. It seems wrong that someone who is adopted after the Bill is enacted will he able to obtain the information, while someone who was adopted before that will not. However, not everyone thinks in that way.
        There is a feeling that if a provision has a retrospective effect, that could be unfair on those who put up a child for adoption before enactment, because they would not have known what the long-term effect would be. Even today, there is a parallel with sperm donation. There was a proposal—I think that it came from Lady Warnock—that in future perhaps it would be beneficial if children born as a result of artificial insemination by donor knew the identity of the sperm donor.
        There are other implications, too. I have been struck by the strength of feeling of women—it usually is women, because they live longer—who want to know where they come from. It is important to them to have that information. We are talking about a last chance, and I support the amendments that would provide it.
        I am less happy with new clause 4. It is unnecessary and very much a backstop. It is well intentioned, but I would find difficulty in supporting it.
        Mr. Walter: I support the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). In an ideal world, the provisions would be unnecessary. However, we do not live in such a world. It is a fundamental right of those who have been adopted, when they reach adulthood, to know what their origins are.
        The subject came home to me vividly, as I mentioned in Committee, when I served on the Committee that considered the plight of child migrants in Australia. I am pleased that the Australian Government are now providing
        1018
        some assistance. However, the press reports seemed to be wide of the mark in terms of the number of migrants who went to Australia, which was closer to 10,000 than 3,500.
        The one thing that all those people wanted to know was where they came from; even in their 50s and 60s, they wanted to know that. Someone who has been adopted, even in the most appalling circumstances of abuse, as those children were, should have a fundamental right to know why they went through that life-shattering experience. I therefore support the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham.
        Jacqui Smith: This subject has provoked considerable debate, both in Committee and on Report, but until now there has been considerable movement by the Government in response to concerns about the disclosure of information. In the remaining ten minutes, I shall concentrate on the main issues raised this evening: information for prospective adopters, the retrospective aspects of the access to information provisions in the legislation, and people's right to know that they are adopted.
        We had a lengthy and probably futile debate in Committee about the distinction between "may" and "must". I reiterate my belief that the amendment is not necessary. I made it clear when we debated the issue that the Government intended to introduce regulations covering the provision of information for prospective adopters, and I accept the contention of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) that it is crucial to provide that information.
        I am sure that hon. Members who served on the Committee will remember that we gave a commitment to introduce regulations to ensure that information is made available at three important points. First, there should be a summary about the child at the linking stage; secondly, there should be a full matching report on the child before the matching recommendation by the adoption panel and the decision by the agency; thirdly, after time to consider the full matching report, the prospective adopters, if they wish to proceed to preparations for the placement, should be provided with a written proposal setting out its terms.
        I assure hon. Members that those regulations will oblige agencies to disclose information in prescribed circumstances, as I have spelled out. We shall therefore ensure that the current position is improved; I agree with hon. Members that it is unsatisfactory that potential adopters are not provided with the information that they need.
        On retrospection, I accept that the intention of amendments Nos. 25 and 147 is to enable someone to apply for information about a protected adult, irrespective of whether they were adopted before or after the commencement of the relevant provisions. I shall explain the Government's difficulties with those proposals, but I shall also outline the positive steps that we can take to create better opportunities for people to access information, regardless of whether the adoption took place before or after the Bill became law.
        If the legislation was retrospective there would be massive problems. In many cases, adoption agencies would be required to trace people who were adopted many years ago, and were thus difficult to trace. There would be a huge volume of potential applications; 875,000 people have been adopted since the Adoption of Children Act 1926.

        1019
        I thoroughly concur with the claim by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) that he has pressed extremely hard on that issue. He was one of the first hon. Members to raise the issue and he has been diligent in pursuing it. However, I disagree with my hon. Friend when he suggests that the Government's concern for balancing priorities for adoption agencies is wrong.
        In the context of past adoptions, I have every sympathy for the feelings of those who want to open up contact with a birth relative, but our principal policy aim, as many hon. Members have said, is to help the vulnerable and in some cases damaged children who need adoptive parents now. If the proposals were enacted, I would be concerned about the priorities of adoption agencies being shifted, and the possibility that that might draw resources away from our primary aim.
        As I said, I am sympathetic, but I do not share the view of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that changing the legislation would necessarily achieve the heartfelt aim that many people seek. There is the dilemma of raising the hopes and expectations of so many siblings and birth parents, and there would be considerable practical difficulties for agencies to face.
        Before 1984, the obligations for adoption agencies to keep and record information were not as comprehensive as they are now. Many records exist only in part and others have been lost. Many adoptions were arranged privately, and in those cases there are often very few records, other than the report about the placement, which the adoption agency may or may not hold. I would not want to hold out to people whose wish I understand, a potentially false hope that legislation will be made retrospective.
        I now come to the practical steps that we as a Government can take. Stakeholders have acknowledged that under existing regulations, adoption agencies already have wide discretion to disclose information in their records, where that is consistent with their functions. The problem is that existing practice is inconsistent, and guidance on disclosure of information has been criticised by some stakeholders as being ambiguous. In the light of those views, the Government will issue new guidance to encourage adoption agencies to take a more constructive approach to helping both birth parents and adopted people.
        There has been criticism of the adoption contact register, which provides scope to bring together adopted people and their relatives. Since the launch of the register there has been only one further attempt to promote it. I undertake to engage in more proactive and frequent promotion of the register through adoption agencies and key stakeholders, and through the media at times of public interest in adoption. We are considering ways to achieve that, and will consult adoption stakeholders.
        Hon. Members have referred to the guidance issued by the Department of Health on the role of intermediary services, which can provide sensitive support and counselling to those seeking to make contact with a relative. In August 2000 we issued guidance on the role of intermediary services, and we are actively considering how further to foster best practice among those services. Under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 we will supply funding from April 2003 for
        1020
        one leading provider to act as a national focal point for intermediary services and to offer a resource for adoption agencies.
        I hope that in the light of those comments on the difficulties of making clause 59 apply to past adoptions, and my commitment to help improve the current arrangements, hon. Members will not press their amendments.
        Finally, in Committee we discussed the right to know, and I expressed my sympathy then for the intention behind a similar amendment. I have no doubt that the adopted person should be informed of his adoption. The essential questions are who is best placed to inform the adopted person, and how and when that should happen.
        Once again, there would be considerable practical difficulties in giving an adoption agency a legal duty to trace, track down, make contact with and make arrangements to talk to all adopted people—if it were a legal duty, it would have to cover all adopted people—at the age of 18. But as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said, there are practical things that we can do to help—
        It being Seven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day] put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
        Amendment negatived.
        MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

      Clause 59

        DISCLOSING PROTECTED INFORMATION ABOUT ADULTS
        Amendment proposed: No. 25, in page 33, line 37, at end inser—
        '(7) This section shall apply to all adopted persons, whether adopted before or after the coming into force of this Act.'.—[Tim Loughton.]
        Question put, That the amendment be made:—
        The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes 252.

        Division No. 245]

        [7.1 pm

        AYES

        Allan, Richard

        (Rushcliffe)

        Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

        Collins, Tim

        Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

        Conway, Derek

        Bacon, Richard

        Curry, Rt Hon David

        Barker, Gregory

        Djanogly, Jonathan

        Baron, John

        Doughty, Sue

        Barrett, John

        Field, Mark (Cities of London)

        Beggs, Roy

        Flight, Howard

        Bellingham, Henry

        Flook, Adrian

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        Forth, Rt Hon Eric

        Boswell, Tim

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Brady, Graham

        Fox, Dr Liam

        Brazier, Julian

        Francois, Mark

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Gale, Roger

        Burns, Simon

        Gidley, Sandra

        Burt, Alistair

        Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

        Calton, Mrs Patsy

        Goodman, Paul

        Cameron, David

        Gray, James

        Cash, William

        Grayling, Chris

        Chapman, Sir Sydney

        Grieve, Dominic

        (Chipping Barnet)

        Gummer, Rt Hon John

        Chope, Christopher

        Hague, Rt Hon William

        Clappison, James

        Hammond, Philip

        Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

        Hawkins, Nick

        1021

        Hayes, John

        Pugh, Dr John

        Heald, Oliver

        Randall, John

        Heath, David

        Redwood, Rt Hon John

        Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

        Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

        Hendry, Charles

        Rendel, David

        Hoban, Mark

        Robathan, Andrew

        Holmes, Paul

        Robertson, Hugh(Faversham)

        Horam, John

        Rosindell, Andrew

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Russell, Bob (Colchester)

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

        Sanders, Adrian

        Hunter, Andrew

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Jack, Rt Hon Michael

        Selous, Andrew

        Johnson, Boris (Henley)

        Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

        Kirkbride, Miss Julie

        Simmonds, Mark

        Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

        Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

        Laing, Mrs Eleanor

        Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

        Lamb, Norman

        Soames, Nicholas

        Lensley, Andrew

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Laws, David

        Streeter, Gary

        Leigh, Edward

        Stunell, Andrew

        Liddell-Grainger, Ian

        Swayne, Desmond

        Lidington, David

        Swire, Hugo

        Llwyd, Elfyn

        Syms, Robers

        Loughton, Tim

        Taylore, John (Solihull)

        Luff, Peter

        Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

        McIntosh, Miss Anne

        Tonge, Dr Jenny

        MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

        Trend, Michael

        Maclean, Rt Hon David

        Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Viggers, Peter

        Malin, Humfrey

        Walter, Robert

        Maples, John

        Waterson, Nigel

        Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

        Watkinson, Angela

        May, Mrs Theresa

        Whittingdale, John

        Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

        Wilshire, David

        Murrison, Dr Andrew

        Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

        Norman, Archie

        Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfied)

        Osborne, George (Tatton)

        Yeo, Tim

        Ottaway, Richard

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Page, Richard

        Paice, James

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Price, Adam

        Mr. Sterphen O'Brien and

        Prisk, Mark

        Mr. Laurence Robertson.

        NOES

        Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

        Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

        Ainger, Nick

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

        Carmichael, Alistair

        Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

        Casale, Roger

        (Swansea E)

        Caton, Martin

        Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

        Challen, Colin

        Austin, John

        Chaytor, David

        Bailey, Adrian

        Clapham, Michael

        Baird, Vera

        Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

        Banks, Tony

        Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

        Barnes, Harry

        Clarke, Rt Hon Charles

        Barron, Kevin

        (Norwich S)

        Battle, John

        Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

        Bayley, Hugh

        Clelland, David

        Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

        Clwyd, Ann

        Bell, Stuart

        Coaker, Vernon

        Benn, Hilary

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Bennett, Andrew

        Cohen, Harry

        Benton, Joe

        Coleman, Iain

        Best, Harold

        Colman, Tony

        Betts, Clive

        Cooper, Yvette

        Blears, Ms Hazel

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Blizzard, Bob

        Corston, Jean

        Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

        Cousins, Jim

        Borrow, David

        Cruddas, John

        Brennan, Kevin

        Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

        Bryant, Chris

        Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

        Buck, Ms Karen

        Curits-Thomas, Mrs Claire

        Burden, Richard

        Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

        Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Cairns, David

        David, Wayne

        1022

        Davidson, Ian

        Lloyd, Tony

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Love, Andrew

        Davis, Rt Hon Terry

        McAvoy, Thomas

        (B'ham Hodge H)

        McCabe, Stephen

        Dawson, Hilton

        McCafferty, Chris

        Dean, Mrs Janet

        McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

        Dhanda, Parmjit

        MacDonald, Calum

        Dismore, Andrew

        McDonnell, John

        Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

        MacDougall, John

        Doran, Frank

        McIsaac, Shona

        Dowd, Jim

        McKechin, Ann

        Drew, David

        McKenna, Rosemary

        Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

        McNulty, Tony

        Efford, Clive

        Mactaggart, Fiona

        Ellman, Mrs Louise

        McWalter, Tony

        Ennis, Jeff

        Mahmood, Khalid

        Farrelly, Paul

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Fisher, Mark

        Mann, John

        Fitzpatrick, Jim

        Marris, Rob

        Flynn, Paul

        Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

        Follett, Barbara

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Francis, Dr Hywel

        Martlew, Eric

        Gardiner, Barry

        Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

        Gerrard, Neil

        Merron, Gillian

        Gibson, Dr Ian

        Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

        Gilroy, Linda

        Miller, Andrew

        Goggins, Paul

        Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

        Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

        Moffatt, Laura

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Mole, Chris

        Grogan, John

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        Moran, Margaret

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        Morgan, Julie

        Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

        Mountford Kali

        Hanson, David

        Mudie, George

        Healey, John

        Mullin, Chris

        Hepburn, Stephen

        Munn, Ms Meg

        Hesford, Stephen

        Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

        Heyes, David

        Naysmith, Dr Doug

        Hill, Keith

        Norris, Dan

        Hinchliffe, David

        O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

        Hodge, Margaret

        O'Hara, Edward

        Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

        O'Neill, Martin

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Palmer, Dr Nick

        Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

        Picking, Anne

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Pickthall, Colin

        Hurst, Alan

        Pike, Peter

        Hutton, Rt Hon John

        Plaskitt, James

        Iddon, Dr Brian

        Pollard, Kerry

        Illsley, Eric

        Pond, Chris

        Irranca-Davies, Huw

        Pound, Stephen

        Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Jamieson, David

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Jenkins, Brian

        Prosser, Gwyn

        Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

        Purchase, Ken

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        Purnell, James

        Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

        Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

        Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

        Quinn, Lawrie

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

        Rammell, Bill

        Joyce, Eric

        Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

        Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        Kemp, Fraser

        Rooney, Terry

        Khabra, Piara S

        Ross, Ernie

        Kidney, David

        Ryan, Joan

        King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

        Salter, Martin

        Kumar, Dr Ashok

        Sarwar, Mohammad

        Ladyman, Dr Stephen

        Savidge, Malcolm

        Lammy, David

        Sawford, Phil

        Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

        Shaw, Jonathan

        Leslie, Christopher

        Sheerman, Barry

        Levitt, Tom

        Sheridan, Jim

        Linton, Martin

        Skinner, Dennis

        1023

        Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

        Twigg, Derek (Halton)

        Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

        Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

        Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

        Tynan, Bill

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Vaz, Keith

        Soley, Clive

        Vis, Dr Rudi

        Southworth, Helen

        Walley, Ms Joan

        Starkey, Dr Phyllis

        Ward, Ms Claire

        Steinberg, Gerry

        White, Brian

        Stinchcombe, Paul

        Whitehead, Dr Alan

        Stoate, Dr Howard

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

        Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

        Stringer, Graham

        Wills, Michael

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

        Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

        Wood, Mike

        Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

        Woolas, Phil

        Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

        Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

        Tipping, Paddy

        Wright, David (Telford)

        Todd, Mark

        Wright, Tony (Cannock)

        Trickett, Jon

        Wyatt, Derek

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

        Mr. Ian Pearson and Mr. John Heppell.

        Turner, Neil (Wigan)

        Question accordingly negatived.
        Amendment made: No. 254, in page 31, line 29, leave out subsection (2).—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

      Clause 55

        RESTRICTIONS ON DISCLOSURE OF PROTECTED ETC. INFORMATION
        Amendments made: No. 49, in page 32, line 15, leave out "is necessary to" and insert—
        'the agency has obtained from the Registrar General on an application under section 77(4) and any other information which would'.
        No. 50, in page 32, line 28, at end insert—
        '(6) Regulations may authorise or require an adoption agency to disclose protected information to a person who is not an adopted person'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

      Clause 58

        DISCLOSING INFORMATION TO ADOPTED ADULT
        Amendment made: No. 51, in page 33, line 5, leave out from beginning to "unless" and insert—
        `any information which would enable him to obtain a certified copy of the record of his birth'.—(Jim Fitzpatrick.]

      Clause 59

        DISCLOSING PROTECTED INFORMATION ABOUT ADULTS
        Amendment made: No. 52, in page 33, line 37, at end insert—
        'or to a request for information which the agency is authorised or required to disclose in pursuance of regulations made by virtue of section 55(6)'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

      Clause 60

        DISCLOSING PROTECTED INFORMATION ABOUT CHILDREN
        Amendment made: No. 53, in page 34, line 33, at end insert—
        'or to a request for information which the agency is authorised or required to disclose in pursuance of regulations made by virtue of section 55(6)'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

      Clause 61

        COUNSELLING
        Amendment made: No. 301, in page 35, line 11, leave out from first "society" to "registered" in line 12 and insert—
        `an organisation within section 131(2A)(b) or an adoption society which is'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

      Clause 62

        OTHER PROVISION TO BE MADE BY REGULATIONS
        Amendments made: No. 54, in page 35, line 38, leave out "an adopted person" and insert—
        `any person (including an adopted person)'.
        No. 55, in page 35, line 40, leave out "his case" and insert—
        `the case of an adopted person specified in the request (or, as the case may be, in the applicant's case)'.
        No. 44, in page 36, line 1, after "a" insert "prescribed".
        No. 45, in page 36, line 6, after "a" insert "prescribed".—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

      Clause 63

        INTERPRETATION
        Amendments made: No. 302, in page 36, line 24, leave out from "an" to "are" in line 25 and insert "organisation within section 131(2A)(b)".
        No. 66, in page 36, line 32, leave out "(c)" and insert—
        `(2A) The power of the Scottish Ministers or of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to make regulations under section 61(2) includes power to make—

        (a) any supplementary, incidental or consequential provision,

        (b) any transitory, transitional or saving provision,

        which the person making the regulations considers necessary or expedient.
        (3)'.
        No. 67, in page 36, line 34, leave out "(d)" and insert "(4)".—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

      Clause 77

        CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE REGISTER AND BIRTH RECORDS
        Amendments made: No. 56, in page 42, line 10, leave out from "search" to "in" and insert—
        '(2A) Any such information, and any other information which would enable an adopted person to obtain a certified copy of the record of his birth, may only be disclosed by the Registrar General'.
        No. 57, in page 42, line 13, leave out "such information" and insert—
        'any information mentioned in subsection (2A)'.
        No. 58, in page 42,, leave out lines 18 and 19 and insert—
        `relating to the adopted person which is mentioned in subsection (2A)'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

      Schedule 2

        DISCLOSURE OF BIRTH RECORDS BY REGISTRAR GENERAL
        Amendments made: No. 303, in page 81, line 8, leave out from first "society" to end of line 9 and insert—
        `an organisation within section 131(2A)(b) or an adoption society which is'.
        No. 304, in page 81, line 40, leave out from first "society" to end of line 41 and insert—
        'an organisation within section 131(2A)(b) or an adoption society which is'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

      Clause 78

        ADOPTION CONTACT REGISTER
        Amendment made: No. 46. in page 43, line 23, leave out "specified" and insert "prescribed".—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
        Further consideration adjourned.—[Dan Norris.]
        Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered on Monday 20 May.

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

        PACKAGING AND PACKAGING WASTE
        That this House takes note of European Document No. 15194/01, draft Directive amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste; welcomes it as a positive step towards achieving high levels of environmental and single market protection, whilst limiting the impact upon UK business; and supports the Government's negotiating line.—[Dan Norris.]
        Question agreed to.

      BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
      Ordered,
      That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Lords Messages relating to the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill have been received.—[Dan Norris.]

  Vaccination Policy
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dan Norris.]
  7.13 pm
  Dr. Ian Gibson: Vaccines have changed the lives of children and their parents by reducing the risk of contracting crippling childhood diseases. Experience with smallpox and polio provides clear evidence of that, and shows that vaccines can be a most effective means of controlling serious infective disease in human populations. That observation is especially important in the context of the developing world where treatment of diseases such as tuberculosis, AIDS and many parasitic diseases by conventional chemotherapeutic means, when they exist, is impractical or even impossible for reasons of infrastructure and logistics. In those cases, preventive public health measures, including immunisation, must be the way to reduce the disease burden.
  The market for vaccines has, in the past, been regarded as insufficiently profitable by the larger pharmaceutical companies. In the UK, there has been a progressive contraction of conventional vaccine production since the 1980s. Vaccines were seen as low-value products. In the UK, the main producer of conventional vaccines was Evans, which is now part of Powderject. During the 1990s, there was a resurgence of interest in vaccine development and production, fuelled by the availability of recombinant DNA technology to produce clean antigens. This development has resulted in the creation of some effective vaccines for infectious diseases that are difficult to treat and have a high morbidity or mortality attached to them—hepatitis and meningitis, for example. These vaccines are regarded as high-value products. In the UK, GlaxoSmithKline is a major company player, although a number of smaller biotech-based companies are also active in this area.
  Among the most promising new developments in vaccinology is the development of "naked DNA" vaccines—a stretch of DNA from pathogens containing the genes coding key antigenic components. The idea is that when this material is injected into the skin, it is taken up by host cells, which then make the antigen in situ. This forms a depot of antigen, which provides a continuous immunological stimulus.
  A second development, pioneered by Powderject, is the formulation of the antigen-vaccine in powder form. This is introduced into the subject by means of a high-pressure air jet. This transdermal route is known to produce an immune response at least as good as the conventional, needle-based intradermal injection. It is painless, and, being in the form of a powder rather than the more conventional liquid, it is more stable in adverse conditions.
  There is a particular problem in the case of diseases such as smallpox that have been eradicated, or diseases such as anthrax that do not normally present a serious risk to human populations, but which can be used for bioterrorism. As the need for vaccines for such diseases disappeared or diminished, the incentive for maintaining a vaccine manufacturing facility for them also diminished. There has therefore been a rundown in manufacturing capacity.

  1027
  With the present bioterrorism threat, there is now concern that sufficient vaccine stocks will not be available to protect military or civilian populations. There is now only limited commercial production capacity for smallpox and anthrax vaccines. Smallpox has been eliminated, so the availability of the vaccine has become scarce. Limited stocks are held by the World Health Organisation and by some national Governments.
  As these diseases have either gone or become uncommon, the development of novel vaccines is either difficult or impossible. There are no large populations of susceptible, at-risk people in which clinical trials to prove safety and efficacy can be carried out. It would be unacceptable to carry out challenge studies on such vaccines using normal subjects. The individuals would be put at risk, and there would be a serious risk of the pathogen escaping into the general population. Such vaccines can be tested only by examining immunised subjects for the presence of certain markers of immunity.
  To meet the present threat, reliance must be placed on running up the old manufacturing methods as quickly as possible. There are few companies worldwide with the appropriate plant and expertise to hand. Powderject has been awarded the UK Government contract to produce the smallpox vaccine. However, it does not have the technology in-house, and is having to go to a Danish company—Bavarian Nordic—for the technology and supply of the vaccine. It will then have to develop the plant and methodology in-house to produce it. This will be the case for any other company or organisation that takes on such manufacture de novo.
  Acambis would appear to have been involved in smallpox vaccine production in recent years under contract to the US Government. The US vaccine is based on a different strain of organism from that used in the UK. I do not know whether the differences between the strains are significant in terms of levels of efficacy, as I am not aware of any head-to-head comparison of the two vaccines having been undertaken when smallpox was a serious health risk. Both vaccines were obviously effective, however, in providing populations with some measure of protection. I look forward to hearing from the Minister which vaccine strain has been used in Britain, and whether it was the more effective. There were several forms of TB vaccine in use in the 1950s: one form gave good protection in the UK but not in the US, and vice versa.
  The only UK capacity that I know of for the production of anthrax vaccine is at the Centre for Applied Microbiological Research at Porton Down, which has upgraded its production facilities recently. It still uses a process based on older technology, however. There might also be other research and development enterprises going on elsewhere. I would imagine that in the next few months there will be a great deal of activity, given 11 September, the anthrax outbreak and the other scares in the United States.
  The problem of large-scale production of old vaccines against defunct or rare disease organisms has been highlighted by recent events. They have provided effective bio-weapons for use by terrorist regimes, and can be produced on a large scale for such purposes as a very low-tech enterprise. The Government should take
  1028
  responsibility, and ensure that the country has the capacity to respond rapidly to such threats. It should not be left to the whim of industries, which by and large do not act as charities and will want due reward.
  Other organisms could be used by bioterrorists—for example, plague and the ebola virus, which could have a devastating effect on an unprotected population. It could, I think, be argued that the Government should establish its own vaccine production organisation, capable of ensuring effective and timely responses to biological threats.
  Vaccination has always entailed the problem of convincing the public that no risk is attached. There is no such thing as a risk-free world or technology, and when scientists and politicians stand up and imply that there is no risk, they are likely to be disbelieved. All the arguments need to be put on the table.
  Sir Paul Nurse, a recent Nobel laureate from this country, expressed his views on the politics of scientific evidence not long ago. He said that
  "there is no doubt that what the Government is saying is true on MMR and that the evidence that it's accepted and safe is very good. Like all things, and in science in particular, you can't be certain of everything and there will be a small risk. In MMR the adverse risk seems to be very, very low to almost non-existent. I think the point is that they"—
  politicians—
  "need to communicate the evidence. This is where there is a dumbing down. I think they are really frightened to talk about science because politicians come from a different background. They are not happy with it and they are used to having to deal with certainties—and science doesn't deal with certainties."
  Submitting a study to a scientific process rather than to partially informed opinion is crucial to the determination of whether a vaccine actually causes a given reaction. If undertaken carelessly or without scientific rigour the study results will be inconclusive at best, may result in the inappropriate withdrawal from use of a valuable vaccine, or at worst may result in a population's exposure to a dangerous vaccine.
  In the United States there are controversies about the safety of vaccines. The US has addressed the problem by establishing an immunisation safety review committee—a multi-disciplinary committee with members whose expertise is in epidemiology, biostatistics, paediatrics, public health, immunology, neurology, infectious disease, risk perception, genetics, ethics, health communication and other subjects.
  The committee helps to communicate to the public the state of knowledge regarding any particular immunisation safety concern. It produces reports, and has so far been able to convince the public of the uncertainties surrounding any new vaccine coming on to the market. It has recommended to the US Department of Health the creation of a panel to examine parents' perceptions of the risks and benefits to develop better communication tools to them and their doctors. I suggest to the Minister that the Government might follow that example, and address the fears of those caught in doubt or dilemma over the MMR vaccine. Such people may be worried by the unexplained rise in the number of diagnosed cases of autism, although no link has been proven scientifically.
  Where will we draw the line on vaccination policies in future? How many shots will an individual need for nations to feel protected? If we expose our immune systems to too many toxins, especially in a very short

  1029
  time span, there may be deleterious effects—as has been implied in the context of Gulf war syndrome. Given increasingly visible scientific developments, the vaccination scenario for the future may be very different from the current one. New delivery systems for vaccination shots may prove more effective by mimicking natural infection mechanisms. An example is the aerosol delivery of the measles vaccine.
  The more we know about the nature of the human genome, the more we start to realise the existence of genetic differences between individuals. That may not just translate into a susceptibility to certain illness such as cardiovascular disorders; it could indicate resistance to certain infections. The future might well hold tailor-made provisions for vaccination, with a profile-adjusted individual vaccination plan that could prevent any possible detrimental effects linked to immune reactions.
  Although individuals ask for 100 per cent. security in everything, they realise that it may not be achievable. Governments who play that card and win public confidence by covering up uncertainty and playing the "safe politics" game run great risks. The consequences of such reductionist approaches in political and social debate may yet come to haunt us. The public need to know the risks, and to feel empowered to act accordingly.
  I have tried to raise some of the issues to which the subject of vaccination gives rise. Given that biotechnology is coming on-stream at a great rate, and that many diseases are appearing in certain countries for the first time, I believe that there will be an explosion in research and development into new vaccines. It is time for a review of, for example, the relationship between global warming and the new diseases. We need to examine the new vaccines, and our approach should consider how best to protect our population further.
  7.25 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on securing this debate, and on choosing a subject that is of immense importance to the health and lives of people across the country. My hon. Friend is right to say that we should not underestimate the impact on public health of immunisation programmes such as the NHS programme. Immense improvements have been made not through treatment but through vaccination—a fact that is of worldwide significance.
  It is because of the immunisation programme that the incidence of childhood disease in this country has fallen to its lowest ever levels, greatly reducing morbidity and mortality from such diseases. In 1940, before vaccination was introduced, there were over 46.000 cases of diphtheria. Recent data show that, some 60 years later, the annual number of cases has reduced to single figures. In 1940, there were over 400,000 cases of measles, but recent data show that the rate is now less than 200 cases per year. In the same year, there were over 50,000 cases of pertussis—whooping cough—but recent data show that there are now less than 3,000 cases per year.
  In 1989, when monitoring began, there were more than 24,000 cases of rubella. The most recent figures show a rate of less than 100 cases a year. Here, the most important issue is the prevention of congenital rubella syndrome. As a result of measles, mumps and rubella
  1030
  vaccination in young children, there were no such cases in England and Wales between 1997 and 1999. Childhood vaccination has repeatedly been demonstrated as cost-effective—indeed, even cost-saving—and the World Bank has identified it as one of the most cost-effective health strategies.
  My hon. Friend is right to say that vaccination is a rapidly moving field. Recent developments in this country include the introduction of meningococcal C conjugate vaccine. Before its introduction, there was an increase in the number of notifications of, and laboratory-confirmed cases of, meningococcal disease, and a relatively greater increase in cases of disease caused by group C infection, particularly in older teenagers. In the light of that increase, the UK took a leading role in developing a new meningococcal C conjugate vaccine, and was the first country in the world to introduce it.
  In 1994, the Department of Health funded an accelerated research programme to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the new vaccine. It involved collaboration with the Public Health Laboratory Service, the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, the institute of child health, and the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research. My hon. Friend referred to that centre, and I shall discuss it later. That is an interesting example of work carried out in partnership with vaccine manufacturers such as those that he mentioned. They have the capacity to respond and to adapt, and were keen to work with the Department on developing a new programme.
  The meningitis C campaign, which was introduced to offer the vaccine to everyone under the age of 18, has been extended to include older age groups. The programme has been completed, and has had a dramatic effect on all immunised age groups, resulting in the near disappearance of meningitis C disease in people under the age of 20. The incidence of serogroup C disease in targeted age groups fell by more than 80 per cent., and the number of deaths among the under-20s decreased from 78 in 1998-99 to 11 in 2000-01. The provisional data for the last year show that we have not had a laboratory-confirmed case of meningitis C in infants under one year of age since the beginning of December last year. From July 2001 to date, there have been only five cases of meningitis C in the 15 to 17-year-old age group, whereas we saw 73 cases in the same period three years ago. Those are recent examples of the huge impact of developments in vaccination programmes. We have also seen developments in flu vaccines.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North mentioned issues for the future and the progress that needs to be made. He will know that the chief medical officer has recently published a report entitled "Getting Ahead of the Curve: A Strategy for Combating Infectious Diseases", and a key aspect of future policy is continuing to secure the benefits of safe and effective vaccines in future. Other aspects include influenza and pneumococcal vaccine; coverage in childhood immunisation programmes; the examination and introduction of new vaccines; and research and investment, including international research to develop a new vaccine against HIV.
  My hon. Friend asks what more can be done. He raised issues connected with the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research—CAMR—and what role the Government could play in ensuring strategic capacity for

  1031
  the manufacture of vaccines. It is rarely likely for it to be sensible or economic for the Government to manufacture the vaccines that we might need for a population of 50 million, with the problems of patents, property rights and licence fees. Vaccine production can be achieved most economically for markets bigger than the UK, so it is not a worthwhile use of resources for the Government to manufacture vaccines directly. However, we can work in partnership to great effect, as we have done with three vaccine manufacturers to develop the meningococcal C conjugate vaccine.
  CAMR is a special health authority, funded by the Department of Health and located alongside the Ministry of Defence establishment at Porton Down. As part of its work CAMR undertakes small-scale vaccine manufacture and research. Current work includes the manufacture of anthrax vaccine under a five-year contract for the Ministry of Defence. My hon. Friend was right to refer to the importance of such work. There was no commercial producer of that vaccine because there was only a limited demand for it and it was not considered to be commercially profitable. However, in the UK there has been a long-standing demand for that vaccine for military personnel and therefore CAMR took on its development and production, albeit on a relatively small scale, in order to meet the Ministry of Defence need.
  The vaccine was not available in the United States, but since 11 September and the anthrax releases there, substantial demand has been generated and the vaccine is now being produced commercially. Where there is a military need, which is usually a low-volume need, or a requirement for capacity to respond rapidly, there remains a need for the Government to fund research and development for vaccines. We may also need to respond, as we have in the past with anthrax, to demand for vaccines. Before 11 September, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health agreed to the establishment of a strategic response capability at CAMR, which is part of its long-term development.
  My hon. Friend raised several issues related to bioterrorism and our response to it. He will know that the planned response to any terrorist attack is co-ordinated between several Government Departments and agencies and facilitated by the civil contingency secretariat in the Cabinet Office. The Department of Health has issued guidance to regional and health authority directors covering the planning of the health service response to any deliberate release of biological and chemical agents and has issued guidance to regional directors of public health on mass decontamination and related matters. Further guidance has been issued to health authorities on the procedures to be followed in the event of the covert or overt release of smallpox, anthrax, plague, botulism or unknown biological or chemical agents.
  In October last year, the Public Health Laboratory Service also issued guidelines for action in the event of a deliberate release of smallpox. It is important that we have the right preparation and planning in place. That work is ongoing and has been part of the Department's activity for a long time.
  As part of its contingency planning since 1988, the Department has reviewed its stocks and supplies of medical countermeasures. Additional stockpiles of appropriate antibiotics and other medical countermeasures
  1032
  have been put in place, as have additional stocks of smallpox vaccine for use in the event of a bioterrorist attack.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has set out, in answers to parliamentary questions, many of the decisions taken in this connection, including the decision about the strain of vaccine. Advice about that decision was taken from across Government, especially from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. That is an important body, providing well-established independent expertise for the Department. It regularly reviews UK epidemiological evidence on disease and progress on vaccine development. It also has the important function of horizon scanning, so that priorities can be set against the assessments of disease burdens and the predicted pace of new vaccines.
  My hon. Friend referred to matters to do with communication, and the importance of providing people with accurate information. I agree that people need more information, and that they want it to be clear and comprehensible. When complex scientific matters are involved, that is often not a simple task. It is an important challenge, and we must accept that people increasingly want information in which they would not have been interested, and would not have expected, 20 or 30 years ago. That information is now very much part of current expectations of the health service.
  My hon. Friend mentioned MMR. Parents have understandably been worried about media stories over the past few months. The Department has conducted extensive research to find out parents' concerns, and to determine what sort of information they want. It is important that we answer the questions that people want to ask, and that we respond to their concerns in this area.
  Dr. Gibson: Is the uptake of the triple jab rising or falling? If it is falling, what is the likelihood that the trend might be reversed?
  Yvette Cooper: The latest figures from the PHLS show that there was a dip in the level of MMR uptake among 16-month-olds between December and March. Interestingly, however, uptake in that age group showed an increase in April. The figures are available on the PHLS website.
  It is important that we continue to respond to people's concerns about MMR. That is why we have sent out new and substantial parent packs to GP surgeries and to NHS Direct. They provide more extensive information to respond to parents' queries and questions, and give more information about scientific research.
  The packs include statements from various independent bodies, because, in matters such as this, we must not rely solely on advice from the Department's experts. We need to turn to independent bodies such as the World Health Organisation, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of General Practitioners and many other organisations in this country and around the world. They have all advised us that MMR is the safest way to immunise children against what are very serious diseases. It is important to tell people the full facts about MMR, including the views of all the independent experts, and the single jabs. They have a right to have all the information.

  1033
  Vaccination policy is difficult, especially when the immunisation programme has been successful in largely eradicating a disease. Many younger people have no experience of the diseases that we are talking about, so the huge impact of the immunisation programme can be underestimated. That applies to many programmes across the board.
  Dr. Gibson: Will the Minister say whether there has been any increase in measles outbreaks in this country since the controversy arose? She gave me the figures for the triple MMR uptake, but is there any evidence in relation to a measles epidemic?
  Yvette Cooper: There has not been a measles epidemic in this country, although there have been isolated outbreaks in various areas. The experience in Ireland is that isolated outbreaks can occur, and we need to take them seriously. The PHLS said today that the majority of parents are still having their children immunised with the MMR vaccine, but we must continue to take the issue extremely seriously and ensure that parents get the information they need.
  My hon. Friend spoke about looking to the future, whether in the areas of new technology, the human genome project or research. He is right that there are all kinds of exciting possibilities, with different technology
  1034
  and research coming to bear. There is extensive research into HIV and other diseases, but we do not know what the long-term possibilities will be. We must ensure that the system can respond rapidly to developments in technology and in progress.
  The experience of the meningitis C vaccine has been a powerful testimony to the capacity of the NHS in particular to respond rapidly to a new vaccine that is proven to be effective and have a big impact. This country was one of the first to introduce a meningitis C programme right across the childhood population. That is an immense tribute to those working in the NHS, in both primary care and schools. It is a testimony to the partnerships that the NHS has with the various companies involved and its capacity to deliver immunisation programmes. This is not simply a research or a technology issue: it is also a health service issue because, ultimately, immunisation programmes have to be delivered.
  My hon. Friend has raised a series of important points. I congratulate him again on securing this debate. This is an area in which I hope we will see further positive developments. We have had much to be thankful for, not simply over the past few years but over the past 40, 50 or 60 years.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. JOHN CUMMINGS in the Chair]

Empty Homes
[Relevant documents: Sixth Report from the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee, Session 2001–02 HC 240-I, and the Government's response thereto. Cm 5514.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Woolas]
2.30 pm
Andrew Bennett: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise the issue of empty homes. I am pleased that you are in the Chair for the start of the debate, Mr. Cummings, as you were a member of the Committee and did much work on the issue. I understand that this is a three-hour debate and that if Divisions occur in the House, injury time will be added on at the end.
I thank the members of the Committee, who worked hard on the issue, the staff who worked for the Committee and did a good job for us, and Professor Christine Whitehead, Professor Ian Cole and Brendan Nevin, who gave us a great deal of advice. Although we did not always agree with their advice, it was helpful.
I draw attention to the appendix of the report, in which hon. Members will find summaries of the letters that were sent to us. A strength of Select Committee reports is the quality of the evidence that we receive. In addition to the good evidence from organisations, we received many useful letters from individuals who stressed the hardship and upset caused by living next to empty properties.
The Select Committee identified two problems. There is a small national problem of houses that remain empty and that cause a lot of nuisance to those who live next door. We want local authorities, in particular, to tackle that problem by intervening at an early stage. People with mental health problems may be involved in some cases; at any rate, some people to whom properties are left are not quick at making decisions about them. Even one isolated property can be a nuisance if the roof is leaking, the walls are covered in graffiti and the windows are broken. We could marginally reduce the housing shortage across the country if we worked harder to bring those properties back into use.
The fundamental problem, however, is the one on which we spent most of our time. It occurs across a large swathe of northern England, where the housing market has collapsed or is weak. Some 250,000 houses across the line of the M62 cannot be sold or are difficult to sell, and many more houses are in that situation in the north of England. The number of people who have attended today's debate shows what a major problem there is in many northern constituencies.
I stress, especially for the benefit of civil servants and the London media, that many of those homes would be attractive to buyers if they were in other parts of the
314WH
country. We have seen examples of houses on which more than £70,000 had recently been spent but which could not he sold. In places such as Bootle and north Manchester, there are houses that do not sell for £25,000, when they would sell for five times that amount in other parts of northern England and for 10 times that amount in the London suburbs. Therefore, we are not talking about properties that are past their useful life but about those for which there is no demand, even though they are often in good condition.
In Burnley, for example, we saw small terraced properties. In other parts of the country-certainly in some villages-people have knocked two or three small terraced properties together to make one house, which would have been worth a substantial amount. Some houses in Burnley are well-built stone properties, but there is no demand for them.
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is here to reply to the debate. I want to get across to him the fact that housing failure can occur very quickly. My constituency is in Greater Manchester, and during the Committee's inquiry, my attention was drawn across the border to a street of about 30 houses in the constituency of Manchester, Gorton. People there were very pleased when, just before Christmas, one of those houses sold for £25,000.
Around that time, two people on the street died, but their houses did not go on to the market. A solicitor who did not know the area very well advised those responsible to let the properties rather than put them up for sale. Someone who turned out to have been a drug dealer went into one of the properties, while someone who had been chased out of council housing because their children had caused great nuisance went into the other. Suddenly, residents found that there was a drug dealer and a person with four unruly children aged between eight and 12 on the street.
The immediate impact was that other people on the street put their houses up for sale. Three houses ended up with "for sale" notices outside them, but the owners discovered that they could not sell them. Fortunately, the police managed to deal with the drug dealer, because of his past performance, and he has disappeared from the scene. Furthermore, as a result of some very good work by social workers and the schools in the area, which are exceptional, those unruly children are now behaving pretty well. The perception remains, however, that it is not a good street on which to buy a house, and those three individuals have failed to sell their properties. All that happened in a very short time. The market can go down very quickly, and it is extremely difficult to build confidence back up.
One or two people have put it to me that part of the problem in northern constituencies is ethnic. I want to make it absolutely clear that there is no evidence for that. Indeed, we should put it firmly on the record that ethnic minorities have often helped the housing market to remain buoyant for much longer than it otherwise would have done. People from different ethnic groups who move into an area in no way damage the housing market—the opposite is true.
Several Government Whips and members of the Government are from the area, including my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley

315WH
(Mr. Stringer), and they are particularly concerned about the problem. As another local Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), has said, the Ritchie report discussed the ethnic issues and the problems in Oldham, but some of its recommendations on housing have not been implemented. I should stress that the failure to implement recommendations in the areas where there was difficulty last summer will make matters worse. Like my hon. Friend, I hope that the Ritchie recommendations can be introduced.
There is a bit of a problem in some areas with placing asylum seekers. The local authorities are doing a good job, but one or two of those in the private sector who make provision for asylum seekers are exploiting the situation. They are putting people into houses that are hard to let and not giving them support in the community. That is making the situation worse. I should stress to the Government that we need a bit more help if we are to deal with the problem. We must ensure that there is support for people who are put into areas of housing weakness, and that the local community is not simply left to cope.
The main exploiters are some private landlords, and there is considerable evidence that they deliberately drive prices down in some areas. For instance, if a house is hard to sell, the estate agent may say to the owners, "Look, we are trying to sell your house but we have had only a few inquiries. Why not bring the price down significantly?" Once the price has been dropped, the agent will find someone to buy the property—usually a property investor from outside the area. In such cases, the estate agent will often say to the investor that he will manage the property and make sure that it is let. At that point, the person managing the property may be tempted to put in tenants who have fairly low standards. The result of that will be that the rest of the properties in the street begin to go down in value. Normally, people who buy properties are interested in pushing the prices up-their own and those of their neighbours.
Dr. Brian Iddon: Does my hon. Friend agree that another way in which prices are driven down in such areas is when owners or their representatives take the houses to auction? That really does drive down prices.
Andrew Bennett: Yes, I understand that particular variation. However, I want to put across the fact that, although property owners normally want to push prices up, in some areas they are tempted to push them down. Their intention is quickly to get back the capital that was invested through housing benefit payments. They are then left not with a property but with a plot of land. It is the value of the land in which such people are interested.
I have said enough about the problems. I realise that other hon. Members want to speak, so I now turn to the solutions. The Committee's report found out a lot, and we are grateful that the Government's response to it deals with some of the possible solutions. Their response was a little slow, although I welcome today's announcement. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will tell us a little more about how they are getting a move on.
316WH
The most important thing is to put a floor in the market in some areas. Local authorities ought to consider designating certain areas, and saying to potential purchasers, "If you buy a house in this area for a reasonable price, we could guarantee it and buy it back if necessary." Doing that would put confidence back into the area, and many of those properties would be occupied. It is crazy that prices in some places on the south side of Manchester should be under continual pressure to rise while in some parts of the north side of Manchester they are collapsing.
It is important that private landlords should be registered. If they then want to get housing benefit, we could enforce certain standards. We have done work on improving compulsory purchase orders—CPOs—and local authorities must get to work on the new regulations. However, we need speedier powers for imposing CPOs. We need to look soon at the question of whether authorities should be able to purchase properties compulsorily to lease them.
Although we have some knowledge of the housing market renewal fund— I will come back to that—we want more detailed information about it. We must also look hard at what the Housing Corporation is doing. It is not doing enough to regulate the housing associations. Indeed, an imminent crisis faces those housing associations that have extensive property holdings. So far, the Housing Corporation has been able to persuade the bigger housing associations to take over the smaller ones that are in difficulty, but it is important that the market does not crash, otherwise the concept of housing being a safe investment will be destroyed.
Then there is the much bigger issue of equity across the country. It is tragic that we have a housing shortage in parts of London and the south-east while so many good houses are going to waste in northern parts of the country. We should be working hard to try to resolve some of those difficulties, because many of those houses are attractive. One or two local authorities have tried schemes. Huddersfield was in the news recently for trying to attract people to move from the south to council properties in the north. I am not sure that it has met with much success. However, retired people living in the south, who have houses worth £250,000, can find houses for a tenth of that price in some of the constituencies that are represented in the Chamber. If those retired people move to the north-west, they will have as good a quality of life and realise a considerable capital income to make their old age that bit more comfortable.
Ms Oona King: That is a good way to deal with the regional imbalance in housing, but does my hon. Friend agree that it will work only if there is economic growth in the north of England and if the regional development agencies are not used to play one area off against another? People must have somewhere to go and work to do when they get there.
Andrew Bennett: I accept the argument about work and I also accept that few people move house once they pass 40. However, if one has passed the age of searching for jobs, there is some very attractive housing in the north of England. There are also attractive houses in areas of market failure in some south-coast seaside resorts. I understand why someone may not be

317WH
too keen to move from a London suburb to some parts of the north-west, because they do not know how attractive it is there, but most people from the London suburbs have some idea of what it is like in places such as Hastings, so it might be possible to encourage people to move there.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) that the main concern is to achieve a fairer distribution of jobs and more equity for those parts of the north of England where the housing is waiting for people if jobs can be created. The Select Committee will listen carefully to the Secretary of State's remarks, but we will want to return to the estimates. I certainly hope that, by the autumn, the issue of the pathfinder projects will be clear, that there will be more money from the spending round and that all those who are currently suffering from market failure will begin to feel that the Government are doing something about the problem.
2.46 pm
Sir Paul Beresford: I echo the thanks expressed by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), the Chairman of the Select Committee, to its members for co-operating with each other in their discussions. There is a lesson there that those outside the House fail to understand, especially in relation to Prime Minister's questions. I also echo his thanks to the staff and our advisers. As he said, we always listen to our advisers, although whether we follow their advice is another question.
I feel slightly guilty about taking part in today's debate because, although I am a member of the Select Committee, I had no part in producing the report or in any of the Committee's investigations. However, I feel a little less guilty for two reasons. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) attended all the investigation days and took part in the Committee's discussions and the assembly of the report. Secondly, although it was not mentioned by the Chairman of the Select Committee, I regard the report as only one of several key reports to be published. Perhaps the Secretary of State also recognises that and will respond to those future reports, rather than looking for friends, which I thought he might be doing by now. That would be encouraging. because the problem is not isolated to a few areas, as some of the interventions that we have heard suggested.
The report is short— almost a snapshot—but it puts into perspective the difficulties in the north and northeast. Of course, we must recognise that the situation in the south-east is entirely different, but I regard the two as interrelated. A microcosm of the problem existed in London some 20 years ago, although the situation there has changed dramatically. There were terrible problems in some parts of London, w here prices were rising and people who had sold up and moved out could not afford to move back. I shall not mention names or areas just yet, but I might be tempted if I am goaded.
The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Stephen Byers): Go on.
Sir Paul Beresford: Only if I am goaded.
There were areas of deep deprivation, which might explain why the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), who I anticipated would reply to the debate, has not turned up. That could be connected with the fact that she was a leading local authority chairman in a key area that suffered some of those difficulties.
The report addressed two contrasting scenarios. The first concerned relatively isolated, almost individual homes— we still find this in London, where there is a healthier housing market—and the destructive effect that individual failure can have, particularly if the property is rented and the housing association or local authority is not prepared to deal with the problem.
The other, which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish did not touch on, harks back to the past but still persists: some local authorities and housing associations that are large landlords are utterly incompetent. There are classic examples of that north of the border. Glasgow, which has been a disaster area for decades, is setting up a housing association. It will be intriguing to find out whether it will be able to deal with the situation. One frequent cause of problems is that the bigger a landlord's stock, the less able it seems to be to deal with problems. The Glasgow area should have been broken down drastically, if only to allow comparisons to be made between the approaches in different areas.
The second and more tragic issue that the Chairman of the Select Committee touched on is the collapsing housing market. It could be spelled out no better than in the dramatic line on page 5 of the report:
"The rows of abandoned terraces, the broken windows and the burned out houses were shocking."
That is not understood by many people in the southeast. The north-south divide can be illustrated no more dramatically than by considering my constituency in the south-east where there is exceptionally low unemployment, astronomically rising house prices and a high demand for housing. Looking north, we find a total contrast. The trouble is that demand in the southeast is such that the response of the Secretary of State's predecessor to local authorities that sought low-cost home ownership was to ram the figures in, with the result that our green belts and green fields are disappearing. It is clear that, in time, forcing that type of property into an area will fuel the market rather than stabilise it.
The Sub-Committee made three main recommendations and I intend to restrict myself to those. I am not being sarcastic, but to use a favourite phrase of the Chairman of the Select Committee, there is a touch of motherhood and apple pie in the statement of recommended aims. Beneath them, perhaps taking a little crust off the apple pie, are the sub-recommendations.
I was disappointed by the Government's response to the three recommendations. The Chairman was polite; he said that it was a little slow but he hoped that the Government would push forward. Perhaps that was cream on his apple pie. However, when we actually consider what the Government said, it is a case of "Not me, Guy". We have heard phrases such as pathfinder schemes, tools and stakeholders and a range of

319WH
announcements on such matters as "lessons to be learned". It is all good spin-doctor stuff. However, the reality is, as we have found with some of the Sub-Committee's other investigations, that nothing is happening. The true statement in the response is the one that says
"The wholesale collapse of housing markets is relatively recent in origin."
That is correct, and it has got markedly worse since 1997. The Sub-Committee did not really face it, but the basic underlying problem— the Chairman touched on it and so did one of the interventions—is the economic and geographical imbalance in the country. We need to see the report balanced against the severe difficulties of the south-east, where we do not have the right homes because property prices are going through the roof. We would like to keep our green belt and green fields. I admire the fact that, to a degree, we have farmers rather than golfing establishments. I do not want the area to be built on, and nor do any of my constituents. We face a conundrum, and the situation is the complete reverse of that in the north. It is in the hands of the Government who must deal with it.
In the early to mid-1990s, the Labour party in opposition made much propaganda out of the recession. As we came out of the recession, however, the Conservative Government made great efforts to stimulate the economy in the north and check the overheating in the south-east. The main engine was not piles of taxpayer's money, local authority efforts or volumes of regulation, but the close co-operation between central and local government and the private sector. I am thinking of English Partnerships, challenge funding, the single regeneration budget and, most of all, firm and careful use of the planning system.
Overarching all that must be joined-up government, which is a difficult phrase. The Government have said a lot about joined-up government, but there is little evidence of it.
Mr. David Drew: I am sure that all hon. Members present will agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. However, it is wrong to pretend that empty housing is only an urban problem. The problem of houses in rural areas being kept empty is a direct result of the planning system, which may encourage people to make two cottages into one and keep them empty in the meantime. Clearly, the planning system should diversify to ensure that the housing is used. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Sir Paul Beresford: To a large degree, I do. One solution must be the planning system. The investigation into the planning Green Paper may be a vehicle on which the Sub-Committee can move. It is not the whole answer, but part of it.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has huge knowledge of the subject. The Government are reversing the joined-up government and the success of urban regeneration that took place under the Conservatives. Does he agree that there are too many schemes and budgets? No one knows what
320WH
they are, so they are underspent and not effective. The system must be simplified to get urban regeneration going in the north, which will stimulate the economy and reduce the number of empty homes.
Sir Paul Beresford: I was about to thank my hon. Friend, but he has given voice to my next set of thoughts. I was going to say that the approach of the Conservative Government at their tail end was dramatically successful. I got an indication of that in a simple way shortly after the 1997 election, when I checked with a spokesman from the Council of Mortgage Lenders. Although he did not have the figures—he promised to produce them, but did not-he confirmed that lending on mortgages was declining to a remarkable degree in the south-east, but rising in the north, especially the north-east. Our Chairman would have been quite pleased with that, although he has escaped us now. Since 1997, that has completely reversed.
Over and above all the factors that the Chairman mentioned, the key must be to build confidence. We must beat street crime, as we did in London in the 1980s. We need to offset the decline in manufacturing, which comes back to the Treasury and the high pound. We must beat education difficulties. People will not move to areas unless they have jobs, decent education and a crime level that is low, or that people at least feel is low.
We should consider the Sub-Committee's third recommendation, which is probably the most important. It reads:
"The planning guidance on the re-use of existing brownfield sites contained in PPG3 must be forcefully implemented locally and regionally with a far more radical curb on greenfield development."
Since then, there have been a few words from the Government, but the reality is that they are not implementing that guidance. They are not helping in the north and are being restrictive in the south, especially in the south-east.
The recommendation does not apply to housing alone. It must also apply to businesses, because they provide jobs and opportunities, and to quality housing that goes with the businesses that could move into brownfield sites. Quality housing attracts executives to an area and ensures that businesses will move in and provide jobs for the people who will bring those dilapidated houses back into use. That requires cooperation between the private sector and local authorities.
Ms Oona King: The key point is that if people in the south-east do not want their green belt built on, it is in their interest to ensure that more jobs and infrastructure projects go up north. We must not continue to hog projects such as the national stadium and anything else we can get our hands on.
Sir Paul Beresford: I must congratulate the hon. Lady. I had not quite got to the sporting aspect, but she has succeeded in doing so nicely. From the smile on her face it would seem that it is a score that she wanted to make. I will let her have her moment.
The Government response, particularly to that recommendation, was pretty knock-kneed. They mouth platitudes while in reality the previous Secretary of

321WH
State—I hope that this one will not do the same— hammered the south-east with extra building requirements. I do not know where the new buildings will go— the struggle is enormous. As the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) said, we need to use jobs to persuade people to move north.
The Committee's first and second recommendations of the primary three are also correct. Several local authority areas in London have proved that to be the case. In the late 1970s, whole blocks of south London were designated as slums. In my own area of London at the time, the aim was to bulldoze those slums having shifted the residents out and accommodated them elsewhere. The former local authority took 10 years to move several hundred people into alternative accommodation. It then bulldozed the old accommodation and built what I suspect are the slums of tomorrow. The net gain was six fewer houses, an enormously dissatisfied population and a 10-year wait.
I found that the key was to try to work with people in their homes, with housing associations and with the private sector. The local authority acted as a catalyst and spent much less money by acting solely in that capacity. The most obvious, broad success was achieved through demolition in some areas, but predominantly by enveloping—wind and waterproofing. That gave the residents an opportunity to work on those properties because the initial work had made them structurally sound.
Where residents were elderly or unable to pay the substantial costs, even with the grants available, the cost of the process was set against the property, to be collected at a later date, often when the elderly people died and the property passed on. The intriguing part of the process was that as the work continued the value of properties in the area rose dramatically. The net effect was a big financial gain for the residents or those who inherited or sold the property after the work had been completed.
To my amusement, the Housing Corporation, on which the Chairman of the Select Committee touched, has discovered this as a new idea. It is not. It has been done by local authorities of all political complexions up and down the country. It is done with people in their own homes. Perhaps the most dramatic and intriguing change in my area was the number of branches of stores such B&Q and Wickes that suddenly sprang up to meet demand. That proved that the measures were working.
Mr. Clive Betts: I am listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman and I agree with much of what he has said. Birmingham city council was one of the first authorities in the country to develop enveloping schemes in the 1980s, and Sheffield followed closely afterwards. However, the Tory Government of the 1990s, to whom he was paying tribute a few moments ago, changed the rules on enveloping so that grants were no longer available to continue the schemes. The gap in the 1990s when nothing could be done is one of our greatest problems. Does the hon. Gentleman take some responsibility for that?
Sir Paul Beresford: No, because my local authority used the opportunities for gaining capital receipts to find a way around that and provide the grants directly from
322WH
internal funding. We did not experience difficulties because of Government decisions. We aimed to use capital receipts rather than extensive loans, the use of which I suspect caused Sheffield some difficulty.
The other key factor was the use of the private sector in partnership with local authorities. As many hon. Members will recognise, the Government are referring to planning tariffs and, as the Minister of State recently told the Select Committee, discussing the EU regeneration grant system, which is slowly collapsing or not even working. They have demolished English Partnerships. Everything seems to be spiralling downwards while the north, especially the north-east, is collapsing and the south is being concreted over. I suggested in desperation that the Minister of State had clear signs of the Nero syndrome: he was talking while everything around us collapsed.
As I said, the report should not be considered in isolation. Further reports are to come, which I hope will involve other aspects, until the full, interrelated picture can be seen.
It is not a happy scene for the Government. I am sure that the Minister will be tempted to repeat the "18 years" mantra, but the situation has declined dramatically in the north and north-east since 1997. As the Chairman of the Select Committee pointed out, unless something is done quickly, in some areas, the spread will resemble an unpleasant cancer.
3.6 pm
David Wright: I am shocked by your generosity, Mr. Griffiths, in calling me to speak so early in the debate. I expected a long wait.
I welcome the Committee's report on this complicated and critical issue. It helps move housing up the political agenda. For far too long housing has been in the doldrums of the political agenda in this country, and it is time that it moved up. I agree with the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) that the matter is linked to other factors relating to education, welfare and social indicators that make areas sustainable. Housing is crucial. It touches everyone's lives and is extremely important. I shall focus on two aspects—there is an obvious split between public sector and private sector housing—and will draw some of those themes together in conclusion.
Our policy in the local authority and registered social landlord sector in the post-war period has been one of never-ending growth—excluding, of course, the right to buy, which has shaken out properties from the social housing sector. There has been a continuing commitment to providing increasingly more units. We must accept that in some areas that process has been largely unsustainable.
Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman refers to the right to buy and says that otherwise the provision of housing has been steadily growing. Does he recognise that in the past five years the provision of social housing in this country has fallen dramatically? That is one reason why we are suffering key-worker housing shortages in the south of England.
David Wright: I would have some sympathy with that argument if the hon. Gentleman were not from a party

323WH
that has pursued a policy of aggressive disposals in London during the past 20 years, selling off properties cheaply. He now complains about the social housing market throughout the country, including London. He needs to look more closely at the policies followed by the Government he supported in the 1980s.
Glenda Jackson: In 1979, when the Conservative Government came to power, London boroughs were building an average of 1,300 homes every year. In 1997, when the Conservatives were finally kicked out, only one house in the entire Greater London area had been built by a London borough.
David Wright: I thank my hon. Friend for those figures, which I believe are mirrored throughout the country. The Conservatives do not have much to say or be proud of in relation to social housing.
Chris Grayling: We must not allow ourselves to be too diverted down that track. The Conservative Government created an entirely new sector of registered social landlords—the housing associations that form the bulk of the affordable housing sector. There was considerable investment in the early 1990s. Since 1997, investment in social housing has fallen significantly, and that statistical information is admitted by the Government.
David Wright: I find it strange that the hon. Gentleman wishes to claim credit for the registered social landlords movement. Its base was rather broader than the construct of his party. It was born of the voluntary sector and of those who wanted to provide housing for people in need. He cannot claim credit on behalf of his party for establishing that movement.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in The Observer on 28 April 2002, Ben Summerskill wrote:
"Just 162,000 new homes were built in 2000-01. This figure is the lowest in any year since 1927 except the war years"?
That is under the Government who the hon. Gentleman claims have built more social housing units.
David Wright: I want to develop my argument further. I was trying to explain that, since the second world war, the provision of social housing units has increased. That trend of growth has proved to be unsustainable in some areas, because we are now seeing a decline in demand. My main point is that a "one size fits all" housing policy is no longer appropriate. For too long, our housing policy has been based on the ongoing and increasing demand for social housing in the southeast of England, and that no longer fits all areas of the country. It is time to acknowledge that fact, and we have begun to develop housing strategies that are more regionally distinct.
Some of the policies pursued by Opposition Members when in government during the 1980s exacerbated the problems on social housing estates. For example, they introduced a programme called estate action. It was founded on good principles and objectives, such as
324WH
trying to improve social housing estates that were falling into decline. However, many of those estates were unsustainable in the long term. In fact, some of the worst estates were saved, when a more radical approach of clearance and redevelopment would have provided quality new housing on a mixed-tenure basis. Several policies pursued by Opposition Members during the 1980s and 1990s created some of the sink estates and, consequently, some of the problems that we now see throughout the country.
Chris Grayling: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; this will be my last intervention on him. As part of the investigation, we visited the Hulme estate and the Ordsall flats in Salford. Both received investment and precisely fitted the picture described by the hon. Gentleman. The case of Hulme, in particular, is striking. It was an early 1990s initiative and was the model of the way that things should be.
David Wright: I am happy to give credit to the Labour council that was involved in setting up that initiative. My point was that, in many cases, estate action-the platform for the Government's policy during the 1980s—was unsophisticated. We need to take a more sophisticated approach and develop distinct, focused, regional and sub-regional strategies for dealing with the issues surrounding housing demand and empty homes.
We have already heard this afternoon about the cycle of decline that occurs in areas where one or two properties become empty. In my constituency, one of the key signs is a decline in owner-occupation. The private rented sector moves in, purchasing large numbers of properties, but makes insufficient investment for repairs. As a result, such areas fall into decline and malaise. We need to look in a more sophisticated way at how the private sector is operating because, often, small landlords buy up one or two properties but fail to maintain them adequately. We are only now beginning seriously to take demand factors into account in developing our housing strategies.
While I am concentrating on local authorities and RSLs, I should say that a major issue that is not highlighted in the report is the impact that empty properties can have on the sustainability of stock transfer vehicles. If we allow empty properties in towns and cities in the north of England and the midlands to go unchecked, the financial models that have been established for stock transfer vehicles will start to founder. I want the Secretary of State to explain how we could deal with that problem. This is not a party issue; for some time, both parties when in government have addressed the matter of stock transfer. There is a serious issue to do with long-term demand and its impact on transfer vehicles.
Many local authorities are starting to adopt comprehensive clearance strategies. When I worked for Sandwell metropolitan borough council, I was known as Demolition Dave because I believe that we must often accept that certain areas of property are beyond saving, and that they must be cleared and replaced with mixed-tenure developments. There is no political divide over that either. We need to diversify the tenure base in many estates and areas, and local authorities should take public sector clearance far more seriously.

325WH
I turn to private sector housing. For several years, our national strategy on private sector renewal has been extremely weak—for instance, it was very poor during the 1990s. The mandatory grant regime meant that many local authority housing budgets collapsed, and we are seeing significant abandonment in private sector areas. Substantial clearance is now on the agenda again for abandoned areas of private sector housing, and we should not shy away from that. We must ensure that redevelopment strategies are implemented effectively.
The report identifies another important issue: the lack of skills in compulsory purchase order activity in the UK. Few local authorities have pursued CPO activity in recent years, and that has led to a loss of that skills base in the local authority sector. We must try to reinvigorate it, so that CPO activity becomes more effective and rapid.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most serious problems in the housing sector is the decline in skills in many local authority planning departments, and that the Government must urgently address that?
David Wright: I do not agree that there has been a decline of skills in those planning departments. My point is about cross-departmental working, especially with regard to CPOs. CPO activity is a technical process, and many local authorities have shied away from such orders for several years. They can be an effective tool, and time and effort must be invested-probably at national level—to reinvigorate that skills base.
We need to develop regionally and sub-regionally distinct housing strategies. This is not just a north-south issue. We need a sophisticated policy approach to deal with the problems in the south-east, but we need to look at the other regions too, because they may also have distinct problems that require specific solutions. Intervention strategies need to be based on a comprehensive market analysis. Some of the work that has been done in servicing the Committee-such as that by the Centre for Urban and Regional Studies-was pioneering, and it should he applied throughout the country.
The Government's policy of housing market renewal is crucial, and we must support it. In many areas, we are beginning to make strides towards creating an integrated public and private sector strategy, under the banner of housing market renewal. That needs to be tenure-blind, but it must develop distinct strategies to deal with both public and private sector housing.
Concentrating resources in the most deprived neighbourhoods could lead to areas at risk being ignored. In some urban areas, we may need to write off certain neighbourhoods because they have gone too far to be able to come out of the cycle of decline, and to re-deploy resources in areas that are just beginning to slip into disrepair. That will be difficult for many local authorities—and for many communities. However, we must bite the bullet and adopt that approach—and so must they. Taking the approach that all areas can be saved through refurbishment can no longer be applied, as it no longer fits the agenda. We must be brave enough to take such decisions.
326WH
We also need to reintroduce housing investment into other major programmes. One weakness of initiatives such as the new deal for communities and the single regeneration budget has been insufficient emphasis on housing investment. During the past four or five years, I have been involved in bids for such funds in which we were told not to include housing investment. I do not find it pleasing to say that, but it is a fact. We must acknowledge that housing investment can be the cornerstone of ensuring that areas may recover.
Comprehensive regional clearance and redevelopment strategies are important. At present, housing corporations and Government offices produce regional housing statements, but we need local authorities and private sector partners to sign up to those formally and to integrate them with regional planning guidance. There is too great a gulf between our approaches to housing targets and to planning. We must get local authorities to sign up formally to figures and to explain clearly in their local plans and responses to planning guidance how they intend to meet demand and clear and replace empty homes.
We must ensure that registered social landlords review their business plans in respect of empty homes. We will experience a major problem unless we secure recognition that decline of the housing market might destroy the stock transfer vehicles that we have established.
3.20 pm
Andrew Selous: It is a great pleasure to participate in the debate. I became active in politics in the first place because the London borough in which I lived contained more empty council houses than homeless people. I made my maiden speech on Second Reading of the Homelessness Bill, and I was proud to serve on the Standing Committee that considered it with several hon. Members who are present today.
My constituency experience is the reverse of the northern Members present, and is more in line with that of my hon. Friends who have spoken. The overwhelming problems that are brought to my constituency surgeries week by week are faced by homeless young couples who want a first home or by families who are inadequately housed. Examples of such families are those with children who are ready to move out of a cot and into a bed for which there is no space in their room, or those with children who have bedrooms that are so small that there is room for a bed but not a wardrobe. South Bedfordshire district council, which is my local housing authority, manages its housing stock efficiently but is unable to meet the huge demand that is presented by the constituents who visit my surgery week by week.
I am extremely interested in empty properties in my constituency because anything that we can do to increase the supply of houses in my constituency—and, I suspect, in most English constituencies more or less south of Birmingham— would be welcome. I pay tribute
to the two recommendations in the Select Committee report that suggest that action be taken on that matter. At the moment, the best value performance indicator for local authorities measures only the number of private sector houses that have been empty for six months. The report recommends that the measurement should be extended throughout all housing sector tenures.
3.23 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
3.38 pm
On resuming—
Andrew Selous: I very much support the second proposal in the Select Committee report; local authorities should initiate an immediate review if more than 2 per cent. of their housing stock is vacant. That recommendation is along the lines of an amendment to the Homelessness Bill tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) who is also present this afternoon. The amendment was supported by all members of the official Opposition on the Standing Committee and by all Liberal Democrat members present, but was sadly lost by a single vote-by eight votes to seven—which was a great shame.
The amendment would have required local authorities to make specific reference to the nature and extent of empty housing and vacant property in their districts. Local authorities would also have had to produce a target for the reuse of such properties and a strategy to achieve that target. It is a pity that the amendment was not agreed to, especially as the Empty Homes Agency estimates that more than half of all local authorities have no credible or effective empty property strategy. It is a matter of great regret that the amendment was not accepted.
I warmly endorse the third major recommendation of the report; that more impetus should be given to PPG3, which supports giving more urgent attention to building properties on brownfield sites. That is especially relevant to my constituency, all of which falls within a green belt. I welcome the provisions in the 2001 Budget to increase the measures used to turn flats over shops into residential properties. That is a huge untapped source; it could make a real difference to constituencies such as mine by increasing the supply of properties.
So far this afternoon, we have considered the supply side of the equation. I should like to dwell briefly on demand. The Department commissioned a report in 1990 entitled "Divorce, Remarriage and Housing: The Effects of Divorce, Remarriage, Separation and the Formation of New Couple Households on the Number of Separate Households and Housing Demand and Conditions". The report estimated that roughly 70,000 extra properties are required a year as a result of various forms of family breakdown. I should be interested to know whether the Department has commissioned further research on the subject to update that report, and what further recommendations Ministers think should flow from that.
On the subject of young homeless people, 86 per cent. of young people leaving home do so because of conflict with step-parents, or when their families fall apart. That is relevant to what we are talking about because the question is one of both supply and demand. I urge the Secretary of State to consider that in his future policies.
3.42 pm
Mr. Peter Pike: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak about the Select Committee report, which I welcome, along with its detailed recommendations.
328WH
In many ways, this is the most important debate in which I have taken part in my 19 years in the House, because the issue is of great importance to my constituency. However, I accept that Burnley is not unique; other areas have problems with empty houses. I recognise that there is a problem across east Lancashire, and I support the work undertaken by East Lancashire Partnership in putting forward a bid for housing renewal. I hope that hon. Members will understand if I make Burnley my main theme. We have the biggest problem of any borough in the country. Out of 40,000 houses, 4.000— 10 per cent. of the housing stock— are empty at present.
Burnley has several other problems, which have been given a lot of publicity in recent weeks, but this issue is of great importance, too. Burnley's number one core problem relates to empty houses and all the problems that go with it—dereliction, vandalism, drug addicts, the lowering of the lower end of the housing market, and many others.
The Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), referred to two issues on which I would like to touch. One was the rented properties issue. He spoke about a registration scheme, which I strongly support. People across Burnley would recognise that there are major problems with landlords who do not live in the area. They buy properties at a low value and let them knowing that, in most cases, the rent will be paid because of people receiving housing benefit. They are not bothered about who they put in the houses and what problems those people bring to other residents in the area. Such landlords cause the problems to which my hon. Friend referred. A registration scheme to ensure certain minimum standards for such tenancies is important, as is the type of property that is provided in return for the rent.
My hon. Friend referred to the ethnic issue in Oldham. That has been cited as a problem in Burnley; it was certainly used in the election campaign last year and in the council elections this year. Particular reference was made to an alleged preference for certain areas. The accusation was that the council had given more resources to Daneshouse ward, which has a majority of Asian people. It is 40 to 60 per cent. white people, but sometimes people believe that it is 100 per cent. Asian. The reason why that area has received a large amount of resources is because it is the eighth most deprived ward in England. It would be spent on that ward, regardless of who lived in it. Such accusations about preferences are appalling.
It is not true to say that we have not spent resources in other parts of the town. Massive investment has been made throughout the town, but misinformation has been put out as fact and, unfortunately, people tend to believe it. Two years ago, Burnley had a housing stock transfer. The Government wiped off £23 million of residual debt. That allowed the transfer to take place, because the properties were not worth the money that was owed on them. The decline in the value of housing in the area has allowed Burnley and Padiham Community Housing to invest in the properties. We are grateful to the Government for their action because they have now allowed the council to concentrate on the private sector problem.

329WH
I was glad that members of the Select Committee came to Burnley. I attended the briefing at Turf Moor. Members toured some of the key difficult areas in the town. I know from comments that were made to me by both Labour and Opposition Members that they were visibly shaken by what they saw. Other areas in the town would have shaken them just as much. I am not criticising them. I have been a member of Select Committees and I know that time is limited, but they only saw a snapshot of the town.
On page 67 of the report, paragraph 4.1 describes what was said at the briefing meeting. It states:
"In Burnley, we heard that aspirations had changed and that people wanted more space and higher quality housing than the existing pre-1919 stock."
That is true. It must be understood that many people do not want to live in that type of terraced housing. About 20 or 30 years ago, we would have been happy to go on holiday, stay in a boarding house with a toilet at the end of the corridor and a shared bathroom. In 2002, such accommodation is not acceptable. People's housing aspirations have moved on. A terraced house might be decent, but with another terrace in front of it and one behind, little sunlight can get in, and that makes such housing no longer desirable.
The council is worried about the loss of single regeneration budget funding that, until now, has allowed councils to work in areas of private sector housing. The North West Development Agency told the council that its priorities have been shifted by central Government and that it will no longer be able to make funding available for that purpose. That is extremely worrying. The agency said:
"Where demolition is proposed there is an additional problem as local residents are frequently trapped in negative equity and relocation grants are inadequate."
Constituents visit my surgery week after week with the same problem. Last week, a person told me that he had bought his house for £24,000 a few years ago. He still owes £16,000 on the mortgage. He now has to move because his house is to be knocked down. He will get £10,000, but that leaves £6,000, which his building society is not prepared to forgo. One can imagine that that person feels somewhat aggrieved. People find out that they have a negative equity problem only when they have to move—for work, or any other reason. It is not a problem until they move, but it exists for many people.
The appendix to the Select Committee report includes several letters from Burnley residents. Some of them are tragic and detail moving cases. If any hon. Member thinks that the letters are odd or unique, there is not a single week in which I do not receive one, two or three such letters, and people visit my advice bureau with similar cases.
Last week, a family visited my advice bureau. I have known them for 40-odd years. In fact, one member of the family was on the executive committee of Burnley Labour party when it appointed me to work for the Labour party in Burnley in 1963. The family's home is an absolute palace. The next-door house on one side has been empty for 10 years and the next-door house on the other side has been empty for two years. The house on the opposite side of the road had two fires last week, and a house in the block at the back of the family's home had a fire last week. The family is absolutely terrified of living there, and I would be terrified if I lived there. It is unacceptable that such a situation exists in 2002.
330WH
During my 19 years as a Member of Parliament, Minister after Minister has visited Burnley to look at our housing problems, although several of them fell by the waysifde in the Conservative Government almost as soon as they had visited. The problem is getting worse. Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the Minister for Housing and Planning, visited Burnley and east Lancashire on two separate occasions. When we met him in Hyndburn, I thought that it was the first time that we had a Minister who understood both the problem and the action that was needed to deal with it. He accepted that the problem could not be solved overnight, but that it required urgent action followed by a long-term commitment. That is very important.
During my 19 years in Parliament, I have asked more than 300 questions in the House on housing issues, most of which were in respect of Burnley. I referred to renovation grants during an Adjournment debate in 1984. Grants were available prior to the 1983 election, but as soon as the Conservative party won that general election, it axed the available money. We built up a queue of people but we could not find the money to give them grants.
The previous Conservative Government introduced value added tax on renovation work. Recommendation (k) on page 60 of the report suggests that VAT should be equalised for renovation and new build work. There is a good case for that. Areas such as Burnley are low-income areas with low-value properties. They contain many pre-1919 properties. The former Minister, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), said that the areas have a peculiar cocktail of problems. The problems cannot be solved because people do not have the resources to invest in a house that might not be worth any more in future. That is the reality that we have to face time after time. I referred to that in another Adjournment debate in 1986.
In the Queen's Speech debate on the first day of the new Parliament, 1 referred to the situation as I saw it. I said:
"East Lancashire has 225,000 privately owned properties, about half of which were built before 1919. A quarter of the whole stock, some 52,000 properties, is unfit for habitation, and a similar proportion is in serious disrepair."—[Official Report, 20 June 2001; Vol. 369, c. 139.]
That is the problem not only in Burnley, but in east Lancashire as a whole.
Members of the Select Committee who went round Burnley would have noticed boards with a Union Jack-type symbol that read, "Best offer to date: £1,450". In other cases, no offer is mentioned at all because people cannot get an offer on their property.
I hope that the Government will take note of a further difficulty. If one asks for council tax on property that has no value, and that people are not able to sell, it is no wonder that people try to disappear. It is not like having an empty second home. People just cannot get the money, and they feel outraged when they receive a bill for council tax if they are doing everything possible to try to sell their property.
Bradford and Northern housing association, an important association in my area, states:
"The level of funding that will be required to tackle declining neighbourhoods is not small—the National Housing Federation estimates that £100m will be needed in 2003/4, rising to £500m by 2005/6".

331WH
The National Housing Federation states:
"Falling demand reflects economic decline, but in some areas of the north and Midlands, decline has accelerated into a downward spiral."
That is what we face in Burnley. We are in a downward spiral, and we cannot reverse it by ourselves.
The Government's response acknowledges some of the problems. The Secretary of State said in a statement that
"Derelict homes don't just scar the landscape. They make life intolerable for those still living there. Those who can leave, those left are often trapped in negative equity. Legitimate landlords struggle whilst rogue landlords flourish. Crime is endemic. Hard working people find that their investment in a home of their own is suddenly worth a fraction of its true value…The knock on effect is immense, it permeates our towns and cities. Declining areas destroy the fabric of our society."
I shall be brief, because I know that many other hon. Members want to speak. Burnley needs urgent action. We welcome the pathfinder project and today's announcement by the Secretary of State of the money raised for preparatory work. A number of options are available for Burnley. Together they will help to solve our problem. I stress that Burnley needs to reduce the number of houses available until it equals the number of houses wanted. As we get nearer to that figure—as those 4,000 empty houses reduce in number—we need to demolish 2,000 of them as speedily as possible. I hope that the Secretary of State understands that. We can then start to see a solution for Burnley and for the other areas affected by this appalling problem. We can start to move forward.
3.57 pm
Chris Grayling: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). We may not share political views, but I am aware of his commitment on this matter. The Select Committee's visit to Burnley was probably the most moving part of our visit to the north-west. His constituency clearly suffers intense problems and there is a real need for urgent action. I hope that the Committee's report will encourage the Government to take the necessary action.
I am pleased to see the Secretary of State here. I am not a founder member of his fan club on transport matters, but I am pleased that he has taken the trouble to attend this important debate. I hope that he will take away with him some of the lessons that hon. Members learned while making the report and some of what is said this afternoon.
For someone who has not been directly exposed to the collapse of housing markets, the Committee's visit to the north-west was a thought-provoking experience. I am not a pure southerner. I have lived also in the northwest. However, unless one has seen the affected areas at close quarters—they are often only a few miles from areas that have perfectly normal, buoyant housing markets— one cannot comprehend the scale of the problem. The report highlighted a number of extremely important issues; some require Government action, but others go beyond intervention, because it is not a problem that can be regulated out of existence. The problem will have to be dealt with by society as a whole.
332WH
Some fundamental planning concerns need to be considered; I felt that particularly strongly during our visit to Liverpool. I was a candidate for the Warrington seat for the 1997 general election. I was concerned about the spread of housing into green land in such a pleasant part of rural Cheshire. It is pertinent that only a few miles away, close to the Liverpool city centre, large Victorian houses are standing empty and going to rack and ruin when, in another part of the country, they would have substantial value.
Although I endorse what the hon. Members for Burnley and for Telford (David Wright) said—I agree that, in some places, there may be a need for bulldozers—in places such as Liverpool there is clearly housing stock that should be returned to general use. It makes no sense to continue to develop on green land throughout Cheshire, causing people to drive long distances to work, when there are perfectly decent quality homes in places such as Liverpool and Manchester.
There is no doubt that some of the housing that we saw is obsolete. Some of the terraces in Burnley and east Manchester, for example, were past their sell-by date in the view of all the Committee members who visited them. Tough action needs taking and clearance will be required. We saw examples of new estates that were literally down the road from old estates but which were doing reasonably well on the housing market. It became clear that there were blocks of housing for which there was simply no demand and which, regrettably, would have to go.
We also saw clear evidence that, to coin a phrase, one cannot buck the market through state involvement and intervention. On a rundown estate in east Manchester, we saw examples of housing in its second or third phase of regeneration, which had been done up 10 or 20 years ago with grants provided by local authorities and Government. Those houses had repeatedly been improved to a small extent but then carried on declining. Such examples make it plain that we cannot escape reality and that change is necessary. Some estates will have to be cleared to make way for new housing and some communities may have to reduce in size.
The conclusion drawn by the hon. Member for Burnley is inescapable; in some places communities will have to become smaller to become sustainable again. However, the Committee was concerned about the ways in which some communities were starting to become smaller at their fringes. We saw evidence of haphazard clearance; for example, of a couple of houses being knocked down in a block, creating a scrubby piece of land with no purpose. That type of clearance only adds to the problem and damages rather than enhances the character of the area.
Clearance must be done strategically, and the Government should play a role in that. We cannot simply clear away whole areas of housing without the right compulsory purchase structure and financial underpinning of the clearance. There is a strong case for spending the money on radical change that in the past might have been used merely to shore up some of those areas. Some could be returned to parkland or green belt or turned into development areas, where a new kind of housing could be built that would appeal to a more modern marketplace.

333WH
We saw examples of policy failure, too. Gap funding was one such area, and the Committee has recently discussed it in debates on the European regeneration framework. We heard from many people involved in regeneration that the removal of gap funding, of which hon. Members may be aware, occurred because the European Commission suggested that the provision of that funding gave British developers an unfair commercial advantage over their European counterparts. The gap funding was ruled out of order, which is simple madness.
Some schemes in our inner cities cannot go ahead, despite the need for them, due to the lack of gap funding. The Government need to be tougher in their dealings with the European Commission, and we should certainly not have accepted that decision. Instead of providing gap funding in a place such as iverpool—where it could make the difference between a declining and restimulated housing market—we are creating artificial competition rules between British and French developers. That makes no sense when we should be breathing life into areas that can live again.
Another regulatory point about which all on the Committee felt strongly was landlord registration. Given the political corner that I come from, hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that I am no great friend of undue regulation. It was clear, however, that the absence of regulation of private landlords in some of the areas that we saw was an omission. I do not want sweeping regulation of private landlords across the country, and I say that—as the Register of Members' Interests makes clear—as a small private landlord. Indeed, the co-Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), noted during our investigation that she, too, is a small private landlord. I hope and suspect that those of us in that position are responsible, let within the private sector and do a good job for the tenants in our properties. I think that that is true of private landlords across the country.
It is clear, however, that some landlords abuse the system. I would like—the report highlights the need for this—a system that would require landlords to meet certain standards if they wanted to let to people who need housing benefit. Giving local authorities the right, rather than the mandate, to regulate such private landlords in areas with failed housing markets would, the Committee felt, make a significant difference to some of those areas.
My third point relates very much to the other end of the scale. We also visited Tower Hamlets, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King). It was striking from our discussions with people involved in regenerating housing there that they had difficulty with the right-to-buy rules, and I was disappointed with the Government's response on that issue. Those people told us that they would decide to raise the quality of an area by regenerating—stripping out and doing up—a block or a whole estate. Once they announced the scheme, however, people would exercise their right to buy, and their properties would immediately be compulsorily purchased at the full market rate. The whole budget for the regeneration scheme would disappear before the scheme had even started, which is mad. I would not like the right to buy to be curtailed generally, but the situation that I have
334WH
described is close to insider dealing. It is totally illogical that the current rules on the right to buy permit such circumstances to continue.
The report says that we need radical intervention in the areas that the Committee saw, which is true up to a point. In discussing our experiences as we visited different areas, however, we agreed that there was a limit to how far one could interfere with the market. It was clear, however, that radical solutions are needed, and they are not simply a matter of housing regulation.
We need tough policing initiatives. In one area of east Manchester, I saw people going in and out of a property down the road who did not look like they were about law-abiding business. In every area we visited, people talked to us about drug problems and crime. The hon. Member for Burnley referred to frequent fires. It was striking in his constituency that one could walk down streets and look into houses that still had all the furniture in the front rooms because people had simply gone away. The house next door would be burnt out. The hon. Gentleman is right that that should not be allowed to continue.
Such areas will need tough policing; we need the kind of strong community policing tactics that have been used to clean up parts of New York. The broken windows syndrome can be no more visible than it is in Burnley, Liverpool, east Manchester and the other places that we visited.
We also need tough action against anti-social residents. People should not be able to disrupt the areas that they live in to the extent that was clearly happening in the places that we visited.
Finally, there are several lessons to take into account. In Liverpool, we were told that public transport could make a major difference. The area that we saw really should not have been as run down as it was. It was close to the city centre and had big, attractive Victorian houses, which should have been prime property. Funding a local tram system, for example, in areas that are suffering in that way could make the difference between a failed and a recovering housing market.
The Government clearly need to tackle VAT, because it is totally illogical to stack it more favourably on new housing than on housing renovation. There should at the very least be parity, and there is a strong case for giving VAT preference to investment in rundown areas.
It was also clear to us that regeneration can work only if it is radical; if one takes an area like Hulme and transforms it. We were impressed by the experience of Hulme; a partnership between a Labour Government and a Conservative council, but a model of what urban regeneration should be, creating high-quality, affordable housing and high-quality private housing and transforming an area that had been a derelict ghetto. That is what we should be aiming to achieve in some of the areas.
We should also not be afraid to let communities become smaller, and to return housing areas to green land or parkland if that is appropriate. We must be sensitive to the needs of the residual community; clearly those people have rights. However, we cannot leave citizens who might not know where to go or how to solve their problems living in the middle of wastelands such as we saw. We cannot buck the market or change the world for those people, nor can we restore in all areas a vibrant

335WH
and buoyant housing market. However, we owe it to them to try to find better solutions for towns such as Burnley. If we fail to do so, we let down not just those people, but our country.
4.11 pm
Dr. Brian Iddon: I, too, want to look at the problem from a northern perspective. We seem to be hearing mainly from northern people but the problem is greatest—certainly in terms of derelict empty properties—in the north. There is a vast difference between the north and the south.
I should like to question the way in which we approach regeneration. When I became chairman of housing in Bolton in 1986, the environmental health officers marched in and told me about the next clearance scheme: 700 properties, all in one area of Bolton. We would have swept them all away, and the whole community with them. It was clear to me that the money would not be available for all the housing problems that we were facing in both the public and the private sectors. I told the environmental health officers that that was the end of clearance in Bolton until a Government were prepared to make the money available. We have not yet had a Government, including the current one, who have made the money available for that kind of problem. From that day to this, Bolton has cleared only a small number of houses. We have done three terraces of 70 houses between then and now—the largest clearance that we have ever had—yet Bolton has 22,000 unfit properties, 5,000 to 6,000 of which are classed by environmental health officers as irredeemably unfit. There is no way, they tell me, in which they can be saved. We have 4,500 empty properties, mainly in the private sector.
We have not reached the state of Burnley and Salford, where one can see terraces that are largely derelict. We are fighting; we are not complacent. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) has indicated how quickly housing markets can collapse. Our housing officials and councillors are worried that Bolton is on the precipice of market collapse in some areas.
Interestingly, the area that I mentioned, where 700 properties were suggested for clearance in 1986, has been fully improved. The problem is that it is all factory housing built on narrow streets. The living conditions are dense and some of the new immigrants who have moved into those areas have large families—extended families, in fact. When we improve those areas, they want large extensions to be added to the properties, and those cover the small back yards behind the terraces. One of the problems with such regeneration is that it increases the density phenomenally. That is beginning to create other problems. People cannot find anywhere to park, street cleaners cannot clear the streets and the environment becomes a mess, ambulances cannot gain access and fire engines cannot reach houses—they have to run their hoses straight down the street to the middle of a terrace to fight a fire.
I wonder whether that is the right way to improve properties that were on a clearance programme more than 10 years ago. With 22,000 unfit properties in
336WH
Bolton and 5,000 to 6,000 irredeemable, we should be tackling some of those that are coming to the precipice. Places such as Bolton, Burnley, Salford and Liverpool should be given the money now to clear the properties that are determined by environmental health officers to be irredeemably unfit.
Another problem in the north is that when money has been spent on small two-up, two-down terraces merely to envelop the properties and bring them up to standard—of course, the occupants themselves pay for the extensions—the equity is negative. If people spent the money themselves, they would be deeply in negative equity, never mind the problem of mortgage negative equity that my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) mentioned. If people did up the sort of properties that we have up north down here, those houses would have huge positive equity. That is the big difference between the north and the south.
About 50 per cent. of previous owner-occupiers in the clearance areas in Bolton opted to go into council housing or housing association properties. There were no problems with low-demand estates or empty council properties when we regenerated the town on that scale. I do not think that we should go back to that scale of clearance, but I say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and other colleagues that, if regeneration is to mean anything, we will have to do it on the basis of a rolling programme, not in the stop-go way that has predominated in the past. Regeneration must be slow and sympathetic in trying to clear communities to adjacent brownfield land, if it is available. Plenty of derelict cotton mills and clapped-out engineering works and forges in the north are waiting for regeneration. That should not be so difficult.
Regeneration means jobs. In east Manchester, the manufacturing industry collapsed because it was redundant for this country. The cotton industry and the heavy engineering that supported it went abroad, where the labour was cheaper. The grand old post-Victorian manufacturing industry collapsed in east Lancashire and Bolton. The mining industry throughout Lancashire collapsed, and there was huge haemorrhaging of jobs. If we are to reverse that, we will have to provide jobs in the north to make people want to live in areas that have experienced or are still experiencing the problems that we are discussing.
Facilities such as shops and parks are important, too. Perhaps my walk to work here is unusual, but there are green parks wherever one goes in London. In the north, where the old factories were built, it would be a job to find a park, except perhaps for one big park on a peripheral part of the town. Let us put some daylight into those areas. Let us have some green spaces, provide play facilities for children and make those places attractive, so that people want to live there.
I would place the best school in the borough or city in the middle of the regeneration area. People for whom it is economically viable pay the earth to move to a house next to a good school, so that they can get their children into it. If we placed the best school and other facilities into the area that we were trying to regenerate, we would make people want to move there.
The question is one of confidence, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish said. He gave an example of how fragile confidence is. One house goes up

337WH
for sale or is derelict, and a rumour flies round the constituency that prostitution is rife in a street. Such stories are often only rumours, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley will tell us, but they send confidence over the cliff, and down goes the housing market in those areas.
Housing ought to be higher on the political agenda, as my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) said. In my book, it ought to be near the top of it. If people do not have good houses, they will not have good health. If children live in an overcrowded property, they will never benefit from even the best school in the area because there is nowhere to do homework. In any case, the place is probably depressing, with wallpaper coming off the walls. How can our young children be educated in properties such as that?
Crime and drugs are a problem in such areas as well. They are where the drug pushers live. I live in the middle of Bolton, and a quarter of a mile from my house heroin is sold in one such area.
We must look radically at the way we regenerate, particularly in the Burnleys, the Salfords, the Liverpools, the Boltons and the Dentons of this world. We are tackling the worst properties but others are falling into unfitness faster than we can tackle those. We have to go back up the chain and save the properties that will be in that condition in a few years' time. I ask the Secretary of State to listen carefully. Please help us in the towns and cities that we have mentioned this afternoon.
4.20 pm
Mr. David Kidney: It is satisfying that so many hon. Members are in the Chamber today and that the Secretary of State is here in person. That is a measure of the excellence of the Committee's report and the importance of its subject. I shall begin by echoing a comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright). We must not lose sight of the fact that, in tackling housing problems, regional identity is very important, as are differences between regions. We must not get carried away with one monolithic structure or with two—one for the south and one for the north. That would be completely the wrong attitude to start with.
I shall make two assumptions for the purposes of my speech: first, a lot more public money will be available for housing during the next three years; and secondly, the Government's reforms of the planning system will go through largely as they have been proposed. Some may think that those are ambitious assumptions, but I think that there are grounds for optimism on both fronts.
I have heard Ministers say that they have begun to recognise the importance of placing housing at the top of the policy-making agenda. They have been making the links between housing and other factors such as education, health services, law and order, employment and a stable economy. Following the spending review this summer, more money may be available for housing, although spending money is only part of solving the problems.
On the issue of planning, the Government have an ambitious agenda to get away from rigid structure plans that seek to cover the whole country, and to encourage strategic planning regionally and more comprehensive
338WH
development plans locally that engage local communities in the making of the plans. That is crucial to the success of improving planning.
One of the daughter documents that resulted from the Government's planning reform consultation was about compulsory purchase powers. I hope that everything that the Committee recommended on compulsory purchase powers comes out in the results of the Government's review. In particular, the Committee recommended that the need for housing regeneration and renewal ought to be sufficient authority for obtaining compulsory purchase orders, and that a local authority's master plan should include sufficient indication of the end use to allow the compulsory purchase order to be confirmed.
As a footnote, I add that my ten-minute Bill of a couple of years ago proposed that property standing empty and blighting streets ought to be sufficient grounds for the making of a compulsory purchase order. My eyes slightly stood out this morning when I read the briefing from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which goes one step further in suggesting that non-payment of council tax should be grounds for such an order. It also refers to an American scheme, that I personally know nothing about, called QuickTake.
I am sure that points made by the Committee in its other recommendations are relevant to the issue of planning powers. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) mentioned suspending the right to buy once a renewal scheme is announced. I see the importance of that and am convinced by the Committee's argument. I am also in favour of broadening the compensation arrangements that are permitted under compulsory purchase order schemes. Particular mention is made of home-for-a-home compensation instead of cash payment.
There is the issue of council tax discounts for housing standing empty, which is a perverse incentive to keep them empty. The Committee says that councils should have the discretion to impose up to 100 per cent. council tax on a ward-by-ward basis, which echoes the warnings that housing conditions vary within quite short distances. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors agrees with that. To hark back to my ten-minute Bill, it recommended that councils should have such a discretion, although I suggested that they should be given the discretion to set the council tax at between nought and twice the standard rate, not simply at 100 per cent. of the rate, to provide some stimulus for people to make up their minds about what to do with their empty properties.
The extra money over the next three years will pay for five policy objectives: first, tackling the problems of failing and failed markets, especially establishing the housing market renewal fund; secondly, facing up to the actions that need to be taken to reduce the number of empty homes, wherever they are; thirdly, confronting the need for more affordable homes; fourthly, confronting problems of high prices in the owner-occupied sector; fifthly, improving the private rented sector.
On tackling the problems of failing and failed markets, we received a briefing from the National Housing Federation, which discusses in more detail the housing market renewal fund referred to in the report.

339WH
First, the briefing proposes re-establishing healthy housing markets, to which I would add the Committees' strong recommendation to take preventive action to rescue markets at risk of becoming dysfunctional. Secondly, it suggests a healthier mix of types of housing, dwelling type, tenure and population. Its third suggestion is that social regeneration initiatives should be phased in with the other adjustments.
In north Staffordshire, which overlaps slightly with my constituency of Stafford, we see those differences in the housing market. In Stafford borough and south Staffordshire district, there is a strong housing market, with house prices slightly above the national average, but in the city of Stoke-on-Trent and the borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme, there are some very mixed areas; there are some especially distressed markets in Stoke-on-Trent. That is why one of the Government's pathfinder schemes covers parts of those areas.
One precondition for making the work successful is genuine partnership and co-operation among all relevant stakeholders. The National Housing Federation talks about market renewal plans or prospectuses. The Committee recommended a clear conurbation-wide strategy and a master plan for the development of an area, informed by regional housing statements. The Committee says
"local authorities and registered social landlords should work with private sector organisations such as the Council for Mortgage Lenders".
I am not sure why that organisation was picked out from the many that exist, but it is important.
The Committee pointed out that
"consultation needs to recognise at the outset that change is required and that speed is of the essence".
That has been supported by today's many contributions about the rapidity with which the housing market can fall into dysfunction. The National Housing Federation suggests that a start should be made immediately in pilot areas, and today we have seen the press release about money for pathfinder areas.
Apart from failing and failed markets, the Committee discussed the work of the Empty Homes Agency, which is very valuable, empty homes strategies— not so valuable if they are just more documents to put on the shelf —and empty homes officers. It warns that care must be taken about how they are used. The report quotes a submission from Southampton city council:
"The City Council contends that Southampton's success is partly due to the appointment of a dedicated empty property officer who, unlike other council colleagues has the benefit of time and flexibility to work through labour-intensive personalised agendas."
Such officers can be useful, but appointing them does not automatically solve the problem.
The empty homes strategy was discussed during debates on the Homelessness Bill, which is now an Act. Since then, the Minister has answered my parliamentary question, saying:
"statutory guidance on the homelessness provisions in the Homelessness Act 2002 will urge local authorities to include a review of empty properties within their district as part of their homelessness review".—[Official Report, 16 April 2002; Vol. 383, c. 797W.]
340WH
The Committee identifies the problems of blight, antisocial behaviour and waste of a scarce resource. The tools that we need to tackle those problems include persuasion, an appropriate council tax rate and compulsory purchase orders. The latter is not necessarily a resource problem, if a local authority can pass the property straight on to a registered social landlord or even a willing buyer, depending on the use to which the property is to be put. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors even recommends rewards for councils in funding if they achieve targets in empty homes strategies. A footnote on its submission says
"For goodness sake Government-sort out the running sore about the use of Council Tax data to trace owners of empty homes!"
I do not want to go into detail on the other issues that I have mentioned, but the statistics show that there is a growing problem with the availability of affordable homes. We should tackle the shortfall sooner rather than later, because it will contribute to rising house prices as well as misery for those in need.
The report of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's land for housing inquiry was published in March 2002. That valuable report suggested that the Government had three critical challenges: to redesign the planning system to work proactively to link housing and labour markets, to begin the process of renewing Britain's housing stock and to provide more affordable housing.
In relation to high-value areas, the report called for more use of intermediate housing markets, equity sharing and land pooling or community land trusts. It also identified a need for new types of agencies to deal with the strategic use of land. For high-value areas and areas with failing housing markets, the report calls for a strong lead from Government to promote effective use of land, integrated transport policies, a proactive planning culture and land assembly mechanisms as well as a range of interventions.
The report identifies problems, especially in failing markets, of absentee landlords, high rents paid for by housing benefit without any regard to fitness standards, decent services or conditions for tenants, and it calls for licensing, which I support. There is a Government policy for a statutory licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation. The Government propose licensing in some areas of the country.
I am not convinced that such schemes can be limited to landlords who receive housing benefit, although I understand the danger of scrupulous as well as unscrupulous landlords worrying about more red tape and the burdens of registration and licensing—landlords preferring an easy life would not let properties at all, which would reduce the supply of private housing. Landlords should receive something in return for registration, such as the assurance of a light-touch licensing scheme and support that benefits business. The Committee suggests support from local agencies such as the police and youth offending teams in relation to antisocial behaviour, but there are other suggestions. We should consider speedy processing of housing benefit claims by council treasury departments, inspections and advice from environmental health officers, deposit and rent guarantee schemes as a matter of course and the availability of capital for improvements to properties. Tax incentives are another story. No commitments will be given today.

341WH
Local authorities should be the strategic authority on housing matters. Whether they have the right skills has already been questioned in relation to compulsory purchase orders, and they sometimes seem unwilling to work fully with partners from other sectors. Nevertheless, local authorities are the right people to take the lead role. They may need guidance from the Government about how to reduce the number of empty homes, and they should identify their partners and what they have to offer. Sometimes, my colleagues on Labour councils complain that they do not have enough freedom to act. On this subject they can take centre stage, and I hope that they earn rave reviews.
4.32 pm
Mr. Joe Benton: I shall be brief because much of what I wanted to say has already been mentioned in the main by my hon. Friends the Members for Burnley (Mr. Pike), and for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). My constituency of Bootle shares many of the problems described. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley was right in saying that this is one of the most crucial debates for a long time.
I have long been aware of the background to the Bootle problem. As a young boy, I remember many salubrious districts being described as Victorian or Georgian. They are now nothing but ghettoes. The Committee visited one in Bootle, and I apologise, because I was unable to be there that day.
I compliment the Committee and the Chairman—I agree with the bulk of his earlier remarks—on the report. Page 67 of volume I states:
"The Council has decided to stop making piecemeal investments in the area and wishes to pursue a strategic approach. There are 4,000 properties in the area, which need to be cleared; many may not be replaced. There is, however a £350 million funding gap to achieving this."
I wish to home in on the general point of funding. I agree with everything that has been said about it. At the end of the day, such blighted areas will require one thing above all others, which is constant resourcing. We are facing a huge and frightening problem. That there are funding gaps as large as £350 million displays the magnitude of that problem. I cannot be parochial about the matter; it is a national problem. The Government will have to provide huge resources, and those resources will have to be constant, effective, and applied where they are needed.
Much of what I wished to say this afternoon has been somewhat circumvented. I was going to appeal to the Government to take strong and urgent action to resource such areas and their local authorities. I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement earlier today. However, it is only a kick start, as was said in the preamble to our debate.
Huge resources will be needed if we are to deal with this matter. We must get that across to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in an emphatic manner, when the time comes to consider the spending review. We must say to him that the problem of empty homes and blighted areas throughout the country must receive urgent and constant attention. That will make a big demand on the Exchequer—I am well aware of that. However, that must be said to him, because I can think of few more shocking experiences than to go to some of the areas in my constituency and see what people have to live in.
342WH
A quote from a council report will give hon. Members some indication of that and of the extent of the problem:
"Significantly more and more owners in these two areas (especially the Bedford Road area) are abandoning their properties altogether and leaving them to deteriorate and attract vandals, drug abuse and other street crime into the area, which in turn drives house prices and demand for the area even lower."
The report goes on to give the example of a road that has 26 vacant properties out of a total of 40. We can imagine what that situation must be like, and it is not unique to my constituency.
I emphasise that it is not only the private sector that is facing such problems. They are also faced by registered landlords, such as Riverside Housing Association and Pierhead Housing Association in my constituency. They have properties that are only five or 10 years old and cannot be let because of the surrounding blight.
We are facing a huge problem. Unless we provide constant resourcing and ensure that mechanisms are set up to direct the money to the right places to eradicate the problem, our future will look gloomy. I would say that to any Government. I welcome the initiative that the Secretary of State announced earlier, but I urge him to keep my comments in mind.
4.39 pm
Mrs. Louise Ellman: The Secretary of State has indicated the importance that he attaches to the subject of empty homes by his presence, and by his announcement this morning of an allocation of about £25 million to new pathfinders, specifically to deal with the issue. I thank him for that. I hope that it is just the start and that he will bring us further good news about dealing with this major problem.
The issue is a major problem mainly in the north of England and the midlands. It is extremely important not only for individuals and their well-being, but for general regeneration, local communities and economic development. It has particular significance in Liverpool, which has lost 25 per cent. of its population since 1971. Regeneration is under way in Liverpool. In my constituency of Liverpool, Riverside, unemployment has been halved in the past five years, and investment is visibly evident. Liverpool has submitted a strong bid to become European capital of culture 2008, which I am sure hon. Members support.
For too many people in local communities, too little has changed. In the inner core of my constituency, about 20 per cent. of some local neighbourhoods are vacant. In the inner core of Liverpool, 90 per cent. of housing is in council tax bands A or B, the most susceptible to abandonment. In Liverpool, there are more than 18,500 empty properties—9 per cent. of housing stock—64 per cent. of which are in the private sector. Liverpool has twice as many terraced properties as the national average. It is with older terraced properties in low council tax bands that the greatest problems are experienced.
The issue relates to people's choice of housing. All too often, people trapped in neighbourhoods in economic and social decline find that, when their individual prospects rise, they cannot stay in such areas because the housing that they want is simply not available. They therefore move out. which has an impact on the green belt in the rest of the north-west, especially Cheshire, but

343WH
other areas, too. The issue is significant not only for individuals, communities and local authorities but for the region.
In Liverpool, the Government have successfully introduced several initiatives to deal with local problems relating to regeneration. The new deal for communities in Kensington and Smithdown deals with housing, among other issues. Regional investment companies such as Include in Dingle have been set up. The Government have provided a great deal of funding for neighbourhood renewal, which I hope the local authority will use for the purpose for which the money was intended— new initiatives—not as a substitute for its own budgets, which it seems to have chosen to cut.
On their own, the initiatives are simply not enough. I welcome the pathfinder initiative and the £2.6 million for Liverpool, Wirral and south Sefton, the grouping that has combined to deal with the issue. However, that alone is simply not enough. I make four requests. First, I ask the Secretary of State to announce the establishment of a housing market renewal fund with significant funding of billions of pounds over a minimum of 10 to 20 years. We need such a fund in addition to existing housing funding in order to make an impact. Such a fund would allow flexibility to deal with the various problems and different areas such as hon. Members have described, must be sufficiently substantial to make a difference, and should have the flexibility to consider different needs in different areas.
Secondly, I ask the Secretary of State to make a commitment to tackling negative equity. People trapped in neighbourhoods may like their individual houses but the street or neighbourhood may be in decline, and they want to move but simply cannot. I ask him to consider the progress of schemes such as the swap scheme in Salford, which is tackling the issue. That is vital for individuals, whose needs must be paramount.
Thirdly, I ask the Secretary of State to address the issue of speculators—that is, landlords who speculate with poor-quality property in areas where housing benefit enables them to make a great deal of money at the expense of tenants. Those tenants may not get a fair deal, and some of them cause problems in their neighbourhoods while the landlord shows no interest in what is going on. I ask the Secretary of State to consider licensing schemes or other means of dealing with the issue.
Fourthly, I ask the Secretary of State to consider gap funding, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). Gap funding is a major issue, but I hope that the Secretary of State will consider it in relation to housing before the Government resolve the wider regeneration issues that relate to it. Why has the Scottish Parliament found a solution to housing gap funding problems and reached agreement with the European Commission, while the Government are still struggling to find an answer? Does that mean that devolved Governments are far more focused on the needs of their areas than central Government? I look forward to his answer.
The extent and significance of the problem has been well articulated by the many hon. Members who have spoken. We must remember that the solution involves,
344WH
and indeed requires, co-operation and co-ordination between several authorities. Regional development agencies have an important part to play. It is essential that they recognise the importance of housing as a key part of economic development. I am pleased that the North West Development Agency is starting to do that. I urge regional development agencies to consider the significance of housing to economic development, to think about the funding required, and to make housing, and the improvement of it, part of their economic development strategies.
The Housing Corporation has a major role. I am pleased to note that it held its first meeting outside London in Liverpool recently, and I acknowledge its work. The private sector also has an important role. Local authorities are key in driving the issue forward; only elected local authorities, accountable to their populations, can understand, monitor and oversee progress and push for more change. However, regional assemblies also have a critical part to play. Presently, that includes monitoring the work of the regional development agencies, but they also have important work to do in their own right.
I mentioned that the problem was of particular importance for the north and parts of the midlands. Funding for housing, and funding investment, must be considered in regional perspective. I should like the regional development agencies to ask how housing investment funding is allocated. What is the balance between the needs of the south, where the predominant issue is shortage of housing, and the needs of the north and part of the midlands, where the issue is regeneration, including abandonment and empty homes? Those are key problems with a regional dimension, and I hope that, in due course, directly elected regional assemblies will pursue them. In the meantime, I hope that the existing assemblies and chambers will pursue those matters with the regional development agencies.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) on the way in which he has conducted the inquiry into this important subject. I am delighted that so many hon. Members, both on the Select Committee and not, have come to the debate. Above all, I am delighted that the Secretary of State is here. I thank him for the statement that he made this morning, in which he announced £25 million as a starter for the new pathfinder areas, and I hope that he has more good news to bring us at the close of the debate.
4.49 pm
Mr. Clive Betts: We should congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on the work that he has done, over several years, to push this issue on to the political agenda. We are discussing a matter of great importance not only to his constituency, but to many others.
When the Select Committee travelled around the country looking at the evidence, it became clear that the problem affected different areas in various ways. My first plea would be that although we need a national framework to resolve the problems, we also need local solutions. We cannot have one imposed solution from the centre that seeks to deal with everything in a

345WH
particular way. Unfortunately, over the years, housing has been littered with grand ideas from central Government that have been forced on local authorities, which have then had to sort out the mess.
During our visits, we saw that one of the clearest connections between the different problems is a lack of investment that dates back several years. My own city of Sheffield is an example. In the early 1980s, we were spending £80 million a year on the private and public housing sectors. By 1997, we were spending only £20 million a year. Thanks to the Government's initiatives, we are now spending £40 million a year. In cash terms, that is still half of what we were spending in the early 1980s. In between, there were years of underinvestment and the problems have grown and developed. The need for investment has increased every year and that is a fundamental problem. Whether we consider the problems in the private sector, such as houses not being demolished because they cannot be replaced—which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon)—or those affecting the modernised council houses in Sheffield, underinvestment is still the link. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright), who said that such debates help to move housing up the political agenda. He is absolutely right. Housing is a key issue in so many people's lives.
I am disappointed that when senior figures in the Government make lengthy major policy statements, they often find time for only a small passing mention of housing. I am not referring to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, who is pushing the issue with more force than we have seen anyone do for a considerable time.
I support the concept of a housing market renewal fund. I welcome the pathfinder projects that were announced today. That is a good step forward. However, £500,000 a year is a gross underestimate of the funding requirements of those types of initiatives. The problem affects many different parts of the country on such a scale that we will have to spend billions of pounds, far exceeding the original estimate.
I agree again with my hon. Friend the Member for Telford about demolition, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East also mentioned. We need to reconsider whether demolition is appropriate in many cases. Some areas, such as Burnley, may simply require that houses are taken out of the housing stock and the site cleared up and improved. In other areas, the houses will need to be replaced, and that is where costs are incurred.
In my constituency, the then Liberal Democrat city council—that fortunately, is no more—tried to force demolition on three estates, Weaklands, Newstead and Scowerdons Farm, against the wishes of most local people. The council promised them brand new homes, but when the issue was pushed, there was no evidence of any money to fund the new houses. Clearly, we need to examine those issues. Demolition may be the answer, but where replacement is needed, the extra resources will have to be made available. We will need to take people with us on those issues, but they will not give us their trust and confidence until they believe that the resources are in the pipeline.
346WH
I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Telford about not necessarily dealing with the worst houses first. When we visited Manchester, we saw properties that had thousands of pounds spent on them only three or four years earlier, but they were empty because people simply did not want to live in them. In the meantime, other houses that might have been saveable three or four years ago have deteriorated to such an extent that they are probably not saleable either. Sometimes, it means throwing good money away.
We need to look carefully—and sometimes probably
a little harshly—at the issues and try to concentrate on
properties that are saveable. Equally, we should offer communities alternatives to demolition and rebuilding, allowing them the right to remain as communities. That means securing the money quickly and not having massive time lags, such as those in Norfolk Park in Sheffield, where houses were demolished, but four, five or six years later, no new houses have been built because one funding scheme after another has collapsed and failed.
In some areas, stock transfer may be a way of attracting new money. In others, stock transfer is either inappropriate or tenants do not want it. We have seen that happen in Birmingham, and there is a similar feeling in Sheffield. I believe that it was one of the issues that led to the demise of the Liberal Democrat council at the local elections.
I was very pleased that when the Secretary of State addressed the Select Committee in January, he said clearly that if tenants do not vote for stock transfer, funds will still be available to bring their houses up to a decent standard. It is important that people are not forced into stock transfer simply because funding is available only through one form of housing ownership.
I welcome the Government's PPG3 on housing. My constituency has an inner-city element at one end and green fields at the other. There is great resistance to building on the green fields and a lack of commitment to build on the brown fields. PPG3 has helped enormously. It has already been said that gap funding support is needed to start the initial development on the brownfield sites. That happened with the first phase of the Attercliffe village development in my constituency. Unfortunately, there were problems with the European Commission to which the Government did not react quickly enough and, thus, enable a new scheme to be in place. However, a new scheme is now before the Commission and I hope that funding will be available soon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) said that the RDA in the north-west was supportive of housing regeneration and of providing funds from its resources, but that is not the case in Yorkshire. The Yorkshire and Humberside RDA has said that it has no intention of funding housing regeneration schemes. That is such a backward step. The decision was taken without consultation with the local authorities or local MPs, and I hope that the RDA will reconsider.
I support many other issues that have been raised, such as the Government's new proposals to deal with antisocial behaviour and the licensing scheme for private landlords, but the scale of the problem is enormous. It has been growing for years; it has suffered

347WH
from under-investment, as a result of which the problems have not been tackled. Local authorities have not had the resources. If the problem in different forms and different areas is to be tackled in future, substantial extra investment will be needed. That is the key to the problem.
4.56 pm
Ms Oona King: One day I will speak in a debate—perhaps in the next life without prefacing my remarks by saying that there is no time left in which I can make my speech. That day is not today. I shall just focus on a few matters. I begin first with the Government's response to some specific recommendations of the Select Committee that affect people in areas of both low and high demand.
Recommendation (o) concerns the licensing of private landlords. The Government acknowledge that there may be circumstances when the licensing or registration powers might be used in high-demand areas. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State write to me about that point if he cannot expand on it today?
Recommendation (n) covers the suspension of the right to buy in areas of regeneration. I plead with the Government to rethink their strategy. I wholeheartedly endorse the principle of a public subsidy to help people on low and medium incomes to buy homes, but it is madness to do so at the expense of social housing for the most vulnerable who cannot afford to buy their homes.
I am probably giving the Tories more credit than they deserve, but I genuinely do not believe that the architects of the right to buy intended it as a money-making scheme for private landlords. If they did, it is working well and I congratulate them. If they did not, they and the Government must support changes in the law. At the moment, property companies are offering financial inducements for tenants to exercise the right to buy, so that flats can be leased for commercial letting at market rates and taken out of the stock of socially affordable housing. Worse still, they are going round estates, asking, "Are you in debt?" Obviously, many —people even in this House—will answer yes. The companies then offer to help them with the right to buy, finance the mortgage and pay off their debt.
The sums can be £8,000. The tenant has his debt paid, but he loses his home and the right to local authority housing. The companies are fleecing the taxpayer and siphoning funds—legally, at the moment—that should be going into social housing. The tenants who use the companies are not to blame, but the companies are asset stripping public housing and they must be stopped or at least discouraged from doing so. How can that be done? The clawback period could be extended from three years to seven, so that it would be less in their interests to take such action as it would be economically uncertain. In areas of chronic housing shortage, perhaps we could introduce a stipulation that properties can be sold on only to a key worker— although key workers in London cannot afford houses. The qualification period for the right to buy could be made longer to get people thinking about the right to buy. Other options such as increasing the maximum cash incentive scheme grant could also be considered.
348WH
If we do not introduce such measures, we are trying to fill the bath without putting in the plug. Last year, 3,000 new affordable housing units were built in London, but 11,000 went under right to buy. It is absolute madness. It has to stop and I ask the Secretary of State for his thinking on the matter. I should like to reiterate my strong support for the Sub-Committee's recommendation to end the council tax discount on empty homes and to equalise the rates of VAT on new-build housing and renovations and repairs to existing stock. We must pull every lever at our disposal to ensure that we reach the Government's laudable and extremely ambitious target of a decent home for all, wherever they live, by 2010. To do that, we need affordable housing and we must deal with the problems in the north and the south. Conservative estimates suggest that that will require an additional £1.7 billion annually for housing. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to deliver that in the comprehensive spending review, and I thank him for his presence.
5 pm
Mr. Tony Lloyd: This is an excellent report. It brings a range of issues before the House and the country in an intelligent way. It is important that the public should recognise that.
May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the problem that most of the available initiatives are retrospective? We must sharpen the ability to respond to the crises that break out in different areas. The Chairman of the Select Committee reminded us of the point made in the report about how quickly an area can be transformed by the process of dereliction. I have seen that in my constituency, which the Sub-Committee visited. Within a matter of months a street that has been full of people living contentedly can be transformed into a wreck; one house becomes empty and is trashed, those who have the capacity to move do so and more and more homes are abandoned. Those who are left behind are the owner-occupiers who, because of the nature of the area, are often elderly. They are stuck with all the problems of immobility, exacerbated by the fact that the equity structure means that they have no capacity to move elsewhere.
We need to enable local authorities and other agencies to respond rapidly. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) referred to the problem caused by individual empty houses. That is a major problem. I agree with those who said that we should impose a financial penalty on people who allow houses to be abandoned, rather than giving them incentives such as the non-payment of council tax. I understand from my local authority that even when it recognises the need to act quickly, its power is circumscribed. It would make sense if local authorities were able to act quickly at the point of abandonment. We must give them the power to do so.
I should like, briefly, to mention negative equity. One problem is that mortgage lenders are incredibly unsympathetic. They know that they are on to a winner; they can insist that the debt travels with the individual. In a society like ours, in which market failure can be random—it is not always the most obvious areas that are abandoned—those who lend should accept the insurance principle that there is a collective need to underwrite at least some of the damage done to

349WH
individuals. We, as a society, have abandoned some parts of our northern and midlands cities. In the process, we have insisted that a limited number of individuals pick up the big price tag. That is unfair and inequitable.
I should like to couple my thoughts with those of others, and to draw them to the attention of my hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Hulme in east Manchester has been mentioned. It has done well, under both Conservative and Labour Governments, in terms of the new deal in Manchester. That is important, and it is beginning to rebuild confidence in the area.
In rebuilding east Manchester, we must ensure that we do not transfer the problems to other parts of my constituency or to adjoining boroughs. That is one reason why I welcome the pathfinder approach; it recognises that we should not simply concentrate direct pressure, but allows us to look a little beyond our problems. The pathfinder project is welcome; it is a genuine accomplishment and thanks are due to the Secretary of State. However, as other hon. Members have said, it must be followed by sizeable amounts of money. We need the neighbourhood renewal fund, because it will enable us to intervene in the market. It will make a real difference.
I met some of the residents in the new deal area this week. I asked them, "If there is one thing that you want for this area, what would it be?" They said that they wanted the licence to penalise landlords through the benefits system, but stressed how important it is that such a change should not be years away. They said, "Our problems are here and now. The landlords are doing the damage today, next week, and the week after. We need that legislation in operation quickly, so that we can begin to deal with the worst offenders."
5.5 pm
Glenda Jackson: It has been a fascinating debate. It was kicked off by the attempt of the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) to rewrite the history of the Conservative Government on affordable social housing. I represent a London seat, and I had to readjust my mind to the term "empty homes". The idea that properties exist that cannot be sold even for £1,000, when in my borough the average house price is more than £300,000, is astonishing.
The basic factor in this interesting debate is the importance of ensuring that everyone in the country has a decent home. The point has already been made that if people do not have a decent home, the major changes that the Government are making—improving education, health and employment—simply will not work.
I make two essential points to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the estimated number of empty properties in London. which varies between 100,000 and 160,000. First, some boroughs have already instituted an empty homes strategy and employ an empty homes officer, who is responsible for finding empty homes and attempting to bring them back into use. I believe that that should be required of all London boroughs. In truth, I think that we should have a Londonwide strategy. One person per borough is not enough. As the Empty Homes Agency said in its evidence to the Select Committee, as many as five local authority departments
350WH
can be dealing with the issue, but all that happens is that five envelopes go through the letter boxes of empty houses.
Secondly, the Government should take a lead by dealing with their own properties. If such properties are brought back into housing use, I understand that they are required to make a market return. That is simply not feasible for people in desperate need of housing in London. Such people are almost invariably dependent on housing benefit. An increasing number of young people are in need of housing, and virtually no provision is being made for single people of all ages. That is an issue that must be tackled.
I shall not repeat the points already made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) about how some of the worst landlords—not only in London or in England, but in the world—are clearly exploiting public money through the housing benefit system. I therefore believe that, at all possible speed, we should register landlords to ensure that if their tenants claim housing benefit, they have to put money back into improving the housing stock.
5.8 pm
Mr. Don Foster: May I say how much I have enjoyed the debate and that it is wonderful that so many hon. Members are participating in it? I genuinely welcome the Secretary of State, whose presence demonstrates the importance of the subject. Like other hon. Members, I welcome today's announcement about the £25 million for the pathfinder project. Like them, I also welcome the Committee's report, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), the Chairman of the Select Committee, and all the Committee members for addressing what I believe to be a serious problem.
I suspect that all members of the Committee agree that it is a disgrace that we have three or four times as many empty houses as there are homeless families. We need to address that issue seriously as the report and this debate have done.
Although I said that the ratio was three or four to one, it is difficult to be precise because of the inadequacy— which the report rightly points out—of the information available on empty homes, which allows different people to make different interpretations. To be slightly mischievous, I shall draw attention to the Department's recently published report, "More than a roof: A report into tackling homelessness". Page 34 states:
"Much has been done in recent years to reduce the number of empty homes. Overall, the number of empty homes fell from 868,600 in 1993 to 744,200 in 2001."
That sounds particularly impressive. However, if we examine other figures such as those provided by the Empty Homes Agency and look at a wider time frame, we discover that there was a significant bump in the figures between 1992 and 1997. On either side of that bump. the figures have remained remarkably static for a long period. Indeed, they show that in 1991 there were 752,700 empty homes and 10 years later in 2001 there were 753,100. In those 10 years the number of empty homes increased.
That demonstrates that we are not doing enough to tackle the problem and that is why the report, with its many sensible recommendations, is so important.

351WH
I appreciate entirely that, as the Chairman of the Select Committee said, the report could not tackle all the issues. There are many others that no doubt many of us would like to have seen in the report. For example, I believe that more could have been said about the issue of short life and the contribution that that can make in areas of high demand to reducing the housing problem and reducing crime. I am aware of the difficulties following the Bruton ruling of 2000 and the bad reputation that short life enjoys in some quarters, but I believe that it can make a contribution. Equally, empty commercial property is very little mentioned in the report. Clearly, that issue has huge potential that needs to be addressed.
Many other issues could have been included in the report. I make no criticism of the fact that they were not, but it would be interesting to have much more research on the reasons why some house owners leave their properties empty. For example, it is interesting to note that the Council of Mortgage Lenders believes that a large number of owners are fearful of leasing, renting or letting their properties because they do not believe that they will ever get their tenants out. That may indicate some people's ignorance of current landlord and tenant legislation, but it is clearly a concern that we need to address.
I welcome many of the report's recommendations, including those for strengthening compulsory purchase order powers for local authorities—for which Liberal Democrats have long argued—and the more recent proposals on compulsory leasing, which deserve significant attention. I welcome, too, the report's proposals on putting a floor in the housing market in areas of low demand. I hope, therefore, that the Government will consider that recommendation. Their response says that they will consider the recommendation that the DLTR, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Treasury and others should get together to develop an insurance scheme to underwrite the values of property in areas of low demand.
It is worrying that the Government's response seems to imply that they are happy to leave it to local authorities under their existing powers to indemnify mortgage loans. The reality is that although many local authorities recognise that they have the powers, they do not have the resources to implement them.
Local authorities can do a lot. I understand the point that was made a few minutes ago about the importance of finding local solutions to the problems. Therefore, it is disturbing that far too many local councils do not appear to have an effective empty homes strategy.
I make one criticism of the Government's response to recommendation (d) of the report. The recommendation is that, rather than developing
"a discrete empty homes strategy, local authorities should address the problem through a local housing strategy"
that integrates the problems of empty homes with their overall housing strategy. That is right. The Government were wrong to insist in the Homelessness Act 2002 that there be a homelessness strategy separate from a council's housing strategy. The response ought to be integrated. It is disappointing that the Government's response to the Select Committee's recommendation ignored that need for integration.
352WH
Local authorities can do a great deal. Their properties often remain empty because of poor management, such as failure to tackle repairs, delays in nominations and the making of unsuitable offers. Some local authorities can do better, but so can central Government. It is all very well for the Government to impose targets on local authorities for the maximum percentage of empty homes, but let us remember that the Government also have a large amount of housing stock. It would be interesting to see what they would do to try to achieve a similar target to that that they have imposed on local government.
I warmly welcome other recommendations, such as the removal of the 50 per cent. council tax discount in respect of second homes and long-term empty houses. My party has campaigned for that for a long time. Consultation ended on 15 February, and all that the Government have said so far is that they will make a final decision later in the year. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us more about that in his reply to the debate. Let us get on with implementing that recommendation, which has support on both sides of the House.
Frankly, it is complete madness that the Government, having made some welcome moves on the VAT equalisation proposal, are not prepared to go further. All they say is that they
"will keep the VAT treatment or housing under review".
They need to take the Committee's recommendations seriously. It is crazy that full VAT of 17.5 per cent. has to be paid on repair and renovations to bring an empty home back into use, unless it is in one of the exempted categories, whereas no VAT whatever is paid to build a mock-Georgian, four-bedroom, double-garaged house on a greenfield site. That is ludicrous and needs to change.
We need to widen the issues on planning. There is not enough time to go into the details, but we must do much more. The Government are failing to meet their target of building 60 per cent. of new housing on brownfield sites. I wish that they would consider more seriously than they have to date not only the Committee's recommendations, but the imposition of a greenfield development tax.
Hon. Members from all parties have picked up on the regional imbalance. We all recall that only a few years ago the Prime Minister sought to downplay that imbalance, but he was wrong, as there is significant regional imbalance between different parts of England. However, I hope that no one will forget that the problem of empty homes exists in every region of the country, whether there is high or low housing demand.
I referred to the figures produced by the Empty Homes Agency. It is worth noting that the figures for empty homes in low-demand areas such as the northeast, the north-west and Yorkshire and Humberside are 45,000, 140,000 and 100,000 respectively. Those are huge numbers and several hon. Members have explained the reasons for them. However, the same figures show that there are also huge numbers of empty homes in areas of high housing demand. There are 104,000 in London, 86,000 in the south-east and 67,000 in the south-west. As other hon. Members have pointed out, the problem affects rural as well as urban areas.

353WH
There remains a need to tackle those regional imbalances, and inter-regional mobility schemes are already in operation. I welcome details of the Burnley and Padiham housing scheme, which has already brought 60 tenants from London to Burnley and has a waiting list of 300. Much more needs to be done to address the imbalances in terms of jobs, skills and the economy generally. That is why the current regeneration schemes are so important.
The sad truth is that there are too many overlapping schemes, each with its own complex and bureaucratic bidding system. Because of that, far too many of those schemes are underspending. Indeed, some schemes have spent less than 10 per cent. of the money originally provided at the announcement of their launch. For example, in the first year of its operation, the new deal for communities, which has now been replaced, spent less than 2 per cent. of the money it was allocated. The European regional development fund underspent by millions of pounds, and other schemes underspent similarly. We need to develop a single, flexible regeneration scheme to which people can gain easy access.
I welcome the report, however, and the Government's response to it. They have taken the report more seriously than some Select Committee reports. It is a tribute to the Committee that the Empty Homes Agency says of the report that it
"represents a radical agenda for action and a check list for the coming few years to ensure that we maximise the potential of this wasted national asset."
That is what the empty homes problem amounts to a wasted national asset—and we need to do something about it. The report makes good recommendations for tackling the problem.
5.21 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am delighted to be able to take part in this serious debate. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), the Chairman of the Select Committee, introduced the debate very reasonably. We have heard good speeches from hon. Members of all parties, and the attendance in the Chamber shows how seriously hon. Members take the issue.
I welcome the Secretary of State. He will have heard hon. Members' comments, and should be able to take action to deal with the problem and tell us what action he is already taking.
Before the 1997 election, the Prime Minister said that there was no doubt that the homeless problem had been increased by the shortage of affordable rental housing. He said that Labour's approach would be founded on the basic aim of ensuring that everyone had a chance to a decent home, both the majority who wanted to own their own homes and the minority who could not afford to buy or chose to rent. We would all say, "Amen" to that.
The Select Committee report makes some excellent recommendations, but the Government response is somewhat weak. The problem is serious, as the report suggests when it states:
"We received many moving letters from those trapped in areas of low demand. They did not prepare us for the desolation that we saw on our visit to the North West. The rows of abandoned
354WH
terraces, the broken windows and the burned out houses were shocking. There are 280,000 houses in and at risk of low demand in the M62 corridor alone."
The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) described the situation clearly in an excellent speech. I pay tribute to him, as he has tabled some 300 written parliamentary questions on the subject and has shown dedication to the issue over a long period. The Select Committee visited Burnley Wood in his constituency, which is possibly one of the worst places in the country for this problem, and saw the 30 per cent. vacancy rate of empty homes. If that is not a graphic illustration of the seriousness of the problem, I do not know what is.
The problem is that there are 753,188 empty homes in the country. On any measure, there are approximately 115,000 homeless people, which gives us a one to seven ratio of homeless people to empty homes. Surely, it is not beyond the wit of the Government to start to redress that imbalance. If we make even a small difference, that will have a huge impact on the number of people who are homeless.
It is good to welcome the Secretary of State to the debate, but we should not forget that it is taking place against the background of rising homelessness and a fall in the number of houses being built. A total of 162,000 houses were built last year, the lowest figure in any year since 1927. The number of people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation is rising hugely. Perhaps most tragically, the number of child homeless is rising significantly. The situation is, therefore, serious.
I take the point that there is no one-size-fits-all solution, as many hon. Members have said. Even within London, areas have different problems. Some are affluent, while others suffer extreme poverty. Some have relatively few empty homes, while others have a great number.
On the whole, however, the problem is significantly worse in the north-east and the north-west. My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) made it clear that that is because of an imbalance in the economy. Nothing can solve the problem in a more sustainable, long-term way than encouraging economic development and growth, and we must make the climate for such things more satisfactory. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but that is what we must do if we are to avoid pouring ever more taxpayers' money into the issue with no real long-term effect. Hon. Members should remember the investment that the Conservatives encouraged in the north-east during our 18 years in power and its knock-on effect on solving some of the housing problems in that deprived area.
In the short time left, I shall ask the Government to consider a number of issues. It is all very well levering in more public sector money, but the Government are taking in significantly more in stamp duty than they did when they came to power-some £7 billion a year more is going to the Exchequer. Surely, a larger fraction of that could be recycled into the housing sector.
What is the Secretary of State doing to consult the private sector, the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the Treasury to ensure that, whatever public money is put into the housing sector, an equally large amount is levered in from the private sector? Ultimately, it is the private sector that can open many doors.

355WH
I agree with hon. Members and with the report's recommendation that we need to examine compulsory purchase powers. One reason why our urban regeneration corporations were so successful was that we allowed them to cut through bureaucracy and red tape to acquire large enough blocks of land. As a result, regeneration schemes were large enough and effective enough to make a real difference.
I want to bring the Secretary of State's attention to an innovative scheme in Edinburgh and to ask him whether he can replicate it throughout the country. A developer called George Heywood negotiated with the owners of 70 sites in the city. Taking 50 per cent. of the increased value of the sites, it was possible to raise a huge amount. The money was originally estimated at £21 million, but eventually provided all of the £35 million required to bring in a completely new suburban rail system. Has the Secretary of State considered a system of increased site value to fund public sector infrastructure, using the private sector to fund public sector infrastructure? When the public infrastructure was put into the dome site, there was a huge increase in its value, but the public sector never really benefited.
I quickly want to go through several of the issues that have been raised. Mention was made of the lack of compulsory purchase and planning skills in local authorities. That is a real problem. It is because people who work in local authorities are not valued, are not paid enough and are poached by the private sector. We have recently received many representations to the effect that planning departments in local authorities are losing those key skills, and if they lose those skills, they will be unable to perform their regulatory functions properly. What is the Secretary of State doing to resolve the European gap funding problem? That problem has been solved by the Scottish Parliament, so why cannot the Government solve it for England and Wales?
What is the Secretary of State doing about the scam of right to buy when a local authority has decided that a compulsory purchase order should be implemented? It is totally wrong for developers to be able to come along and make an instant profit. [Interruption.]
Mr. Win Griffiths (in the Chair): Order.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: What is the Secretary of State doing to make sure that the Housing Corporation properly regulates its housing associations? There have been a few notable failures among housing associations. Others are running their affairs in a sloppy way, taking too long to re-let their properties and letting properties to unsuitable tenants in unsuitable areas.
When is the Secretary of State likely to introduce legislation on registration of houses in multiple occupancy and changes to the law on dealing with rogue landlords? That issue has been raised by many hon. Members and must be dealt with, because landlords are letting to unsuitable tenants and bringing whole areas into disrepute. Furthermore, if the landlord is receiving housing benefit or any other public funds, the public have a right to expect that landlord to manage his property reasonably.
This has been an extremely good debate about a very good report, which has not been regarded by the Government with the seriousness that it deserves. One
356WH
of the best recommendations in the report is recommendation (tt), which says—[Interruption.] I wish that hon. Members would listen rather than tittle-tattling. The recommendation says:
"Different solutions are required in different places, taking account of the circumstances facing the housing market in each conurbation and the need to manage change. The rules governing a Housing Market Renewal Fund must provide sufficient flexibility to take account of that diversity."
The Government replied in four lines
"As mentioned earlier the housing market renewal fund proposal is being considered as part of the current spending review."
We all know that. The Government must take the report much more seriously, and we will be holding them to account. The situation is fragile and deteriorating. I welcome the Secretary of State to the debate today, but I warn him that we will hold him to account and make sure that he delivers on his remarks.
5.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Stephen Byers): I will be held to account by my hon. Friends because this is a key issue that affects many of their constituents. That is why so many have contributed to the debate today and others who have been unable to take part in the debate have attended, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), my hon. Friends the Members for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Heyes), for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson), for Stroud (Mr. Drew), for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), for Bassetlaw (John Mann), and for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), reflecting the fact that this is an issue of great concern.
Andrew Selous: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Byers: I want to get through my introduction first, and I am badly squeezed by the time that I have available.
The reason why we have had such a well-informed debate is because it is based on a good report from the Select Committee. I do not often say that about Select Committee reports, but this one analyses the situation extremely well and comes up with some very practical proposals for the way forward. I am disappointed that the Government's response has not been warmly endorsed by Opposition Members, but I want to say how we intend to carry forward the issue, especially in three broad areas: the pathfinder projects; the licensing of landlords; and how to use the planning system to the best possible effect. First, however, I want to touch on a number of other issues that hon. Members raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) raised the important issue of intervening before the situation gets out of control. The report makes that point very well when it talks about areas that are fragile, rather than failing. Such areas have not quite slipped down to the depths that hon. Members have spoken about this afternoon, but they are vulnerable. We therefore need an early-warning system and measures that will allow us to intervene quickly.

357WH
To be honest, we shall not be able to do that from the centre. We shall have to involve local authorities and other bodies that have responsibility for housing and powers to intervene quickly if we are to ensure that difficulties are not experienced. In introducing the report, the Select Committee's Chairman gave the vivid example of a street in Manchester, Gorton, where the situation worsened rapidly over a handful of months. We must find a way to take powers, so that there can be intervention when it is needed.
Several hon. Members mentioned the right to buy. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) has raised the issue with me privately several times, and it is a real issue for her. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) also mentioned it. There is an issue about right to buy in areas that are subject to regeneration programmes. I read the Government's response again last night, and I understand why it has been interpreted in the way that it has. Let me, however, make our position clear. Our problem with the specific proposal in the report is that there are practical difficulties with it. We want, however, to give the principle detailed consideration.
There is clearly an opportunity to exploit the right-to-buy provisions as they are presently drafted. That is particularly true in areas where regeneration is taking place, and we must examine what we can do in those cases. I am willing to do that, and the Government will do so. I am more than happy to provide the Committee with a supplementary report at a later date to explain how we think we can deal with this concern. The Government therefore recognise the principle, but we have concerns about the practical proposals and need to consider other ways in which to deal with the issue.
Hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) and for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), mentioned regional variations. What is fascinating about housing is that no single solution will apply in the north-west, the north-east and in London. We need a lot of different solutions in place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe raised the specific issue of housing stock transfer and what we do to ensure that all our cities and towns have the opportunity to bring their properties up to a decent standard. When one examines the different levels of debt in each housing authority, for example, it becomes clear that what might be a solution in Birmingham will not be appropriate in Sheffield, because the burden and the overhang of debt are different. We must therefore find tailor-made solutions to the housing needs of our cities and towns. That means that we must talk directly with Sheffield, Birmingham, Bolton and so on to identify what the needs and priorities are and how we can respond positively.
My position as Secretary of State is clear. I do not stand in dogmatic opposition to council housing, but believe that there should be genuine choice. That means that we must consider new forms of funding. We have the housing stock transfer, the public finance initiative and arms-length management organisations, to which we must give greater attention. We shall also have the new capital borrowing powers if we get the legislation into this year's Queen's Speech. Therefore, a range of options will be open to individual local authorities.
358WH
The three key issues that ran throughout the debate were pathfinder projects, the planning system and landlords. On pathfinders, we have identified nine areas where some 720,000 are in low demand or abandonment out of a national total of some 880,000. Therefore, those nine areas cover the bulk of the problem.
Janet Anderson: I know that the Secretary of State is aware of my disappointment, which is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope), that Rossendale has not been included among the pathfinder authorities. Will the Secretary of State give me an assurance that it will be included? I reassure him that he need have no doubts about the ability of Rossendale's local authority to deliver, because it has been Labour controlled since we gained 12 seats from the Tories at the local elections.
Mr. Byers: I am sure that that is the case. On my hon. Friend's specific point, we have drawn up provisional boundaries for the pathfinder projects but we are open to expand them where appropriate. When we consider how we can draw together the details of the pathfinder relevant to Rossendale, we shall give proper consideration to extending it to include Rossendale. That would make a lot of sense, given the opportunity we have to consider the case.
Today, we announced that £25 million would be made available immediately from the capital modernisation fund from the Treasury for the nine pathfinder projects. As I said in my parliamentary reply at 12.30 pm, that money is intended to kick-start the process. We should all be realistic in recognising that significant sums will be needed if pathfinders are to be a positive development. We are seeking not only a housing solution but, as hon. Members have said, a solution to the problems of market renewal, antisocial behaviour, crime and drug dealing. All those issues must be tackled together if we are to overcome the problem of housing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) articulated the difficulties and the desperate situations that people encounter when facing market decline, such as we have seen in Burnley and other places. We have a responsibility to people in Burnley and elsewhere to ensure that the situation does not continue.
We will need to use planning effectively if we are to be successful. I am keen that our regional planning guidance should be clear about using that important lever to achieve our objectives, especially in the case of brownfield site development. The next regional planning guidance happens to be for the north-west and will be published on 20 May. When hon. Members read the details of that document, they will see that we intend to use the planning process to move development from greenfield to brownfield sites.
Sir Paul Beresford: I thank the Secretary of State for responding on the question of planning. Will he go on to address the issue of tariffs, which would be a disadvantage in encouraging development on brownfield sites? Many suspicious people would identify another difficulty—I would include myself among those people. Tariffs may be an advantage in areas of development but a disadvantage in other areas, and we foresee the tendency for the tariff to become a form of

359WH
stealth tax by adjustment of the Government funding, under whatever name it is called at that point. Will the Secretary of State give us an absolute guarantee that that will not happen?
Mr. Byers: We are consulting on the question of planning tariffs and the planning gain we should get from them. We shall use them not as a way of raising tax but to ensure that planning is used as a means of economic regeneration and social renewal. That applies to housing and other areas. I am sure that, when hon. Members see the guidance on 20 May, they will welcome it enormously.
We need legislation to introduce licensing of landlords. Before that, however, we can use the lever of denying landlords the opportunity to get housing
360WH
benefit directly from local authorities and require that they get it directly from their tenant. That is a significant lever, which we may exercise and to which we are giving proper and detailed consideration. We must ensure that the £11 billion of public money paid out in housing benefit gives us decent accommodation and landlords who discharge their responsibilities.
I would have been delighted to address a range of other issues at length. The empty homes question is a priority for the Government and one that we take seriously and recognise will not simply go away. Housing is rising up the political agenda. There is a responsibility on the Government to respond positively, and we intend to discharge it.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Six o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the budget is for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission for the financial year 2002–03. [57782]

  Mr. Browne
  The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has a budget of £1.2 million for the year 2002–03. The Northern Ireland Office will continue to consider seriously, against other pressures on its resources, bids for increased funding, provided they are supported by an appropriate business case.

  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will publish the Government's response to the recommendations made by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission under section 69(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. [57780]

  Mr. Browne
  I have today laid copies of the Government's draft response in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament. The Government are publishing the document for consultation to allow others to have their say. Comments are being sought by 16 August 2002.

  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what level of remuneration is paid to members of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; and what time commitment is required of them. [57781]

  Mr. Browne
  Part-time members of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission are expected to spend four to five days each month on Commission duties. From the Commission's establishment in 1999, Commissioners have received £8,000 per year for this work. With effect from 1 April 2002, this rate will increase to £10,000 per year.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Register of Interests
  Norman Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, for what reason the register of interests relating to the Church Commissioners is not available for public inspection; and if he will make a statement [55477]

  Mr. Bell
  The Church Commissioners' Board of Governors introduced a register of interests in June 2000 in line with good practice. It is available for 748W
  inspection on request by MPs, Government officials, members of the Church of England's General Synod and Commissioners and other committee members, reflecting the Commissioners' accountability to the Church and Parliament. Its operation and availability will stay under review.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  UNESCO
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether her Department takes the lead in policies connected with UK membership of UNESCO; and if she will make a statement concerning co-operation with other Government Departments in this matter. [56336]

  Clare Short
  My Department is the sponsoring Department for UK relations with UNESCO. It pays the UK's share of UNESCO's assessed budget. The Government's top priority for UNESCO is the achievement of the millennium development goals for education. We co-ordinate closely and regularly with other UK Government Departments and with the parallel Departments in the devolved Administrations with an interest in UNESCO's work.

  Temporary Staff
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the cost to her Department was of employing staff in(a) London and (b) the south east from employment agencies in each year since 1997. [56512]

  Clare Short
  The information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Global Environmental Facility
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much assistance the Government have given to the Global Environmental Facility in each of the last five years. [56658]

  Clare Short
  The UK has provided the following financial assistance to the Global Environmental Facility:

  £ million

  1997–98

  14.2

  1998–99

  8.6

  1999–2000

  10.92

  2000–01

  14.58

  2001–02

  18.42

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which countries have received assistance from the Global Environmental Facility in each of the last five years; and how much they received. [56659]
  749W
  Clare Shore
  The figures are as follows:

  Global Environmental Facility grants to countries—financial year 1997 to financial year 2002 (Partial)

  US$ million

  Country

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Albania

  0.096

  —

  —

  0.014

  —

  Algeria

  0.231

  0.195

  0.014

  0.750

  0.100

  Antigua and Barbuda

  0.139

  0.162

  —

  0.114

  —

  Argentina

  15.938

  22.315

  0.736

  —

  —

  Armenia

  0.175

  —

  —

  —

  0.243

  Azerbaijan

  —

  7.192

  —

  0.098

  0.351

  Bahamas

  0.150

  0.199

  —

  —

  0.290

  Bahrain

  —

  0.335

  —

  —

  —

  Bangladesh

  —

  12.200

  5.175

  5.799

  —

  Barbados

  0.144

  0.189

  —

  —

  —

  Belarus

  —

  0.081

  —

  —

  0.496

  Belize

  0.185

  0.169

  6.860

  —

  0.832

  Benin

  —

  6.492

  1.235

  6.295

  0.302

  Bhutan

  1.614

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bolivia

  4.446

  —

  15.739

  0.100

  —

  Botswana

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.359

  Brazil

  40.943

  20.000

  11.386

  49.932

  0.750

  Bulgaria

  2.596

  —

  0.155

  —

  0.250

  Burkina Faso

  0.473

  0.014

  —

  —

  18.980

  Burundi

  —

  —

  0.549

  0.011

  0.119

  Cambodia

  0.325

  0.350

  2.750

  —

  6.080

  Cameroon

  0.300

  0.278

  —

  1.000

  —

  Cape Verde

  0.527

  4.944

  —

  —

  0.120

  Central African Republic

  0.165

  0.350

  —

  0.014

  0.271

  Chad

  0.243

  —

  0.014

  0.100

  —

  Chile

  0.350

  —

  —

  0.271

  18.247

  China

  31.611

  45.590

  20.776

  28.600

  87.120

  Colombia

  0.253

  —

  1.095

  25.725

  4.775

  Comoros

  0.132

  —

  0.324

  —

  —

  Congo

  0.248

  —

  0.333

  —

  —

  Congo DR

  0.677

  6.332

  0.013

  —

  —

  Cook Islands

  —

  —

  0.204

  —

  —

  Costa Rica

  7.479

  —

  —

  9.080

  0.750

  Cote d'Ivoire

  0.238

  0.341

  17.695

  —

  0.095

  Croatia

  0.102

  0.346

  0.750

  —

  11.675

  Cuba

  0.206

  —

  4.043

  13.265

  0.192

  Czech Republic

  5.092

  0.01

  0.448

  —

  —

  Djibouti

  —

  —

  0.310

  —

  —

  Dominica

  —

  0.265

  0.007

  —

  —

  Dominican Republic

  —

  0.230

  0.350

  —

  —

  Ecuador

  —

  0.289

  1.905

  19.675

  12.230

  Egypt

  0.288

  0.014

  —

  5.084

  7.365

  E1 Salvador

  0.518

  0.750

  —

  0.100

  0.225

  Equatorial Guinea

  0.296

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Eritrea

  5.565

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Estonia

  0.166

  —

  —

  —

  1.203

  Ethiopia

  0.213

  —

  2.242

  —

  —

  Fiji

  0.198

  —

  0.766

  —

  —

  Gabon

  —

  0.245

  0.319

  —

  —

  Gambia

  0.381

  0.014

  —

  —

  0.193

  Georgia

  0.445

  —

  12.850

  0.850

  —

  Ghana

  2.531

  9.020

  —

  8.450

  0.100

  Grenada

  —

  0.134

  0.184

  0.748

  —

  Guatemala

  0.541

  —

  —

  1.156

  8.350

  Guinea

  0.346

  —

  —

  2.000

  —

  Guinea-Bissau

  0.541

  —

  —

  —

  0.014

  Guyana

  6.326

  0.279

  —

  —

  —

  Haiti

  —

  0.612

  —

  —

  —

  Honduras

  7.625

  0.250

  —

  —

  0.100

  Hungary

  0.166

  6.057

  —

  2.500

  4.200

  India

  —

  15.183

  7.868

  6.213

  8.320

  Indonesia

  12.280

  0.228

  6.010

  11.181

  0.832

  Iran

  0.700

  —

  —

  —

  1.500

  Jamaica

  —

  0.426

  —

  —

  —

  Jordan

  1.949

  0.088

  —

  —

  —

  Kazakhstan

  —

  —

  —

  8.500

  8.847

  Kenya

  0.157

  —

  3.366

  1.500

  —

  Kiribati

  —

  0.199

  —

  0.013

  —

  Korea DPR

  0.453

  —

  —

  0.750

  —

  Kyrgyzstan

  0.108

  —

  —

  —

  0.332

  Lao PDR

  —

  0.744

  —

  —

  —

  Latvia

  5.120

  1.633

  —

  —

  0.957

  Lebanon

  0.145

  —

  3.410

  —

  0.200

  Lesotho

  0.464

  2.507

  —

  —

  0.100

  Liberia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Libya

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.275

  750W

  Global Environmental Facility grants to countries—financial year 1997 to financial year 2002 (Partial)

  US$million

  Country

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Lithuania

  0.225

  4.645

  —

  —

  10.000

  Madagascar

  20.825

  0.010

  0.350

  —

  —

  Malawi

  0.483

  0.011

  8.718

  —

  —

  Malaysia

  0.037

  7.301

  6.309

  —

  4.025

  Maldives

  0.151

  —

  —

  0.012

  —

  Mali

  0.252

  0.108

  —

  —

  0.100

  Malta

  —

  —

  —

  0.265

  —

  Marshall Islands

  0.230

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mauritania

  0.233

  0.514

  —

  —

  0.148

  Mauritius

  0.235

  0.152

  —

  0.750

  —

  Mexico

  0.198

  —

  10.190

  79.005

  44.251

  Micronesia

  —

  —

  —

  1.029

  —

  Moldova

  —

  0.450

  —

  —

  0.400

  Mongolia

  0.033

  5.160

  0.334

  0.750

  1.898

  Morocco

  0.191

  10.364

  46.865

  4.509

  —

  Mozambique

  0.216

  0.229

  4.080

  —

  —

  Namibia

  —

  —

  0.242

  —

  2.703

  Nepal

  —

  0.310

  0.013

  0.728

  1.375

  Nicaragua

  7.430

  0.299

  —

  0.252

  0.850

  Niger

  0.230

  0.357

  —

  —

  0.100

  Nigeria

  0.260

  0.314

  —

  —

  8.350

  Niue

  —

  0.431

  —

  —

  0.114

  Oman

  —

  0.266

  —

  —

  —

  Pakistan

  —

  11.176

  8.374

  —

  —

  Palau

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.309

  Panama

  8.800

  0.313

  0.750

  —

  0.321

  Papua New Guinea

  —

  —

  17.482

  —

  —

  Paraguay

  —

  —

  9.532

  —

  —

  Peru

  —

  4.378

  17.070

  —

  1.884

  Philippines

  —

  0.191

  5.275

  10.259

  0.843

  Poland

  0.205

  0.011

  8.400

  11.184

  1.975

  Romania

  5.325

  —

  —

  —

  15.800

  Russian Federation

  3.033

  —

  31.300

  0.750

  2.356

  Rwanda

  0.171

  0.014

  —

  —

  0.330

  Samoa

  —

  0.172

  0.925

  —

  0.014

  Sâo Tomé and Principe

  —

  —

  —

  0.163

  0.350

  Saudi Arabia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Senegal

  0.205

  0.078

  —

  —

  9.450

  Seychelles

  0.436

  0.750

  —

  0.747

  0.100

  Sierra Leone

  0.309

  —

  —

  —

  0.275

  Slovak Republic

  0.077

  —

  2.200

  0.750

  —

  Slovenia

  —

  0.434

  4.398

  —

  0.095

  Solomon Islands

  0.123

  —

  0.009

  —

  —

  South Africa

  —

  12.731

  0.762

  2.446

  —

  Sri Lanka

  5.025

  —

  —

  1.508

  10.300

  St. Kitts and Nevis

  —

  0.263

  —

  —

  —

  St. Lucia

  —

  0.340

  —

  —

  0.280

  St. Vincent and Grenadines

  0.117

  0.350

  —

  —

  —

  Sudan

  0.290

  1.084

  0.764

  0.100

  0.102

  Suriname

  0.092

  —

  9.590

  —

  —

  Swaziland

  0.429

  —

  —

  0.014

  —

  Syria

  4.264

  —

  1.500

  0.014

  0.120

  Tajikistan

  —

  —

  —

  0.327

  1.182

  Tanzania

  —

  0.254

  —

  2.363

  —

  Thailand

  —

  0.190

  2.500

  6.830

  0.100

  The F.Y.R. of Macedonia

  —

  —

  1.845

  0.750

  0.337

  Togo

  0.338

  —

  1.135

  0.239

  0.100

  Tonga

  —

  —

  —

  0.325

  —

  Trinidad and Tobago

  0.127

  0.219

  —

  4.200

  —

  Tunisia

  0.089

  0.710

  4.360

  —

  —

  Turkey

  —

  8.550

  —

  —

  —

  Turkmenistan

  0.350

  —

  0.515

  0.304

  0.850

  Uganda

  10.289

  0.125

  0.750

  30.350

  0.100

  Ukraine

  23.000

  13.570

  —

  —

  2.350

  Uruguay

  2.621

  —

  0.014

  1.596

  —

  Uzbekistan

  0.509

  —

  3.412

  0.098

  0.750

  Vanuatu

  0.207

  0.013

  —

  —

  0.132

  Venezuela

  0.273

  —

  0.964

  9.787

  0.350

  Vietnam

  —

  0.012

  0.213

  0.997

  0.750

  Yemen

  5.455

  0.014

  1.500

  0.100

  0.100

  Zambia

  0.545

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Zimbabwe

  0.393

  —

  —

  —

  1.095

  Total

  266.923

  254.439

  342.520

  383.387

  335.150

  Notes:

  1. This list excludes the regional and global projects

  2. The GEF fiscal year ends 30 June

  Water Conservation
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much her Department has spent on research into innovative water technologies and water conservation techniques for the agriculture sector in the past five years; and if she will list each research project. [56660]

  Project title

  Research agency

  Smallholder irrigation in Africa

  International Programme on Technology and Research in Irrigation and Drainage

  Sustainability of modern irrigated agricultural systems

  HR Wallingford

  Technology transfer and sustainable rural development

  Silsoe College

  Aids to improved agricultural drainage

  HR Wallingford

  Fuzzy logic for water resource allocation

  Centre for Ecology and Hydrology

  Improved irrigation in peri-urban areas

  HR Wallingford

  Improved irrigation and drainage to save water

  HR Wallingford

  Low cost micro-irrigation technologies for the poor

  Intermediate Technology and Development Group

  Privatisation/transfer of irrigation management in central Asia

  Mott MacDonald

  Improving community spate irrigation systems

  HR Wallingford

  Achieving sustainable local management of irrigation water in water-short basins: South Africa case study

  International Water Management Institute

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial assistance her Department gave to(a) South Africa, (b) Uganda and (c) Nigeria for sustainable water supplies and sanitation systems in (i) 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02. [56661]

  Clare Short
  In financial year 2000–01 the Department gave the following financial assistance for sustainable water supplies and sanitation systems:

  £

  (a) South Africa

  1,503,450

  (b) Uganda

  12,324,094

  (c) Nigeria

  590,577

  1 Figure includes school sanitation component of an education project

  Expenditure figures for 2001–02 are not yet available.

  Anti-corruption Bureaux
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much assistance her Department provided in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 to support anti-corruption bureaux in developing countries; and if she will list them. [56662]

  Clare Short
  Our planned and operational support for anti-corruption bureaux in developing countries in 2000–01 and 2001–02 using figures available from our central management information system includes the following:

  £

  Planned commitment

  Expenditure 2001–01

  Expenditure 2001–02

  Honduras

  41,000

  41,000

  —

  Malawi

  1,272,000

  94,902

  269,751

  Pakistan

  431,000

  —

  168,000

  Sierra Leone

  1,445,000

  137,158

  898,743

  Uganda

  1,000,000

  5,589

  248,064

  Zambia

  2,126,000

  276,720

  233,524

  Total

  6,315,000

  555,369

  1,818,082

  752W
  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development funds a substantial programme of knowledge and research in water-related issues. Over the past five years £5 million has been allocated to innovative water technologies and water conservation techniques for the agricultural sector. Specific projects include:

  We are also currently developing support to the new Independent Corrupt Practices Commission in Nigeria.

  Support for anti-corruption bureaux is normally only one part of wider programmes of activity to bear down on corruption.

  Trade and Poverty Programme
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the progress of the Africa trade and poverty programme. [56664]

  Hilary Benn
  The trade and poverty programme (TPP) aims to build capacity in sub-Saharan African countries and regional organisations for trade reforms which support poverty reduction. Detailed proposals for capacity building projects have been prepared in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Malawi, Botswana and the East African community. The project design process has itself been contributing in these countries to better co-ordination between trade policy and poverty reduction and to building the national understanding and ownership of the projects which is vital for their success. Full implementation of these projects is expected to start in July 2002. DFID is also working on possible TPP projects with Lesotho, Mozambique, Zambia and the Southern African trade network and plans to make visits to assess interest in Nigeria in June and with the West African Economic and Monetary Union shortly after.

  UNGASS
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her assessment was of the outcomes of the UN Special Session on Children (UNGASS) which took place in New York in May. [56667]

  Clare Short
  The UNGASS helped to raise the profile of child poverty and child rights issues. It provided an opportunity for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Minister for Children and Young People and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development to advocate UK views and network with
  753W
  others. But negotiations on the outcomes document were difficult. The outcomes document is good on HIV/AIDS, gender equality and education. But we were not able to secure optimal language on reproductive health and child rights in the face of strong American opposition. The language on reproductive health and child rights is acceptable and the best that could be agreed by all UN member states, but is not as strong as we would ideally have liked.

  Sustainable Development
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made towards the implementation of national strategies for sustainable development for developing countries; and which countries have strategies in place. [56668]

  Clare Short
  DFID has been supporting the development of National Strategies for sustainable development (NSSDs) initially through working with colleagues at the OECD/DAC to produce policy guidance on this topic. This work has been taken up by the United Nations who have now developed their own policy guidance. This will be a priority issue at the World Summit on sustainable development later this year.

  One conclusion of work so far is that developing strategies is more of a process than preparing a document that sits on a shelf. Moreover, the label does not matter. If a national strategy adheres to an agreed set of principles or characteristics of strategic processes for sustainability, then that strategy in effect becomes a NSSD. In this way, poverty reduction strategies that exhibit these characteristics (such as the integration of environmental, economic and social considerations) can be considered NSSDs.

  As a consequence, it is not easy to quantify how many NSSDs are in place because they are identified by characteristics not labels.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the mandate of the European Development Fund Committee 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 she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [55383]

  Clare Short
  The European Development Fund Committee (EDF) examines community aid for development co-operation in the ACP countries and the overseas countries and territories (OCT). EU-ACP co-operation is now governed by the Cotonou Agreement, signed in June 2000. The Cotonou Agreement's main objectives are the reduction and eventual eradication of poverty and the gradual integration of ACP countries into the global economy, while adhering to the aims of sustainable development.

  Article 21 of the Cotonou Agreement establishes the role of the EDF Committee. The Committee's tasks cover:

  (a) programming of community aid and programming reviews in particular focusing on country and regional strategies, including identification of projects and programmes;

  754W

  (b) participation in the decision-making process relating to financing from the European Development Fund; and

  (c) monitoring the implementation of community aid, including sectoral aspects, cross-cutting issues, and the functioning of field-level co-ordination.

  The Committee also examines the consistency and complementarity between EC aid and aid from the member states. In order to ensure transparency and consistency between co-operation operations and improve complementarity between community actions and member states' own bilateral programmes.

  In the past 12 months the Committee has met nine times. The United Kingdom is represented by officials from the Department for International Development. Travel costs for DFID officials to attend meetings of the Committee are met by the European Commission. Other costs incurred for attending this Committee totalled £2,800 in the past 12 months.

  Together with member states, the commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to
  "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".

  As an obligation to this decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (Com (2001) 783 Final).

  As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on the Special System of Assistance to traditional ACP Suppliers of Bananas 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 she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability` and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [55382]

  Clare Short
  Council Regulation (EC) No. 856/1999 establishes a special framework of assistance (SFA) for traditional ACP suppliers of bananas. It was adopted on 22 April 1999. The Regulation provides for financial and technical assistance to 12 ACP countries, taking account of changes in the marketing arrangements for bananas in Europe following the amendments to the import regime introduced on 1 January 1999.

  A Commission decision fixing the amounts available in 1999 under the special framework of assistance for a total of 45 million euro was published on 30 September 1999. A second Commission decision was made on 18 July 2000 for the 2000 budget line (44.5 million euro).

  The overall objective of this programme of assistance is to improve competitiveness of traditional ACP banana production. The Council Regulation aims to achieve this goal by funding projects designed to increase banana productivity. Funding is also available for diversification

  755W
  where no opportunities for sustainable increase in banana production exists. The method for calculating eligibility for funds is based upon a competitivity gap formula.

  Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1609/1999 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the Council Regulation was adopted on 22 July 1999. Article 6 of this regulation states that the Commission will be assisted by the geographically determined committee competent for development. This role is taken by the European Development Fund Committee (EDF) sitting as the Advisory Committee on Special Systems of Assistance to traditional ACP suppliers of bananas.

  In the past 12 months this committee has met once. The United Kingdom is represented by officials from the Department for International Development. As matters for consideration of this committee are always scheduled within an existing EDF Committee meeting, no additional charge to public funds is incurred in connection with attending this committee.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to
  "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".

  As an obligation to this Decision, the commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (Com (2001) 783 Final).

  As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the mandate of the Committee on Food Security and Food Aid 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 she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [55380]

  Clare Short
  Council Regulation (EC) No. 1292/96 of 27 June 1996 establishes the framework for European Community food aid policy, management and food aid operations. Article 26 of the regulation states that the Commission shall be assisted by a Food and Security and Food Aid Committee composed of representatives of the member states chaired by a representative of the Commission.

  The committee is responsible for examining any implications for recipient countries of proposals to commit funds for food security, analysis and monitoring food security policies and examining proposals for joint initiatives with other Community instruments.

  In the past 12 months the committee has met three times. The United Kingdom is represented by officials from the Department for International Development. Travel costs for DFID officials to attend meetings of the
  756w
  committee are met by the European Commission. Other costs incurred for attending this committee totalled £420 in the past 12 months.

  The European Community's budget for food security and food aid operations in 2001 was 455 million euros and for 2002 has been set at 435 million euros. The United Kingdom's share of this is approximately 18 per cent. This figure includes the United Kingdom's mandatory contribution of £19 million under the terms of the 1999 Food Aid Convention.

  Food security and food aid operations are of three main types; dealing with immediate food shortages, longer term operations to support food security and operations to improve early warning systems and storage programmes. Areas to have recently experienced severe food shortages include Ecuador, DPR Korea, Georgia, West Bank and Gaza, Burkina Faso and Afghanistan.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to
  "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".

  As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (Com(2201) 783 Final.

  As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the mandate of the Committee on Implementation of Humanitarian Aid Operations 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 she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [55350]

  Clare Short
  The European Union's mandate to The European Community Humanitarian Organisation (as set out in Regulation (CE) No. 1257/96) is to provide emergency assistance and relief to the victims of natural disasters or armed conflict outside the European Union.

  The Humanitarian Aid Committee (HAC) meets on average once a month, excluding August (and often December). In addition to this, each presidency usually holds an informal HAC to discuss issues of substance in more detail. Including both formal and informal HACs there have been 12 meetings over the last 12 months. The UK is represented by officials from the Conflict and Humanitarian Affairs Department, DFID. The annual cost to public funds of the Committee's work is approximately £5,000.

  Items due for discussion at the next HAC on 23 May include the Global Plan 2002 for Sahrawi Refugees in Algeria, a report on ECHO's recent evaluation of UNHCR activities, a report on the recent ECHO Mission to

  757W
  Zimbabwe, and the Commission's non-paper on the interplay between Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid in crisis situations.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to
  "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".

  As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (Com (2001) 783 Final. As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the mandate of the Committee on Financial and Technical Assistance and Economic Co-Operation with Developing Countries in Asia and Latin America 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 she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [55385]

  Clare Short
  Council Regulation (EC) No. 443/92 25 February 1992 establishes the framework for European Community financial and technical assistance, and economic co-operation with the countries of Asia and Latin America. Article 15 of the regulation states that the Commission shall be assisted by a committee composed of representatives of the member states chaired by a representative of the Commission.

  The committee considers and delivers an opinion, by qualified majority voting, on development assistance financing proposals for country and regional strategies, projects and programmes in Asia and Latin America.

  In the past 12 months the committee has met 11 times. The United Kingdom is represented by officials from the Department for International Development. Travel costs for DFID officials to attend meetings of the committee are met by the European Commission. Other costs incurred for attending this committee totalled £1,800 in the past 12 months.

  EU development co-operation assistance in Asian has been focused on direct poverty reduction measures, for example through support for rural development, infrastructure and institutional capacity building. The environment sector has also received support with substantial programmes devoted to areas such as forest protection, biodiversity and environmental technology. The health and education sectors also feature significantly in EC efforts aimed at poverty reduction. Priority is given to the poorest populations, and to the poorer areas of developing countries, with a view to supporting economic activities that lead to sustainable development.
  758W
  Together with the member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to
  "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".

  As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (Com (2001) 783 Final.

  As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the mandate of the MED Committee Financial and Technical co-operation between the Community and Mediterranean non-member countries 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 she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [55386]

  Clare Short
  Council Regulation (EC) No. 2698/2000 of 27 November 2000 amended an existing regulation setting out the terms of financial and technical measures to promote reform of economic and social structures in the framework of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership. Article 11 of the regulation establishes the roles of a management committee composed of representatives of the member states, the European Bank (EIB), chaired by a representative of the Commission.

  The priorities for MEDA resources are support for economic transition with the aim of wider implementation of free trade through increasing competitiveness with a view to achieving sustainable economic growth, particularly through development of the private sector; support to economic transition; and strengthening the socio-economic balance: the aim is to alleviate the short-term costs of economic transition through appropriate measures in the fields of social policy.

  The committee considers and delivers an opinion, by qualified majority voting, on development assistance financing proposals for country and regional strategies, projects and programmes in the MED region.

  In the past 12 months the committee has met eight times. The United Kingdom is represented by officials from the Department for International Development. Travel costs for DFID officials to attend meetings of the committee are met by the European Commission. Other costs incurred for attending this committee totalled £1,260 in the past 12 months.

  Together with the member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to
  "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".
  759W
  As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (Com (2001) 783 Final.

  As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the mandate of the Committee on aid for Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia (CAROS) 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 she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [55390]

  Clare Short
  The mandate of the CARDS Committee is to oversee the implementation of Council Regulation 2666/2000 of 5 December 2000, which established CARDS. It determines the strategy framework for CARDS, and approves annual and multi-annual allocations to country and regional programmes.

  The committee has met eight times in the last year. The UK is represented by the Department for International Development (DFID) and the UK Permanent Representation to the European Commission.

  The annual cost to public funds of the committee's work principally comprises the work of DFID officials in assessing and discussing with the EC strategy and programme proposals, as well as the costs of attendance at meetings of the committee. The CARDS budget for 2001–06 is euro 4.65 billion, of which the UK's share is 18.8 per cent., or approximately £540 million. We do not keep records to show the proportion of staff time committed to CARDS.

  CARDS programmes or work related to them are subject to scrutiny by Select Committees of Parliament. Under Council Decision 1999/468/EC the EC has undertaken to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first such report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February (Commission Document 5685/02). We have encouraged the EC to make available on its website a record of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions.

  Timber (Departmental Refurbishment)
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will place in the Library certificates showing that timber used for the doors, doorframes and window frames in the refurbishment of her Department's buildings came from a certified, sustainable source. [55260]

  Clare Short
  Timber for the doors and doorframes (no wooden window frames were fitted) were supplied by Shadbolt and Sons. Shadbolts are founder members of the WWF 1995+ group, which is one of the groups listed under the current DEFRA guidance "Greening 760w
  Government Operations—Green Guide for Buyers, Action Sheet on Wood". The group has the target to source all its timbers from sources with certified sustainable management, and works closely with the Forest Stewardship Council. DFID's requirement followed the BREEAM guidelines at the time, that softwood and temperate hardwoods were to be from sustainable sources, but certificates were not requested. The Sapele veneers used in this project were not certified as they came from existing stocks obtained in 1983, and were supplied with the consent of WWF.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Census Information
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, (1) pursuant to the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on 23 April 2002,Official Report, column 207W, what her estimate is of the number of History National Curriculum (Key Stages 2 to 5) schools with internet access to the website at http://www.learningcurve.pro.gov.uk/FocusOn/census/; [55911]

  (2) pursuant to the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on 23 April 2002, Official Report, column 207W, on census information, what action she has taken to protect the interests of History National Curriculum (Key Stages 2 to 5) pupils and teachers, following the provision of inaccurate information on the website at http://www.learningcurve.pro.gov.uk/FocusOn/census/; and what action has been taken to ensure that recent amendments to the website meet the schools' requirements for information from the Public Record Office. [55912]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We have supported £657 million of expenditure on ICT by schools between 1998 and 2002, with a further £710 million to follow between 2002 and 2004. This funding is intended to help schools to achieve the objectives agreed with their local education authority and set out in their Information and Communication Technology (ICT) development plan. We would expect these plans to address measures for connecting to the internet, so that schools can access the wealth of cultural, scientific and intellectual material to be found on the internet. The percentage of schools with internet connection was published in the Statistics of Education—Survey of Information and Communications Technology in Schools 2001; 97 per cent. of schools are connected to the internet.

  Producers of educational content are encouraged to link their resources to the National Grid for Learning (NGfL) portal. The sites on the NGfL portal are required to conform to a set of ground rules and a code of conduct. However, it is the responsibility of the site developers to ensure that their content is accurate. As with other forms of information media, the decision on which sites to use lies with schools.

  Deaf Young People (Education)
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many deaf children were taught
  761W
  (a) with British sign language and (b) without access to British sign language in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [56493]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department does not collect this information centrally. However, an interim report from the National Evaluation of Support Options for Deaf and Hearing-Impaired Children in 1999 suggests the following percentages of deaf children, with average hearing loss, born between 1980 and 1994 used British sign language within their education programmes:

  Percentage

  Children with moderate deafness

  2

  Children with severe deafness

  5

  Children with profound deafness

  Without a cochlear implant

  20

  With a cochlear implant

  5

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of profoundly deaf young people achieved(a) five A to C GCSE grades and (b) five A to G GCSE grades, broken down by local authority in the last four years.[56492]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department currently does not collect this information centrally, though we shall shortly be consulting on whether and how data on different types of special educational needs could be collected. Subject to the outcome of this consultation, the data requested might be collected from January 2004.

  Learning Partnerships
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the future of learning partnerships. [57610]

  Margaret Hodge
  In November 2001 the Government launched a consultation on the future role of learning partnerships. In the light of that consultation, I wrote to chairs of learning partnerships on 29 April 2002 setting out our future vision for partnerships and new funding and support arrangements. The Government believe learning partnerships have a key role in promoting provider collaboration to deliver better lifelong learning in local areas, and in working with a wide range of partners to maximise the contribution of learning to local regeneration. The Government also wish to see better links between learning partnerships and the Learning and Skills Council. From April 2003 funding for learning partnerships, currently channelled through Government Offices, will be directed through the Learning and Skills Council. I have placed a copy of my letter to chairs in the Libraries.

  Teachers (Buckinghamshire)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers were in service in Buckinghamshire in(a) January 2001 and (b) January 2002. [55690]

  Mr. Timms
  There were 4,020 full-time equivalent1 teachers in service in the maintained schools sector in Buckinghamshire in January 2001.
  762W
  Data for January 2002 are not yet available at local education authority level. The number of all-time equivalent teachers in England increased by 9,400 between January 2001 and January 2002, the largest increase since the 1970s.

  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.
  1Part-time teachers have been converted to an estimate of their full-time equivalence and added to full-time numbers.

  Ministerial Training
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much has been spent by her Department on training by the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts for Ministers and officials in each of the five years. [52739]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: This Department has not delivered training by RADA.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much has been spent by his Department on training in leadership skills for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years. [52713]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: The Department for Education and Skills are only able to provide information for the last three years. During that period the Learning Academy spent the following amounts on leadership training for officials:

  £

  1999–2000

  40,900

  2000–01

  42,346

  2001–02

  75,000

  Training was also provided by parts of the Department but we are unable to identify the costs for leadership.

  Ministers are also able to take advantage of the programme for Ministers organised by the Centre for Management and Policy Studies (CMPS) in the Cabinet Office.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much has been spent by her Department on voice coaching for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years.[52700]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: Ministers in this Department are able to take advantage of the programmes for Ministers organised by the Centre for Management and Policy Studies (CMPS) in the Cabinet Office.

  In addition the Department has provided presentation skills training for officials if their job requires it but not voice training. We are unable to provide figures as our records are not broken down into that amount of detail.

  Education Maintenance Allowance
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to make education maintenance allowances available to young people in Warrington, North; and if she will make a statement. [56679]
  763W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We will be taking decisions on any future extension of the scheme on the basis of the rigorous evaluation currently being conducted.

  Rural Awareness
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 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 as set out in the Countryside Agency's report, Rural Proofing in 2001–02. [54416]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs on 9 May 2002,Official Report, column 274W.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Parthenon Marbles
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with the Government of Greece concerning the return of the Parthenon Marbles to Athens. [53822]

  Tessa Jowell
  I received a letter from Professor Evangelos Venizelos, Minister of Culture of Greece on 21 June 2001, and I replied to him on 15 July 2001. I have had no discussions with the Government of Greece on this matter.

  European Capital of Culture
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will announce the name of the person chosen to be Chairman of the European Capital of Culture 2008 Advisory Panel. [55454]

  Mr. Caborn
  On 8 May my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the appointment of Sir Jeremy Isaacs, the former chief executive of Channel Four and general director of the Royal Opera House, as the chairman of the European Capital of Culture 2008 Advisory Panel.

  The broadcaster Sue MacGregor and Judith Mayhew, Chairman of the Policy and Resources Committee at the Corporation of London, will be deputy chairs. Further appointments to the panel will be announced shortly.

  National Lottery
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the effect of the current allocation process for lottery funds on the accumulation of unspent funds; and if she will make a statement. [56141]

  Mr. Caborn
  The National Lottery has raised approximately £12.65 billion for good causes since its launch in November 1994, around £9.1 billion of which has been spent by the National Lottery distributing bodies. This leaves a balance of about £3.55 billion which distributors have not yet drawn down from the National Lottery Distribution Fund, although at the end of March 2002 distributors' total commitments stood at over £4.12 billion, some £570 million more than the balance held in the fund.
  764W
  Government accounting rules, and the financial directions issued to the distributing bodies by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, prevent distributors from drawing down money from the Distribution Fund before it is needed to cover expenditure incurred by grant recipients. We will, however, examine how the financial directions might be modified to allow distributors a greater flexibility in managing the funds allocated to them, to enable more funds to be committed and to allow funds which are already committed to be transferred more quickly to grant recipients.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what factors underlay the decision to reject the recommendation of the Rothschild Commission on Gambling that a charitable foundation would be the most appropriate and effective system for allocating Lottery money; and if she will make a statement. [56142]

  Mr. Caborn
  Following publication of a White Paper on the National Lottery in 1992 and the consultation which followed it was concluded that establishing the Lottery as a charity would blur the lines of accountability, and that under charity law many of the good causes beneficiaries which were not charities would not be eligible for funding.

  Given the substantial sums of money involved—far in excess of those estimated by the Rothschild Commission—separate distributing bodies for each of the good causes were considered more appropriate, using existing bodies where possible so as not to duplicate expertise or run counter to existing strategies.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make it her policy to ensure that all young people aged seven to 21 years have the opportunity to participate in arts and sports through Government or Lottery funded programmes; and if she will make a statement. [56143]

  Mr. Caborn
  One of the Department's four strategic priorities is to enhance access to a fuller cultural and sporting life for children and young people. To meet this aim DCMS is working closely with DfES and Lottery distributors to deliver a number of key initiatives, including: a sporting entitlement to ensure that all children have access to two hours a week of high quality school sport and physical education; the school sports co-ordinator programme, specialist sports colleges and the New Opportunities Fund Sport and PE in School Programme to improve sports provision in schools; Creative Partnerships, a new initiative linking schools with cultural organisations which is being established in 16 deprived areas across England; Space for Sport and Arts which will improve facilities in primary schools in deprived areas; and the music entitlement which will give all primary school pupils the opportunity to learn a musical instrument.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the impact of the underspend of Lottery money for good causes on long-term sales of tickets; and if she will make a statement. [56140]

  Mr. Caborn
  No specific assessment has been made. However, the Government regard it as important that the public should have confidence that Lottery funding is
  765W
  bringing the maximum benefit to good causes, and have asked the distributors to take steps to transfer committed funds to grant recipients as quickly as possible.

  Crystal Palace Sports Stadium
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on Sport England's plans in respect of Crystal Palace sports stadium, with special reference to the financial implications of surrendering its lease. [57088]

  Mr. Caborn
  Sport England has conducted a strategic review of all its national centres to ensure that they, and the resources required to run them, are utilised to the best effect. Sport England will shortly be meeting the London borough of Bromley, which owns the freehold of the Crystal Palace centre, to discuss a number of issues including the future development of the centre. I understand that no firm decisions have yet been taken in respect of the centre's future.

  Anglo-Italian Meetings
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on how many occasions in the last six months members of her Department have met their Italian counterparts; and what subjects were discussed. [56894]

  Mr. Caborn
  I can confirm that neither Ministers nor officials have taken part in any bilateral meetings with their Italian counterparts during the last six months.

  However, DCMS Ministers and officials regularly meet their counterparts from European Union member states, including Italy, at a wide range of EU meetings. These include formal and informal meetings of the Council of Ministers, working groups, committees and meetings on specific issues such as sport, tourism, cultural and audiovisual policy. We also meet in other forums, such as the Council of Europe, the World Anti-Doping Agency and UNESCO.

DEFENCE

  Medical Officers (Reservists)
  Paul Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether medical officers from the reserve forces are to be called out for mobilised service in support of deployed operations; and if he will make a statement. [57611]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Government have authorised the compulsory call out of anaesthetists, general surgeons and orthopaedic surgeons from the volunteer reserve forces to support military operations in the Balkans and

  Army officers and ODs losses: nationality (at birth) by date of flow

  Nationality (at birth)

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  America

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Australia

  2

  6

  6

  5

  3

  3

  Canada

  1

  5

  1

  4

  2

  4

  Denmark

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Egypt

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  France

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Germany

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  Ghana

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gibraltar

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  766W
  Afghanistan. Initially we plan to call out five consultant anaesthetists and two consultant orthopaedic surgeons to report in mid-June and four consultant general surgeons to report in mid-July. Each individual will be mobilised for a period of no more than three months, which allows a little over two months deployment in an operational theatre with the balance comprising pre-deployment training and post-tour leave. We expect to have to continue using similar, or possibly slightly higher, numbers until next spring. The requirement will be reviewed regularly to ensure that the numbers called out are the minimum required to support operations.

  Data Protection Act
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [53386]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Wills) gave on 25 April 2002,Official Report, column 446W to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe).

  Warships
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further plans he has to place warships in extended readiness or on standby in the next 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [56192]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 2 May 2002,Official Report, columns 963–64W and to the answer I gave on 10 April 2002, Official Report, column 14W to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray).

  On current plans no further warships will be placed at extended readiness during the next 12 months.

  Army (Foreign Nationals)
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many foreign nationals left the British Army in each of the last 10 years broken down by nationality; and what their average length of service was. [55446]

  Mr. Ingram
  The tables show officer and soldier exits. Nationality at birth is not available on flow data before 1997 so only the last six financial years have been shown. These figures represent those individuals who left the British Army. Calculations have been made using the mean length of service of those personnel at the time they left and are only produced for populations of 10 or more.
  767W

  Army officers and ODs losses: nationality (at birth) by date of flow

  Nationality (at birth)

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Guyana

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Hong Kong

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  India

  2

  —

  —

  3

  1

  —

  Iraq

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Jordan

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Kenya

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Malaysia

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  2

  Malta GC

  2

  2

  4

  3

  2

  2

  Morocco

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Nepal1,2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Netherlands

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  New Zealand

  3

  2

  5

  3

  1

  —

  New Zealand islands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Nigeria

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Pakistan

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Portugal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Republic of Ireland

  3

  8

  4

  5

  5

  6

  Rhodesia

  1

  2

  1

  3

  3

  1

  South Africa

  3

  —

  1

  4

  6

  4

  Spain

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Sri Lanka

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sweden

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Tanzania

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Trinidad and Tobago

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Zimbabwe

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  1

  Grand Total

  22

  31

  32

  38

  31

  27

  Gurkhas

  n/a

  21

  23

  18

  15

  13

  1See also Gurkhas

  2 The Nepalese officer shown was a member of UK Regular Forces. Gurkha officers that left have been shown separately.

  Mean length of service on exit for officers, by nationality at birth

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Gurkhas

  —

  —

  26.00

  25.48

  27.08

  25.38

  Note

  All other nationalities: the calculation of mean length of service would not be meaningful, i.e. each outflow by nationality and year is less than 10.

  Army ranks losses: nationality (at birth) by date of flow

  Nationality (at birth)

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  America

  3

  1

  3

  2

  2

  1

  American overseas

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Australia

  18

  20

  17

  13

  20

  16

  Austria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Bahama islands

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Bangladesh

  1

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  Barbados

  1

  —

  2

  —

  2

  3

  Barbuda (Leeward islands)

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Belgium

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Belize

  1

  1

  —

  1

  2

  1

  Brazil

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Britain/Singapore

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Britcommw/Brit Com

  —

  2

  —

  2

  1

  —

  Brunei

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Canada

  10

  9

  11

  16

  13

  10

  Colombia

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cyprus

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Denmark

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  1

  Dominica (Windward islands)

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Dominican Republic

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Falkland Islands

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Fiji

  1

  1

  1

  4

  15

  15

  France

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Gambia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Germany

  3

  3

  4

  2

  7

  5

  Ghana

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Gibraltar

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Greece

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Grenada (Windward islands)

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  Guyana

  —

  —

  2

  1

  1

  2

  Honduras

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  768W 769W

  Army ranks losses: nationality (at birth) by date of flow

  Nationality (at birth)

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Hong Kong

  1

  1

  1

  3

  1

  2

  Hungary

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  India

  1

  1

  —

  3

  1

  3

  Iran

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Iraq

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Italy

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Jamaica

  7

  6

  5

  11

  8

  18

  Kenya

  —

  1

  —

  —

  3

  1

  Kiribati

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Korea south

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lebanon

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Malaysia

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Malta GC

  2

  1

  1

  3

  2

  —

  Mauritania

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Mauritius

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Monserrat (Leeward islands)

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Morocco

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Nepal1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Netherlands

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  New Zealand

  9

  4

  9

  5

  7

  9

  New Zealand islands 1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  3

  2

  Nigeria

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  Pakistan

  —

  —

  1

  —

  4

  3

  Pakistan West

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Philippines

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Poland

  —

  1

  2

  1

  —

  —

  Portugal

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Republic of Ireland

  44

  34

  37

  42

  35

  41

  Rhodesia

  3

  4

  5

  4

  —

  2

  Salvador

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Seychelles

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Sierra Leone

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  2

  Somalia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  South Africa

  1

  11

  21

  19

  21

  26

  Spain

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Sri Lanka

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  St. Helena

  1

  —

  2

  2

  4

  1

  St. Lucia Island

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  St. Vincent Island

  1

  —

  —

  —

  7

  14

  Sudan

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sweden

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Switzerland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Tanzania

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Thailand

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Trinidad and Tobago

  —

  —

  1

  2

  2

  4

  Turkey

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Uganda

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  West Indies—British

  1

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Zambia

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  Zimbabwe

  1

  1

  1

  11

  7

  14

  Stateless

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Grand Total

  120

  119

  141

  167

  193

  214

  Gurkhas

  n/a

  177

  217

  149

  91

  209

  1See also Gurkhas

  Mean length of service on exit for soldiers, by nationality at birth

  Financial years

  Nationality (at birth)

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Australia

  5.39

  5.40

  5.44

  4.81

  5.60

  4.50

  Canada

  2.90

  —

  5.77

  5.81

  5.81

  6.50

  Fiji

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.50

  1.83

  Jamaica

  —

  —

  —

  12.59

  —

  3.06

  Republic of Ireland

  5.75

  8.62

  9.14

  10.14

  6.04

  7.63

  South Africa

  —

  7.41

  1.64

  5.34

  2.60

  2.08

  St. Vincent Island

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.50

  Zimbabwe

  —

  —

  —

  0.86

  —

  2.50

  Gurkhas

  —

  —

  16.07

  16.21

  16.87

  17.12

  Notes:

  1. Mean length of service has only been calculated for those nationalities where 10 or more soldiers left in any one year.

  2. When outflow by nationality and year is less than 10 the calculation of mean length of service would not be meaningful.

  770W 771W
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of state for Defence how many foreign nationals were recruited to serve in the British Army in each of the last 10 Years, broken down by country from which recruited. [55445]

  Mr. Ingram
  The tables Show officer and soldier intakes. Nationality at birth is not available on intake data

  Officers intake by nationality (at birth) financial year 1997–98 to 2001–02

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Total

  America

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  2

  Australia

  4

  5

  2

  8

  7

  26

  Austria

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  3

  Bangladesh

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Barbados

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Belgium

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Bermuda

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Canada

  4

  1

  2

  3

  —

  10

  Denmark

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Fiji

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  3

  France

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Germany

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Gibraltar

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Guyana

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Hong Kong

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  2

  India

  1

  1

  2

  —

  1

  5

  Iran

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Italy

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Jamaica

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Jordan

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Kenya

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  3

  Korea South

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Lebanon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Malaysia

  —

  1

  —

  2

  1

  4

  Malta GC

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  4

  Morocco

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Nepal1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Netherlands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  New Zealand

  1

  3

  3

  2

  3

  12

  New Zealand Islands

  —

  1

  2

  1

  —

  4

  Nigeria

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  3

  Pakistan

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Republic of Ireland

  3

  3

  3

  3

  4

  16

  Rhodesia

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  3

  Sierra Leone

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  2

  Singapore

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  South Africa

  2

  2

  9

  7

  7

  27

  Spain

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  3

  Sri Lanka

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Switzerland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Trinidad and Tobago

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Zimbabwe

  2

  5

  8

  1

  2

  18

  Stateless

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Total

  22

  33

  47

  36

  36

  174

  1The Nepalese officer shown is a member of UK regular forces. No Gurkha officers are shown as being recruited because they are all promoted from within the ranks.

  Soldier intake by nationality (at birth), financial year 1997–98 to 2001–02

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Total

  America

  3

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  American overseas

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Antigua (Leeward Islands)

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  Australia

  10

  17

  17

  14

  8

  66

  Austria

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  Bangladesh

  1

  1

  3

  —

  4

  9

  Barbados

  —

  —

  —

  4

  2

  6

  Belize

  1

  3

  2

  2

  —

  8

  Bermuda

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Botswana

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  Brazil

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  4

  772W
  before 1997 so only the last five financial years have been shown. These figures represent those individuals who joined training in the British Army. The actual number 'recruited' could be slightly higher as some decide not to join. This figure is not available from the individual record of service.
  773W

  Soldier intake by nationality (at birth) financial year 1997–98 to 2001–02

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Total

  Bulgaria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Cameroon Republic

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Canada

  12

  20

  15

  9

  15

  71

  Congo

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Denmark

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Dominica (Windward Islands)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Dominican Republic

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  3

  Fiji

  1

  16

  315

  263

  485

  1,080

  France

  1

  2

  2

  —

  2

  7

  Gambia

  —

  2

  1

  4

  10

  17

  Germany

  7

  8

  7

  6

  4

  32

  Ghana

  —

  1

  —

  15

  80

  96

  Gibraltar

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  Grenada (Windward Islands)

  —

  —

  2

  6

  8

  16

  Guyana

  —

  2

  2

  2

  1

  7

  Honduras

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  3

  Hong Kong

  —

  1

  2

  2

  1

  6

  India

  1

  2

  2

  3

  5

  13

  Iran

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Italy

  1

  2

  1

  —

  1

  5

  Jamaica

  2

  9

  15

  49

  182

  257

  Kenya

  1

  1

  2

  9

  9

  22

  Libya

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Malawi

  —

  —

  1

  —

  4

  5

  Malta GC

  1

  1

  2

  1

  —

  5

  Mauritania

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  Mauritius

  1

  1

  —

  3

  3

  8

  Mexico

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  2

  Monserrat (Leeward Islands)

  —

  —

  4

  1

  1

  6

  Namibia (formerly WS Africa)

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  Nepal (see Gurkhas)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Netherlands

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  4

  New Zealand

  5

  7

  3

  3

  —

  18

  New Zealand Islands

  1

  2

  —

  9

  6

  18

  Nigeria

  —

  —

  —

  6

  10

  16

  Pacific Islands

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  Pakistan

  —

  1

  —

  4

  3

  8

  Pakistan West

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Papua

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Philippines

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  8

  Poland

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Portugal

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Republic of Ireland

  43

  27

  23

  23

  8

  124

  Rhodesia

  3

  6

  —

  —

  —

  9

  Romania

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  3

  Seychelles

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Sierra Leone

  2

  1

  2

  5

  2

  12

  Singapore

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Somalia

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  3

  South Africa

  15

  39

  53

  69

  124

  300

  Spain

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  3

  Sri Lanka

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  St. Helena

  1

  12

  9

  8

  —

  30

  St. Lucia Island

  —

  1

  2

  4

  15

  22

  St. Vincent Island

  —

  —

  —

  179

  5

  184

  Sudan

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Tanzania

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Thailand

  1

  1

  2

  —

  3

  7

  Tongan Islands

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  3

  Trinidad and Tobago

  —

  2

  4

  15

  12

  33

  Turkey

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Uganda

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  Vietnam South

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Western Samoa

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Yemen

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Zambia

  1

  —

  —

  3

  5

  9

  Zimbabwe

  2

  15

  20

  39

  124

  200

  Stateless

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Total

  131

  214

  528

  778

  1,166

  2,817

  Gurkhas

  181

  230

  229

  230

  230

  1,100

  Throckmorton Airfield
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what value he estimates attaches to the Throckmorton airfield within QinetiQ's property portfolio(a) as currently developed, (b) with an asylum accommodation centre on the airfield and (c) with planning permission for a science park. [57085]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 5 February 2002,Official Report, column 856W. Given that the site now belongs to QinetiQ plc, the value of the site, now and in the future, forms part of the company's commercial planning process. I am therefore withholding the information requested under Exemption 13 of the code of practice on access to Government information which relates to the maintenance of commercial confidences.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the ownership of land at Throckmorton airfield; and what plans his Department has for the disposal of this land(a) to the Home Office or its agencies and (b) through the privatisation of Qinetiq; [31735]

  (2) what account was taken of the land and property at Throckmorton used by QinetiQ in the preparation for the privatisation of the agency; and if he will make a statement; [31736]

  (3) what impact the construction of the proposed asylum accommodation centre at Throckmorton would have on (a) the activities of QinetiQ and (b) the other defence-related activities at the airfield. [31726]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 17 July 2001,Official Report, column 142W. Most of the Throckmorton site, formerly known as the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) Pershore, is now owned by QinetiQ. The remainder of the site, used last year to deal with some of the consequences of the foot and mouth outbreak, is in the final stages of being transferred to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

  As part of the PPP process, all activities carried out by DERA were reviewed, and those which did not need to be retained within Government were transferred to QinetiQ on 1 July 2001, including those carried out at Pershore. Legally enforceable safeguards are in place to ensure that QinetiQ continue to provide key strategic facilities and services required by the Ministry of Defence. Against this background the company is free to explore other business opportunities.

  The future provision of an accommodation centre for asylum seekers is the responsibility of the Home Office, and although QinetiQ's site at Pershore has been identified as a potential site, a final decision has yet to be made. Subject to consultation, with QinetiQ as landowner, the local planning authorities, and the local community, the final decision with regard to siting one of these centres at Pershore rests with the Home Secretary.

  Libya
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what basis the decision was made to include Libya as one of the four main countries of concern to the 776W
  UK in her Department's memorandum on the Ballistic Missile Threat; what activities of Libya are of concern to the UK; and if he will make a statement. [52266]

  Mr. Hoon
  Although we currently assess there is no significant ballistic missile threat to the United Kingdom from Libya, Libya continues to have an active programme for the development of long-range ballistic missiles. We believe that Libya is also pursuing programmes for the development of weapons of mass destruction.

  Strategic Defence Review
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which medical elements of the Strategic Defence Review have not been implemented; and if he will make a statement. [53871]

  Dr. Moonie
  The main medical elements of the Strategic Defence Review have either been completed or remain in the Defence programme, although some may be subject to change in the light of subsequent developments.

  Mine Counter-measures Vessels
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to withdraw mine countermeasures vessels from service; and if he will make a statement. [56193]

  Mr. Ingram
  On current plans the present total of 22 Sandown and Hunt class minehunters will be maintained in service with the Royal Navy.

  Naval Vessels
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many crew are serving on HMS Fearless. [56702]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are currently 490 crew serving on HMS Fearless.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what maintenance work is being carried out on HMS Monmouth. [56703]

  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Monmouth is currently undergoing a planned refit at Rosyth dockyard, involving necessary equipment refurbishment and enhancements to her operational and support systems. This will include enhanced aviation capability, to accommodate the Merlin helicopter, and installation of a new command support system and anti-air warfare training system. Other enhancements will also be made to her communications, administration and waste disposal systems.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the planned refits are for(a) HMS Invincible, (b) HMS Illustrious and (c) HMS Ark Royal before the end of their service lives. [56701]

  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Ark Royal completed her last planned refit in November 2001. The last planned refit for HMS Invincible commenced in September 2001 and is expected to complete and return to service in the first half of 2003. That for HMS Illustrious will commence this autumn and is expected to complete in autumn 2004. The vessels will, however, continue to undergo routine maintenance and shorter docking periods for the remainder of their service lives.
  777W
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if HMS Sheffield will have further refits before the end of her service life. [56700]

  Mr. Ingram
  On current plans HMS Sheffield has no further scheduled refits though she is programmed to undertake a docking period in early 2004.

  Army Pay and Conditions
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the compatibility of the pay and conditions of the Royal Gibraltar Regiment and other regiments in the British Army, excluding the Gurkhas; and if he will make a statement. [56896]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Royal Gibraltar Regiment is a force raised in Gibraltar for service in Gibraltar. Its officers hold a Governor's Commission rather than a Queen's Commission. The Regiment has close links with the British Army, and occasionally officers and soldiers are attached for a period of time to British Army units.

  Members of the permanent cadre of the Royal Gibraltar Regiment and the Volunteer Reserve receive the same rates of pay as their counterparts in the Regular Army and the Territorial Army, with the exception that they receive lower rates of X factor, ie 5 per cent. and 2.5 per cent. respectively, instead of 13 per cent. and 5 per cent. (the X factor is the additional element added to basic pay to reflect the differences between conditions of service in the Army and United Kingdom civilian life). The lower levels of X factor for the Regiment reflects the reduced liability for service of its members. Members of the Royal Gibraltar Regiment may also be eligible for United Kingdom service allowances provided they meet the relevant criteria.

  Temporary Staff
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost to his Department was of employing staff in(a) London and (b) the south-east from employment agencies in each year since 1997. [56509]

  Dr. Moonie
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Agency staff are generally used as an interim measure to fill posts which cannot be filled conventionally in the required time scale.

  Sea Harrier Decommissioning
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidance is given to serving officers on the submission of letters to newspapers for publication; if the letter from Flight Lieutenant D. Holland RAF and Lieutenant James Hamblin RN to The Times, published on 13 May was approved by commanding officers; and if he will make a statement. [56882]

  Mr. Ingram
  Inquiries have revealed that there are no officers with these names in the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force. The authorship of this letter is therefore unknown. We have informed The Times accordingly. Queen's Regulations provide guidance to service personnel on publication of views and the requirement to seek permission beforehand. Had the letter been authentic, these procedures would have needed to be followed.
  778W

  Gurkhas
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Gurkhas were recruited to serve in the British Army in each of the last 10 years; and how many are serving. [55461]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 1 April 2002, there are 3,449 trained Gurkhas serving in the British Army. Details of the number recruited in each of the last 10 years are shown in the following table:

  Number of recruits

  1993

  152

  1994

  152

  1995

  152

  1996

  159

  1997

  159

  1998

  181

  1999

  230

  2000

  229

  2001

  230

  2002

  230

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what decisions she has made about the membership of the boards of the regional development agencies outside London. [57319]

  Alan Johnson
  The first terms of office of Jonathan Porritt (SW RDA), John Ashcroft (Yorkshire Forward) and Bryan Carr and Ron Whittaker (EMDA) ended this year. Following consultation with RDA chairmen and key national and regional players, I have decided to re-appoint each of them to their respective board for a second term of three years. Biographies of these board members are set out. The next round of new appointments will begin in June.

  Bryan Carr (EMDA)

  Bryan Can is currently Chairman of Lincolnshire Electronics Company, Castlet, vice-chairman of Governor's for Monks Dyke Technology College in Lincolnshire and also chairman of Transline Ltd., Lincolnshire.

  Dr. Ron Whittaker (EMDA)

  Ron Whittaker is chief executive of SATRA Technology Centre, Kettering. He is on the Technical Committee of the British Apparel and Textiles Confederation and a member of the East Midlands Clothing and Textiles Partnership. He is also vice-chairman of a community primary school in Kettering and Technology Governor for a voluntary aided secondary school, also in Kettering. Ron is a council member for East Midlands Council of CBI. He is not involved in any political activity and holds no other ministerial appointments.

  John Ashcroft (Yorkshire Forward)

  John Ashcroft has a lead role on Business Birth Rate, innovation and technology transfer and a support role for the North Yorkshire sub-region. John is a director of Datalion Ltd. and a trustee director of The Earth Centre. He is a non-executive director of British Smaller Technology Companies VCT1 and VCT2 plc,

  779W
  KMP Associates Ltd., Shopcreator plc, South Yorkshire Investment Fund Ltd. and Cozart Bioscience Ltd. He is also a board member of North Yorkshire Learning Skills Council (unpaid) and executive chairman of Cambridge Cognition Ltd. He is not involved in any political activity and holds no other ministerial appointments.

  Jonathan Porritt CBE (SW RDA)

  Jonathan Porritt is a co-founder and programme director of Forum for the Future, a charity which offers a solutions-oriented approach to today's environmental and social problems, developing strategic partnerships across different sectors. He is a leading writer, broadcaster and commentator on sustainable development, and his most recent book is 'Playing Safe: Science and the Environment' (Thames and Hudson 2000). He is also chairman of the UK Sustainable Development Commission, co-director of The Prince of Wales Business and Environment Programme, and a vice-president of the Socialist Environment Resources Association (SERA). He is not involved in any political activity and holds no other ministerial appointments.

  ISA Fees
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to which Government Department, and to which account, the ISA's fees and retained interest are credited. [55010]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  ISA fees are credited to the Department of Trade and Industry's account at the Bank of England. Pursuant to the provisions of section 405 of the Insolvency Act 1986 surplus interest is paid to the Consolidated Fund.

  Office of Fair Trading
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to review the working of the Office of Fair Trading; and if she will make a statement. [54661]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 8 May 2002]: Under the Enterprise Bill we are creating a new statutory framework for the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), including creating a board, and requiring the OFT to publish an annual plan and annual report.

  Export Licences (Israel)
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) Standard Individual Export Licences and (b) Open Individual Export Licences have been issued for exports to Israel in each month since January 2001. [55794]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The number of Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) issued to end users in Israel in each month since January 2001 was as follows:

  Month/year

  Number of SIELs

  Number of OIELs

  January 2001

  0

  0

  February 2001

  46

  0

  March 2001

  26

  2

  April 2001

  25

  3

  May 2001

  0

  1

  June 2001

  0

  0

  July 2001

  81

  2

  August 2001

  17

  4

  September 2001

  16

  5

  October 2001

  25

  5

  November 2001

  25

  1

  780W

  Month/year

  Number of SIELs

  Number of OIELs

  December 2001

  15

  0

  January 2002

  13

  1

  February 2002

  15

  3

  March 2002

  20

  1

  April 2002

  5

  1

  All export licence applications to Israel are assessed on a case-by-case basis against the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing criteria in light of the circumstances prevailing at the time. This means that we will not issue export licences where to do so would be in contravention of the Consolidated Criteria, including where there is a clear risk that the items might be used in internal repression, international aggression, adversely affect regional stability or prolong internal conflict.

  Newspaper Distribution
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her Department's policy on(a) competition and (b) regulation in the newspaper distribution industry. [57107]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Responsibility for monitoring the newspaper distribution market and investigating allegations of anti-competitive behaviour lies with the Director General of Fair Trading.

  The Office of Fair Trading is currently reviewing the Code of Practice on the supply of national newspapers, introduced following the 1993 monopoly report on newspaper distribution in England and Wales. It is also examining other issues affecting the industry including exclusive distribution and carriage charges.

  Manufacturing Strategy
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the Government's manufacturing strategy. [57848]

  Ms Hewitt
  In our first term, our priority was to establish a platform of macro economic stability. That we have achieved. We now need to build upon this foundation to improve the productivity and competitiveness of our economy.

  As part of this programme, I am publishing today a report setting out the Government's strategy for the manufacturing sector; a report by the Automotive Innovation and Growth Team; and a Value-Added Scoreboard. Copies of each publication are being placed in the Libraries of the House. I have also established a new Innovation and Growth Team, on the aerospace industry.

  UK manufacturing matters. It creates a fifth of our national output, employs 4 million people and produces the majority of our exports. It supports well paid jobs in all regions. It can make a very substantial contribution to improvements in our economy's productivity. The success of United Kingdom manufacturing is crucial to our country's prosperity, now and in the future.

  1 recognise that the sector has been facing difficult conditions. There is intense competition in every market, compounded within the euro zone by the persistent weakness of that currency. In recent times, manufacturers

  781W
  around the world have all faced very difficult trading conditions, as a result of the global downturn in manufacturing.

  Looking to the future, however, the potential of the sector is strong. The United Kingdom is part of the world's largest single market as well as being one of the world's most open trading nations. This brings extra competition, but also extra opportunity. Recent surveys of industrial confidence have been positive, and there is evidence of improved global conditions.

  Manufacturing strategy

  Many UK manufacturers are world leaders. We excel in sectors such as car manufacturing, aerospace, pharmaceuticals, the electronics industry and food production. But despite its many strengths, UK manufacturing also suffers from long-standing weaknesses—lower levels of skill, investment, R and D and innovation—that contribute to lower levels of productivity than in France, Germany and the US.

  The document I am publishing sets out the Government's strategy for helping manufacturing companies fulfil their potential in the UK, moving up the value chain to high skilled, knowledge intensive operations. The strategy builds on the TUC/CBI work on productivity, the dialogue at the manufacturing summit I hosted last December, and a careful analysis of the evidence.

  A first requirement is that Government must create a sound market-oriented, stable business environment. But this is not enough. We must also encourage companies to innovate, to invest, to improve skills and use best business practice. On this basis we identify seven manufacturing pillars for our strategy:

  Macro-economic stability

  Investment

  Innovation

  Best practice

  Raising skills and education levels

  Modern infrastructure

  The right market framework.

  Within each pillar, there are objectives and actions for Government and industry to develop. The strategy is neither a hard and fast prescription, nor a formula for instant initiatives. Instead, we offer it as the basis for continuing to develop a robust partnership with management, employees and their unions—a manufacturing partnership based on best practice that must be effective at the national, regional and sectoral level.

  AIGT report

  The Automotive Innovation and Growth Team report that I am also publishing today provides an excellent example of Government working in partnership with industry to produce a practical strategy which will bring real benefits to a critical manufacturing sector.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is discussing the strategy later this afternoon with Sir Ian Gibson, Chairman of the AIGT, and other senior automotive leaders. I am delighted to accept the recommendations of the report and to confirm that the Government are committed to delivering on the report's conclusions in partnership with the automotive industry. Government funding of around £45 million will be invested over five
  782W
  years to implement the recommendations to establish an Automotive Academy, Supply Chain Groups, and two automotive centres of excellence.

  Value-Added Scoreboard

  I am also publishing today the first ever company wealth creation league table—the Value-Added Scoreboard, which measures value added, that is sales less the cost of bought-in materials, components and services. It provides a unique tool which enables all companies, including those not currently in the Scoreboard, easily to calculate their value added from their annual report and benchmark themselves against UK and European companies in their sector that are in the Scoreboard.

  The Scoreboard, put together by the DTI Innovation Group, contains real success stories of British manufacturing and other sectors and will help companies to learn from the record of Britain's and Europe's most successful businesses. There are five UK companies in the top 15 wealth creators in Europe—Shell, BP, HSBC, GlaxoSmithKline and BT—and 24 in the top 100, all highly successful companies that create high value added for the UK economy.

  Next steps

  The work of the Automotive Innovation and Growth Team, and our response to its report, underlines our commitment to effective action to support manufacturing.

  Three other innovation and growth teams have already been established, in the chemicals, environmental equipment, and software sectors. In the textiles and clothing sector, we are implementing the recommendations of the Industry Strategy Group. The aerospace industry in the UK has been very successful, but it is facing increasing competition from other parts of the world. I am, therefore, delighted to be able to announce today the formation of an innovation and growth team for the sector, led by Sir Richard Evans of BAE Systems.

  On the wider aspects of our manufacturing strategy:

  We will work with industry to develop firmer benchmarks against which to measure and report on progress, in order to focus our activities more effectively,

  We will publish competitiveness studies on a sectoral basis to provide a basis for further action to improve productivity and performance,

  The English regional development agencies have been asked to reflect the importance of manufacturing in their regional economic strategies and plans.

  Our aim is to deepen and broaden the consensus around the actions required to achieve manufacturing success in the UK. In partnership with industry and other stakeholders, we are determined to deliver results.

  Export Licences
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the target date is for her Department in responding to export licence applications; and if she will make a statement. [55717]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 13 May 2002]: The aim is to provide a response to 70 per cent. of cases within 20 working days, except in special circumstances. Details of performance in processing Standard Individual Export Licence applications against the target is published in the

  783W
  Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  The Government are committed to processing all export licence applications as quickly as possible consistent with our determination to manage the transfer of all goods and technology controlled for strategic reasons in a responsible manner.

  Rotherham Rugby Club
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will direct the Office of Fair Trading to examine(a) the reasons why Rotherham RFU club has been denied access to the Zurich Premier League, (b) the head leases and ownership clauses of the current members of the English Rugby Limited and (c) whether England Rugby Limited is a cartel. [56517]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  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.

  Temporary Workers
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 30 April 2002,Official Report, column 739W, on temporary workers, whether all parties who submitted responses to the original consultation have been included as consultees in the short consultation exercise to which she refers. [56528]

  Alan Johnson
  In the next consultation exercise on the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations, I will be consulting all those who responded to the last consultation exercise, anybody else who has asked to be included in the consultation and other major interested bodies. I will place copies of the consultation document in the Libraries of the House and in addition on the DTI website.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Anglo-Italian Meetings
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on how many occasions in the last six months(a) he and (b) his officials have met their Italian counterparts; and what subjects were discussed. [56889]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Officials met in April in preparation for a ministerial meeting in July 2002 to discuss the business of the EU Transport Council.

  Temporary Staff
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the cost to his Department was of employing staff in(a) London and (b) the south east from employment agencies in each year since 1997. [56507]
  784W
  Dr. Whitehead
  This information is not held centrally and is therefore not available.

  Press Office
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many members of his Department's press office are(a) under investigation and (b) suspended; and if he will make a statement. [55976]

  Mr. Byers
  Staffing and disciplinary matters are handled within the Department in accordance with the DTLR staff handbook. Within that framework personnel matters relating to individuals are a confidential matter between them and the Department.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes 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. [56828]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Advisory Committee on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes is established under the provisions of Article 11 of the Regulation (EEC) 2408/92. The remit of the committee is to advise the Commission on the application of the regulation and Articles 9 and 10 in particular on limiting traffic rights and capacity. The UK would normally be represented on the committee by an official from my Department. The committee has not met in the last 12 months and there has been no cost to public funds. There are no matters currently under its consideration.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to
  "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".

  As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February (Com (2001) 783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the Committee on application of the legislation on access to the ground handling market at Community airports 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. [56831]
  785W
  Mr. Jamieson
  This advisory committee was established under Article 10 of the ground handling directive, whose purpose is to open up ground handling to competition at European airports in the interests of airlines. The mandate of the committee is to advise the European Commission when member states apply for exemptions from the directive. The committee is normally attended by two officials, but it has not met during the last 12 months. Since the committee was established in 1996, the average annual salary and travel and subsistence cost incurred by the Department has been approximately £1,200. There are no cases currently being considered by the committee.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to
  "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".

  As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (Com (2001) 783 Final). As part of the review progress, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the Committee on the transfer of ships from one register to another within the Community 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. [56836]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The committee dealing with the transfer of ships from one register to another within the Community is established under the provisions of Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC) 613/91. The committee is composed of representatives of member states and is chaired by the European Commission. The remit of the committee is to assist the Commission in implementing and interpreting the regulation with a view to achieving the objective of facilitating the transfer of ships within the Community while ensuring that standards of maritime safety and environmental protection are not reduced. The committee has not met in the last 12 months. The UK is represented by officials from my Department and the annual cost of its work to public funds is currently nil. There are no items currently under the committee's consideration.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to
  "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".

  As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries
  786W
  of both Houses on 26 February (Com (2001) 783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the Committee on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation 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. [56830]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Committee on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation is established under the provisions of Article 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) 3922/91. The primary remit of the committee is to assist the Commission in making the amendments necessitated by scientific and technical progress to the common technical requirements and administrative procedures listed in Annexe II or adopted by the Council in accordance with Article 4 of the regulation. The Safety Regulation Group of the Civil Aviation Authority represents the UK on the committee. The committee has not met in the last 12 months and there has been no cost to public funds. There are no matters currently under its consideration.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to
  "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".

  As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February (Com(2001) 783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to he accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on unfair pricing practices in marine transport 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. [56832]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Advisory Committee on unfair pricing practices in marine transport is established under the provisions of Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC) 4057/86. The committee is composed of representatives of member states and is chaired by the European Commission. The remit of the committee is to assist the
  787W
  Commission in establishing the existence of unfair pricing practices and the amount thereof; the existence and extent of injury; the causal link between unfair pricing practices and injury; and the appropriate measures to prevent or remedy the injury caused by unfair pricing practices and the ways and means for putting such measures into effect. The committee has not met in the last 12 months. The UK is represented by officials from my Department and the annual cost of its work to public funds is currently nil. There are no items currently under the committee's consideration.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to
  "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".

  As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February (Com(2001)783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on the definition and use of comparative technical and operating standards and specifications for the procurement of air traffic management equipment and systems 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. [56829]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Committee on the definition and use of comparative technical and operating standards and specifications for the procurement of air traffic management equipment and systems is established under the provisions of Article 6 of Council Directive 93/65 EEC. The remit of the committee is to assist the Commission in laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission, to make certain Eurocontrol standards mandatory at Community level. The committee meets only rarely and there has been no cost to public funds in the last 12 months. There are no matters currently under its consideration.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to
  "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".

  As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February (Com(2001)783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.
  788W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the Committee for the adaptation to technical progress of recording equipment in road transport (tachographs) 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. [55677]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Committee for Adaptation to Technical Progress (CATP) is established under Article 18 of Regulation (EEC) 3821/85. The committee is composed of representatives of member states and is chaired by the European Commission. The remit of the committee is to consider and approve technical amendments to the tachograph—the instrument of drivers' hours enforcement. The committee has met once in the last 12 months. The last work carried out by the Committee was in connection with the specification for digital tachographs. There are currently no plans for further meetings. The UK is represented by officials from my Department and the annual cost of its work to public funds is about £1,000.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to
  "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".

  As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February (Com(2001)783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the committee for a transparent system of harmonised rules for restrictions on heavy goods vehicles involved in international transport on designated roads 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. [55674]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No such committee exists. In May 1998 the European Commission published a proposal for a Council directive on a transparent system of rules for driving restrictions on heavy goods vehicles involved in international transport on designated roads. The proposal made provision for an advisory committee composed of representatives of the member states and chaired by the Commission. The proposed directive was never adopted.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council decision 1999/468/EC, to
  "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".
  789W
  As an obligation to this decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February (Com (2001) 783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on Transport 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. [55645]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This committee was established under the provisions of Council Decision 78/174/EEC of 20 February 1978 instituting a consultation procedure and setting up a committee in the field of transport infrastructure. But the Council Decision was repealed by decision No. 1692/96/EC of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network. And the committee established under the 1978 Decision has been replaced by the committee provided for under Article 18 of the 1996 Decision.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the Committee on implementation of Protocol 9 to the Act of Accession of Austria concerning transport by road and rail and combined transport (Ecopoints) 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. [55676]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Ecopoint system governs the transit through Austria by EU heavy goods vehicles. The Ecopoints Management Committee is established under the provisions of Article 16 of Protocol No. 9 of the Austrian Act of Accession and Article 4 of the Council Decision 1992/577/EEC. The committee is composed of representatives of member states and is chaired by the European Commission. The remit of the committee is to consider—and where appropriate, to vote upon—measures proposed by the Commission concerning the administration of the Ecopoint regime. The committee has met four times in the last twelve months. The UK is represented by officials from my Department and the annual cost of its work to public funds is about £2,000. The committee is currently considering whether the 108 per cent. penalty clause needs to be invoked in 2002, the categories of transport operations that should be exempted from the regime and improved procedures for dealing with infringements.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to
  "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".
  790W
  As an obligation to this decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February (Corn (2001) 783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the EU-Switzerland Transport Committee (rail and road) 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. [55644]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The committee in question did not meet in the last 12 months. It was established by the EU Switzerland Transit Agreement of 1992. However, the Transit Agreement has been superseded by the new EU Switzerland Agreement which is due to enter into force on 1 June 2002. That agreement provides for the establishment of a Joint Management (Transport) Committee, the function of which will be to ensure proper implementation of the agreement. No date has been set for its inaugural meeting. It will operate in accordance with the EU rules on comitology.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the Advisory Committee for the application of uniform principles on costing for railway undertakings 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. [55681]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have not been able to identify the Advisory Committee in question from the information provided by the hon. Member.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the Committee on the driving licence 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. [55673]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Committee on the driving licence is mandated under Article 1.2 of Council directive 97/26/EEC amending directive 91/439/EEC on driving licences. Its mandate extends considering possible changes in driving licence arrangements in the light of scientific and technical progress.

  The committee has met once in the past 12 months. The UK is represented on the committee by an official of my Department, at a cost to public funds in the past 12 months of less than £1,000.
  791W
  The committee is currently considering a number of scientific studies undertaken by the Commission into such aspects as drivers' vision and vehicle adaptations for disabled drivers.

  If, as a result of the committee's work, some new legislative proposal emerged with significant implications for the UK, we would inform the Scrutiny Committees.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council decision 1999/468/EC, to
  "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".

  As an obligation to this decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February (Corn (2001) 783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the Advisory Committee for the harmonisation and comparability of the accounting and annual accounts of railway undertakings 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. [55680]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Council Decision of 13 May 1965 (OJ No88, 24.5.1965, p1473), which established this committee, is no longer in force. The committee has not met in the last twelve months.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the Committee for the adaptation to technical progress of roadworthiness tests of vehicles 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. [55675]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Committee for the Adaptation to Technical Progress of Roadworthiness of Vehicles is mandated to approve technical amendments to the European Union Directive which prescribes the content of "MOT" tests across Europe. It has met once in the past 12 months when it was attended by two staff from my Department, a cost of less than £1,000. If, as a result of the committee's work, some new proposal emerged with significant implications for the UK we would inform the Scrutiny Committees.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to
  "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".
  792W
  As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February (Corn (2001) 783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Green Transport
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what measures he has introduced to support environmentally friendly transport, with particular reference to rural areas. [55128]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government have introduced a range of measures to encourage environmentally friendly transport. These include lower fuel duties for cleaner fuels; reduced vehicle excise duty and lower company car tax for cars that emit less CO2; and grants under the `TransportAction' programme to help car owners, hauliers and transport operators to buy or convert vehicles to run on cleaner fuels such as LPG and natural gas.

  In February the DTI announced its 'LPG Boost' to the TransportAction programme, an initiative to increase the number of LPG converters in rural areas and further raise awareness of this cleaner fuel.

  Public Service Vehicles
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has(a) to update the Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990 and (b) to issue guidance to the operators of public service vehicles in relation to the reasonable precautions to be taken to ensure safety of passengers after they have entered a vehicle but before they have become seated. [56844]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990 are currently being amended to reflect the introduction of regulated buses and coaches under the Disability Discrimination Act. The changes apply to the use of equipment fitted to the vehicle such as ramps and lifts, additional duties towards disabled people carried in the vehicle and to the carriage of assistance dogs. The amending regulations will be laid shortly, and will apply to regulated buses and coaches from September.

  As explained in my written answer to the hon. Member on 8 May 2002, Official Report, column 220W, bus drivers and conductors (where present) are already required to take all reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of passengers who are on, or who are entering or leaving, the vehicle. This regulation is long-established and well understood and we see no need to issue guidance to operators.

  London Underground
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the maximum annual bonus is that he estimates will be
  793W
  achievable under each of the three PPP contracts; and what the maximum annual penalty is that can be levied on each of the three PPP consortia. [56212]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]: London Underground is responsible for the PPP contracts for the modernisation of the underground's infrastructure. Under these contracts, the performance of the private sector infrastructure companies will be measured in terms of the capacity, reliability and ambience of the travelling environment they deliver on the tube network. Payments will increase as performance improves.

  There is no cap on the maximum annual penalty that can be levied under the tube modernisation contracts. Indeed, if performance deteriorates below set levels, the rate at which the contractor is penalised increases. Ultimately, poor performance could result in the contractor defaulting on the contract.

  Railways
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much the Strategic Rail Authority has spent(a) on its own account and (b) in grants to organisations on feasibility studies into the possible re-opening of closed railway lines; and if he will make a statement. [55442]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The table indicates how much the Strategic Rail Authority has spent, or committed to spend, on feasibility studies into the re-opening of closed lines.

  Project

  Approximate cost (£)

  West Midlands Capacity Study

  100,000

  East Coast Main Line-related routes

  1,000,000

  East London Line Extension

  4,000,000

  Matlock to Buxton

  190,000

  The authority is considering giving support to a number of other schemes.

  Disabled Access (Railway Stations)
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what cost estimates have been prepared by the Strategic Rail Authority in relation to ensuring that all stations conform with the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 by 2004.[55202]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Station operators are responsible for ensuring that their stations meet the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

  Rail Safety
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will publish the draft legislation to take forward the recommendations of Lord Cullen's inquiry into rail safety. [57146]

  Mr. Byers
  The only recommendations which are likely to require primary legislation are those concerning the Rail Accident Investigation Branch and the Rail Industry Safety Body. In the case of the Rail Industry Safety Body, however, the Rail Regulator may be able to establish this through licence changes, in which case 794W
  primary legislation will not be needed. We will publish proposals for any legislation that is required in the current Session.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many people died as a result of railway crashes in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [57122]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information held by the Health and Safety Executive on the number of train incident fatalities each year since 1997 is contained in the table.

  Passengers

  Railway staff

  Other people1

  Totals

  2001–02

  0

  0

  5

  5

  2000–01

  10

  4

  3

  17

  1999–2000

  29

  2

  2

  33

  1998–99

  0

  0

  3

  3

  1997–98

  7

  0

  3

  10

  1Pedestrians, car drivers, cyclists

  Road Accidents
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how many people died as a result of road crashes which occurred on(a) 10 January, (b) 10 February, (c) 10 March and (d) 10 April; [57118]

  (2) on how many days in the last 12 months the number of people killed in road crashes totalled (a) seven and (b) more than seven; and what the highest number was on a single day; [57117]

  (3) how many people died as a result of road crashes in each of the last five years for which figures are available; [57120]

  (4) what the average number of people who died each day as a result of road crashes in the last 12 months for which figures are available is; [57119]

  (5) how many people died as a result of road crashes which occurred on 10 May. [57116]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Numbers killed in road accidents in Great Britain in each of the last five years for which figures are available:

  Killed

  1996

  3,598

  1997

  3,599

  1998

  3,421

  1999

  3,423

  2000

  3,409

  In 2000 the average number of people who died each day as a result of road crashes in Great Britain was nine.

  The numbers of people who died in 2000 as a result of road crashes in Great Britain which occurred on the dates requested are as follows:

  10 January: 8

  10 February: 9

  10 March: 13

  10 April: 16

  10 May: 16.
  795
  There were 41 days in 2000 when exactly seven people were killed in road crashes. In addition, there were 239 days when the number of people killed in road crashes was greater than seven. In 2000, the highest number of road deaths on a single day was 22.

  Motorways
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the impact of noise on schools is part of the criteria used to consider noise reduction programmes on motorways. [57097]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Following consultation on establishing priorities for the resurfacing of concrete trunk roads, one of the agreed criteria is to give priority to those sites where treatment would benefit the greatest number of people. Although not mentioned specifically, schools are generally found in areas of high population density, which would be given priority under the agreed criteria.

  Number Plates
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many refusals of transfer of cherished plates have been made, and on what basis refusals were made, in the latest year for which figures are available. [56877]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No information is kept on the number of cherished transfer applications that are refused. This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many cherished number plates were transferred and how much was received by the Government for transfer of cherished plates in the last year for which figures are available. [56876]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of cherished transfer applications processed in the UK in financial year 2000–01 was some 259,400 The total fees from those transactions was some £21.4 million.

  Vehicle Licensing and Registration
  Paul Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what targets he has set for the(a) Drivers' Standards Agency, (b) Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, (c) Vehicle Certification Agency and (d) Vehicle Inspectorate for 2002–03. [57677]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have set the following key targets for the agencies:

  key targets for the Driving Standards Agency are:

  Contribute to a 40 per cent. reduction in riders and drivers killed or seriously injured in road accidents in the age group up to age 24 years by 2010, compared with the average for 1994–98.

  Further expand and develop our programme of pre-driver education to deliver 4,500 presentations to 17 to 19-year-olds in schools, colleges and other institutions, such as the Ministry of Defence, subject to continued funding by DTLR.

  90 per cent. of all customers to be satisfied with the overall level of service received from the agency.

  95 per cent. of all candidates to have obtained a theory test appointment at their preferred test centre within two weeks of their preferred date.
  796W
  The national average practical car test waiting time will be no more than six weeks.

  Keep 99.5 per cent. of practical test appointments that are in place two days prior to the test appointment.

  Following routing by call handling system, 90 per cent. of calls to theory test and practical test booking offices will be answered by a human voice in no more than 20 seconds.

  Introduce a mandatory development route for all new managers in DSA. Review skill levels of existing managers against this new training framework, ensuring that 50 per cent. of all managers have completed this assessment by March 2003.

  Use examiner resource efficiently by achieving an average examiner utilisation for car practical tests of 80 per cent.

  Reduce sick absence to 5 per cent. by December 2002. Achieve a 2.6 per cent. return on capital employed in 2002–03.

  Increase the basket of fees by 1.7 per cent. within the cumulative RPI target.

  The key targets for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency are:

  To achieve a 2.5 per cent. efficiency gain.

  To complete 95 per cent. of new vehicle registrations and changes to a registration document transactions in 12 days.

  To complete 95 per cent. of vehicle excise duty (VED) refunds in 30 working days.

  To complete 95 per cent. of ordinary driving licence transactions in 10 working days.

  To complete 95 per cent. of vocational and provisional driving licence transactions in eight working days.

  To complete 95 per cent. of cherished transfer transactions in seven working days.

  To deliver 95 per cent. of written replies to queries in seven working days.

  To answer 95 per cent. of telephone calls in 30 seconds.

  To answer 95 per cent. of e-mail inquiries within three working days.

  To have lines available to the call centre during 96 per cent. of working hours.

  To produce 97.5 per cent. of new vehicle registration documents, changes to registration documents and driving licences without agency induced errors.

  To complete 720,00 VED enforcement cases.

  The key targets for the Vehicle Certification Agency are:

  To achieve at least break even on the operating surplus.

  To have at least 98 per cent. of approval certificates issued error free.

  To achieve a score of at least 18 on the quality and service matrix.

  To ensure that the figure for average debtor days is 60 calendar days or less.

  To ensure that invoices for Management System Certification work are issued within an average of 25 working days after completion of the chargeable work.

  To establish by March 2003 a new, regularly monitored customer satisfaction index with a benchmark score.

  The key targets for the Vehicle Inspectorate are:

  To deliver against an effectiveness and quality improvement programme.

  To deliver effective road safety and environmental standards activity as agreed with DTLR.

  To deliver initiatives across VI and DVO to provide a seamless service to customers.

  To break even year on year and achieve a 6 per cent. real rate of return on capital, over the period 1 April 1998 to 31 March 2003.

  To increase value for money.

  To improve performance management across the business. To secure the long term development of the organisation.

  These key targets are under-pinned by further detailed delivery targets.

  Bus Services
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the role of bus services in the delivery of the Government plans for transport in London. [55816]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government's 10-year plan for transport makes clear that we share with the Mayor of London a broad approach to improving transport in London which includes delivering increased public transport capacity and efficiency. The plan envisages the delivery of high quality standards on all major bus corridors, improved bus frequencies and other service enhancements. The Mayor's Transport Strategy and Transport for London's Business Plan contain specific proposals for such improvements and Transport for London are in the process of delivering them.

  Councillors
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he intends to make regulations under the Local Government Act 2000 in relation to handling at local level any allegations that councillors have breached codes of conduct. [57831]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I intend to publish very shortly a consultation paper with a proposed framework for handling at local level allegations of breaches of the code of conduct. The framework will help to promote high standards of conduct among local councillors, and will provide sensible and efficient procedures for resolving any allegations of misconduct.

  Copies of the consultation paper will be sent to local authorities, and will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Pathfinder Project
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what support is being made available to the low demand pathfinder project announced on 10 April. [57612]

  Mr. Byers
  I am today announcing that we are to invest £25 million in the nine low demand pathfinder projects. This investment is being financed from the Capital Modernisation Fund.

  The funding will be made available in shares of £2.66 million to each pathfinder project with £1 million used for collective monitoring and evaluation of projects. This will enable each pathfinder to start early the process of preparing the strategic plan that will inform current and future investment in the pathfinder area. The strategic plan will include proposals for action for a 10 to 15-year period designed to transform the area. It will also be essential to see evidence that other non-housing spend is being brought to bear to ensure that a comprehensive and coherent approach is being taken to renewal.

  The Government are determined to tackle the problem of low demand. This investment will speed up the necessary preparatory work, facilitate establishing local delivery vehicles and allow urgent action to be taken.
  798W

  Fire Service
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the new national procurement for radio systems in the fire service will replace the regionally based system of procurement. [57099]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Yes. Statutory responsibility for equipping fire brigades rests with local fire authorities but it is the intention that the new national procurement of replacement wide area radio systems should be in place of existing regional procurements.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the national procurement for radio systems in the fire service will provide funding for infrastructure and terminal equipment and through life support; and what funding is available for the system. [57098]

  Dr. Whitehead
  On 7 May I announced the procurement of a national radio communications system for the fire service in England and Wales, for which the Government are prepared to manage, support and fully fund a new national competition. The costs of the procurement exercise will depend on the response of the market. We are discussing the implications of the new strategy with fire service interests.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many staff were employed in the Health and Safety Executive at 1 April; and what proportion of those staff have clinical contact with NHS patients. [56865]

  Dr. Whitehead
  At 1 April 2002 the Health and Safety Executive employed 4,099 staff; none of whom would normally have clinical contact with NHS patients.

  Flood Plains
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to revise planning guidance in relation to flood plains to conform with the recent findings of the UK climate impacts programme. [57143]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government will review Planning Policy Guidance Note 25 "Development and flood risk" in 2004, three years after its publication, in the light of further evidence then available on climate change and emerging experience of its implementation and effectiveness.

  As was indicated in PPG 25, planning authorities and the Environment Agency are expected to take account of the potential effects reported by the UK climate impacts programme. The implications of the UKCIP2002 scenarios in respect of flooding are expected to be available this summer.

  Rural Population
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will estimate the proportion of the population increase projected by his
  799W
  Department that relates to rural areas; and how many additional households are expected to be formed by 2016. [56973]

  Ms Keeble
  The latest sub-national projections for England are the 1996-based projections prepared by the Office for National Statistics. Between 1996 and 2016 the population in those local authorities categorised by my Department as "deep rural" or "mixed rural" is projected to rise by 38 per cent. of the national increase. Over the same time period, the number of households in these local authorities is projected to rise by 0.88 million. This is 28 per cent. of the projected national increase.

  Starter Home Initiative
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many key workers will receive financial support from the Starter Home Initiative; and how much will be allocated to key workers in rural areas. [56976]

  Ms Keeble
  We are providing £250 million for the Starter Home Initiative (SHI) which aims to help around 10,000 key workers into home ownership. £230 million SHI funding was allocated to local scheme providers in September 2001 following a competitive bidding process. This included some £8.7 million allocated to schemes that proposed to help key workers to buy homes in small rural settlements with a population of 3,000 or less. We expect to announce the allocation of the remaining £20 million SHI funding to successful bidders later this month.

  Emergency Services
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 2 May 2002,Official Report, column 903W, on emergency calls services, how many subscribers on each BT exchange lost their service on Thursday 25 April, and for what period of time; what contingency plans are agreed with the Hampshire police for the breakdown of services to notify police control room; if he will place such plans in the Library; which police stations were closed for the duration of the breakdown; what the source was of his information that callers on the Isle of Wight would have been able to make 999 calls; who informed (a) the police and (b) BT of the breakdown; and who was responsible for notifying members of the public of the arrangements in place for 999 calls during the breakdown period. [56500]

  Dr. Whitehead
  77 sub-sections on the Southampton exchange were affected. Service to 80 per cent. of customers was restored by midnight and to the remainder by 3.55 am.

  Contingency arrangements are set out in the code of practice for the public emergency call service between public network operators and the emergency services and the brochure "Loss of Access to BT's Public 999 Services". Copies of these two documents have been placed in the Library.

  I understand from the Hampshire and Isle of Wight police that instructions were issued for all police stations to remain open or to reopen but in the case of Cowes, which shuts at 6 pm, it was not possible to reopen before 9.30 pm. It remained open until 2 am.
  800W
  British Telecommunications have assured me that callers in the Isle of Wight would have been able to make 999 calls. The Hampshire and Isle of Wight police and BT were aware of the breakdown at the same time and made contact with each other.

  It is the responsibility of the local emergency services, including the police, to ensure that they have contingency arrangements in place including arrangements to notify the public. These contingency arrangements will be reviewed in the light of the experience gained on 25 April in Southampton.

  Social Housing
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what information his Department has collated on the number of ex-local authority tenants who have exercised the right-tobuy after their tenancy has been transferred to a registered social landlord; and if he will make arrangements for this to be published on a regular basis. [56604]

  Ms Keeble
  Figures on Preserved Right-to-Buy (PRTB) sales have been collected by the Housing Corporation since 1 April 2001 through their CORE system (continuous recording of lettings and sales). The results are published every six months in the CORE sales bulletins which are deposited in the House of Commons Library. 1,356 such sales were completed in the first six months of operation.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what information his Department has collated on levels of under-occupancy in social housing in London. [56601]

  Ms Keeble
  Based on the 'bedroom standard', which is a well established statistical measure of under-occupancy/overcrowding, the information requested (plus the equivalent information for England) is provided in the following table:

  Households in London in the social rented sector above the bedroom standard1, 1998–99 to 2000–012

  Per cent.

  One bedroom above the standard

  Two or more bedrooms above the standard

  Total

  London

  20

  8

  28

  England

  30

  12

  42

  1Bedroom standard is an indicator of expected occupation density. A notional number of bedrooms are allocated to each household in accordance with its age/sex/marital status composition and the relationship of the members to each other. This is then compared with the actual number of bedrooms (including bedsitters) available for the sole use of the household.

  2Survey of English Housing results for three survey years 1998–99, 1999–2000,2000–01, have been combined to give reliable estimates for London since the sample size in a single year would be insufficient.

  Source:

  Survey of English Housing, DTLR

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what information his Department has collated on the range of initiatives, apart from the cash incentive scheme and
  801W
  HOMEBUY, local authorities and registered social landlords in London offer to encourage tenants to relinquish a tenancy on move from an under-occupied property to more suitably sized accommodation. [56602]

  Ms Keeble
  My Department published research and good practice guidance on underoccupation in social housing in April 2001 entitled "Managing under-occupation: A guide to good practice in social housing". The research identified and evaluated the initiatives being adopted by social landlords in England to assist under-occupiers to move to a smaller home when they want to. The research showed that social landlords in London and the south-east who are short of family sized homes are the most energetic in trying to reduce under-occupation.

  Social landlords employ a range of positive incentives from helping with the move (removal arrangements and expenses) to some form of cash payment or improvements to the property (eg redecorating, kitchen or bathroom refit, improved heating, double glazing etc.). The research showed that a combination of positive inducements and the personal approach was the most effective for encouraging moves. Specialist staff who engage with tenants on a one to one basis, discussing their requirements in detail, explaining what help and properties are available can be particularly effective at facilitating moves.

  Copies of the guidance were placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what guidance his Department has issued to local authorities and the Housing Corporation since 1 May 1997 on offering tenants incentives, apart from the cash incentive scheme and HOMEBUY, to relinquish a tenancy on move from an under-occupied property to more suitably sized accommodation. [56603]

  Ms Keeble
  My Department published good practice guidance on managing under-occupation in social housing in April 2001 entitled "Managing under-occupation: A guide to good practice in social housing". The guidance was widely disseminated to LAs, RSLs and other key stakeholders such as the Housing Corporation. The guidance provides good practice for those social landlords who are looking to increase the supply of family sized relets by assisting under-occupiers to move to a smaller property when they want to.

  The guidance recognised that under-occupation is not necessarily a bad thing and in areas of low demand under-occupation strategies can be counter-productive. The primary concern for authorities must always be to ask "are we making the very best use of our stock" which requires looking at the problem in the wider context of Government policies on social exclusion and on building mixed and sustainable communities.

  Copies of the guidance were placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 30 November 2001,Official Report, column 1162W, on social housing, how many homes were transferred from local authority ownership under (a) the right-to-buy
  802W
  scheme and (b) registered social landlords in (i) 1996, (ii) 1997, (iii) 1998, (iv) 1999, (v) 2000, (vi) 2001 and (vii) 2002. [57029]

  Ms Keeble
  The number of local authority dwellings in rural areas transferred from local authority ownership under the right to buy scheme and to registered social landlords (as reported by local authorities) in each of the years 1995–96 to 2000–01 is as follows.

  Number of sales and transfers in rural areas

  Right to buy scheme

  To RSLs

  1995–96

  6,517

  18,548

  1996–97

  6,399

  10,739

  1997–98

  7,680

  7,660

  1998–99

  6,754

  26,441

  1999–2000

  8,925

  15,452

  2000–01

  6,808

  28,730

  Note:

  Figures for 2001–02 are not yet available

  Source:

  DTLR Pl(B) housing returns (quarterly)

  Housing
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to(a) receive and (b) publish the research which he has commissioned into shared ownership schemes for housing. [56151]

  Ms Keeble
  My Department received on 7 May the draft report of research we commissioned last year to look at the operation and effectiveness of the existing low cost home ownership schemes, including shared ownership. The findings, which will help inform the future direction of the low cost home ownership programme, are now being considered. We expect to publish the report by September 2002.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 26 February 2002,Official Report, column 1162W, on affordable housing, if he will provide the figures for 2001–02. [57027]

  Ms Keeble
  Figures for 2001–02 are not yet available.

  Mobile Home Owners
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what provisions there are to ensure that mobile home owners are aware that they do not have the same rights for compensation for noise, dust and vibration nuisance following new road construction as conventional dwellings; and what guidance he has issued to public inquiry inspectors for new roads on this subject. [56495]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Compulsory Purchase and Compensation booklets are published by my Department and made freely available at public exhibitions, inquiries and on request to those whose property may be required or affected by road construction. These booklets point out that those living in mobile homes within 300 metres of a new or altered highway may be eligible, in certain circumstances, to receive a noise payment of up to £1,650 but not to claim compensation under Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973. Inspectors are advised not to hear any evidence about compensation.

  Road Safety (Children)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many prosecutions there have been in each of the last 10 years for carrying children unprotected in the front or back seats of cars. [56106]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information held centrally does not distinguish between the offence of carrying in a motor vehicle a child not wearing a seat belt and the offence of not wearing a seat belt.

  Available information is given in the table. As the majority of seat belt offences are dealt with by the issue of a fixed penalty notice these are also included, along with the number of written warnings.

  Driving or riding in a motor vehicle while not wearing a seat belt1: England and Wales 1991–2000

  Number of prosecutions

  Number of fixed penalties

  Written warnings

  Total dealt with

  1991

  12,156

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1992

  11,258

  102,322

  3,214

  116,794

  1993

  9,687

  106,153

  4,839

  120,679

  1994

  8,715

  114.712

  6,945

  130,372

  1995

  8,574

  126,251

  8,923

  143,748

  1996

  8,530

  154,345

  9,312

  172,187

  1997

  8,180

  175,334

  14,300

  197,814

  1998

  8,303

  193,879

  10,891

  213,073

  1999

  6,874

  180,698

  9,205

  196,777

  2000

  5,740

  155,301

  6,163

  167,204

  1Offences under sections 14(3), 15(2) and 15(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

  2Not available.

TREASURY

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many teenage pregnancies there were in each of the last five years in(a) Lambeth, (b) Southwark and (c) Lewisham. [56937]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Dr. Liam Fox, dated 16 May 2002:

  As National Statistician. I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many teenage pregnancies there were in each of the last five years in (a) Lambeth (b) Southwark and (c) Lewisham. (56937)

  Figures for the latest available five years, 1996–2000, are shown in the table below.

  Under 18 conceptions for Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark LBs 1996–2000

  Lambeth

  Lewisham

  Southwark

  1996

  374

  305

  315

  1997

  352

  302

  284

  1998

  365

  319

  318

  1999

  361

  305

  310

  2000

  357

  275

  314

  National Insurance
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated additional cost is to(a) Plymouth city council, (b) South Hams district council, (c) Devon county council and (d) Torbay unitary authority in the next financial year as a result of the increase in employer's national insurance contributions announced in the Budget; and what provision will be made to cover the additional costs which will be incurred. [56291]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is estimated that the changes to employer NICs announced in the Budget will add around 0.7 per cent. to pay costs on average next year. The cost to the public services will be just over £l1 billion which compares with a planned rise in spending on public services of nearly £20 billion. The changes will help to fund improvements to public services and a real terms increase in spending on health over the next five years of over 40 per cent.

  I regret that it is not possible to provide reliable sub-regional estimates for the national insurance changes within the disproportionate cost limits.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what he estimates to be the extra revenue generated for the Treasury due to the rise in employer national insurance rates for companies employing fewer than 50 people in each of the next four years; [56173]

  (2) what he estimates to be the extra tax revenue generated in the first year by the rise in national insurance employer contributions to companies employing fewer than (a) 10 and (b) 20 people. [56691]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I regret that it would be possible to provide an estimate only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the basis for the assessment made in para 2.28 of the Taylor report "The Modernisation of Britain's Tax and Benefit System: Number Two" regarding the under-contribution to the NI Fund by the self-employed; what his latest estimate is of that under-contribution; if he will undertake a similar comparison between the contributions paid by married woman at the reduced rate and the benefits to which such women are entitled; and if he will make a statement. [57147]

  Ruth Kelly
  The latest estimate of the value of the reduction in contributions by the self-employed which is not matched by reduced benefit entitlement is in Inland Revenue Statistics table 1.5, on the Inland Revenue website (www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/tax_expenditures_g_t05_1.htm).

  The value is calculated by estimating the total employee and employer national insurance contributions which would be paid by the self-employed if they were to be subject to Class 1 contributions instead, and comparing this with the estimated total Class 2 and Class 4 contributions actually paid by the self-employed. An adjustment is made to allow for the fact that the self-employed are not eligible for certain contributory benefits, such as contribution-based jobseeker's allowance and the state second pension (or SERPS prior to April 2002).
  805W
  If a similar calculation was performed for married women who have opted to pay national insurance contributions at the reduced rate it would not show any under-contribution.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what centrally set targets are in place for monitoring employment status in the construction industry; and on how many occasions these targets have been met in each year since 1995. [56515]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue presently has about 64 Employer Compliance Units nationally. These units are responsible for monitoring compliance by employers and contractors, and they include dedicated employment status teams.

  Employer Compliance Units have a range of targets relating to reviews of employers and contractors. Such reviews may or may not include status issues. Status issues arise as a consequence of reviews and as such are not separately targeted.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures are in place to monitor' the employment status of subcontractors in the construction industry to ensure the status adheres to Inland Revenue regulations when undertaking work on Government contracts. [56516]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue monitors the employment status of construction workers involved in Government contracts in the same way as it does in the whole of the rest of the industry, and elsewhere.

  Law Enforcement Agencies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what law enforcement agencies and prosecuting authorities designated with legislation there are within the responsibility of his Department; and what complaints procedure is available for each. [57124]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Inland Revenue and the Department of Customs and Excise. Each of these Departments has a three-tier complaints procedure governed by a Code of Practice, the third tier being an independent adjudicator. Complainants also have the right to complain, via an MP, to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

  Aviation Insurance
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what agreement has been reached for aviation insurance terrorism cover from 1 April. [56634]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The end-date for the Government's Troika aviation insurance scheme, which provides third-party war and terrorism insurance for the UK aviation industry, was extended from 31 March to 31 May.

  Inheritance Tax
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the total revenue received by the Exchequer was in inheritance tax in each of the past five years; [56406]
  806W
  (2) how many people were liable for inheritance tax in each of the past five years: and what percentage of the population this represents. [56407]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The figures are as follows:

  UK inheritance tax receipts and number of taxpaying estates

  Receipts(£)

  Estates1 (thousand)

  1997–98

  1.7

  18

  1998–99

  1.8

  18

  1999–2000

  2.0

  21

  2000–01

  2.2

  22

  2001–022

  2.3

  23

  1Excludes about 2,000 taxpayers on lifetime transfers

  2Provisional

  The taxpaying estates represent about three to four in 10,000 of the UK population; or between 3 and 4 per cent. of deaths.

  Anglo-Italian Meetings
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions in the last six months(a) he and (b) his officials have met their Italian counterparts; and what subjects were discussed. [56890]

  Ruth Kelly
  Ministers and civil servants meet with a wide range of organisations and individuals, including their European counterparts, as part of the process of policy development and analysis. I refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 689W stating that as with previous Administrations it is not this Government's practice to provide details of all such meetings. All such contacts are conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code, the Civil Service Code and Guidance for Civil Servants: Contracts with Lobbyists.

  Social Care
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to commission a study of the trends affecting social care. [53355]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  None; trends were examined in the Wanless report and by the Royal Commission on long term care commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health in 1997 (With Respect to Old Age: A Report by the Royal Commission on Long-Term Care (Cm. 4192-I); Modernising Social Services (Cm. 4169); Long-Term Care: The Government's Response to the Health Committee's Report on Long-Term Care (Cm. 4414)). Further requirements for analysis will be kept under review as part of the normal monitoring of public expenditure.

  Departmental Staff (Scotland)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and what percentage of(a) civil service, (b) executive agencies and (c) non-departmental public body jobs under the remit of his Department are located in Scotland; and how many of each have been relocated to Scotland since May 1997. [56299]
  807W
  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor's civil service Departments and agencies numbers and percentage of Scottish jobs, and the number of posts relocated to Scotland since 1997 are as follows.

  Department/agency

  Number of jobs in Scotland

  Percentage of jobs in Scotland

  Number of jobs relocated to Scotland

  Debt Management Office

  0

  0

  0

  Government Actuary's Office

  0

  0

  0

  HM Customs and Excise

  1,215

  5.26

  0

  Inland Revenue

  6,876

  9.91

  0

  National Savings

  6

  6

  1

  OGC

  11

  2.52

  0

  Office for National Statistics

  0

  0

  0

  Royal Mint

  0

  0

  0

  HM Treasury

  0

  0

  0

  Valuation Office (agency)

  81

  2

  0

  Red Book
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 1 May 2002,Official Report, columns 882–83W, on the Budget Red Book, if he will provide figures for each column in respect of marginal deduction rates (a) over 30 per cent. (b) over 20 per cent. and (c) over 10 per cent. [56467]

  Ruth Kelly
  The following table shows estimates of the number of families facing marginal deduction of(a) over 30 per cent. (b) over 20 per cent. and (c) over 10 per cent.

  Number of households facing MDRs (cumulative)

  Marginal deduction rate

  Before Budget 1998

  2002–03 system of tax and benefits

  After introduction of NTCs

  Over 30 per cent.

  810,000

  1,200,000

  1,960,000

  Over 20 per cent.

  820,000

  1,210,000

  2,040,000

  Over 10 per cent.

  830,000

  1,235,000

  2,050,000

  The figures in the table, which cover the number of households in receipt of either income related benefits of the working families tax credit (WFTC) or new tax credits from April 2003, where at least one person works at least 16 hours or more, include the effects of income tax and national insurance contributions, and the withdrawal of housing benefit and council tax benefit.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for ministerial visits to(a) Syria, (b) Lebanon, (c) United Arab Emirates, (d) Oman and (e) Qatar. [54059]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no plans at present to visit Syria, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar or the United Arab Emirates. I have, however, visited Syria on 23 July 2001, Lebanon on 24 July 2001, Qatar on 16 October 2001 and the United Arab Emirates on 18 March 2002. I have no plans at present to re-visit them, but hope to visit Oman when I can.

  Criminal Offences
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many criminal offences have been(a) created and (b) abolished by his Department since 1997. [55459]

  Mr. Straw
  A comprehensive and exhaustive list of new and abolished offences could be provided only at disproportionate cost. We can, however, provide the following information about FCO legislation that has been enacted since 1 May 1997. All relevant FCO legislation in this time has been concerned with the implementation of international treaties in United Kingdom law.

  The International Criminal Court Act 2001 created new offences of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. These replaced earlier offences wholly (for genocide) or partly (for war crimes).

  The United Nations Personnel Act 1997 created new offences of attacking UN personnel, premises and vehicles.

  The Landmines Act 1998 created new offences of possessing or using landmines.

  The Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Act 1998 created new offences of obstructing on-site investigations and causing a nuclear explosion.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the meetings held between(a) himself, (b) the staff at his Department and (c) British diplomatic staff with representatives of (i) the Italian Government and (ii) the Vatican since 22 April, including the participants of each meeting, the subjects discussed and the conclusions agreed upon; and if he will make a statement. [55993]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was in touch with Prime Minister Berlusconi on 7 May. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I most recently met Prime Minister Berlusconi at the General Affairs Council in Brussels. We are regularly in touch with the Italian Government bilaterally and in multilateral fora on a range of issues. The Foreign Secretary has not met Vatican representatives recently, but officials are in regular touch.

  Middle East
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the failure of the proposed UN fact-finding mission to Jenin on the future avoidance of conflict in the middle east. [56206]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We regret the failure of the Israeli Government to co-operate with the UN to allow the deployment of the fact-finding team. The UN General Assembly has nevertheless asked the Secretary-General to present a report on the recent events that took place in Jenin and in other Palestinian cities. We look forward to this.

  As the Secretary-General has said, there is a long shadow cast by events in Jenin but this should not be allowed to derail other peace efforts. The agreements to

  809W
  resolve the crises in Bethlehem and Ramallah are examples of practical international support which have led to progress. The international community is committed to working with the parties to build on these initiatives. The priority remains to implement recent UN Security Council Resolutions, establish a ceasefire and resume negotiations.

  Film Council
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the UK Film Council to increase its profile abroad. [56606]

  Mr. MacShane
  None, but officials in Trade Partners UK and in FCO posts overseas along with colleagues in the British Council, work closely with the UK Film Council on its export promotion strategies.

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom citizens detained in Saudi Arabia. [54392]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) on 9 May 2002, Official Report, column 308W.

  Gibraltar
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with Spain concerning joint command of Britain's naval base in Gibraltar. [57145]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to my statement in the House on 16 April 2002,Official Report, column 451, where I said
  "we will retain our full control over the military base on the Rock".

  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what position the Government will be taking on the proposal in the Convention on the Future of Europe that the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be inserted in the treaties; what discussions he has had about this with other member states and other institutions; and if he will make a statement. [56596]

  Peter Hain
  The Government welcome the European Convention's decision to set up a Working Group to look at the Charter's status and address the legal and practical issues arising from the question of whether, and if so how, the Charter should be included in the treaties. The Government will seek to be represented on this group.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what position the Government will be taking on the proposal in the Convention on the Future of Europe that the European Union should be given full legal personality; what discussions he has had on the matter with other member states and other institutions; what assessment the 810W
  Government have made of the effects of giving the European Union full legal personality; and if he will make a statement. [56595]

  Peter Hain
  Although legal personality has not yet been discussed in the Convention on the Future of Europe, it will be on the agenda of one of a preliminary round of six working groups to commence in June.

  As with other issues discussed in the Convention, the Government will both set out their ideas on legal personality, and hear the views of the other members at the Convention.

  Rough Diamonds
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent progress has been made with the establishment of a global certification scheme for rough diamonds. [56666]

  Mr. MacShane
  Government, industry and civil society negotiators drawing up the international certification scheme for rough diamonds (the Kimberley Process) have agreed on nearly all outstanding issues. The scheme is designed to ensure a Government-issued certificate attesting to the legitimacy of the contents accompanies each shipment of rough diamonds. The intention is to implement the scheme by the end of 2002, at a date to be agreed at the next meeting in November. Participants are meanwhile devising national action plans to ensure they are ready to effect full implementation by that date.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the mandate of the Committee on Implementation of the Programme of Assistance to Promote the Transition to a Market Economy and to Strengthen Democracy and the Rule of Law in the Partner States of Eastern Europe and Central Asia 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. [55389]

  Clare Short
  I have been asked to reply. The committee is responsible for oversight of the EC programme of technical assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States (TACIS). It has met four times over the past 12 months and the next meeting will take place on 23 May 2002. Officials from my Department and members of the staff of the United Kingdom Representation in Brussels represent the United Kingdom on the committee. Over the past 12 months the cost to public funds has been approximately £2,500.

  The items currently under its consideration are those on the agenda for the forthcoming meeting. These are annual programmes of assistance for 2002 for Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia, thematic research programmes for 2002 and support to national co-ordinating units in programme countries. The committee will also receive information on future programming orientations for Central Asia and the Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership Support Fund.
  811W
  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision I 999/486/EC, to
  "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".

  As an obligation under this decision, the commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February (Commission Document 5685/02). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her policy on compensation to those indirectly affected by the foot and mouth disease epidemic in 2001. [55124]

  Margaret Beckett
  There is no statutory provision for such compensation nor can the Government be the insurer of last resort. The Government did of course help rural business and communities through a series of support measures to aid recovery from the impact of FMD.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many overnight stays were undertaken by her officials working on the foot and mouth epidemic. [54339]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: The information requested is not readily available and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), on 29 April 2002, Official Report, column 552W, which gave details of the total amount of overnight subsistence for staff working on the foot and mouth crisis.

  Parish Councils
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the categorisation of the activity of parish councils as set out in the recent rural White Paper and the Countryside Agency's "State of the Countryside" report 2001. [55125]

  Alun Michael
  I refer the hon. Member to my letter of 21 March to all MPs which set out the background to the communities' vibrancy issue and made clear that the communities' vibrancy indicator is not a measure of parish council activities. This Government are breaking new ground in actively promoting the role and importance of parish councils and I hope the hon. Gentleman will endorse and support our initiatives.
  812W

  Sustainable Development Summit
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the consultations she is undertaking prior to the world summit on sustainable development. [55126]

  Margaret Beckett
  DEFRA has funded UNED-UK to carry out a stakeholder consultation exercise which has involved over 350 groups representing civil society. A business adviser has been seconded to DEFRA to liaise with the business community on WSSD. We are also working through the Development and Environment Group of BOND (British Overseas NGOs for Development) to exchange views with NGOs, and the Local Government International Bureau has been a member of the official UK delegation at the preparatory meetings.

  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on progress in domestic and global preparations for the world summit on sustainable development. [55132]

  Mr. Meacher
  Preparations for WSSD both in the UK and globally are well under way. We are currently in the process of preparing for the Ministerial-Level Preparatory Committee (known as Prepcom IV) in Indonesia on 24 May to 7 June at which I will lead the UK delegation. This meeting will continue work started at the last Prepcom on the proposed Programme of Action to deliver global sustainable development. It will also start work on the political declaration for the summit.

  Mink
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on the control of mink. [55127]

  Alun Michael
  The responsibility for the control of wild mink rests with those people most likely to benefit from such control, the individual landowners and occupiers. Predation by mink has been a factor in the decline of our native water vole population. The Government's Biodioversity Action Plan for water vole encourages control of mink where they pose a threat to water vole populations.

  Sheep
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the sheep quota national reserve for 2003. [R] [55129]

  Alun Michael
  As we have already announced, there will be no allocation of Sheep Annual Premium Quota from the National Reserve for 2003. However we are making arrangements to ensure that producers who would have been eligible to apply to the 2003 Reserve will be able to apply to the 2004 Reserve.

  Marine Environment
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she is taking to protect the marine environment of the seas around the United Kingdom. [55130]
  813W
  Mr. Meacher
  The first Marine Stewardship report was published on 1 May. It sets out our strategy for the conservation and sustainable development of our marine environment. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Fuel Poverty
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the fuel poverty strategy. [55131]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK Fuel Poverty Strategy, published in November last year, set out the government's goal to seek an end to fuel poverty, with the first target to ensure that by 2010, no vulnerable household need risk ill health due to a cold home.

  The strategy's aim is to improve the energy efficiency of fuel poor households, to maintain the downward pressure on fuel bills, to tackle poverty and social exclusion.

  Waste and Packaging Directives
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on discussions between her Department and the European Commission regarding the implementation of European waste and packaging directives. [55133]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK has been fully involved in the current negotiations on the European Commission's proposal for a directive amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste.

  Draft Water Bill
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government response to the consultation on the draft Water Bill. [55134]

  Margaret Beckett
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, announced the publication of the Government Response to the draft Water Bill consultation on Thursday 2 May.

  The Water Bill aims to ensure improved management of our water resources; place consumers at the heart of a more open and accountable regulatory process and increase the powers of courts and the Regulators to level appropriate financial penalties on water companies. In addition, the Bill will contain provisions for extending competition for users of large amounts of water.

  The consultation response considered in detail more than 150 responses and following this, a number of amendments will be made to the draft Water Bill. The main changes are; firstly that Ofwat will be governed by a Regulatory Board rather than an individual Director General, along similar lines to other economic regulators. This is instead of the Advisory Panel proposed in the Draft Bill. Secondly, the Director General's duties to ensure that companies can secure "reasonable returns on their capital" will not be altered. And thirdly the Director General of Water Services will be given a sustainable development duty. While this will not alter the Director General's purpose or aims, it will oblige him to be
  814W
  mindful of social and environmental concerns, when exercising his functions as economic regulator of the industry. The Director General supports these changes.

  Timber
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she will take to ensure that timber procured by Government is from well managed, sustainable sources. [55135]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government is actively engaged in implementing its policy of seeking to procure its timber and timber products from sustainable and legal sources, DEFRA is monitoring progress and will be issuing further guidance to central government departments and their agencies.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Government adopted their timber procurement policy. [54438]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: The Government's current timber procurement policy became a binding commitment for central Government Departments and their agencies with effect from 28 July 2000, following a written reply to a parliamentary question on that day by the Minister for the Environment, Official Report, column 947W. This followed the G8 summit earlier in July 2000, where in response to a UK led initiative members agreed to consider how public purchasing could help reduce illegal logging. Prior to the policy becoming a binding commitment it had been part of the model policy for greening government operations since 1997.

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with local councils regarding the meeting of waste recycling targets. [55137]

  Mr. Meacher
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, has not had any recent discussions with particular local authorities to discuss meeting recycling statutory performance standards. However, negotiations have recently been concluded with 6 local authorities who have agreed to exceed their statutory performance standards on recycling as part of a Local Public Service Agreement. Similar discussions are currently being held with a further 5 local authorities. We have also recently received bids from a number of local authorities for the first year of the £140 million waste minimization and recycling fund.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  23. David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the timetable for the reform of the common fisheries policy. [55138]

  Mr. Morley
  The Common Fisheries Policy was substantially laid down in regulations adopted in 1983 which specified an interim review in 1992 and a further review in 2002. Any changes to the regime should be decided by end 2002 for application from 2003. We expect the proposals to be produced by the end of May. We are disappointed that the proposals failed to emerge earlier since the Government is keen to begin
  815W
  negotiations. The Commission, however, is responsible for handling its own work programme and we must wait for them to complete their deliberations.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the European Commission's proposals for the reform of the common fisheries policy. [55152]

  Mr. Morley
  Our primary objective for the Common Fisheries Policy must be for a policy which is both economically and environmentally sustainable and one which involves stakeholders more closely in management decisions affecting them. Only in that way will the CFP attract support and credibility from fishermen and so ensure responsible stock management and give the promise of a viable future. I strongly agree with the Commission's conclusions in their Green Paper on the operation of the CFP that it is not meeting its objectives. The forthcoming review of the CFP will give the opportunity not only to put right what has gone wrong but also to consider how the CFP should develop over the coming years.

  We expect the proposals to be produced by the end of May. We are disappointed that the proposals failed to emerge earlier since the government is keen to begin negotiations. The Commission, however, is responsible for handling its won work programme and we must wait for them to complete their deliberations.

  Fruit Industry
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on Government support for the fruit industry. [55141]

  Alun Michael
  We assist the horticulture industry by funding a programme of strategic research and development worth almost £11 million per annum. For 2001–02, some £2.6 million of this spend is allocated to the soft and top fruit sector. In addition, the England Rural Development Programme, through both the Rural Enterprise Scheme and the Processing and Marketing Grant, provides opportunities for the industry to improve its competitiveness.

  Small Farms Produce
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her action to improve opportunities for small farmers to market their produce. [55144]

  Alun Michael
  The Policy Commission Report on Farming and Food made a number of recommendations relating to local and regional foods, which will help support and develop the opportunities for small farmers to market their produce. We have invited views on these recommendations, in order to inform our action plan for the farming and food sectors. This action plan will be launched in the autumn.

  The Government are already involved in a number of initiatives aimed at encouraging local food production and marketing. The England Rural Development Programme provides grant aid for a range of activities that may be of benefit to farmers seeking to sell produce locally. We have also assisted various local projects under the Agricultural Development Scheme, as well as supporting
  816W
  the National Association of Farmers' Market's training and accreditation programmes and the development of the South-West Food and Drink Organisation.

  Through Food from Britain we contribute to the funding of a network of regional food groups which provide trade development services to regional and speciality food producers, some of whom are farmers.

  We have actively encouraged the development of farmers' markets, as has the Countryside Agency which receives its grant aid from DEFRA. Farmers may also derive benefit from the Countryside Agency's "Eat the View" programme which seeks to promote local products that support sustainable land management.

  Biosecurity
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the role to be played in improved biosecurity measures by the state veterinary service. [55145]

  Mr. Morley
  The state veterinary service played a vital role in promoting biosecurity during the foot and mouth disease outbreak and it will continue to be a key link in the promotion of the biosecurity message.

  Local veterinary staff are providing advice relating to on-farm biosecurity when requested and this advice is particularly important when farms are restocking following the outbreak. The biosecurity message is being promoted at local meetings dealing with disease control with farmers and other stakeholders.

  The Department is planning to issue a biosecurity code of practice later in the year and will be considering a further biosecurity campaign. The state veterinary service will again play a key role in the delivery of that message.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the financial impact of movement and biosecurity regulations on agricultural shows; and if she will make a statement. [54347]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: The licence conditions for biosecurity at livestock shows, and the movement of animals to and from them, have been developed in close association with the shows organisers and those stakeholders who will be taking livestock to shows this year. No costings have been provided by these interests during the discussions and none have been drawn up by my Department.

  The need for strict biosecurity is keenly appreciated by the majority of show organisers. I am pleased that they are taking a responsible attitude to biosecurity to protect livestock farmers and the wider rural community from another devastating outbreak of animal disease. The rules have been drawn up on the advice of the Department's vets to minimise the risk of disease associated with the re-opening of livestock shows and they will be kept under review to ensure that they remain proportionate to the disease risk.

  Agriculture (West Country)
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she plans to visit this year's Royal Bath and West show to discuss the state of agriculture in the west country. [55146]
  817W
  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State is unable to attend this year's Royal Bath and West show due to prior engagements, but my noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary Lords, (The Lord Whitty of Camberwell), will be visiting on 31 May.

  Dairy Industry
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the prospects for the dairy industry. [55147]

  Mr. Morley
  The current low price of milk has undoubtedly reduced the income of many dairy farmers to levels that appear unsustainable in the long term. However, this low price has largely been caused by factors that are temporary in nature, most notably, oversupply of raw milk in the UK and the weakness of EU and world markets for dairy products.

  For the longer term, it is likely that the next round of WTO agriculture negotiations will further restrict the use of export subsidies and the increasing exposure of EU markets to world markets. In addition, enlargement of the EU is likely to lead to pressure on the Community budget, if the CAP is not reformed.

  In order to produce a sustainable dairy industry that can compete successfully on the growing world market for dairy products, the industry must be given the opportunity to trade free of artificial constraints imposed by the WTO, as well as by the EU dairy regime. The EU price support system is focused on butter and skimmed milk powder, both in clear surplus, hampering the development of the most efficient farmers and represent significant financial burden to most farmers.

  The Government therefore favour the orderly phasing out of milk quotas in combination with a reduction in EU support prices to world prices, and direct but degressive aid to help farmers adjust to the new regime. During the forthcoming review of the milk quota system, due to start in June, the UK will be pressing to achieve confirmation that quotas will not continue after they lapse on 31 March 2008. These changes are intended to provide longer-term direction within the framework of the dairy regime, which farmers need in order to plan their businesses effectively.

  Agrimonetary Compensation
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her Department's policy on agrimonetary compensation. [55148]

  Mr. Morley
  We have considered the case for payment of optional agrimonetary compensation to the livestock sector. While we acknowledge the difficulties that the sector is facing and are working with them on the recommendations of the Policy Commission on Farming and Food, we have decided not to pay this subsidy given the many competing demands on the Exchequer at present.

  GM Crops
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when her Department will analyse the data from the farm-scale evaluations of GM crops. [55149]
  818W
  Mr. Meacher
  The Department will analyse data from the farm-scale evaluation of GM crops 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 form spring-sown crops (spring-sown oil seed rape, maize and beet) and in summer 2004 for winter-sown oil seed rape.

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Government are taking to support local authorities in dealing with abandoned vehicles. [55150]

  Mr. Meacher
  We have supported pilot schemes in the London boroughs of Newham and Lewisham in which the local authority was given DVLA's powers to wheelclamp and remove unlicensed vehicles after 24 hours. We announced the extension of the scheme nationally on 10 April. The London borough of Wandsworth joined the scheme on 23 April.

  In October 2001 we published a consultation document on measures to remove abandoned and untaxed vehicles from the streets more quickly and, for the longer term, bring forward changes to vehicle registration and licensing procedures to ensure greater accuracy of DVLA's vehicle record.

  Primary powers have now been included in the Finance Bill for changes to the vehicle registration and licensing system, which will place a clear obligation on the last registered keeper to tax and licence a vehicle, and establish an automatic penalty for those who do not relicense on time. the full details of the scheme—including the levels of the automatic penalties and their operation—and the implementation date have yet to be decided.

  Regulations to reduce the statutory notice periods after which local authorities can remove abandoned vehicles and the storage periods for unlicensed vehicles were laid before the House on 19 March and came into force on 9 April.

  Kent Police piloted a "blitz" approach (Operation Cubit) on abandoned vehicles in the Medway area in co-operation with Kent county council, Medway council, DVLA and the Kent fire brigade for eight weeks in early 2001 and the Home Office has commissioned a detailed evaluation of the pilot which has been academically assessed and circulated to other stockholders for comments, including the Kent police and Kent county council. We hope to publish it in the near future.

  Since the original pilot, similar operations have taken place and are shown in the table:

  Date

  Swanley

  June 2001

  Dartford

  October 2001

  Gravesend

  October 2001

  Maidstone

  January 2002

  Swale

  January 2002

  Hastings

  January 2002

  Brighton

  February 2002

  Liverpool

  March 2002

  819W
  To date the operations have removed almost 3,000 abandoned unlicensed vehicles from the streets of Kent and Hastings.

  Rights of Way
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress she has made in implementing the power to close rights of way. [55151]

  Alun Michael
  I refer to the reply I gave to his previous question on the subject on 12 April 2002,Official Report, column 653W. I have now refined our proposals and issue of a consultation paper is imminent.

  Tenant Farmers (Retirement Scheme)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to introduce a retirement scheme for tenant farmers. [55486]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 10 May 2002]: I have no plans at present to introduce such a scheme. We consulted on the early retirement provisions of the EU Rural Development Regulation when drawing up plans for implementation of the regulation, but in the light of responses to that consultation we decided that the limited funds available for implementation would be better directed towards other measures to assist the industry. This is because the type of early retirement scheme available under the regulation could not be targeted effectively towards those who should benefit, such as tenant farmers.

  The general question of policy on helping farmers to leave the industry will, however, be considered further in the light of the feedback we receive on the issues we have asked stakeholders to consider following publication of the Policy Commission report.

  Game Shooting
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the economic value of game shooting; and if she will make a statement. [54342]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: No assessment has been undertaken by my Department of the direct value to the economy of game shooting.

  Through the England Rural Development Programme, we provide a means to help farmers wishing to diversify by developing the potential for activities such as game shooting. The benefits of each proposed project are assessed in deciding whether it should receive financial support under the programme.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Committee on geographical indications and protected designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs 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 she will list 820W
  the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [55243]

  Mr. Morley
  The Regulatory Committee on geographical indications and protected designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs has met twice over the last 12 months. Its mandate is laid down in Article 15 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2081/92. Its activities include helping the Commission to decide on the registration of protected food names and to draw up Commission regulations relating to the operation of the scheme. The UK is represented on the Committee by two officials from DEFRA. The annual cost to UK public funds of its work over the last 12 months is £1,000. The main issue currently under its consideration concerns the registration of feta cheese as a Protected Designation of Origin.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to
  "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".

  As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February (Corn (2001) 783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Committee on certificates of specific character for agricultural products and foodstuffs 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 she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [55244]

  Mr. Morley
  The mandate of the Committee on certificates of specific character is laid down in Article 19 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2082/92. Its activities include assisting the Commission to decide on the registration of protected food names and to draw up Commission regulations relating to the operation of the scheme. It has not met over the last 12 months. When it does meet, the UK representation consists of two officials from DEFRA. There have been no costs associated with the work of the Committee over the last 12 months and there are no items currently under its consideration.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to
  "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".

  As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February (Com (2001) 783 Final).

  821
  As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Standing Committee on agricultural research 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 she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [55241]

  Mr. Morley
  The Standing Committee on Agricultural Research (SCAR) was set up under Article 43 of the Treaty of Rome in 1957. In order to meet the aims of the Common Agricultural Policy, SCAR advises the Commission on co-ordination and promotion at Community level of agricultural research activities undertaken in the member states. SCAR met twice (19 June 2002, 11 March 2002) over the last 12 months for half-day meetings on both occasions. UK representation is normally the Head of Research Policy and International Division in DEFRA with supporting staff, and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). This cost of this work to the public purse of DEFRA is about £8,500 per annum, including staff time and travelling expenses. SCAR has been examining in particular the development and implementation of the proposed new Framework Programme 6 for collaborative EU research, technology and development in those areas within its competence and interest. The papers of SCAR meetings are available on www.europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture. An annual report on the working of committees such as SCAR was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February (Corn (2001) 783 Final). The UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Management Committee of the common organisation of agricultural markets for natural fibres 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 she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [55250]

  Mr. Morley
  The Management Committee for Natural Fibres assists the European Commission in the operation of the common organisation of the markets in flax, hemp, cotton and silkworms. The UK is represented by officials from this Department. It has met seven times over the last 12 months at a cost of £6,300 to public funds, excluding the salary costs of the officials. The Committee's current priorities are the implementation of control arrangement for imports of hemp and hemp seed from third countries and the effects of the recent reforms of the regimes for cotton and for flax and hemp. Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review 822W
  to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to
  "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".

  As an obligation to this decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February (Com (2001) 783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government has encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Committee for the adaptation to technical progress and application of the Community award scheme for an eco-label 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 she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [56728]

  Mr. Meacher
  Regulation (EC) 1980/2000 on a revised Community ecolabel award scheme is intended to promote products which have the potential to reduce negative environmental impacts, as compared with the other products in the same product group, thus contributing to the efficient use of resources and a high level of environmental protection. This objective is pursued by a scheme to provide information to consumers in the form of an environmental award label, which can be displayed on products that meet criteria established under the Regulation. A committee composed of representatives of member states and chaired by the Commission has been established to assist the Commission in the operation of the ecolabelling scheme, in particular by reaching decisions on the product criteria to be applied and the administrative arrangements needed to run the scheme.

  The Committee has met four times in the last 12 months. The UK is formally represented on the Committee by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The cost of attending this Committee over the last 12 months was approximately £3,000.

  The main issues currently being considered by this Committee are decisions on ecological criteria for award of the ecolabel to paints and varnishes, copying and printing paper, bed mattresses and light-bulbs.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to
  "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".

  As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (Com (2001) 783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government has encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain

  823W
  an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 18 April 2002,Official Report, column 1071, on the Countryside Stewardship Scheme, on what basis decisions are made to visit farms after the first year of the scheme; and what monitoring systems are in place to check whether a visit in the second year is necessary. [55338]

  Mr. Morley
  The compliance monitoring inspections of Countryside Stewardship Scheme agreements carried out by the Rural Payments Agency are selected using risk based criteria and are not specifically related to the year of the agreement. Inspections may therefore take place in any of the ten years of an agreement: the need for any follow-up inspections will be assessed in the light of the initial inspection.

  Under the risk based strategy for selecting care and maintenance visits, technical staff from DEFRA's Rural Development Service aim to visit all agreements in their first year. Visits in subsequent years may additionally be carried out following a compliance monitoring inspection, a request for a major amendment to an agreement or at the request of an agreement holder.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farmers in the United Kingdom have participated in the Countryside Stewardship scheme in each year since it started. [55296]

  Mr. Morley
  The number of applicants who have joined the Countryside Stewardship scheme in each year since the scheme started in 1991 are as follows:

  Number of new agreements

  1991–951

  5,027

  1996

  1,117

  1997

  1,195

  1998

  1,275

  1999

  1,168

  2000

  2,205

  20012

  2,360

  Total number of agreements3

  14,347

  1 Annual figures for the period 1991—95, when the scheme was operated by the Countryside Commission are not available.

  2 Estimate.

  3 Farmers may hold more than one agreement.

  Wastepack
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what date her Department was first informed of an(a) potential and (b) actual problem with Wastepack meeting its obligations for 2001 under the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997; and if she will make a statement. [54791]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) announced on 15 April 2002 that, having completed its compliance assessment, it concluded that Wastepack compliance scheme had failed to take 824W
  reasonable steps to carry out its recovery and recycling obligations under the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 (as amended). During my Department's review of progress on recovery and recycling in 2001 it sought confirmation from the major compliance schemes in November 2001 that they were on course to meet their obligations under the Regulations.. We first became aware of a problem when the third quarter returns from accredited reprocessors suggested that there remained a significant amount of recovery to be achieved by the scheme in the final quarter.

  CITES
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will seek greater protection for big leaf mahogany under CITES. [55297]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government intend to explore with other member states the possibility of listing big leaf mahogany on Annex B of Council Regulation 338–97. Such a listing would require member states to be satisfied that the trade would not be detrimental to the conservation of the species before the timber could be imported into the EU.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what preparations her Department is making for the CITES 12 meeting of the Conference of the Parties. [55298]

  Mr. Meacher
  All proposals for discussion at the Conference of Parties have to be with the CITES Secretariat by 6 June. A proposal to list the basking shark on Appendix II has been prepared and will be submitted shortly. Officials have also contributed to the preparation of a draft resolution on trade in biological samples. These and proposals by other EU member states will be discussed at a meeting on 16 May. A further meeting to agree a common position on all CITES proposals will be held at the end of July. Views on these proposals will be sought from NGOs and other interested parties in the run up to this later meeting.

  Kyoto Treaty
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with US officials about the ratification of the Kyoto treaty. [51611]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 24 April 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discussed ratification of the Kyoto protocol with several US officials during a visit to the US on 10–12 April. She updated them on the progress made by the UK and our EU partners on ratification of the protocol. The UK continues to urge the US to participate fully in international action to tackle climate change on the grounds that this is necessary to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that the cost for developed countries of implementing the Kyoto protocol will only be between 0.1 per cent. and 1.1 per cent. of GDP in 2010.

  Veterinary Residues
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the
  825W
  membership of the Advisory Group on Veterinary Residues between 1995 and 2001; and if she will give their dates of membership and the register of their interests. [55732]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]: The membership of the Advisory Group on Veterinary Residues (AGVR) is listed in the Veterinary Medicines Directorate's (VMD) six annual reports on Surveillance for Veterinary Residues for 1995-2001. Only non-civil service members of the committee would have given declarations of interest. There was no expectation at the time that their declarations of interest would be made public. Under Part II, Paragraph 14 a) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, it is necessary to contact the ex-members to seek permission for the declarations to be disclosed. The VMD will write to the ex-members and disclose the declarations of those who consent.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the guidelines relating to the establishment of the Advisory Group on Veterinary Residues in 1995 and the Veterinary Residues Committee in 2001. [55731]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]: The Advisory Group on Veterinary Residues (AGVR) was set up in 1995 to ensure that the Veterinary Medicines Directorate's residues surveillance programmes were subject to independent scrutiny and advice. The AGVR's terms of reference are given in the VMD's annual reports on Surveillance for Veterinary Residues. Interested organisations, including consumer groups, were asked for nominations to serve on the AGVR. Account was taken of the advice given in the 'Guide to Public Appointments' that pertained at that time.

  The Veterinary Residues Committee was set up in 2001 to interpret and advise on the incidence and concentrations of residues of veterinary medicines in samples collected under the VMD's and FSA's surveillance programmes.

  Appointments to the VRC were made in accordance with Nolan principles. Information on the appointments process and terms of reference for the VRC is given on their website: vet-residues-committee.gov.uk.

  Aggregates Levy
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she(a) has made and (b) plans to make of the role and impact of the sustainability fund in England; how this fund will operate; and if she will make a statement. [53714]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government have consulted widely on the role and impact of the sustainability fund. In August 2000 we consulted on the objectives of the fund and, in broad terms, the best use of resources. A second consultation paper, in October 2001, invited comments on proposals for the operation and distribution of the fund in England. A summary of responses is on my Department's website.

  I announced final decisions on the distribution of the fund on 10 April. It will be distributed through the Countryside Agency, English Heritage, English Nature, WRAP, DTI's Construction Innovation and Research Management Programme, DTLR's Planning Research
  826W
  programme, Clean Up programme and Freight Facilities Grant. It will run for two years initially, with £29.3 million available each year.

  Monitoring and review arrangements will be put in place to assess the impact of the fund and help inform future decisions on how the fund works. The fund aims to reduce damage to the environment from extracting aggregates by reducing the demand for primary aggregates, promoting more environmentally friendly extraction and transport and reducing the effect of local aggregate extraction.

  Maladministration
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many findings there have been of maladministration by ombudsmen with responsibility for agencies under the remit of her Department since 1997. [56312]

  Mr. Morley
  Information on the handling of complaints is set out in tabular form by the Parliamentary Ombudsman each year as an attachment to his annual report. For those complaints where there was evidence of maladministration which warranted a full investigation, the table sets out how many complaints were upheld as being fully or partially justified. Copies of the Parliamentary Ombudsman's annual reports for the period 1997–98 to 2000–01 inclusive can be viewed in the House Library, or on the Parliamentary Ombudsman's website at www.ombudsman.org.uk/publications

  Refrigerators
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish details of the methodology used to determine the size of the moneys given to local authorities to further assist in the costs associated with the implementation of the Ozone Depleting Substances Regulation for the period 1 January 2002 to 31 March 2002; and what his estimate is for the annual cost of these measures. [38866]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: The figure was based on early estimates of the costs that local authorities would face in the period January to March 2002. These estimates were made on the basis of the best information to hand at the time. It was assumed that: 2.5 million fridges would be disposed of each year; treatment costs would be around £15 per unit; and up to 40 per cent. of units might continue to be taken back by retailers and manufacturers. However, Government accepted that additional payments might be needed once the actual costs and consequences of the regulation were clearer.

  As I informed the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on 15 April, my estimate of the total cost of the measures needed to deal with fridges in 2002–03 is £40 million.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she intends to include representatives of the devolved Administrations in the UK delegation to the World Summit on Sustainable Development. [56132]
  827W
  Mr. Meacher
  As I stated in my answer of 19 December 2001, the Devolved Administrations have been closely involved in the development of the UK's position on the World Summit on Sustainable Development. They will be represented at the summit.

  Voluntary Sector (Funding)
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire of 25 January,Official Report, columns 1185–86W, on Government funding of the voluntary sector, if she will list the grant schemes and other mechanisms by which (a) her Department, (b) the Countryside Agency and (c) English Nature distribute funding to voluntary sector organisations. [51402]

  Alun Michael
  [holding answer 19 April 2002]: There are various grant schemes and spending programmes through which DEFRA, the Countryside Agency and English Nature provide funding to organisations in the voluntary and community sector.

  DEFRA makes funding available to the voluntary and community sector through the Wildlife and Countryside Research Programme, the Environmental Action Fund and the Rural Stress Action Plan. Funding is also made available directly to the National Federation of Young Farmers Clubs, ENCAMS and National Energy Action.

  The Countryside Agency has a variety of funding streams to which voluntary sector organisations and other groups are eligible to apply, flowing from its work on rural services (including community development and social exclusion), Rural Housing Enablers, market towns, its Vital Villages programme (including Community Services Grant and Rural Transport Partnership), the Wider Welcome scheme (including national trails maintenance and rights of way work), and the Walking Your Way To Health initiative.

  English Nature distributes funding to voluntary sector organisations through the Reserves Enhancement Scheme, Volunteer Action Grants, Section 35 National Nature Reserve (NNR) Capital Grants Scheme, Land Purchase Grants and the Biodiversity Grant Scheme.

  Dairy Producers
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will take steps to support organic yoghurt and cream farm producers. [55630]

  Mr. Morley
  We have already made considerable support available to encourage conversion to organic farming and will continue to do so. We have budgeted expenditure of £140 million over the lifetime of the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP), which should triple the area under organic management by 2006. And, through both the Rural Enterprise Scheme and the Processing and Marketing Grant, the ERDP provides opportunities for these sectors of the industry to improve their competitiveness.

  The development of the organic sector will be carried forward by an organic action plan which is being drawn up with stakeholders. We hope to complete this work by July.
  828W

  Meat and Livestock Commission
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will set up a public inquiry into Meat and Livestock Commission invoices sent to the Intervention Board in 1998 and 1999. [55029]

  Mr. Morley
  I do not consider that a public inquiry into invoices received from the Meat and Livestock Commission during those two years would be beneficial or is, indeed, necessary.

  All expenditure incurred by the Intervention Board was published in the Board's annual accounts which, as with the accounts of all Government Departments, are subject to annual audit to assure Parliament that taxpayer's money is being properly spent and accounted for.

  Sewage Discharges (Whitburn and Hendon)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to publish the report of the inquiry into sewage discharges from Whitburn and Hendon; and if she will make a statement. [55708]

  Mr. Meacher
  The report of the inquiry prepared by the appointed inspector was submitted on 1 March. It is currently under consideration and will be published together with the announcement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's decision on the Whitburn and Hendon discharge consent applications. I am aware of the interest in the outcome of this inquiry and can assure my hon. Friend that we are working to ensure that this decision is made as quickly as possible.

  Marine Stewardship Reports
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans the Government have to bring forward legislation to implement the policy objectives of the Marine Stewardship reports. [55186]

  Mr. Meacher
  We will consult later this year on the regulations to extend the Habitats and Birds Directives out to the limit of jurisdiction of UK waters to protect important habitats and species. Further legislation will be brought forward if it is needed to deliver our vision of clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas.

  Waste Composting
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received on statutory safety regulations in the UK for the composting of household waste; and if she will make a statement. [54549]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department occasionally receives correspondence from householders located close to a composting facility on the safety requirements linked to that facility.

  Illegal Waste Disposal
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether he plans to increase the penalties for people who(a) fly tip and (b) throw refuse from vehicles. [56145]
  829W
  Mr. Meacher
  The penalties available for those convicted of fly tipping are severe. For non-special waste the maximum penalty for conviction in Crown court is an unlimited fine and/or up to two years imprisonment. For special waste, the maximum prison sentence is increased to five years. There are no plans to raise these penalties further.

  Anyone caught littering, including littering from a vehicle, may be issued with a Fixed Penalty Notice. Fixed Penalty Notices for litter and dog fouling offences were increased from £25 to £50 on 1 April 2002.

  BNFL
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what meetings(a) she and (b) other departmental ministers have held recently with senior executives from BNFL. [55986]

  Mr. Meacher
  None.

  CERRIE
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer, of 20 March 2002,Official Report, column 372W, she will list the consultants appointed to the secretariat; and if she will set out the reasons CERRIE meetings are not held in public. [48287]

  Mr. Meacher
  As I indicated in my reply of 20 March, three consultants have been appointed to provide the Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters (CERRIE) with an independent secretariat. They are Ian Fairlie, Marion Hill and Paul Dorfman.

  Several of the members of CERRIE are on record as having strongly held contradictory views about the radiation risks from internal emitters. The CERRIE meetings are intended to provide an opportunity for those differences of opinion to be debated, at length, in an environment that will encourage consensus to be reached, as far as that is possible. Holding the meetings in private will aid the uninhibited expression of views and the ability, where appropriate, for individuals to change their minds in the light of the evidence before them. However, in order to be transparent about their discussions, CERRIE are preparing their own website which will include, among other things, summary minutes of their meetings. CERRIE's final report to the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) will also be published.

  Water Framework Directive
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the extent to which the proposals set out in the draft Water Bill are necessary in order to meet environmental objectives under the Water Framework Directive. [56430]

  Mr. Meacher
  The draft Water Bill is not being used specifically to transpose the directive but certain provisions in the Bill in respect of water abstraction and efficient use of water by water companies will help deliver the directive's requirements.
  830W
  The main transposing provisions for England will be contained in regulations made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 and other appropriate enabling powers. Consultation on draft regulations should take place in 2003, following further consultation this year on possible approaches to transposition.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to produce a new Regulatory Impact Assessment of the Water Framework Directive. [56428]

  Mr. Meacher
  An updated Regulatory Impact Assessment will form part of a third consultation paper on implementation of the directive in England and Wales, which is due to be published in 2003.

  In Scotland and Northern Ireland, implementation of the directive and the assessment of its costs and benefits are being managed wholly by the Scottish Executive and the Northern Ireland Executive.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to implement the no deterioration duty under the Water Framework Directive.[56429]

  Mr. Meacher
  Article 4 of the directive says that, in making operational programmes of measures in the river basin management plans, member states have to implement the necessary measures to prevent deterioration in the status of water bodies.

  As with all other obligations in the directive, my Department will ensure that this obligation is complied with. To the extent that new regulatory powers are needed, they will included in proposed regulations on which we plan to consult next year.

  We are required to take the necessary legal and other steps to transpose the directive by December 2003.

  Nitrates
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the amount of environmental damage likely to occur in areas which would be excluded from nitrate vulnerable zones under Option 2 of the consultation paper on implementing the Nitrates Directive. [56431]

  Mr. Meacher
  Areas of England would be excluded from the discrete NVZ area under the Option 2 approach because they drain into waters for which monitoring data do not exceed the specific criteria laid down in the Nitrates Directive.

  However, we recognised the potential wider environmental effects of manure spreading in these areas in the partial Regulatory Impact Assessment annexed to our recent consultation paper 'How should England implement the 1991 Nitrates Directive?'.

  We are currently considering all responses received to the consultation before announcing a decision in due course on which implementation option will be pursued in England.
  831W

  Warm Front Scheme
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many contractors under the Warm Front scheme are based in each county in the south of England. [52447]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 25 April 2002]: Installers are appointed by the Warm Front scheme managers to work in specific areas of England, which do not necessarily follow county boundaries. Installers working in areas of Berkshire, Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Kent, Hampshire, Somerset, Sussex, Wiltshire and Greater London, have 49 main offices in those areas.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the findings of investigations carried out by her Department on the risks posed to animal health by illegal consignments of meat imported into the UK. [54496]

  Mr. Morley
  A risk assessment has been commissioned by DEFRA to quantify the probability of an outbreak of exotic disease linked to illegal imports. The work will seek to identify the pathways virus might travel and what are the critical control points along those pathways.

  The risk assessment is being carried out by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) and will facilitate the identification of effective control strategies and efficient and effective resource allocation to reduce risks to animal health from exotic diseases. The work commenced in March 2002 and is scheduled to run for six months. It is therefore too early to reach any conclusions.

  Common Land (Access)
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will lay draft regulations before Parliament under section 68 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 relating to vehicular access over common land. [57613]

  Alun Michael
  Draft regulations have been laid in both Houses, together with a regulatory impact assessment and an analysis of the responses made to the draft regulations circulated in July 2001. The Government's objective has been to strike a fair balance between the owners of common land, and those who have, for many years, driven across the land to get to their homes.

  The major change in the regulations is in relation to the compensation payable. This reflects the Government's view that the compensation payable in respect of older premises, already in existence when it became an offence to drive on common land, should be a relatively small amount. Owners of premises in existence on or before 31 December 1905 will pay 0.25 per cent. of the value of the premises. Owners of those built between 1 January 1906 and 30 November 1930 will pay 0.5 per cent. Compensation in respect of all other premises remains at 2 per cent.

  We hope that the regulations will be considered by both Houses before the summer recess, and will then come into force as soon as possible.
  832W

  Flooding
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received on the impact climate change will have on flooding in the United Kingdom. [55139]

  Mr. Morley
  While we have received no recent representations, we have recognised for some time that increased flood risk is one of the significant issues arising from climate change. Indeed the Government have issued guidance on expected sea level rise since the 1980's. Last year we published an assessment that showed that without present adaptation policies, such as formal defences, managed realignment, wetland creation etc., average annual flood damage from rivers could increase by some 60 per cent. and on the coast by around 400 per cent. This emphasised the need for an appropriate precautionary response.

  On 26 April 2002 DEFRA published "Climate Change Scenarios for the United Kingdom", a new set of scenarios prepared by the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, Tyndell Centre for Climate Change Research and University of East Anglia. These largely confirm the general trend of previous predictions but provide additional detail and increased spatial resolution.

  We will be reviewing all policy areas, including flood management, in the light of these scenarios over the coming months and will consider carefully the need for any consequent adjustment to our guidance.

  Wildlife Crime
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on what her Department is doing to tackle crime relating to wildlife. [55136]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department is determined to tackle wildlife crime and we have a number of relevant initiatives under way. For example I launched the National Wildlife Crime Intelligence Unit, and we are about to begin a review of COTES, which will include an assessment of the level of penalties and police powers of arrest.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what steps she has taken to ensure that there is no contamination of drinking water from the leaks from the sludge storage tanks in Building B241 at Sellafield; [53660]

  (2) what action she has taken and when since she was informed that the sludge storage tanks in Building B241 at Sellafield were leaking; [53661]

  (3) when she was first informed that the sludge storage tanks in Building B241 at Sellafield were leaking. [53631]

  Margaret Beckett
  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution, then part of the Department of the Environment, became aware of the suspected leakage from B241 around 1993.

  I understand that BNFL has confirmed that technetium-99 (Tc-99) has been detected in groundwater from boreholes in and around the Sellafield site which

  833W
  probably originate from the leaks from the B241 sludge storage tanks. Having carried out an assessment of the radiological impact, the Environment Agency is satisfied that this would be insignificant. The groundwater at Sellafield is not used for drinking water supplies. The agency has carried out additional monitoring of local surface waters and has not detected Tc-99

  Remedial action to eliminate the leaks is the responsibility of BNFL. The Environment Agency has requested BNFL to undertake monitoring to confirm the point of leakage and will work with the Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate to consider any regulatory action.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Special Advisers
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) whether unpaid special advisers who are appointed for less than a year are obliged to sign the Official Secrets Act in circumstances where advisers, both paid and unpaid, who are appointed for more than a year are obliged to do so; [54677]

  (2) what regulations control the appointment of unpaid special advisers if they are appointed for less than one year; and if he will make a statement; [54673]

  (3) how many unpaid special advisers who have been appointed for a term of less than a year there are in (a) his Department and (b) all Departments; [54675]

  (4) what the expense to (a) his Department and (b) all departments of appointing unpaid special advisers for less than a year was in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement; [54676]

  (5) in what way selection criteria applied to unpaid special advisers differ from those applicable to paid special advisers. [54674]

  Mr. Leslie
  All special advisers, whether paid or unpaid and whatever the duration of their appointment, are employed under terms and conditions set out in the Model Contract for Special Advisers and in accordance with paragraph 50 of the Ministerial Code. The rules on the selection and appointments of unpaid special advisers are the same as those for paid special advisers. All appointees are covered by the Official Secrets Act. I am not aware of any unpaid special advisers appointed for a period of less than a year.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the 2002 departmental report will be published. [49580]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 15 April 2002, Official Report, column 774W.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will estimate the cost in the next 12 months of the Budget changes to employers' national insurance contributions to(a) her Department, (b) agencies of her Department and (c) local government carrying out functions within the responsibility of her Department. [52079]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 29 April 2002,Official Report, column 544W.

  COSLA
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations her Department has received from COSLA regarding the impact of(a) the aggregates levy and (b) the rise in employers' national insurance contributions on Scottish local authorities in 2002–03. [56881]

  Mrs. Liddell
  None.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list by local authority the level of(a) rent and (b) council tax arrears in each year since 1993 in Scotland. [50331]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Tables containing the relevant information have been placed in the Library.

  Table (a) shows the current level of council tax arrears by local authority for each year since 1996–97. Figures for 1993–96 are not collected separately.

  Table (b) shows rent arrears per local authority for each year since 1993.

  Since July 1999 these have been devolved matters, and are the responsibility of the Scottish Executive.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate-General when the 2002 departmental report will be published. [49581]

  The Advocate-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 15 April 2002,Official Report, column 774W.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Jury System
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the representations he has received in favour of the jury system. [33746]

  Mr. Wills
  Of the 487 representations received in response to the Auld report on criminal courts reform, a number of organisations including the Bar Council, the Law Society and private commentators have expressed concern about the report's recommendations that the defendant's automatic right to elect jury trial in either-way
  835W
  cases should be abolished. As the Lord Chancellor has stated publicly, the Government are now considering the report's recommendations in detail, and hope to publish a White Paper announcing their conclusions before the summer recess. Responses from the general public and the main criminal justice stakeholders, subject to their agreement, are being placed on the Lord Chancellor's web site www.criminal-courts-review.org.uk

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) men and (b) women from ethnic minority backgrounds were selected for jury service at courts in Greater London during the last 12 months. [55200]

  Mr. Wills
  We do not collect information on the gender or ethnicity of people summoned to be, or sitting as, jurors. One of the main reasons for this is that jury summoning and selection is random at each stage, and it should therefore reflect the gender and ethnic breakdown of those who are registered to vote. This should also reflect regional variations, as catchment areas are based on the locality to the court.

  However, a research study is currently being developed to explore the representation of ethnic minorities in jury pools. Further details will be announced in due course.

  Criminal Offences
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many criminal offences have been(a) created and (b) abolished by his Department since 1997.[55432]

  Mr. Wills
  A comprehensive and exhaustive list of new and abolished offences could be provided only at disproportionate cost. We can however provide the following information about the following measures which have been enacted since 1 May 1997.

  The Access to Justice Act 1999 created two offences: Misrepresentation in relation to Community Legal Service/Criminal Defence Service and Unauthorised disclosure of personal information supplied for enforcing warrants. The first offence replaces the similar offence in relation to legal aid under the Legal Aid Act 1988.

  The European Communities (Lawyer's Practice) Regulations 2000 (SI 1119–2000) created an offence for a European lawyer to practise in England and Wales and Northern Ireland without registering with the relevant competent authority. This was a regulation made by the Lord Chancellor implementing a European directive.

  The Land Registration Act 2002 creates two and repeals three. The Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1998 repealed eight offences.

  Human Rights
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whom he has identified as the contact points in each department for human rights issues. [54666]
  836W
  Mr. Wills
  A civil servant in each Department has been designated as the contact point for human rights issues. I will send the right hon. Gentleman the full list of the 26 contact points for his information, although general inquiries on human rights issues should in the first instance continue to be sent to officials in my Department, which plays a co-ordinating role on the Human Rights Act.

  Hague Child Abduction Convention
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what the return rates(a) to and (b) from the UK under the Hague Child Abduction Convention were for each of the last two years for European signatories to the convention.[56256]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor is the central authority for the operation of the convention for England and Wales only. The tables show the return rates to and from England and Wales, for each of the last two years for European signatories to the convention.

  Table (a): Return rates to England and Wales

  2000

  2001

  Cases received during the year

  88

  96

  Cases outstanding at end of the year

  26

  29

  Cases where return of child achieved

  40

  38

  Return rate (percentage)

  64.5

  56.7

  Table (b): Return rates from England and Wales

  2000

  2001

  Cases received during the year

  139

  155

  Cases outstanding at end of the year

  51

  55

  Cases where return of child achieved

  57

  58

  Return rate (percentage)

  64.8

  58

  Spouse Murderers
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how many parents convicted of murder against a spouse have been deprived of parental rights over children in the last five years. [53265]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  This information is not available. A key aim of the Inter-Ministerial Group on Domestic Violence is to improve the way the criminal and civil justice systems work together. The work of the group will include looking at whether, and if so how, information such as this could be obtained.

  Wardship Orders
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how many wardship orders were made in each year since 1990. [56153]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The following statistics are available:

  1990—6,227

  1991—5,014.
  837W
  The Children Act 1989 came into force on 14 October 1991. Under the Act, the use of wardship by local authorities is severely limited. Leave to make an application for any exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction must be granted by the High Court. Applications by private individuals are not restricted, but the same results can generally be achieved by obtaining a prohibited steps or specific issue order under section 8 of the Act. Statistics have not been collected since 1991 because the number of wardship orders made has been negligible.

  £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special firearms grant1

  78,144

  7,692

  —

  —

  —

  Beacon scheme2

  —

  —

  99,977

  6,000

  —

  Arrest referral

  —

  —

  —

  523,000

  613,000

  Operation Hawk3

  —

  —

  —

  1,943,000

  1,257,000

  Robbery grant

  —

  —

  —

  3,200,000

  —

  Fuel distribution emergency

  —

  —

  —

  505,103

  58,050

  Targeted policing initiative (North Trafford)

  —

  —

  —

  62,898

  44,597

  Targeted policing initiative (Trafford Park)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  69,785

  Execution of warrants

  —

  —

  —

  233,000

  —

  Policing Oldham disturbances

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,440,000

  Commonwealth games4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,700,000

  1 Firearms grant for policing costs associated with ban on handguns.

  2 Beacon scheme funding for imaginative ideas linked to increasing police efficiency.

  3 A Greater Manchester police street crime initiative.

  4 Payment of the first instalment of a total grant of up to £5 million for policing the games.

  Police Pay
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the shorter pay scales for the federated ranks will be. [44022]

  Mr. Denham
  On 9 May 2002, the Police Negotiating Board (PNB) reached agreement on a package of reforms to police pay and conditions of service. PNB is the statutory negotiating body for police pay and conditions of service throughout the United Kingdom.

  The package includes shortening the constables' pay scale by four points, achieved by removing two points on 1 April 2003, a third on 1 April 2004 and a fourth on 1 April 2005. The pay scales for sergeants, inspectors and chief inspectors will be shortened on 1 April 2003 by removing the current bottom point.

  From 1 April 2003, the pay points on all the federated ranks' scales will be increased by £402.

  The shorter pay scales will mean that officers in the federated ranks will reach the top of their respective pay scales more quickly than under the current arrangements. At the top of the scales, they will be eligible for a new competence-related payment of £1,002 a year.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how a police officer will be eligible for the new competence-related pay. [44023]

  Mr. Denham
  On 9 May 2002, the Police Negotiating Board (PNB) reached agreement on a package of reforms to police pay and conditions of service. PNB is the statutory negotiating body for police pay and conditions throughout the United Kingdom. PNB agreements have to

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Greater Manchester Police
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown of one-off ring-fenced grants to Greater Manchester police by constituency since 1997–99, and if he will make a statement. [42842]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 19 March 2002]: Details of one-off grant payments to Greater Manchester police since 199–98 are set out in the table. These cannot be broken down by constituency.

  be approved by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in England and Wales and by my right hon. Friend the Scottish Minister in Scotland.

  The package of reforms includes a new competence-related pensionable payment of £1,002 at the top of the federated ranks' pay scales. In order to get the payment, officers will have to have spent a year at the top of their respective scales and demonstrate high professional competence under each of the following broad headings:

  Professional competence and results;

  Commitment to the job;

  Relations with the public and colleagues;

  Willingness to learn and adjust to new circumstances.

  A PNB Working Group will agree the final details for the scheme by 30 September 2002, so that the first payments can be made from 1 April 2003.

  In the PNB agreement, it is stated that at least 75 per cent. of those eligible are expected to get the payment. There will, however, be no quota system. Any eligible officer who demonstrates the necessary competencies will get the payment.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how the funding will be provided for the £500 to £5,000 annual payment to police officers at the sharp end;[48290]

  (2) how the funding will be provided for the proposed payment of £400 to all police officers and the £1,000 payment for police officers at the top of their pay scales. [48291]
  839W
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 9 April 2002]: On 9 May 2002, the Police Negotiating Board (PNB) agreed a package of reforms to police pay and conditions of service.
  The package includes an increase of £402 on top of the basic salary for all the federated ranks from 1 April, 2003. Officers at the top of the federated ranks' pay scales will be eligible for a new competence-related payment of £1,002 a year. There will also be a new special priority payment scheme under which those at the sharp end of policing may qualify for one-off payments of normally between £500 to £3,000, exceptionally up to £5,000.

  The payment depends on appropriate additional resources being provided to police.

  The new pay and conditions package agreed on 9 May 2002 will provide a modernised pay structure rewarding those at the sharp end and reducing reliance on overtime. In so doing, it both underpins the rest of the police reform programme and demonstrates the Government's commitment to invest in the police service to achieve the reforms needed and to give it the support and flexibility it requires to deliver a first-class service to the public.

  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average annual increase in police pay has been in each of the last 10 years. [52997]

  Mr. Denham
  Police pay increased by an average of 6.5 per cent. in 1992 and 1.5 per cent. in 1993. In 1994, the pay scales were restructured, and there was no uniform increase in police pay.

  Since 1995, police pay has been increased every September by reference to the median percentage of the manpower index of non-manual private sector workers. In 1995 the increase was 3 per cent. in 1996, 3.5 per cent. in 1997, 3.5 per cent., in 1998. 4 per cent., in 1999, 3.6 per cent., in 2000, 3 per cent. and in 2001, 3.5 per cent.

  The increase in basic pay agreed as part of a package of reforms to police pay and conditions in the Police Negotiating Board on 9 May 2002, will be on top of the pay award from September 2002.

  Police
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many black and Asian officers there are in the(a) Metropolitan police, (b) Leicestershire police and (c) Derbyshire police; and at which rank. [54499]

  Mr. Denham
  The information has been provided by the respective chief officer of police and is set out in the table. The figures reflect the position on 31 March 2002.

  Number of black and Asian officers

  Rank

  Metropolitan Police

  Leicestershire constabulary

  Derbyshire constabulary

  Assistant commissioner1

  1

  —

  —

  Assistant chief constable2

  2

  —

  —

  Chief superintendent

  2

  —

  —

  Superintendent

  4

  —

  —

  Chief inspector

  9

  1

  1

  Inspector

  36

  2

  5

  Sergeant

  112

  9

  6

  Constable

  1,113

  64

  41

  Total

  1,279

  77

  53

  840w

  1Assistant commissioner in the Metropolitan police is equivalent to the rank of chief constable.

  2Assistant chief constable includes the ranks of deputy assistant commissioner and commander in the Metropolitan police.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police were assigned to Operation Patrol in Uniform in Wales in each year since 1997. [53485]

  Mr. Denham
  The precise information requested is not collected, but the information in the table has been provided by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) using returns supplied by police forces of the number of officers undertaking particular classes of duty. The basis on which HMIC classify police service staff changed in the year 1999–2000 so the figures for 31 March 2000 and 31 March 2001 are not directly comparable with those for earlier years.

  The figures up to and including 31 March 1999 cover officers classified as undertaking patrol or traffic duties in roles that could only be filled by a police officer.

  The figures for 2000 and 2001 cover operational officers classified as undertaking foot, car or beat patrol, traffic duties, working with police dogs and mounted officers. Operational officers are any, including covert staff, whose primary role is directly to deliver the overarching aims of the police service. Operational officers will not necessarily undertake duties in uniform but the vast majority undertaking patrol functions will do so.

  Operational patrol officers (full time equivalent)

  As at 31 March

  Dyfed—Powys

  Gwent

  North Wales

  South Wales

  1997

  648

  826

  855

  1,714

  1998

  687

  800

  895

  1,623

  1999

  690

  857

  851

  1,809

  2000

  706

  841

  794

  1,859

  2001

  537

  724

  820

  1,917

  Crime Prevention/Weston-Super-Mare
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to offer funding to local crime prevention initiatives in Weston-Super-Mare. [54471]

  Mr. Denham
  Home Office crime reduction funding is allocated to the North Somerset Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership and the North Somerset Youth Offending Team, which cover Weston-Super-Mare. The total funding allocated in 2002–03 is £464,897 comprising:

  Purpose

  Amount £

  North Somerset Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership

  Communities Against Drugs1

  162,800

  Safer Communities Initiative

  56,163

  Partnership Development

  57,500

  Small Retailers in Deprived Areas Scheme

  25,906

  Total

  302,369

  841W

  Purpose

  Amount £

  North Somerset Youth Offending Team

  General funding

  102,263

  Drugs services

  31,044

  Referral orders

  29,221

  Total

  162,528

  12001–02 baseline allocation

  Policing Costs
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the average annual cost of employing(a) a police officer and (b) a police constable in (i) a provincial force and (ii) London in the last five years. [41614]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 8 March 2002]: I have today placed this information in the Library.

  Police Performance
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will rank the performance of each police force in England according to the Best Value Performance Indicators relating to(a) violent offences under the influence of an intoxicating substance and (b) violent offences committed in connection with licensed premises. [55111]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 9 May 2002]: The suite of Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPIs) for the police relating to violent offences under the influence of an intoxicating substance and violent offences committed in connection with licensed premises first comes into effect during the current year 2002–03.

  Class A Drugs (Tunbridge Wells)
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people(a) in total and (b) under the age of 25 years in Tunbridge Wells were found in possession of Class A drugs in each year since 1997. [55192]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The information requested is not collected centrally. However, it will be possible to provide some information on the number of persons in Kent cautioned or found guilty of possessing Class A drugs from 1997 to 2000. I will write to the hon. Member by 24 May 2002. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

  Police Service (Religion)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will collect statistics on the religious affiliation of civilian and uniformed staff in the Police Service with special reference to Muslim women in the work force; and if he will make a statement. [55440]

  Mr. Denham
  We have no current plans to collect data on the religious affiliation of police officers and support staff. Data are collected on ethnicity. This is used to monitor the progress of police forces in meeting their targets on minority ethnic recruitment, retention and progression.
  842W

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders have been issued to date. [55857]

  Mr. Denham
  Official statistics on the number of AntiSocial Behaviour Orders (ASBO) issued are based on quarterly returns received from magistrates courts committees (MCCs). The total number of ASBOs issued, as from 1 April 1999 up until the end of December 2001 (latest available), is 518.

  The requirement for further checks for completeness of information reported from MCCs is currently under review.

  Alcohol
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the changes in his Department's guidelines to the police relating to the seizure of alcohol from young people. [54978]

  Mr. Denham
  There are no guidelines dealing specifically with this subject, but all chief police officers and chief executives of local authorities were informed by letter, of the measures relating to alcohol consumption in public places, contained in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 Act prior to their commencement in September 2001.

  Recorded Crime
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 7 May 2002, Ref. 52335, whether before 1 April, the police had discretion to record a reported crime; and if he will make a statement. [55584]

  Mr. Denham
  The rules regarding re-classification of a recorded crime were the same prior to 1 April 2002 as they are now. Re-classification is not usually permitted. The rules state that a recorded crime cannot be re-classified unless it is re-classified to a homicide (murder, manslaughter or infanticide).

  Once a crime has been recorded it can only be classified as a 'no crime' if one of the following criteria is satisfied:

  (i) The crime was committed outside the jurisdiction of the police force in which it was recorded.

  (ii) Where, following the report of an incident which has subsequently been recorded as a crime, credible evidence comes to light, which determines that no crime has been committed.

  (iii) If the crime, as alleged, constitutes part of a crime already recorded.

  (iv) If the reported incident was recorded as a crime in error.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many incidents of domestic violence there were in each year since 1997 in Wales; [56175]

  (2) how many incidents of domestic violence there were in each year since 1997 in Lancashire. [56174]

  Mr. Denham
  Details of the numbers of domestic violence incidents in Wales and Lancashire, obtained from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary Annual
  843W
  Statistical Return from police forces, are given. The definition of domestic violence incidents used for the figures up to 1998–99 was as follows:

  Any form of physical, sexual or emotional abuse which takes place within the context of a close relationship. In most cases, the relationship will be between partners, married, cohabiting or otherwise; or ex-partners.

  The figures for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 used the following definition:

  Any violence between current or former partners in an intimate relationship, wherever and whenever the violence occurs. The violence may include physical, sexual, emotional or financial abuse.

  The figures up to 1998–99 are therefore not directly comparable with those for 1999–2000 and 2000–01. Changes in numbers of domestic violence incidents recorded may be due to increased willingness on the part of victims to report these crimes, and to changes in force policy in how to handle and record such incidents. In particular, Lancashire changed their recording and reporting procedures in the 2000–01 financial year, resulting in a higher figure for that year.

  Number of domestic violence incidents

  Year

  Wales

  Lancashire

  1996–97

  21,068

  6,216

  1997–98

  21,160

  5,760

  1998–99

  17,913

  6,778

  1999–2000

  17,159

  8,560

  2000–01

  15,763

  17,392

  Burglary
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many burglaries have been committed in Wales in each year since 1997; [56177]

  (2) how many burglaries have been committed in Lancashire in each year since 1997. [56176]

  Mr. Denham
  The numbers of burglaries (both domestic and other) recorded by the police in Wales and Lancashire since 1997 have been published in successive editions of 'Criminal Statistics England and Wales', and are given in the table.

  Number of burglaries

  Year

  Wales

  Lancashire

  19971

  46,445

  27,921

  1998–992

  41,941

  24,226

  1999–20002

  36,764

  21,360

  2000–012

  32,883

  21,673

  1Calendar year

  2Year ending March

  There was a change in counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998. However, it is thought that this had relatively little effect nationally on the number of burglary offences recorded. The 2000–01 figure for Lancashire may have been affected by new recording practices introduced by the force in April 2000.
  844W

  Common Assault
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of common assault have been committed in Lancashire in each year since 1997. [56178]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of common assaults, and racially aggravated common assaults, recorded by the police in Lancashire are given in the table. The former category was introduced as a recorded crime on 1 April 1998, and the latter was counted separately from 1 April 1999.

  Recorded common assaults in Lancashire

  Year

  Common assault

  Racially aggravated common assault

  1998–991

  2,109

  n/a

  1999/2001

  2,208

  63

  2000/011

  3,052

  52

  1 Year ending March

  It should be noted that recorded violent crime is subject to changes in reporting and recording. The 2000–01 figure for Lancashire may have been affected by new recording practices introduced by the force in April 2000. Also, for example, the 2001 British Crime Survey found that, over England and Wales as a whole, reporting to the police of common assault rose from 29 per cent. in 1999 to 39 per cent. in the year 2000.

  The British Crime Survey has shown that, in England and Wales as a whole, the number of common assaults recorded in the survey decreased by 14 per cent. between the 1999 and 2000 calendar years, whereas common assaults recorded by the police increased by an estimated 9 per cent. Common assaults recorded by the police may therefore not necessarily be a reflection of the real level of this offence.

  Young Offenders' Diet
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent research he has carried out into potential links between the behaviour of people detained in young offenders' institutions and food supplements, food colouring and mineral deficiencies. [55048]

  Beverley Hughes
  Natural Justice, a registered charity, undertook a research project at Aylesbury young offender institution in 1996–97 to monitor the effects of nutritional supplements on the behaviour of young offenders. The behaviour of the young offenders was measured before and after by looking at the number of minor and Governor reports. The results were independently reviewed by the Home Office's Research, Development and Statistics Directorate (RDSD) who concluded that the results demonstrated a positive effect of nutritional supplements on behaviour. However, the numbers involved were small which made drawing wider conclusions difficult.

  Law Enforcement Agencies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statutory law enforcement agencies and prosecuting authorities there were within the responsibility of his Department; and what complaints procedure is available for each. [57106]
  845W
  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office is responsible in England and Wales for the police, the prison service and the national probation directorate. Complaints against the police are dealt with by the Police Complaints Authority; those against the prison service and the national probation directorate by the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman.

  Dangerous Driving
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures have been introduced by the Government against(a) dangerous drivers and (b) those who consistently offend. [56269]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  We are currently considering the report of a major research study into dangerous driving offences and will decide in due course whether to bring forward proposals for change in the law or its administration.

  The Government also produced a consultation paper on road traffic penalties in December 2000 with the purpose of assessing whether the current maximum penalties for road traffic offences remain appropriate. The consultation paper made a number of proposals in respect of dangerous driving including an increase in the maximum penalty from two to five years' imprisonment. We are currently in the final stages of preparing the Government's response to the consultation exercise setting out a final set of recommendations. We expect this to be published in the very near future.

  Animal Rights Protests
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made by the(a) Ministerial Committee on Animal Rights Extremism and (b) police unit within the National Crime Squad on violent animal rights protests. [57015]

  Mr. Denham
  The Ministerial Committee on animal rights extremism has taken a range of measures, including agreeing upon and implementing legislation to allow police to remove intimidatory protesters from outside homes, introducing procedures to prevent disclosure of the home addresses of directors of vulnerable companies, and carrying out a thorough review of the criminal justice system in relation to animal rights cases and identifying improvements where necessary.

  The National Crime Squad has undertaken a number of operations which have resulted in the arrest of 70 individuals for a variety of offences relating to animal extremism, and has supported colleagues nationally in the co-ordination of both intelligence and operational activity.

  Retail Crime
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much of the money allocated to his Department in the Budget will be used to tackle retail crime. [54569]

  Mr. Denham
  The additional funding will be used to tackle street crime, as well as for counter terrorism measures, prisons provision and juvenile offenders, related issues. Many of these measures are likely to have a beneficial impact on reducing retail crime.
  846W
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department is taking to tackle retail crime. [54562]

  Mr. Denham
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 27 June last year the provision of £15 million over three years from the Capital Modernisation Fund to assist small retailers in deprived areas to improve the security of their businesses. £3 million was available in the 2001–02 financial year, with a further £6 million in both 2002–03 and 2003–04.

  This money, which is being spent on schemes identified by Regional Crime Reduction Directors, in conjunction with Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships, is being used to help small retailers to improve security. This is being achieved by employing a variety of interventions, including enhancing the security of individual premises and improving the environment of shopping centres. Nearly 3,000 shops in 114 retail schemes in some of the most deprived areas in England and Wales benefited from first year funds. More shops will be assisted in the next two years.

  The Home Office has also supported work undertaken to establish retail crime partnerships by funding a consultant post for the past two years. The consultant has worked closely with the British Retail Consortium to produce a definitive guide on how to establish and run a retail crime partnership and encouraged retailers and other stakeholders in main shopping centre areas to establish partnerships to tackle retail and related crime.

  Funding totalling £223,000 was also given to aid retail crime reduction initiatives under various programmes administered by regional crime reduction directors in the financial year ending 31 March 2002 and a further £86,500 is expected to be disbursed through regional crime reduction directors specifically for retail crime reduction initiatives in the current financial year.

  Other funding under the Crime Reduction Programme, such as the £170 million for schemes for the installation of closed circuit television, particularly in town centres, will help to reduce shop theft as well as other types of crime. Other initiatives such as the street wardens schemes will also be of benefit to retailers in the areas where they operate.

  The Home Office also makes advice available to retailers and crime reduction practitioners on the crime reduction website, including best practice guidance in the "Toolkit" on Business and Retail Crime give website address. Booklets which give crime reduction guidance to retailers have also recently been updated and give advice in a user-friendly postcard format leaflet entitled "Don't Discount Crime".

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to offer funding to local retail crime prevention initiatives in town shopping centres and secondary shopping areas. [54726]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) on 14 May 2002,Official Report, column 605W.

  EU Arrest Warrant
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the proposed EU arrest warrant will apply to extradition requests by military tribunals. [54210]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Our extradition law currently provides that we cannot extradite for offences which are purely military offences and have no equivalent under general criminal law. We intend to replicate that provision in the new law. However, we have always been prepared to extradite in cases where an individual has committed a military offence which has a counterpart under criminal law. It is therefore legally possible under present arrangements, although exceptionally rare, for an extradition partner to seek the return of an individual to appear before a military court.

  Under the terms of Article 6 of the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant, it is the responsibility of each member state to designate its issuing judicial authorities. In principle, it would therefore be possible for a European Arrest Warrant to be issued by a military tribunal, although such instances are likely to be rare.

  National Criminal Intelligence Service
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) of 9 May 2002,Official Report, column 322W, how many and what percentage of financial disclosures were received by the National Criminal Intelligence Service in 2000, broken down by category of source, and what was the average number of financial disclosures for each relevant member of staff at NCIS in that year. [56626]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: In 2000, the Economic Crime Branch of the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) received 18,408 suspicious transaction reports from the following sources:

  Number

  Percentage

  Banks

  11,532

  62.65

  Bureaux/money transfer

  2,801

  15.21

  Building societies

  1,756

  9.54

  Insurance

  606

  3.29

  Solicitors

  248

  1.35

  Gaming/betting

  316

  1.72

  Securities firms

  128

  0.70

  Mortgage

  123

  0.67

  Motor organisation

  120

  0.65

  Independent financial adviser

  108

  0.59

  Accountants

  77

  0.42

  Regulators

  64

  0.35

  Credit cards

  44

  0.24

  Asset management

  39

  0.21

  Auction houses

  24

  0.13

  Cheque cashiers

  12

  0.07

  Estate agent

  3

  0.02

  Company formation

  2

  0.01

  Market and exchange

  1

  0.01

  Others

  404

  2.19

  Due to the varying roles and responsibilities of staff within the Economic Crime Branch, information relating to the average number of financial disclosures for each relevant member of staff for NCIS is not readily available.
  848W
  30 members of staff were employed in the Economic Crime Branch in April 2000, but not all would have been dealing with financial disclosures.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Statement
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the statement of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions of 9 May 2002,Official Report, column 303, if (a) he, (b) his political and press advisers, (c) other Downing street staff and (d) Ministers discussed this recommendation with (i) the Cabinet secretary and (ii) his staff prior to the recommendation being made to the permanent secretary to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions that he should make such a statement. [57013]

  The Prime Minister
  The circumstances which led to the statement made by the permanent secretary of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions have been set out in evidence to the Public Administration Select Committee.

  Nepal
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Prime Minister what further discussions he plans with the Prime Minister of Nepal about the Gurkhas. [56706]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no immediate plans for discussion with the Prime Minister of Nepal.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Prime Minister if he introduced Mrs. Blair to the Prime Minister of Nepal on his visit on 13 May. [56707]

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Lord-Lieutenant of Essex
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Prime Minister what the arrangements are for the appointment of the next lord-lieutenant of Essex; who is serving on the committee considering names; and who appointed them. [57115]

  The Prime Minister
  Lord-lieutenants are appointed by the Queen on my advice. The Prime Minister's secretary for appointments is responsible for carrying out a wide consultation process within the county on my behalf, as is the case with all lord-lieutenants in England. The consultation is now complete and I understand that included correspondence with the hon. Member. We hope to announce the successor to Lord Braybrooke shortly.

  The secretary for appointments is a senior civil servant and was appointed following a competition within the civil service.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) pursuant to the answer of 23 November 2001,Official Report, column 534W, on non-state

  849W
  pensions, how the figures for 2000 were calculated from the data contained in the ONS MQ5 Survey; [46485]

  (2) pursuant to the answer of 23 November 2001, Official Report, column 534W, on non-state pensions, if he will break down each year's contributions between (a) contributions to self-administered pension arrangements, (b) regular premiums to individual insured pension arrangements, (c) single premiums to individual insured pension arrangements, (d) regular premiums to group insured pension arrangements and (e) single premiums to group insured pension arrangements; [46486]

  (3) pursuant to the answer of 23 November 2001, Official Report, column 534W, on non-state pensions, whether individual transfers from one insured pension provider to another have been excluded from the answer; and if he will estimate the amount of such transfers in each year; [46487]

  (4) pursuant to the answer of 23 November 2001, Official Report, column 534W, on non-state pensions, whether investments of existing assets of self-administered pension funds in (a) managed funds and (b) annuity contracts operated by insurance companies have been excluded from the answer; and if he will estimate the amount thereby excluded in each year; [46488]

  (5) pursuant to the answer of 23 November 2001, Official Report, column 534W, on non-state pensions, if he will estimate the number of individuals for or by whom contributions were made in each year from 1992 to 2000. [46489]

  Mr. McCartney
  The figures quoted in my answer of 23 November 2001,Official Report, column 534W, are updated in the table. It is necessary to update them because the Office for National Statistics reissued the figures on which they are based on 16 May 2002.

  Table 1 shows the amount contributed to non-state pensions for all years from 1992 to 2001. The figures include contributions of both employers and employees to self-administered pension funds and the pensions business of insurance companies.

  As before, the figures show that there has been sustained growth in contributions to non-state pensions. The figures suggest that the stable economy has created

  Table 2

  Contributions to self-administered pension arrangements

  Regular premiums to individual/personal insured pension arrangements

  Single premiums to individual/Personal insured pension arrangements

  Regular premiums to group insured pension arrangements

  Single premiums group insured pension arrangements

  Total contributions to non-state pensions

  Cash terms

  1992

  9

  6

  8

  4

  5

  32

  1993

  10

  7

  10

  4

  6

  37

  1994

  11

  7

  7

  3

  6

  34

  1995

  11

  8

  7

  4

  6

  36

  1996

  12

  7

  10

  4

  10

  43

  1997

  12

  9

  11

  4

  14

  50

  1998

  11

  10

  13

  4

  24

  62

  1999

  14

  10

  12

  4

  26

  67

  2000

  16

  9

  18

  4

  27

  74

  2001

  16

  12

  24

  4

  31

  86

  850W
  the right conditions to save, and that our policies to encourage higher levels of private saving are having a positive effect.

  The method used to calculate the figures is set out in the notes to the table.

  Table 1: Contributions to non-state pensions

  £billion

  Cash terms

  1997 prices

  1992

  32

  37

  1993

  37

  41

  1994

  34

  37

  1995

  36

  38

  1996

  43

  44

  1997

  50

  50

  1998

  62

  60

  1999

  67

  63

  2000

  74

  68

  2001

  86

  77

  Notes:

  1. All figures rounded to nearest £ billion.

  2. Figures are based on the ONS MQ5 publication. They have been recalculated in light of the reissue of the MQ5 publication on 16 May 2002. The MQ5 publication is subject to change because it is under constant review. Since the figures above are dependent on MQ5, they are similarly subject to change.

  3. The figures shown in cash terms are the sum of the series RKDL and RKAF in the ONS MQ5 publication.

  4. The figures shown in 1997 prices are the sum of the same series after adjustment for price changes using the RPI index.

  5. There is a small discontinuity in the series between 1998 and 1999. For further information see ONS's pension fund surveys technical article of 16 May 2002, available at www.statistics.gov.uk/ products/p502.asp.

  6. The data in the above table may include some transfers from one insured pension provider to another. ONS, who produce the underlying data, look out for this possible problem and, where identified, correct for it. Information on the amount of these transfers is not available.

  7. Investment of existing assets of self-administered pension funds in managed funds and annuity contracts operated by insurance companies have not been excluded.

  The figures in 1997 price terms in the table represent an update to the DWP's indicator 'Amount contributed to non-state pensions—real terms (United Kingdom)'. This indicator is one of the set monitored in the Government's annual poverty and social exclusion report, "Opportunity for All". The latest report, "Opportunity for All—Making Progress" (Cm 5260) was published in September 2001.

  The breakdown of these figures between different types of contributions is set out in table 2 in cash terms and then in 1997 price terms.
  851W

  Table 2

  Contributions to self-administered pension arrangements

  Regular premiums to individual/personal insured pension arrangements

  Single premiums to individual/personal insured pension arrangements

  Regular premiums to group insured pension arrangements

  Single premiums to group insured pension arrangements

  Total contributions to non-state pensions

  1997 price terms

  1992

  11

  7

  10

  4

  5

  37

  1993

  11

  7

  11

  4

  7

  41

  1994

  12

  7

  7

  4

  6

  37

  1995

  12

  8

  8

  4

  6

  38

  1996

  12

  7

  10

  4

  11

  44

  1997

  12

  9

  11

  4

  14

  50

  1998

  11

  10

  12

  4

  23

  60

  1999

  13

  9

  12

  4

  25

  63

  2000

  14

  9

  17

  3

  25

  68

  2001

  14

  10

  21

  4

  27

  77

  ONS data series on which figures are based

  RKDL

  RLVQ

  RLQU

  RKPX

  RLQX

  —

  Notes:

  1. All notes to table 1 also apply to this table, except for notes 3 and 4, which do not apply.

  2. The figures shows in cash terms are from the ONS MQ5 publication and are the series named in the last row of the table.

  3. The figures shown in 1997 prices are the same series after adjustment for price changes using the RPI index.

  4. Figures may not exactly add up to the totals due to rounding errors.

  The source used to derive the above information does not enable an estimate to be made of the number of individuals for or by whom contributions to non-state pensions were made. However it is possible to estimate similar information using the Family Resources Survey. These figures are not directly comparable to those above because they are derived from a different source. Estimates are shown in the following table for the years available.

  Table 3

  Number of people who are members of a non-state pension

  Number of people currently contributing to a non-state pension

  1995–96

  15.5

  n/a

  1996–97

  15.1

  n/a

  1997–98

  15.0

  n/a

  1998–99

  15.2

  n/a

  1999–2000

  n/a

  14.4

  2000–01

  n/a

  14.4

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to nearest 100,000.

  2. Figures are for people aged 20 to state pension age.

  3. Estimates are based on the Family Resources Survey. There are alternative estimates of similar information which produce slightly different results.

  4. Estimates are subject to error inherent in survey-based data.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 2 May 2002,Official Report, column 978W, if he will provide information on male pensioners on the same basis. [55299]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested for different pensioner groups has been provided on the same basis. Figures have been provided where sample sizes and other factors dictate that they are sufficiently robust. In the case of the information requested for single pensioners, sample sizes for single men were too small to allow robust comparisons over short time periods to be carried out, whereas sample sizes for single women were larger as there are more of this group in the population.
  852W

  Pension Annuities
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many replies were received in the course of the Government's consultation on pension annuities; and how many were in favour of reform. [56414]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  601 responses have been received and are currently receiving careful analysis.

  Employment Agencies Act
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he plans to publish draft legislation for new regulations under the Employment Agencies Act 1973 relating to agents for the acting profession and performing arts. [56875]

  Alan Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  We will shortly be issuing the revised draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations, which will cover the private recruitment industry, including agents acting on behalf of those engaged in the entertainment sector. There will then be a consultation exercise on certain aspects of those regulations.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average response time was for responding to departmental correspondence; what percentage of letters took longer than one month for a response; and what percentage took longer than three months for a response in each of the last five years. [37438]

  Maria Eagle
  Information on correspondence received from all sources across the whole Department is not maintained in the format requested. General information on the volumes of correspondence received and on overall performance across Whitehall is published by the Cabinet Office. The figures up to 2000 were published on 6 April 2001,Official Report, columns 324—28W, and on 19 July 2001, Official Report, columns 454–56W. The combined

  853W
  DSS/DWP average response time during 2001 for letters from Members to Ministers was 18 days. 34 per cent. took longer than 20 working days for a response. In DWP only for 2001, the average response time to letters from Members to DWP Ministers was 15 days, and 29 per cent. took longer than 20 working days for a response. The Cabinet Office will be publishing further figures on the volumes and performance on correspondence shortly.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the 2002 departmental report will be published. [49578]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 15 April 2002,Official Report, column 774W.

  HIV
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will propose amendments to the Liability Discrimination Act 1995 to protect people with HIV from discrimination at the point of diagnosis. [50694]

  Maria Eagle
  We are considering a number of proposals for changes to the Disability Discrimination Act. We are considering our legislative strategy in the light of responses to the recent consultation on "Towards Equality and Diversity" which concerns implementation of the European Community employment directive.

  Jobcentres
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he plans to take to improve access to jobcentres in rural areas under the new deal arrangements. [50845]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the chief executive, Leigh Lewis. I have asked him to reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Miss Anne McIntosh, dated May 2002:
  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning the steps to be taken to improve access to jobcentres in rural areas under the New Deal arrangements. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Jobcentre Plus understands the difficulties that people living in rural areas can face, both in securing employment and gaining access to our services. Staff in rural jobcentres work with clients on an individual basis to explore ways to overcome these problems and will often give advice on either jobsearch or benefits over the telephone. They can offer also postal signing arrangements where that is permissible.
  We have also introduced new services which should be particularly useful for our customers in rural areas. "Jobseeker Direct" — on 0845 6060234 — is a telephone jobfinding service available to both unemployed and employed people. They can also look for jobs and learning opportunities on the internet, with our two websites www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk and www.worktrain.gov.uk.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Direct Bank
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the(a) percentage and (b) amount of funding that (i) the Government and (ii) the banks will invest to establish the new direct bank. [54511]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Government have recently signed contracts with Post Office Ltd. for the provision of the new card account at Post Office. This is a commercial arrangement for the provision of a service and does not constitute direct funding. The precise value of the contracts will depend on the number of card accounts.

  The main UK high street banks and the Nationwide Building Society have together agreed to contribute a total of £180 million over five years towards the costs of the new card account at Post Office. They have also agreed to make their introductory bank accounts accessible through post offices.

  International Social Security Agreements
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when each international reciprocal social security agreement was entered into; and what the extent of the reciprocity is in each case. [55579]

  Maria Eagle
  The information on reciprocal social security agreements with other countries is as follows.

  The main purpose of such reciprocal agreements is to protect the social security position of workers moving between the two countries during their working lives. They prevent employees, their employers and the self-employed from having to pay social security contributions to both the home state and the state of employment at the same time and ensure that such workers' rights to certain benefits are maintained. They vary to some extent from country to country depending on the nature and scope of the other country's social security scheme. Generally, they cover contributory benefits in respect of the following contingencies: sickness, invalidity, unemployment, retirement, bereavement and industrial injuries. Workers who have contributed to both countries' schemes during their working lives can usually receive an old age pension from each country which reflects the proportionate amount or their insurance in, or contributions to, each country's scheme.

  List of current reciprocal social security agreements and the year they came into force

  Austria

  Barbados—1981 (replaced the 1971 agreement)

  Belgium—1992

  Bermuda—1958

  Canada—1969

  Cyprus—1995 (replaced the 1959 agreement)

  Denmark—1983 (replaced the 1959 agreement)

  Finland—1960

  France—1984 (replaced the 1959 agreement)

  Germany—1958

  Gibraltar—1961

  Iceland—1974

  Ireland—1985

  Isle of Man—1960

  Israel—1977 (replaced the 1948 agreement)
  855W
  Italy—1957

  Jamaica—1953

  Jersey and Guernsey—1997 (replaced the 1972 agreement)

  Luxembourg—1994 (replaced the 1978 agreement)

  Malta—1955

  Mauritius—1966 (replaced the 1956 agreement)

  Netherlands—1981

  New Zealand—1955

  Norway—1983 (replaced the 1969 agreement)

  Philippines—1991 (replaced the 1957 agreement)

  Portugal—1989

  Spain—1979

  Sweden—1975

  Switzerland—1988 (replaced the 1956 agreement)

  Turkey—1969

  USA—1961

  Yugoslavia1—1984 (replaced the 1969 agreement)

  1Now applies to: the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia— Montenegro—1958), Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

  Maladministration
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many findings there have been of maladministration by ombudsmen with responsibility for agencies under the remit of his Department since 1997. [56305]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Information on the handling of complaints is set out in tabular form by the parliamentary ombudsman each year as an attachment to his annual report. For those complaints where there was evidence of maladministration which warranted full investigation, the table sets out how many complaints were upheld as being fully or partially justified. The parliamentary ombudsman's annual reports for the period 1997–98 to 2000–01 inclusive are available in the Library and can be viewed on the parliamentary ombudsman's website at www.ombudsman.org.uk/publications.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many newly qualified pensioners have lost part of their state retirement pension in each of the past five years on account of failure to apply within three months of the qualifying date for first payment; what the total was in(a) unpaid pension entitlement and (b) discretionary payment of restored pension in cases where administration failure has occurred; and if he will make a statement. [56590]

  Mr. McCartney
  Because pensioners can elect to defer payments of their pensions for up to five years in order to earn increments which increase the amount payable, information on the number of people who fail to make a claim for state retirement pension within the statutory period is not available.

  In a very small number of cases administrative failure causes the late payment of entitlements. Where this is the case extra statutory payments of state retirement pension are paid. Details of payment in the last five years are set out in the table.
  856W

  Period

  Cases paid

  Total amount paid (£)

  1997–981

  241

  674,776.23

  1998–991

  204

  513,077.55

  1999–20001

  150

  347,599.80

  2000–011

  291

  659,868.56

  2001–021

  138

  286,233.40

  112 months April to March

  Anglo-Italian Meetings
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on how many occasions in the last six months(a) he and (b) his officials have met their Italian counterparts; and what subjects were discussed. [56891]

  Mr. Darling
  I met my Italian counterpart, Roberto Maroni, in London on 5 February 2002, when we discussed labour market reforms in the UK and Italy.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to reduce non-attendance at personal capability assessment examinations for incapacity benefit. [57614]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  When people claim incapacity benefits they are normally required to undergo a Personal Capability Assessment carried out by SchlumbergerSema Medical Services on behalf of the DWP. Currently, around 25 per cent. of customers nationally do not attend their appointment, which are arranged by correspondence.

  A telephone appointment booking service has been piloted in Derby and Stoke (from October 2001) and in Liverpool (Bootle and Mann Island), Acton and Euston (from February 2002). This has proved very successful in reducing non-attendance, reducing waiting time for customers at medical centres and allowing customers to discuss the PCA process with staff prior to their appointment. As well as providing a better customer service, the new process has improved administration and made better use of doctors' time. We therefore intend to adopt the process nationally by the end of June 2002.

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will publish the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of Derby city council. [57615]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate's report on Derby city council was published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  The report finds that there are inconsistencies in the way that Derby city council administers benefit. On the one hand, the council gives a high priority to promoting and paying benefit and is commended for these activities. However, local authorities also have a duty to safeguard their activities against fraud, irregularity and corrupt practices. At Derby, BFI finds that the council has neglected counter fraud activity, detecting error and recovering overpaid benefit.

  The BFI commends the council for its work on benefits take-up and social policies which support the high level of importance that elected members give to promoting and paying benefit and to providing a high quality customer

  857W
  service. However, the BFI is extremely concerned that this has been prioritised to the detriment of other responsibilities. Inspectors found the council has created an environment where benefits, overpayments and counter fraud sections have been hindered from focusing on reducing fraud and error.

  Management checking was abandoned in August 1999 due to IT problems and as a result there is no assurance on the security on access to benefits.

  The report finds that the council has carried out counter fraud activities simply to achieve Weekly Benefits Savings targets, with little commitment to reducing, deterring or eradicating fraud and error. The fraud team has been managed on a part-time basis since September 2000 and little effort has been made to prosecute fraudsters.

  The report makes a great number of recommendations to the council to help to raise the standard of both benefits administration and counter fraud work.

HEALTH

  Design Champion
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the reasons were for the selection of Lord Hunt of King's Heath as the Department of Health's Design Champion. [47022]

  Ms Blears
  The Department's design programme "Achieving Excellence in Healthcare Design" was launched by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in November 2001. This programme will be realised by NHS Estates.

  Table 1: Prevalence of mental disorder among homeless people in 1994 Great Britain

  Percentage assessed with disorder

  Type of disorder

  Psychotic disorder1

  Neurotic disorders2

  Alcohol dependence

  Drug dependence3

  GHQ12 score4>=4

  Homeless adults in

  Hostels

  8

  41

  16

  11

  39

  Private sector leased accommodation

  2

  38

  3

  7

  42

  Nightshelters

  n/a

  n/a

  44

  29

  59

  Sleeping rough and using day centres

  n/a

  n/a

  50

  24

  57

  1 Disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

  2 Disorders such as depression, generalised anxiety disorders, phobias, etc. (often called common mental disorders).

  3People were defined as dependent on a drug if they had taken it every day for two weeks or more in the past year, and they had taken the drug more than prescribed, without prescription or to get high.

  4 The General Health Questionnaire (GHQ12) is a short questionnaire designed to detect mental health problems. Comparison between GHQ scores in the samples of residents in hostels and private sector leased accommodation and the measure of neurotic disorders used in this survey showed that a person scoring four or above has a high probability of being assessed as having a neurotic disorder.

  Litigation
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases(a) his Department and (b) its agencies have defended in (i) industrial tribunals and (ii) the courts in each year since 1997; how many were
  858W
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (the Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) is the Health Minister with direct responsibility for many of NHS Estates' key objectives. He is personally mentoring four schemes at Central Manchester Teaching Hospitals NHS trust, University hospitals Birmingham NHS trust, Walsall hospitals NHS trust and Leicester city west NHS trust.

  Homeless People
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) number and (b) percentage of people who are considered homeless have been diagnosed with mental health problems. [56156]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Dr. Evan Harris, dated 16 May 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question concerning the (a) number and (b) percentage of people who are considered homeless have been diagnosed with mental health problems. (56156)
  National figures for the number and percentage of people considered homeless who have been diagnosed with mental health problems are not available. However, in 1994 a national survey of mental disorder among homeless people aged 16 to 64 was carried out by ONS (then OPCS) on behalf of the Department of Health. In order to include all groups of homeless people, separate samples were selected from:
  hostels (530 people)
  private sector leased and short life accommodation (268 people)
  people sleeping rough and using nightshelters (187 people) and day centres (181 people).
  The attached table gives the prevalence of mental disorder found in the survey among homeless people resident in hostel and private sector leased accommodation. Further details of how disorder was assessed in this survey and the way in which the sample was selected can be found in Gill et al, (1996) Psychiatric morbidity among homeless people, London: HMSO.

  concluded in their favour; and what the total cost to his Department of litigation was in each year. [41112]

  Ms Blears
  The available information is shown in the table. Detailed information for 1997–99 is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  859W

  Cases defended by Department and its agencies

  Result

  Costs(Counsel fees and settlement costs)£

  1997

  17

  —

  —

  1998

  31

  —

  —

  1999

  18

  —

  —

  2000

  30

  16 concluded in our favour

  14,574.00

  14 on-going

  19,342.00

  2001

  28

  12 concluded in our favour

  47,656.00

  16 on-going

  11,650.00

  9,500 part-time pension cases

  on-going

  —

  Notes:
  The Department's agencies are Medicines Control Agency, Medical Devices Agency, NHS Pensions Agency, NHS Estates. NHS Purchasing and Supplies Agency. They are not always recorded separately and therefore a split between them cannot be shown.
  All figures are for employment tribunal cases and not "the courts". The costs given relate to settlement costs and counsels' fees.
  Cases concluded in our favour are cases that have been dismissed, withdrawn, struck out or settled. The Department chooses to settle in some cases to ensure cost effectiveness. It is not normally for a large sum of money.
  The part time pension cases concern issues of equal pay and sex discrimination and they are on-going (commenced in 1995).

  New Hospitals
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new hospital schemes were given the go-ahead in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002. [47826]

  Mr. Hutton
  A list of new hospital schemes (with a capital value of £10 million or greater) which have been given the go-ahead in 2001 and 2002 is given below.

  Approved to go-ahead under the Private Finance Initiative (PFI):

  2001:

  University Hospital Birmingham/South Birmingham Mental

  Health NHS Trusts

  Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust

  Avon and Western Wiltshire Mental Health NHS Trust

  North West London Hospitals NHS Trust

  East Kent Hospitals NHS Trust

  University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust

  Lewisham Hospital NHS Trust

  Peterborough Hospitals NHS Trust

  Salford Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells/Invicta Community

  Pinderfield and Pontefract Hospitals/Wakefield & Pontefract Community/Dewsbury Health Care NHS Trust
  860W
  Forest Healthcare NHS Trust

  Brighton Health Care NHS Trust

  United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust

  Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust

  Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust

  Mid Essex Hospitals NHS Trust

  Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS Trust

  Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  North Middlesex Hospitals NHS Trust

  North Staffordshire Hospitals NHS Trusts

  Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  St. Helens and Knowsley Hospitals NHS Trust

  Walsall Hospitals/Walsall Community Health NHS Trusts

  Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust

  Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust

  Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust

  South Devon Healthcare NHS Trust

  Tameside and Glossop Acute Services NHS Trust

  Northumberland Mental Health—St. George's Morpeth

  Leeds Teaching Hospitals—Wharfedale

  The Kingston Hospital NHS Trust

  Publicly Funded Schemes

  Northern Lincolnshire and Goole Hospitals NHS Trust

  Barnet PCT (Edgware Community)

  Blackpool Heart Centre

  Liverpool Cardio-thoracic Centre

  Central Manchester Heart Centre

  South Manchester Heart Centre

  Southampton Cardio-thoracic Centre

  Derriford Heart Centre, Plymouth

  2002

  Brighton Healthcare NHS Trust—Royal Alexandra Hospital for sick children.

  St. Ebba's Hospital, Epsom
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has for the residual mental health service on the St. Ebba's hospital site in Epsom; [47501]

  (2) if he will build a village community on the St. Ebba's site for people with learning disabilities; [47504]

  (3) what account he has taken of the proposals put by members of the St. Ebba's parents and relatives group since the end of the public inquiry in its future plans for the site; and if he will make a statement. [47502]

  Ms Blears
  Surrey Oaklands national health service trust has plans for a total of 55 residents to be cared for on the reconfigured site with a further six people to be cared for in an adjacent home with easy access to on-site facilities.

  Three homes providing continuing care are already open. The proposals for the further use of the St. Ebba's site are still under development. Current proposals envisaged that all building work should be completed and the remaining accommodation available for occupation by early 2004. The St. Ebba's parents and relatives group has been fully involved in all stages of the planning process.
  861W

  PFI
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the adult acute psychiatric unit reprovision for the Thames Gateway NHS trust by comparison with a non-private finance initiative alternative. [49518]

  Mr. Hutton
  The business case justifying the individual schemes estimated the net savings in present value terms (i.e. all future costs and benefits discounted to their present values) compared with publicly funding the scheme as follows:

  Net present costs of PSC v PFI option

  Thames Gateway NHS trust

  PFI (£000)

  54,245

  Public (£000)

  55,778

  Savings in net present value terms (£000)

  1,533

  Percentage difference

  2.75

  Primary Care Trusts

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what his estimate is of delays in PCT investment due to the need to obtain private sector partners; and if he will make a statement; [48872]

  (2) if he will provide for 2002–03 his estimate of investment by primary care trusts via (a) NHS LIFT involving private sector partners, (b) direct NHS sources and (c) other sources; what is the average amount for each category, per PCT; and if he will make a statement; [48870]

  (3) what arrangements he has put in place to avoid variations in LIFT funding to PCTs because of differences in access to private sector partners; and if he will make a statement. [48871]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Local Improvement Finance Trust (NHS LIFT) initiative was announced in the NHS Plan. The initiative aims to deliver a step change in the quality of the primary care estate. LIFT' s initial focus has been to encourage investment in those parts of the country—such as inner cities—where primary care services are in most need of improvement.

  In February 2001, the Department prioritised an initial six LIFT schemes, and in January 2002 a further 12 LIFT schemes were identified. We anticipate approving a third wave of schemes later this year.

  The Department has earmarked a total of £195 million (over the current spending review period) to support localities develop their LIFT schemes. All LIFT localities will receive significant levels of financial assistance. The level of this funding is dependent on a number of local factors such as size of the scheme.

  The Department is also providing technical assistance to help PCTs develop their investment proposals, and is confident that all localities will attract private partners offering affordable solutions.
  862W
  Two of the first wave LIFT schemes (east London and the City and Camden and Islington) recently issued tender documentation. The value of the initial investment requirement in east London and the City is £62.5 million, and in Camden and Islington is £.17 million.

  Once fully established locally, LIFT will help deliver quicker across the piece solutions for primary care. The LIFT approach enables the needs of the whole locality to be considered in a systematic manner, and aims to deliver speedier solutions by using a standardised approach to procurement.

  Riding for the Disabled Association
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the timetable for finalising agreement with the Epsom Riding for the Disabled Association for the sale of land in Epsom. [50689]

  Ms Blears
  I am pleased to be able to advise that the terms discussed between the district valuer and the Epsom Riding for the Disabled Group have been approved and a draft contract for sale is being prepared.

  Health Care International
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients of English health authorities were treated in the last year at Health Care International at Clydebank. [52558]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are aware that a number of national health service patients from the west midlands and north-west of England have been treated in the last year at the Health Care International medical centre in Clydebank, but we do not hold comprehensive information centrally on the number of NHS patients treated at this, or any other, independent sector hospital in the UK.

  Consultants
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to publish performance statistics for individual consultants for work carried out in(a) the NHS and (b) the private sector; and if he will make a statement. [52911]

  Ms Blears
  The Government agreed with the Bristol inquiry recommendation that patients and the public must be able to obtain information as to the relative performance of the trust and the services and the consultant units within the trust (recommendation 155 of the report of the public inquiry into children's heart surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary 1984–1995).

  The Government made a further commitment that the Department would publish information on individual consultants. As a first step the Department will be publishing outcomes from coronary artery bypass graft operations by individual surgeon. Data collection started on 1 April 2002 and the first set of data will be published in 2004.

  The Department is working with the medical profession to extend the number and range of specialities where

  863W
  robust, rigorous and risk-adjusted information on both the consultant's and the unit's comparative performance can be published.

  On 1 April this year, the National Care Standards Commission took over responsibility for the regulation of independent health care providers, including private hospitals. Data on key clinical indicators that are a reflection on the quality of care received by a patient will be collected by inspection teams, and this will continue when the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection takes over the regulatory system. The approaches to data collection will be tested to ensure that it is robust before publishing the results. It is likely that in due course, data on clinical performance will be published in line with that on national health service hospitals.

  Devolution
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what meetings he has initiated with Health Ministers from devolved Administrations in the last two years. [52476]

  Ms Blears
  Ministers at the Department have met Ministers from the devolved Administrations on a number of occasions over the past two years. The full Joint Ministerial Committee on Health first met in April 2000 and met a further three times that year and once in 2001. There are also other multilateral meetings held regularly both at ministerial and official level, such as the Four Ways meeting of Health Ministers which last took place in January of this year.

  NHS Direct
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many out-of-hours services have opted out of NHS Direct in the past 12 months. [53227]

  Ms Blears
  No out-of-hours providers have opted out of NHS Direct in the past 12 months.

  Intensive Care Beds
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many intensive care beds were counted in the critical care census in each census since it began in 1999; and whether these beds were recorded as staffed and in use. [53416]

  Ms Blears
  I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on 23 April 2002,Official Report, column 244W. The number of critical care beds reported on each of the census days is the number staffed and available for the use of critically ill patients, or are actually being used, by critically ill patients on that day.

  MLX 282 Consultation Document
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many responses were received by the Medicines Control Agency in response to the MLX 282 consultation document issued on 13 February; what percentage were in favour of the measures proposed; and how many and what percentage were from pharmaceutical companies. [53351]
  864W
  Ms Blears
  MLX 282 is a consultation document on proposals from the European Commission to amend the body of EC legislation that regulates medicinal products for human use. The proposals for reform are wide-ranging.

  MLX 282 was issued on 13 February 2002 by the Medicines Control Agency (MCA), inviting views, to 247 recipients including trade associations representing the pharmaceutical and related industries, practitioners' representative bodies and patient groups. Individual pharmaceutical companies were not approached. The formal consultation period ended on 10 May 2002.

  An advertisement placed in a national daily newspaper on Tuesday 23 April has generated a number of identical e-mail responses expressing reservations about a possible increase in the regulation of the natural health therapies sector at the EU and national level. In addition the MCA has so far received 12 formal responses to the consultation. 9 of those focused on and opposed the possible increase in the regulation of the natural health therapies sector.

  Natural Health Therapies
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the adoption of EU Directive 2001/83/EC into UK law and its impact on the use of natural health therapies. [53350]

  Ms Blears
  The European Commission has proposed amendments to EU Directive 2001/83/EC which forms part of the body of EC legislation which regulates medicinal products for human use. The proposed amendments are currently being discussed by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. Once adopted by the Council of Ministers they will have to be transposed into UK law.

  The medicines legislation currently applies only to licensed medicinal products. However, the Commission's proposed amendments, if adopted as drafted, will widen the definition of a medicine and bring more products within the scope of medicines legislation.

  The UK is firmly opposed to this proposal and is resisting it strongly in the negotiations.

  Maintenance Costs
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the backlog maintenance cost to each estate code B was in(a) England and (b) each NHS region in the most recent year for which figures are available indicating how much is attributable to (i) fire safety and (ii) other safety costs. [53684]

  Ms Blears
  Backlog maintenance costs to achieve estate code condition B for fire safety and health and safety is collected annually via the estate returns information collection system managed by National Health Service Estates.

  The following table, based on best available data, shows total backlog maintenance costs for fire safety and health and safety reported by NHS trusts in England for the most recent year, 2000–01, broken down by NHS regions.
  865W

  2000£01

  £

  Region

  Cost to achieve fire safety estate code condition B

  Cost to achieve health and safety estate code condition B

  Northern and Yorkshire

  33,333

  38,412

  Trent

  45,781

  35,317

  Eastern

  15,506

  23,925

  London

  70,683

  110,878

  South-eastern

  24,688

  47,928

  South-west

  9,155

  26,844

  West midlands

  18,092

  38,857

  North-west

  27,963

  40,508

  Total for England

  245,206

  362,670

  NHS Dentistry
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what incentives his Department offers to keep dentists in NHS practices. [53710]

  Ms Blears
  Over the last 18 months we have spent £100 million on modernising national health service dentistry. £10 million of this was for the dental care development fund and the dentistry action plan fund to support local plans to improve access. This money enables health authorities to assist dentists seeking to set up new practices and to expand and modernise existing ones. Furthermore, the £35 million modernisation fund provided grants for dentists to improve facilities.

  Additionally, the commitment payment scheme, introduced from April 1999, provides incentive payments to dentists, depending on how much NHS work they undertake. From April 2002, the scheme was extended to include dentists who have five years or more service in the NHS. Officials continue to work with the profession to see how the scheme might be strengthened in the future. The Department is also undertaking work with the profession and other stakeholders through the modernising project "Options for Change", to test out new methods of providing NHS dentistry.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates he has made of the leaving rate of dentists from NHS to private practices in the last three years. [53709]

  Ms Blears
  Very few dentists leave the general dental service (GDS) totally to practice privately. However, dentists in the GDS can vary their level of commitment to the GDS, for example by increasing the amount of their private work.

  The number of dentists leaving the GDS is shown in the table for the years 1998–99 to 2000–01 for England together with the percentages of the number of dentists at the beginning of the year.

  The number of leavers covers all reasons for leaving the GDS including retirement from dental work and dentists taking career breaks. These figures are inflated by the transfer of some dentists from the GDS to some personal dental service pilots.
  866W

  General dental ser1vice (GDS): number of dentists who left the GDS and percentage of principal and total dentists from 1998–99 to 2000–01

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Number of leavers

  Principals

  761

  780

  875

  Assistants

  106

  157

  181

  Vocational dental practitioners

  105

  95

  136

  All dentists

  972

  1,032

  1,192

  Leavers as percentage of dentist

  number at beginning of year (per cent.)

  Principals

  5

  5

  5

  All dentists

  6

  6

  7

  Carson Report
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the recommendations of the Carson report will be implemented by 2004; and if he will make a statement. [54269]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government accepted the recommendations of the Carson Report—"Raising Standards for Patients. New partnerships in Out-of-Hours Care"—which was published in October 2000. A comprehensive work programme is in place to implement these by 2004 in line with the commitments set out in the NHS Plan.

  Alcohol (Women)
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of women were recorded as being dependent on alcohol in each of the last five years. [54115]

  Ms Blears
  The Office for National Statistics estimated that in Great Britain in 2000, 2.9 per cent. of women aged 16 to 74 had some degree of dependence on alcohol: mild or severe dependence was found in 1.0 per cent. (Psychiatric Morbidity Among Adults Living in Private Households, 2000, published by the Stationery Office, London, 2001, ISBN 0 11 621480 5). The prevalence of alcohol dependence in the six months before interview was assessed using the Severity of Alcohol Dependence questionnaire (SAD-Q). Further information is given in the published report, which can be found at www.statistics.gov.uk/ downloads/theme-health/psychmorb.pdf.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the percentage of women aged between 16 and 24 years who drank more than the recommended daily benchmarks in(a) the most recent year for which figures are available and (b) each of the last five years. [54114]

  Ms Blears
  The information available is given in the table:

  Alcohol consumption last week, by women aged 16 to 24— Great Britain, 1998,2000

  1998

  2000

  Percentage who drank more than 3 units on at least one day last week

  42

  42

  Base

  809

  814

  Notes:

  1. Percentages rounded to the nearest whole figure.

  2. The percentages are based on weighted data; the bases are unweighted numbers.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics General Household Survey
  867W
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the percentage of women who(a) drank more than the recommended daily benchmarks at least once a week and (b) drank more than twice the recommended daily benchmarks at least once a week in each of the last five years, including the most recent year for which figures are available. [54113]

  Ms Blears
  The information available is shown in the table:

  Women aged 16 by the maximum daily amount drunk last week— Great Britain. 1998,2000

  Year

  1998

  2000

  More than 3 up to 6 units

  21

  23

  More than 6 units

  8

  10

  Base

  7,821

  7,491

  Notes:

  1. The percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole figure.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics General Household Survey

  Alcohol
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many persons died primarily as a result of the use of alcohol in the last year for which figures are available. [54214]

  Ms Blears
  Information collected centrally about the cause of deaths does not systematically record whether a death is attributable to alcohol misuse. A number of health and lifestyle factors can contribute to diseases such as cancer, stroke and coronary heart disease, and it can be difficult to isolate alcohol consumption as the most important of these factors.

  A research review commissioned by the Department in 1997 concluded that between 5,000 and 40,000 deaths are attributable to alcohol misuse each year in England and Wales.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been treated by the NHS for alcohol-related illness in(a) England and (b) each region in each of the last five years. [54215]

  Ms Blears
  The number of admissions for alcohol-related illnesses in England and the regions are shown in the table.

  Admissions for alcohol-related disorders (ICD10 codes F10, K70, T51) by regional office of treatment, NHS hospitals, England 1996–97 to 2000–01

  Regional office

  Number

  1996–97

  Northern and Yorkshire

  7,286

  Trent

  3,860

  Anglia and Oxford

  2,712

  North Thames

  4,561

  South Thames

  5,437

  South and West

  4,594

  West Midlands

  5,519

  North-west

  8,697

  Total

  42,665

  1997–98

  Northern and Yorkshire

  7,234

  Trent

  4,707

  Anglia and Oxford

  3,025

  North Thames

  5,516

  868

  Admissions for alcohol-related disorders (ICD10 codes F10, K70, T51) by regional office of treatment, NHS hospitals, England 1996–97 to 2000–01

  Regional office

  Number

  South Thames

  6,240

  South and West

  4,742

  West Midlands

  5,710

  North-west

  8,547

  Not known

  7

  Total

  45,727

  1998–99

  Northern and Yorkshire

  7,023

  Trent

  4,263

  Anglia and Oxford

  2,916

  North Thames

  5,394

  South Thames

  5,842

  South and West

  4,918

  West Midlands

  5,160

  North-west

  7,813

  Total

  43,329

  1999–2000

  Northern and Yorkshire

  7,006

  Trent

  4,134

  West Midlands

  5,200

  North-west

  8,100

  Eastern

  3,110

  London

  7,666

  South-east

  5,433

  South-west

  3,764

  Total

  44,412

  2000–01

  Northern and Yorkshire

  6,413

  Trent

  3,850

  West Midlands

  4,671

  North-west

  7,810

  Eastern

  2,812

  London

  5,358

  South-east

  4,918

  South-west

  3,268

  Total

  39,100

  Notes:

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

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost to the NHS of treating alcohol-related illness in each of the last five years. [54191]

  Ms Blears
  The information available is shown in the table.

  Estimated cost of alcohol misuse to the NHS in England and Wales, 1999

  £ million

  In-patient costs—direct alcohol diagnosis

  52

  In-patient costs—other alcohol related diagnosis

  152

  General practice costs

  4

  Total

  207

  Source:

  Godfrey, C., Harman, G.: Changing the social costs of alcohol. Final report to the AERC. York: Centre for Health Economics, university of York, 1994 (updated by Department of Health (FOR)).

  Portsmouth Hospital Trust
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the new system of management at Portsmouth hospital trust will be in place; what other assistance the Department is giving to the trust; and if he will make a statement. [54250]

  Ms Blears
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 8 May 2002 that the franchise for Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust had been awarded to Mr. Alan Bedford. The Department is supporting the trust through the franchising process.

  Operating Theatres
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to require existing hospitals with only one operating theatre to upgrade by the addition of extra theatres; and if he will make a statement. [54809]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have no plans to require all national health service hospitals with only one operating theatre to purchase additional theatre space. Capacity planning is a matter for local resolution.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints he has received in the latest 12 months for which figures are available from medically qualified NHS personnel concerning the cleanliness of operating theatres; and if he will make a statement. [51305]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Consultant Surgeons
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the position of consultant surgeons on 10/11 contracts with the NHS; and what the average time is they spend personally undertaking operations and supervising others in undertaking this work. [54713]

  Mr. Hutton
  Currently a consultant on a maximum part-time contract foregoes one eleventh of national health service salary in return for the lifting of restriction on private practice earnings.

  The Department does not collect data on the amount of time consultants spend undertaking operations or supervising others in doing that work. The annual job planning review provides the basis for the framework of contractual obligations. Job plans cover all aspects of a consultant's practice in the NHS and set out clearly the consultant's time and service commitments. Within the consultant contract negotiations we are seeking to provide a clearer framework in which decisions can be made and agreement reached between consultants and employers about the time to be spent on different categories of activity.

  Treatment Abroad
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been treated overseas at the expense of the NHS in the past six months. [54895]
  870
  Mr. Hutton
  190 national health service patients have travelled overseas to receive treatment since January 18 under the pilot scheme to refer NHS patients overseas.

  Between 1 November 2001 and 30 April 2002, 534 applications were approved for referral of patients specifically for treatment in another European Economic Area member state of pre-existing conditions under the El 12 arrangements contained in regulation (EEC) 1408/71. This regulation also allows treatments to be provided in other member states at UK expense in other circumstances, e.g. immediately necessary care for temporary visitors. Numbers of treatments so provided are not available but the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), gave information on costs in her reply to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on 25 February 2002, Official Report, column 966W.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) will receive a response to his letter of 24 January, about the distribution of funds raised from the sale of surplus hospital sites. [54582]

  Ms Blears
  The Department has no record of receiving this correspondence. The Department's ministerial correspondence unit has contacted the hon. Member's office for a copy of this correspondence.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter of 24 October 2001 from the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) concerning Mr. Stubbins and pneumococcal vaccination (ref: POH (3)5499/13); when he received(a) a second copy of the correspondence which was faxed to his Department on 17 January and (b) a reminder letter which was sent to his Department on 28 March; and if he will make a statement as to the cause of the delay. [56496]

  Yvette Cooper
  A reply was sent on 15 May. In my letter to the hon. Member, I apologised for the delay in responding. The delay was affected by clarification that I had asked from officials on the timing of consideration by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.

  Criminal Offences
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many criminal offences have been (a) created and (b) abolished by his Department since 1997. [55422]

  Ms Blears
  In relation to countering fraud in the national health service, section 39 of the Health Act 1999 introduced a new specific criminal offence for evasion of NHS charges. The offence attracts a fine, on conviction of up to £2,500. This is the first time that legislation has been introduced to create a criminal offence for people who fail to pay any amount in respect of NHS charges or receive a payment or benefit towards the cost of NHS charges or services to which they are not entitled.

  No offences in relation to countering fraud in the NHS have been abolished.

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients received drug therapy on the NHS for infection with hepatitis C in each of the last five years. [56333]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department does not hold information centrally on the number of patients who have received treatment for hepatitis C infection.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has commissioned into the(a) short, (b) medium and (c) long-term future of (i) the residential care home sector, (ii) the nursing home sector and (iii) dual registered care homes. [56591]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has commissioned the personal social services research unit to carry out research into the future of the care home sector. Emerging findings from this work can be found on the website of the University of Kent at Canterbury (www.ukc.ac.uk/ PSSRU).

  Anti-psychotic Drugs
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the oral statement by the Secretary of State for Health of 13 February 2002,Official Report, column 112WH, if he has completed consideration of research on anti-psychotic drugs in different care settings and the recommendation to ask the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to produce guidance on the use of such drugs for older people. [56631]

  Jacqui Smith
  Outline proposals for research to support the development of the national service framework for older people and older people's treatment and care, including research proposals on prescribing of anti-psychotic medication, were received in March 2002. Those proposals are currently being short-listed prior to a call for full research proposals being requested. These will be peer reviewed before final decisions which are expected later this year.

  Consideration is still being given to the inclusion of a clinical guideline on the management of dementia, including the use of anti-psychotic medication in older people within the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's work programme.

  Children's Diets
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent research his Department has carried out into potential links between ADHD in children and food supplements, food colouring and mineral deficiencies; [55046]

  (2) what recent research his Department has carried out into potential links between behavioural problems among children at school and food supplements, food colouring and mineral deficiencies. [55047]
  872W
  Yvette Cooper
  This is a matter for the Food Standards Agency (FSA). The FSA is aware of consumers' concerns about the possible effects of colours and other additives in food on some children. The FSA spends about £800,000 a year looking at the general area of food intolerance. This includes a project on food additives and child behaviour that has been submitted for publication and is currently undergoing peer review. In July 2000, the Independent Expert Committee, the committee on toxicity which advises the FSA, published its review of the scientific evidence on adverse reactions to food. It concluded that most adverse reactions are to natural foods rather than synthetic additives. It noted that there has been weak but conflicting evidence for an association between particular food additives and a specific condition known as attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children. The committee concluded that in general"some dietary changes. not necessarily the same for all children, could reduce problem behaviour in at least a few children with ADHD".
  Independent experts agree that the link between food additives and adverse effects on behaviour is not conclusive and that a lot more research is required in this area. The FSA will review new information on the subject of ADHD and any links it may have with food supplements, food colouring and mineral deficiencies.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were diagnosed with ADHD in each of the past 10 years. [55049]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not collected centrally. The prevalence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder of all types is estimated at around 5 per cent. of school-aged children, approximately 345,000 six to 16-year-olds in England.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his policy under the Government's new proposals for out-of-hours medical cover that general practitioners will be able to conduct their own out-of-hours cover if they so wish. [55050]

  Mr. Hutton
  Yes.

  Temporary Staff
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost to his Department was of employing staff in(a) London and (b) the south east from employment agencies in each year since 1997. [56511]

  Ms Blears
  The table shows the cost of employing agency staff in the Department. The figures are for the total spend for each financial year as we are unable to extract the London and south east spend from the total.

  £

  Contract/agency staff

  Labour supply contract

  2001–02

  6,596,040.33

  576,360.04

  2000–01

  5,524,667.11

  640,851.49

  1999–00

  6,811,808.23

  558,832.73

  1998–99

  6,198,276.97

  430,882.97

  1997–98

  1,726,246.57

  492,827.22

  873W

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will next consider proposals for research projects on mobile phone masts. [57096]

  Yvette Cooper
  The independent expert group on mobile phones (the Stewart Group) was set up to investigate the public health implications of mobile phone technologies. Their report was published in May 2000 and included a recommendation to set up a substantial research programme. This programme, jointly funded by government and industry, was announced in December 2000 and was launched at a public meeting in February 2001. The research is being undertaken under the direction of an independent programme management committee under the chairmanship of Sir William Stewart. The selection and management of studies is solely in the hands of this committee with additional scientific advice from other experts in the relevant field.

  There have been two invitations for research applications, in February and December 2001, and research is now under way in the first tranche of projects. Details of this research are given on the mobile telecommunications health research programme's (MTHR) website at www.mthr.org.uk Shortlisted proposals submitted to the second invitation are currently under consideration by the programme management committee.

  The aim of the second call was to extend the range of research being carried out under the aegis of the MTHR programme and some of the proposals are of direct relevance to exposures to radio frequency (RE) radiation from mobile phone masts. However the emphasis of the research, both funded and submitted, has been on mobile phone handsets rather than masts because localised exposures of people using phones are in general appreciably higher than exposures to the whole body from masts. In practice many of the experimental studies on hand sets will also be valuable in providing evidence on any possible effects on people of exposures to RF radiation from masts.

  Anglo-Italian Meetings
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions in the last six months(a) he and (b) his officials have met their Italian counterparts; and what subjects were discussed. [56893]

  Ms Blears
  There have been no such meetings with Ministers or any record of meetings with officials.

  Shellfish Hygiene
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to meet the European Commission's Health and Consumer Protection Directorate when it visits the United Kingdom to discuss shellfish hygiene. [55118]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have no plans to meet the inspection team. Officials of the Food Standards Agency will co-ordinate the visit.

  Mount Vernon Hospital
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to establish a diagnostic and treatment centre at Mount Vernon Hospital; [48896]
  874W
  (2) what plans he has to modernise the (a) in-patient and (b) out-patient facilities at Mount Vernon Hospital; [48895]

  (3) what plans he has to develop new services at the Mount Vernon Hospital site. [48903]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Hillingdon Hospital Trust has recently submitted a strategic outline case for modernising the Mount Vernon site to the Directorate of Health and Social Care—London for London and the case is currently under evaluation. The development would provide a new ambulatory diagnostic and treatment centre with strong community links. In planning the diagnostic and treatment centre, the trust aims to work with Hillingdon Primary Care Trust in order to determine what additional services could be provided on the site but as yet these have not been firmly established.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on Medical Devices 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. [55357]

  Ms Blears
  The terms of reference of the committee on the safety of devices (CSD) is"To give advice on a wide range of device-related initiatives in order to support the work of Ministers and the Medical Devices Agency (MDA) and in particular the agency's objectives in helping health care professionals deliver high standards of care to patients in relation to medical devices".

  The committee has met three times since it was established in April 2001, consisting of:

  Mr. John Williams OBE, Chairman, Consultant Maxillofacial Surgeon, St Richard's Hospital, Chichester

  Professor Peter Bell, Professor of Surgery, University of Leicester

  Dr. Anna-Maria Belli, Consultant Radiologist, St George's Hospital, Tooting

  Mr. Peter Burdett-Smith, Consultant Emergency Physician, Royal Liverpool University Hospital

  Dr. Thomas Clutton-Brock, Senior Lecturer in Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham

  Mrs. Gurdashan Gill, Lay Member, Wolverhamptom

  Dr. Helen Grant, University Lecturer, Bioengineering Unit, Strathclyde University, Glasgow

  Ms Karen Harper, Nurse Manager, Hospital

  Dr. Julie Kent, Lay Member, Bath

  Dr. Imad Al-Khawaja, Consultant in Rehabilitationn Medicine, Sussex Rehabilitation Centre

  Mrs. Maxine Kinder, Practice Nurse Manager, Queensway Surgery, Southend-on-Sea

  Dr. Julian Minns, Consultant Clinical Scientist, Dryburn Hospital, Durham

  Professor James Nixon, Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery, Queen's University, Belfast
  875W
  Mr. Peter O'Donovan, Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, Bradford Royal Infirmary

  Dr. John Perrins, Consultant Cardiologist, Leeds General Infirmary

  Dr. Geoffrey Ridgway, Consultant Microbiologist, University College London Hospitals

  Professor Elizabeth Russell CBE, Emeritus Professor of Social Medicine, University of Aberdeen

  Dr. Charles Sears, General Practitioner, Grove House Surgery, Wiltshire

  Professor David Sharpe, Professor of Plastic Surgery, University of Bradford

  Mr. Arvind Singh, Consultant Eye Surgeon and Clinical Director, Ayr Hospital

  Miss Carol Stopp, Senior Nurse, Great Ormond Street, London

  Dr. Gary Thorpe, Biochemistry Director, Wolfson Applied Technology Laboratory, University of Birmingham

  Dr. John Turney, Consultant Physician, Leeds General Infirmary Mr. David Watkins, Dental Practitioner, Norfolk

  Professor David Whitney, Chief Executive of Central Sheffield University Hospital Trust.
  876W
  Observers from the devolved administrations also attend the meetings.

  Items which have been considered are included in the minutes of the CSD meetings which are held on the Medical Devices Agency's website www.medicaldevices.gov.uk.

  Two sub-committees have been established. One to consider the format and content of MDA's advisory notices. The other to audit MDA's clinical investigation system. There is also a series of liaison meetings with the Association for British Health Care Industries.

  Members are paid travel and subsistence expenses only. The total cost of these since the Committee's establishment is £10,208.35

  An annual report of the committee's work will be included in the annual report and accounts of the MDA, which will be presented to Parliament. To comply with the Freedom of Information Act a CSD publication scheme will be in place by November 2002. This will be available on MDA's web-site.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Rochester): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Audio-books: VAT
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare an interest as an author of books on tape.
The Question was as follows:
Whether they will consider removing the VAT on audio-books on the grounds that these are extensively used by the visually impaired.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government recognise the importance of audio-books to the visually impaired. However, under longstanding European agreements, no member state is permitted to make substantial extensions to the scope of its zero rates.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. However, does he agree that, when VAT was introduced in 1973, the audio industry was virtually non-existent? Does he also agree that if the Treasury were rewriting rules now, it might take a different view?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are certain dangers in the Treasury rewriting the rules. We benefit very substantially from the fact that, when Annex H to the Sixth Directive was introduced in 1992, we already had zero rating not only on books and newspapers, in particular, but also on children's clothes, food and public transport fares. We were able to continue that because we already had the exemption. If we were to start re-opening the Pandora's box of zero rating, we could put that at risk. Much as I sympathise with what the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, says about audio-books, I think that on the whole we would prefer not to do that.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that audio-books have been of great help to blind people, especially when the voices have been recorded by actors and actresses, and that they are available for lending from public libraries?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I entirely agree that audio-hooks are a great help to blind people. The Royal National Institute for the Blind, after all, has a scheme of talking books for the blind to which it has about 43,000 subscribers. That equipment and that provision is zero rated. Zero rating, however, must be for equipment specifically designed for people
418
with disabilities, and we take advantage of that exemption. However, audio-books are also of very great interest to others who are not visually impaired.
Lord Peston: My Lords, surely the anomaly here, to introduce a discordant note, is the fact that not only hooks, but magazines, periodicals and pornographic literature—if I may remind my noble friend of the existence of such things; I know because I know the law, not because I have ever seen such things—are zero rated? Is it not strange that we refer to that zero rating as a benefit when the essential point is that VAT really should be levelled on everything? Is it not about time that instead of talking about this benefit, we got rid of the anomaly entirely?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am always prepared to take instruction from my noble friend Lord Peston. However, I disagree. The zero rating which we have for children's clothes, food, books and newspapers, and public transport fares is a very considerable advantage to us. It is indeed in the Labour manifesto that we shall continue to maintain that zero rating.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that audio-books are also a great help to those who are deaf? That is a further reason for liberating them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, says, and I suppose that audio-books could be played very loud. Audio-books are a great pleasure to a very large number of people, including me. I just wish that the readers would read rather faster than they do.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, by taxing audio-books, we are basically just attacking another form of literature? As literature is said to be a good thing, why are audio-hooks not treated as such?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have been trying to explain that these anomalies have occurred because of the Sixth Directive, and particularly because of Annex H to that directive. There are changes that we might like to make if the lid were taken off this Pandora's box. However, we are, rightly, very nervous about doing that because of the advantages that we gain. I would not argue for significant changes for that very reason.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, will the Minister be kind enough to advise us how many people in the United Kingdom and the EU are visually impaired? If by any chance the numbers are significant, would he please arrange to change the directive?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know how many, but clearly it is a very significant

419
number. However, I do not see why that should justify a change in the directive. The directive is very significantly to our advantage.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, if the Pandora's box can never be opened, can the Minister say why, in another place, the Paymaster General said that no accurate estimate is available of the cost to the Exchequer of zero rating audio-books? Why is there no such estimate? May we have one?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I imagine that there is not one because useful sales figures for audio-books are not available. I do not know the answer to the question, but I do not think that the cost of zero rating audio-books has been a significant factor in our consideration of the issue raised by this Question.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, given the difficulties outlined and the importance of audio-books to patients recovering from severe injury who are unable to hold conventional books or who have brain tumours and difficulty focusing on a page although they are not classified as visually impaired, do the Government have any intention of trying to provide some financial relief for families faced with caring for those with a severe disability for whom audio-books are a major source of comfort?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I have made clear, the Government maintain zero rating of VAT for all sorts of equipment and material specifically designed for those with a wide range of disabilities and not just for those with visual impairment. The difficulty with some of these issues, and particularly with audio-books, is that although they are indeed of great help to people with various disabilities, they are also a source of great pleasure to people without disabilities. To introduce a zero rating, even if we could, would be to introduce a further anomaly into the zero-rating system.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the noble Lord said that children's books were zero rated. Are audio-books for children zero rated?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not say anything about children's books; I said children's clothes. There is no connection between the two.

Travel Documents
3.8 p.m.
Lord Selsdon Lord Selsdon asked Her Majesty's Government:
What documentation is acceptable as proof of identity to permit British subjects to travel without let or hindrance within the European Union.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, a British passport is the only official
420
document issued in the United Kingdom which establishes both the holder's identity and nationality for travel purposes within the European Union, or anywhere else for that matter.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his gracious reply, and not wishing to correct him in any way, perhaps I may remind him that, on the back of our parliamentary passes, it states,
"THIS PASS IS AN OFFICIAL DOCUMENT".
Will the Minister therefore give consideration to obtaining authorisation for noble Lords to travel without let or hindrance throughout the EU as we have a pass which states that it is an official document? Further, can he tell me why it is necessary for British subjects abroad sometimes to present their passport at least five times before arriving at an airport and clearing Customs in the United Kingdom?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I think that that is a preposterous suggestion because the photo-identity pass does not identify the person concerned. It might state that it is an official document, and the notice to turn it in to a police station if lost is helpful, but what on earth does that really tell anyone? I therefore find it difficult to take the suggestion seriously.
As for the serious part of the noble Lord's Question, various nationality and identity issues need to be addressed. Although the barriers are more or less down in a common area, even airlines, for their own security, like passengers to show a photo-pass. That may not be a requirement but they like to know who is on the plane, for various reasons. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, the only document that covers both nationality and identity is the passport. That rules out such documents as the photo driving licence, for example.
Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that an increasing number of our European Union partners now insist that holders of British passports must have passports with at least six months still to run before they are allowed to enter those countries? Is that a fair way to permit freedom of travel within the European Union'? Does my noble friend realise that it clearly reduces a 10-year passport to a 9½-year one?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, my noble friend makes some important points but his final sentence is incorrect. We changed the rules on that matter some time ago. Some countries require travellers to have passports with a minimum of six months still to run as a condition of supplying a visa. I refer to the efficiency of the Passport Agency. I take no credit for its performance as the Minister responsible for it. It is one of the most efficient executive agencies in government and processes 100 per cent of normal passport applications within 10 days. If one applies in sufficient time, the Passport Agency will extend the relevant date of a passport to prevent people losing out and having, in effect, a 9½-year passport.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, on a number of previous occasions when speaking from the Dispatch Box my noble friend has used the term "entitlement card". Will he review that language and refer to the entitlement card in future as the national identity card as that would be much easier for people to understand?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the Home Office-speak is "entitlement card". As I have said repeatedly—I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding noble Lords of this matter—in the summer we shall produce a consultation paper on the possible uses of entitlement cards. The consultation period will be much longer than usual to permit a national debate on the issue. Given the configuration of dates involved in this matter, the date of 21st May with regard to British overseas citizens and the constant references to Gibraltar in this House, I should say in case I am asked about the matter—in that way I shall avoid being asked about it—that the Gibraltarian passport, which is a British dependent territory passport, allows free, unhindered travel within the European Union.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, does the Minister consider that it is strictly relevant to have babies of under six months photographed for passport purposes? I make that point as this afternoon I shall have to take my daughter who is under three months and stick her in a photo booth. I believe that the photograph will resemble just about any baby of that age.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, technical discussions are taking place with regard to biometrics and passports. In due course there will be an international requirement for passports to be produced with the use of biometrics. That requirement will apply irrespective of the use of identity cards or entitlement cards. I am told that it may be possible for the photograph to involve the use of biometrics in facial scanning. I did not inquire about the minimum age at which facial scanning is accurate. However, I suspect that it is not three months.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have every sympathy with anyone in another European country who will not accept a pass of a Member of this House as proof of identity? I cannot even use my pass as proof of identity in some of the larger London stores. There is a problem in that regard. However, as increasing numbers of people travel there is an increasing need to simplify the matter. Given the Prime Minister's new found enthusiasm for European issues, should not this matter be looked at urgently? Whether it is decided to have an entitlement card or an identity card it seems to me that that will be the way in which the Government will be forced to move.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is not a question of being forced to move. It is well known, as it has been published in the business plan of the Passport Agency, that in due course it is proposed to issue a passport
422
card to make travelling easier. That would not be a substitute for a passport but would be issued in addition to it. There is already an experiment under way at Heathrow as regards fast scanning of frequent travellers. Frequent travellers can register with an iris scan, for example, and will not require a passport. They will not need to queue at passport control as they can be scanned. We are introducing such initiatives to make travelling easier. Some 90 million people move in and out of the country each year. We want to make travelling as convenient as possible for the majority but ensure that we keep out or apprehend the minority whom we do not want. We are moving in that direction. That matter may be included in the consultation paper on the entitlement card.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister recall that the late and great Lord Hunt of Everest fame said that if you look like your passport photograph you are too ill to travel?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I plead guilty. I do not know whether I am one of the younger Members of the House but I do not like my photograph and I shall get it renewed as soon as possible.

British Transport Police
3.15 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to add the British Transport Police to the 10 police forces prioritised under the national robbery initiative.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the matter is being considered but the British Transport Police are already closely involved in activity to tackle street crime, working jointly with the various police forces. The Government intend further to enhance the role played by the British Transport Police, particularly in the London area which accounts for over 50 per cent of street crime across the 10 targeted areas and some 88 per cent of the incidents of robbery within the total British Transport Police jurisdiction.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. The British Transport Police apprehend many street robbers—I believe that they are about fifth or sixth in the relevant table—and the 10 forces have extra resources. Will the Minister say specifically whether the British Transport Police can also be given extra resources to fund either personnel or equipment to cover the many places around London stations where street robbers are active?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I cannot give details about any future money for the British Transport Police. The total strength of the force is just over 2,100. If one disregards the headquarters total, which is 100, that leaves just over 1,000 personnel in London. Half of the personnel of the British Transport Police work in London, 300 in both north and south London and 400

423
on the Underground. That is an enormous resource. They are involved in the work of the safer streets initiative in London in particular. I understand that exercises are taking place with regard to Connex special constables. Connex staff are being trained and accredited as special constables under the sponsorship of Connex although they are special constables for the British Transport Police. I understand that so far 130 employees have shown an interest in the scheme. It is planned to have 30 Specials sponsored by Connex. I understand that 16 commenced training on 15th April. Work is taking place to improve the "up front" appearance and presence of the British Transport Police, particularly in the London area.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that if half the British Transport Police are stationed in the London area, there are not many of them in other areas where an enormous amount of vandalism takes place? I refer to the North West, Yorkshire and Humberside and the North East. I assume that their remit covers Scotland. Is not the balance a little out of kilter?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, not as regards where the crime takes place. My noble friend mentioned Scotland. Some 200 British Transport Police cover Scotland. That is some 10 per cent of the total. They operate also on the national rail networks, the Docklands Light Railway, the Croydon Tram Link and London Underground. They do not operate on the road network or in Northern Ireland. As I said in my initial Answer, the London area accounts for over 50 per cent of street crime across the 10 targeted areas of the street crime initiative and some 88 per cent of the incidents of robbery within the total British Transport Police jurisdiction. Therefore, the concentration of British Transport Police in London is justified.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Mayor of London is doing his best to enter into contractual arrangements with the Metropolitan Police to purchase in effect additional policemen specifically to cover bus services? Does the Minister consider that that represents a good vote of confidence in the existing arrangements given that it will obviously provide a welcome improvement in the situation?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the one way to make transport safer in London—and what the Metropolitan Police want to do—is to include in the Police Reform Bill the community safety officers accreditation scheme to enable the Metropolitan Police to appoint some 300 or 400 extra personnel on the streets of London this year, including a good proportion who will be supervised by London Transport. I hope that when the Bill returns to your Lordships' House in due course the scheme will receive the approval of noble Lords and that the Metropolitan Police will be able to introduce it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, are the Government reconsidering the whole balance between
424
specialist forces and territorial forces within the police? Specialist forces represent some interesting historical anomalies—the origins of railway company police and so on. When considering legislation in this House, we have discussed the overlap between specialist forces and territorial forces. Is there a case for the Government looking at specialist forces— I forget exactly how many there are; I believe, eight or nine—and the territorial forces as a whole?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall have to take advice on that. I know of no moves in that regard. We debated specialist forces during the passage of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act, including the Ministry of Defence Police, the Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary—which is an armed police force with a specific remit—and the British Transport Police. I know of no discussions that would lead to the conclusions raised by the noble Lord.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it does not make much difference to a victim of crime whether he is robbed on the Underground or in the street? Does he find it a little odd that the Home Office forces—10 of them—will be given substantial extra money to deal with robbery, which we all welcome, but that the British Transport Police, which saw a 29 per cent rise in robberies last year, are apparently having to struggle to get the modest £1.43 million for which they asked the Home Office?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, that would probably be a consequence of the spending review later on. Of the 2,700 robberies reported to the British Transport Police, 581 were cleared up. That involves a detection rate of 21 per cent. Their current budget is around £120 million. I stress that the British Transport Police are actively involved with the police around the country through the street crime initiative in Merseyside, Lancashire, Manchester, Thames Valley and the West Midlands where they are actively involved with what I call the Home Office police on a series of initiatives. They are currently doing that. There is not a question of their needing money to participate in such initiatives.

London Underground: Funding
3.22 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there is likely to be a shortfall in the funding of the public/private partnership arrangements for the London Underground.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Government will ensure that London Underground has sustained and secure funding to meet its contractual obligations to the infrastructure companies for delivering the massive increase in investment under the Tube modernisation plans.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there have been recent reports that the funding

425
arrangements could lead to substantial increases in fares to make up the amounts of money that are required by London Underground? Figures of up to 25 per cent have been mentioned. Will he give the assurance that that is unlikely to happen and that if there are to be any fare increases, they will be limited to the rate of inflation? Furthermore, will he give an assurance that, in light of the tragic accident at Potters Bar, increased attention will be paid to the supervision of maintenance by contractors on the Underground?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, on the noble Lord's first point, there are many rumours—most of them wrong—about the major PPP for London Underground. The decision about fares on the Underground will be for the Mayor, in consultation with the Assembly. So far as the Government are concerned, we have set the subsidy to go into the PPP for the first seven and a half years at a level that should not require fare rises that are higher than the rate of inflation.
With regard to Potters Bar—we could have had a topical Question on it—it is early days to make judgments about what happened. The Health and Safety Executive and others are rapidly investigating the causes so that we can ensure that any lessons are learnt rapidly. I can report to the House that London Underground has completed an inspection of 80 points on the Underground system that bore some similarities to Potters Bar, but it has found no faults with them.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I take the Minister back to the PPP, which is what the Question on the Order Paper is about. He will be aware that the three members of the consortia that were recently awarded a contract for London Underground have announced that the contract will return an annual profit of £18 million a year, which is £540 million over the lifetime of the contract. That represents a 34 per cent return on turnover. When one considers that 95 per cent of the third party debt is covered by a letter of comfort from the Government, how can the Minister tell the House that that represents good value for the taxpayer?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am happy to confirm that the Government judge—as do London Underground, Ernst & Young, which advised the Government, and the accountants who advised London Underground—that that did provide good value for money. There are two reasons for that. First, I do not recognise the figures quoted by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. I do recognise that the infrastructure companies have budgeted for or are hoping to achieve—that is different—a return of 15 to 20 per cent on their capital employed. That relates only to the capital that they put in and not to the contractual value of the contracts that will be let, which are substantially subsidy-funded as well as being funded by equity from the infrastructure companies.
The second point, which goes to the heart of the reason why we believe that the PPP will demonstrate good value for money to the public, involves the
426
appalling cost over-runs on previous infrastructure projects. The noble Viscount will know better than I do, because this happened when his party was in government, that the Jubilee Line was three years late and, I believe, some 60 per cent over cost. Moreover, the Central Line extension—in fact, it was another extension—was several years late and involved substantial over-spend. More generally, there are problems with the public sector controlling such contracts, as we have seen historically. That is why London Underground and the Government believe that the sort of contracts that put pressure on the private sector to perform are much better and are in the interests of the public.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does the Minister recall—he probably does not because he was not in this place at the time—that the question from the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, about London Underground, was exactly the sort of question that we used to put to Conservative Members when they were trying to privatise Railtrack? The same comment was made about the disastrous cost over-runs that occurred. Does he agree that the best solution—this has been done in the rest of Europe for many years—is to hand over the metro systems to local authorities as soon as possible and let them and their politicians stand or fail by their records of service?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, as I am sure my noble friend knows, that is exactly what the Government are doing with London Underground.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Filkin: My Lords, let me elucidate for the House. The Government are funding the PPP project to the scale of £8.1 billion over the next—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the question will be answered if noble Lords would wail.. We are funding the PPP project to the scale of £8.1 billion over the next eight years. That naturally involves a right to ensure that there is a sound basis for that investment. As soon as those contracts are let and all other clearances are given, London Underground, as part of London Transport, will be transferred to Transport for London, which is the responsibility of the Mayor and the Assembly. It will come directly under democratic, local authority control through the GLA and the Mayor.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that one of the fears of London's government—I declare an interest as a Member of the London Assembly—and of London's taxpayers is that it will be found that London Underground has many liabilities that are unfunded and not disclosed. There is a concern that London Underground is not even aware of all of its liabilities. When did London Underground

427
last conduct a detailed audit of its assets? Will the Minister assure the House that London Underground's risk register is up to date?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, London Underground has a reasonable understanding of its assets, but I do not believe that it has a comprehensive asset register of the depth that one would hope for in an ideal world. I believe that it has a good understanding of the major liabilities, as one would expect, given the amount of survey work that will have been done to let the scale of contracts that are now being let. Enormous contract sums are involved and will have required detailed surveying of the infrastructure.
With regard to any future unforeseen eventualities—given life, one must be certain that they will arrive—clearly there will always be ongoing discussions between the Mayor, Transport for London and the Government, just as there are between other local authorities. But that is not to imply that there is an open door or a blank cheque. The Mayor has a responsibility to make those assets work well, to manage the substantial undertaking that Transport for London is taking on with London Underground, and to achieve value from those assets and from the massive capital investment that the Government have subsidised. We very much hope that he does that well because it will be to his credit and the credit of London if he succeeds in it. We believe that we have given him an enormous start.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, can the noble Lord give an assurance that, as part of his responsibilities for looking after London Underground, the Mayor of London will not introduce traffic-calming arrangements on the Underground as he has done disastrously and inconveniently on the streets of London?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, what an interesting question. That is not in my brief. I believe that there will be traffic-calming in the sense of improved safety and automatic train protection, but I suspect that the noble Earl was not referring to that. We shall consider the matter further, and I shall even discuss it with him if I meet him.

National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill
3.31 p.m.
Read a third time.
Baroness Northover Baroness Northover moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
"DUTY OF PRIMARY CARE TRUSTS, NHS TRUSTS AND STRATEGIC HEALTH AUTHORITIES REGARDING EDUCATION, TRAINING AND RESEARCH
Primary Care Trusts, NHS trusts and Strategic Health Authorities shall have a duty to safeguard and promote education, training and research."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the arguments over this area of the Bill have been well rehearsed and cogently argued. That is, no doubt, why everyone is leaving the Chamber. I shall therefore be as brief as I can.
We all agree that education, training and research are vital for the future of the NHS. The Government's plans to expand the number of doctors, nurses and other staff makes that even more important. We know that all is not well at present. On Report I highlighted the fact that Guy's, King's and St Thomas' schools of medicine are now shedding clinical teaching staff on a vast scale.
However, this matter does not only concern medical schools—far from it. It concerns the whole of the health service. If it works effectively, devolution within the health service should produce a massive shift to local areas and their needs. Of course, much of that is to be welcomed.
But national standards and national needs must also be addressed. We have expressed our concerns about that elsewhere in the Bill, and we shall return to the issue when looking at specialist commissioning. Clearly, giving a high priority to education, training and research is exactly one such area. It may not seem a pressing need at local level, given all the other competing claims, but it is what will underpin the future of the health service. We all agree on that.
This debate turns on the difference between the words "may" and "must". We say that at all levels of the service, research, education and training must be supported. The Government seem to believe that "may" is enough. In Committee the Minister said that,
"it is in the interests of the National Health Service and the Government to ensure that we address [those areas]",—[Official Report, 18/3/02; col. 1117.]
Indeed!
At Report stage, the Minister pointed out that.
"primary care trusts are empowered to 'conduct, commission or assist in the conduct of research'".
and that they can,
"'make officers and facilities available in connection with training'".
That is, they can, but they do not have to.
The Minister said that he accepted that,
"there is an issue [here] in regard to power and duty".
That is, indeed, the point. He spoke of dedicated funding streams for teaching and research, adding,
"I do not believe that primary care trusts will be under pressure to spend that money for other purposes".—[Official Report, 29/4/ 02; col. 507.]
I trust that noble Lords will excuse my scepticism here. On Report I quoted a case where administrators had sought to redirect money from research and teaching into a black hole by the tactic of increasing the levy charged for allowing their premises to be used. There are ways and means of tapping into such money.
I take another case in point. The Government announce increased expenditure on cancer. Does it reach the areas that it is supposed to reach? It does not—to the enormous frustration of patients and clinicians, as the Minister knows.
The Minister is, and knows that he is, overly-optimistic if he believes that permitting the support of research and teaching, as opposed to ensuring such support, will be adequate. We know how much pressure there is on administrators to ensure each year that they achieve their various targets, not least financial ones. Education, training and research must not be squeezed out by such pressures.
The amendment is very simple. It says that in the interests of the future of the health service and, therefore, of patients, trusts and strategic health authorities must have a duty to safeguard and promote education, training and research. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, we on these Benches support Amendment No. 1. The issue of safeguarding and promoting education, training and research was debated thoroughly both in Committee and on Report. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, has summarised the key concerns that were raised on all sides of the House. Those concerns were largely expressed in terms of medical education, training and research, but the amendment is rightly drawn in the widest possible terms and embraces all aspects of education, training and research relevant to the NHS.
I do not believe that there is any disagreement in this House about the importance of education, training and research, or about the fact that there are currently problems in delivery. The disagreement focuses on how big that problem is and how well the existing structures of the NHS will allow education, training and research to thrive and prosper.
At earlier stages of the Bill, the Minister referred to the powers that exist in NHS legislation. I do not believe that the existence of the powers has ever been suggested to be the issue. The issue is whether the powers are being used. That is why the amendment includes the word "duty". The Minister has never explained why he believes that there should not be a duty on the face of the legislation. He has rightly pointed out that what is important is what happens in practice, and we have heard many fine aspirations about teaching and research. I doubt that anyone in the NHS or, indeed, in your Lordships' House would not sign up to those aspirations.
However, it is plain to all those involved that teaching and research in the NHS are vulnerable and threatened. In practice, the process simply does not work well enough. There is ample anecdotal evidence that teaching and research resources are squeezed at NHS trusts. For example, lecture rooms are used for other purposes; doctors are so overwhelmed by the day-to-day demands placed on them that little or no time remains available for research; and there is a staffing crisis at universities.
The Minister has expressed considerable confidence that central earmarking of funds for teaching and research means that those funds are spent on those matters. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, many in the NHS do not believe that.
It is tempting to think that the extra resources being put into the NHS as a result of the recent Budget will make the problem go away. Part of the problem has,
430
indeed, been the squeeze on NHS finances. But I do not believe that it is as simple as that. It is far from clear that any extra resources will find their way into teaching and research.
The heart of the question is whether all the bodies in the NHS with a role to play in education, training and research will, in fact, deliver. Many of us have doubts about PCTs, both in relation to their lack of preparedness for their responsibilities and their natural primary care orientation. Both those features mean that there can be no certainty that PCTs will commission in a way that promotes and safeguards education, training and research.
I have already mentioned the concerns that exist at the level of NHS trusts. That leaves strategic health authorities. On Report the Minister told the House that there would be health and education sector partnerships at the level of strategic health authorities. In Committee, he laid stress on the role of strategic health authorities in performance managing PCTs if they do not achieve what those authorities believe that they should. One must have great faith in the efficacy of loose structures and untried processes to believe that that will solve the problem. It is clear to me that the responsibility of NHS bodies for education, training and research needs to be put beyond doubt. That is why we support the amendment.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I have had the privilege of being involved in clinical practice in the NHS since its inception. For many years I was involved in teaching medical students and in clinical research. It is generally acknowledged that the standard of medical education in this country over all those years has been second to none. It is also generally acknowledged that clinical research, much of it conducted in the National Health Service, in the hospitals and in the community, has been responsible for enormous developments in patient care.
The National Health Service Act 1946 included a requirement that teaching and research should be supported from the beginning. At the start of the health service there was a knock-for-knock agreement, by which it was agreed that clinical academics working in and employed by the universities should devote six half days a week of their time to clinical service and five half days in a week to teaching and research. The other part of that agreement required NHS staff, including consultants, to give teaching services to medical students and to other staff. Many years ago that agreement was eroded. Evidence from the heads of medical schools—the Council of Heads of Medical Schools—clearly indicates that many clinical academics are spending a minimum of 40 hours a week and some as much as 58 hours a week in clinical practice to the detriment of teaching and research.
One outcome has been that many young clinical academics, due to a lack of research productivity, have not been able to persuade the research assessment exercise of the Higher Education Funding Council that they are involved as sufficiently in research as they should he, in order to improve the funding of their particular medical schools. The consequence has been

431
that because of cuts in funding by the Higher Education Funding Council, a considerable number of clinical academic staff in two London medical schools will be made redundant. That is happening at a time when the Government are committed to increasing medical student numbers because of the massive shortage of doctors in the National Health Service. I therefore sympathise with and support the intention underlying the amendment.
Another reason why I do so is that there is a shortage of recruits into clinical academic medicine. That is not surprising. There are 73 vacant chairs and almost 300 vacant clinical lectureships because the attractions of academic work and of teaching and research have been steadily eroded, often by pressures from managers in the NHS trying to compel members of staff to see more and more patients in order to reduce out-patients' and in-patients' waiting times and many other factors.
The Minister has been kind enough to tell me that he has had discussions with the Council of Heads of Medical Schools. I agree with what has been said already, that there is a difference between a permissive power within an Act, which gives the right or the opportunity of health service bodies to support teaching and research and a requirement that they must do so. For the life of me, I cannot see why there can be any objection to an amendment of this nature being put on the face of the Bill. I hope that the Government will use its good offices, in consultation with the universities, and with the health service bodies, to make certain that the clinical practice of clinical academics will he reduced and that their time for teaching and research will be preserved. I support the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, throughout its passage I have consistently tried to get the word "duty" on to the face of the Bill. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Walton, say that the Minister has had talks with the heads of medical schools. I understand that the Minister may give noble Lords some words of comfort, which to some extent I welcome. Words of comfort can evaporate in the mists of time. We want the word "duty" to be incorporated into the Act so that there is a "must do", a requirement and so that there is no ambivalence.
At Report stage I gave your Lordships an example of where I felt a duty was important. I mentioned my son, who had a penchant for motorbikes. He was very reluctant to use a crash helmet. In the language of the young, he felt that it was not cool. But a law was introduced, so as a parent, I had authority to say to my son, "You are not going on that motorbike without a crash helmet". What I did not tell your Lordships on that occasion was that about two months later the splendid East Sussex Ambulance Service scraped him off the road. I and the Ambulance Service have no doubt that the crash helmet saved his life, or at least saved serious brain damage.
432
I am anxious to avoid serious brain damage for United Kingdom plc. Without a doubt, I agree that there is a crisis in academic chairs and young lectureships, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Walton. I have heard others say that in this country we excel in the quantity and the quality of our medical research. The noble Lord said that he believed it was the best in the world; I have heard that it is the second best in the world because the United States is a little better than us. That is not surprising as the United States is very large and very rich.
Not only do we excel in quantity and in quality, but we also excel in our cost-effectiveness. We are innovative. We are good at thinking up new ways of doing things. One has only to look at the Cochrane collaboration which is now being replicated all over the world. That is one man's vision and one man's inspiration. Sir Ian Chalmers conceived that and has firmly established it.
I believe that we have real strength and more. Amazingly, we have so many opportunities: new opportunities in epidemiology, in tracking disease and in finding cures because we have a unique patient database that we can use. As primary care develops—I have much sympathy with what the Government are doing to try to strengthen primary care—we can build further on much of the research and, more importantly, on joint training in primary care and in the community. In the future, teamwork will deliver the services.
We can also involve patients more directly in understanding science and research. In that context there is a mission. It is less threatening to understand a research project in which one is invited to take part when it is explained to one in the familiarity of a GP's surgery rather than in some remote, cold, clinical hospital. In this country we have a huge communications problem in promoting the public's understanding of science and research. For decades the Royal College of General Practitioners has promoted and encouraged research in general practice. When reading the BMJ it is encouraging to see how much of that journal is dedicated to publishing peer-reviewed research carried out by GPs and occasionally by nurses and other health professionals working in community medicine.
That is a terrific picture. We really excel. Enormous achievements are being made, but I share the grave concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and my noble friend Lady Noakes. Against the background of all that achievement, many of us fear that the enormous pressures now being exerted on primary care teams, GPs and other staff to meet targets will erode what we have achieved so far. I work intimately with primary care trusts at present, which is rewarding and interesting, but the pressures on them are huge. There are targets for waiting times in surgeries and referrals, national service frameworks, health improvement programmes, patient involvement, GP assessment, cancer plans and the need to balance the books, recruit staff and so on.

433
Their agenda is enormous. I am sure that the Minister would agree that the new boards and professional executive committees will face a huge challenge.
I am certain that research and training is not at the top of the list—it is going continually down the list as more pressures are placed on trusts to deliver. My noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lord, Lord Walton, talked about commissioning, so I shall not go into that, but I point out that primary care trust boards are not only commissioners but managers. They are in fear of a visit from the Commission for Health Improvement and are having to learn about all their new work as managers as well as commissioners. That is why they should also have a duty in respect of research and development.
One of the great hallmarks of your Lordships' House has been its championing of research and scientific endeavour. I remind your Lordships that it was this House that in 1992 persuaded the government to introduce the post of Director of Research and Development in the Department of Health. That was strongly resisted at the time, but it was eventually conceded. That post, which was the result of an initiative from your Lordships' House, has made a marked difference to how the National Health Service now invests in and carries out research.
I suggest that we hold to that which we know to be true, eschew the warm words of comfort that I suspect that we shall hear from the Minister and support this cross-party amendment with some of the same determination that the House exercised 10 years ago.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I shall briefly amplify what my noble friend said. For several years, I was chairman of a medical research ethics committee. We considered about 350 research projects every year. Those projects took place in our area—we were attached to a teaching hospital and to a university—because so many GPs, hospitals and other NHS people were willing to take part in research. If hospitals or GP surgeries were not prepared to take part, much of that research could not take place. The Minister well knows that there must be a constant search for new drugs, which requires new trials over a wide area of the country. It is essential that GPs and hospitals at trust level are prepared to take part in those trials.
Apart from that, the knowledge that research is taking place locally helps to recruit local people to take part in research as victims, as it were. That is important. It also makes for a lively NHS staff. Teaching and training must continue, even at cleaner level, but if research does not continue people are not aware that practices must be constantly updated—tried out, undertaken and established—in order to run a good show. There is no question but that that must be an obligation at trust level. I hope that the Minister will give in, because so far his response has been somewhat inadequate.
Baroness Emerton: My Lords, I, too, want to speak in favour of the amendment. If healthcare is to be effective and improved, we must promote and safeguard education, training and research not only in
434
medicine but in so many other healthcare professions—in nursing, midwifery, physiotherapy and so on. That is why I welcome the breadth of the terms of the amendment.
We must bear in mind that research in some of those professions started later than in medicine. I was associated with some of the first research into clinical nursing in the 1960s, which was sponsored by the Department of Health. We therefore have a much shorter history of research into nursing than has the medical profession. That is why I support the amendment with all my heart.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I rise not only to speak to the amendment but to explain the reason for the difference between its wording and that of Amendment No. 3, which stands in my name. The push for increased learning and the culture of learning across the NHS has been widely heralded as government policy. We have clearly heard the arguments why more resources need to go into education, training and research.
Perhaps I may briefly illustrate that with an example from this morning in my hospital medical school. There were not enough tutorial rooms for one group of students to be taught, and 40 of them were trailing across the campus and looking for a room. The increased number of students coming through the system is putting an enormous pressure on teaching space. Sadly, the powers that are meant to be in place to ensure that their education and training is supported have not been implemented and have not kept pace.
There is great concern that with the new private finance initiative bills for new hospitals, finance is not being set aside to ensure adequate teaching rooms. There should be tutorial rooms on wards so that the high standard of clinical training for which this country is renowned can continue, but making a room available and ensuring that it remains available costs money. In many hospitals around the country, a teaching room was set aside but has been taken over and not replaced because of the pressure for office space.
The reason for the different wording of Amendment No. 3 is that the pattern of commissioning services in Wales will be different from that in England and has not been finally decided whether there will be three health authorities. Hence the phrase,
"those commissioning specialist services on behalf of the National Assembly for Wales".
I understand from the Minister, Jane Hutt, that there will be three offices of the National Assembly for Wales—one in the North, one in the West and one in the South-East—which will take over many of the duties and commissioning obligations currently held by the health authorities which are in the process of being abolished. It is certain that not all of those responsibilities will be devolved to local health boards, because they are not ready to cope with complex commissioning. They will fall between the boards and the specialist commissioning body for Wales, which

435
will deal with rare and highly specialised commissioning. So commissioning of services such as cancer services, which cut across all trusts, needs to occur at a level that is currently not clearly determined.
Hence the different wording, but the amendments are compatible in spirit and in placing a duty on those at all levels—out in the community and in hospitals—to ensure that the high standards for which Britain has been renowned do not slip. Sadly, the Research Assessment Exercise demonstrated that over the years there has been slippage in academic surgery departments. The number of them that are world-class is declining, but those arguments have already been eloquently made by other noble Lords.
4 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I support the amendments in the group, particularly Amendment No. 3, which applies the basic principles to Wales, where, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, said, the organisation of the health service is to be somewhat different.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, we covered this ground in Committee. The Minister made great play of the fact that other NHS legislation gave permissive powers to promote education, training and research. As my noble friend Lord Howe said, those permissive powers do not amount to a duty. Your Lordships generally believe that such a duty should be imposed on the authorities named in the new clauses. The need for such a duty is particularly pressing, now that the Government have admitted that more frontline staff will be required, if their ambitions for the NHS are to have the slightest chance of being achieved.
We are all aware of current staff vacancies in the medical schools. I have a report from the Council of Heads of Medical Schools that gives all the details. There are 73 unfilled professorial posts out of 1,042 full-time equivalents. There are 118 reader/senior lecturer vacancies out of 1,663 posts and 136 lecturer vacancies out of 844 posts. Those are fairly high percentages. The report says that the percentage of vacant posts is a cause for concern, especially in the context of the rapid expansion of medical education.
I suspect that the report is somewhat dated by now. If anything, the situation has worsened, since the publication of the report, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, intimated. The need for training, education and research is more pressing than ever. There should be a duty on the authorities to promote them.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, some powerful points have already been made, and I shall speak briefly in support of the amendment in my name and the names of my noble friend Lady Northover and others.
The safeguarding of teaching, training and research at all levels is extremely important. The amendment is well designed to do that. One could go through the
436
range of training, research and teaching, as several noble Lords have done in a cogent manner. For me, the tip of the iceberg was revealed in a report that appeared in The Times on Monday about redundancies at Guy's, King's and St Thomas's Hospitals. There have been reports about Imperial College and Queen Mary and Westfield College. I understand that further redundancies are on the way at Queen Mary and Westfield College. At a time when, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, said, we are meant to be increasing the number of places for medical students, such reports are symptomatic of the place of teaching and research in the Government's thinking—rather low down.
Although the same system of research assessment takes place in Scotland, it does not have, as far as I am aware—I have been there for the past few days—the same problem as we do. In England—I stress England, although it may apply to Wales too—there is a problem with joined-up government. Once the research assessment has been carried out and grades given, a funding problem arises. I suspect also that medical research carried out by clinicians is not rated as highly for the purposes of the RAE as pure science research. That is also a symptom of the problem.
It is a matter of enormous concern. We will not have the increase in the number of doctors that we need, unless we do things properly. This is a first step. Government action is needed, but a signal of this kind would go all the way through the NHS and would be extremely important.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, at lunchtime today, one of your Lordships told me that he had to travel to South Africa every month to get treatment for leukaemia. The procedure is not undertaken in the UK. We are slipping behind in several areas of serious healthcare. In that case, the countries that can provide the treatment for the noble Lord's leukaemia are South Africa, the United States and Israel. Why is it not available in Britain? I support the amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, it has been an interesting debate. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that there is no disagreement about the importance of teaching and research in the National Health Service. The argument is about the best way to ensure that the NHS gives appropriate support to teaching and research.
Noble Lords kindly referred to the comments that I made at earlier stages of the Bill's progress. They will know that I am not convinced that the best way forward is to create a duty in the Bill, especially as the amendments do not define the words "education", "training" and "research". If the amendments were accepted, they would leave only a vague sense of what was required by NHS organisations. I must also repeat the point that I made at earlier stages, although I shall not repeat the various references to earlier legislation. Legislation already allows the Secretary of State to support teaching and research and to ensure that arrangements are made for such facilities—a subject

437
raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff—as he considers are reasonably required by any university for clinical teaching and research.
Notwithstanding the legislation, the real issue—and the core of the argument—is how we ensure that the NHS takes those matters seriously. I accept that that is the challenge, particularly for primary care trusts. I had a meeting this week with the Council of Heads of Medical Schools that was, in the light of our earlier debates, most useful and constructive. I had a welcome opportunity to explore with the council ways in which we could ensure that primary care trusts provided the necessary support, by which I mean engaging patients and carers in support of teaching and research; fostering the special opportunities for research available in primary care; teaching the entire range of health profession students: and taking full account of teaching and research in their commissioning of local and more distant hospital and specialist services.
I told the council that the Government expected that the primary care trusts would grasp the opportunity to ensure the long-term success of the NHS Plan and the continuing contribution of the NHS to health-related research and education. I accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, about the extraordinary expansion of research capability among primary care workers and general practitioners.
The Government have listened carefully to the arguments made by noble Lords at each stage of the Bill's passage. I am in no doubt about the need to modernise the arrangements for liaison and partnership between the health and education sectors, in order to address some of the issues raised. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, suggested that there was some defect in the arrangements for liaison between the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills. While I do not necessarily accept that is so, I agree that we need to streamline the liaison arrangements between the two Departments and other organisations in the education sector. Officials in my Department and the DFES are drawing up proposals to develop a new national framework to ensure joint working, to take forward the education, research and service agendas—and to obtain an overview of the inter-relationship between them. The role of primary care trusts will of course be part of that consideration and the Permanent Secretary at the Department of Health will play a leading role.
Agreement has already been announced for a strategic alliance between my department and the Higher Education Funding Council for England. That alliance covers learning, teaching and research and builds on the earlier alliance between the Department and HEFCE on research issues. This is the ideal opportunity to pick up on some of the matters raised by your Lordships.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, mentioned her work in regard to research ethic committees—and I agree with her points. This morning, in the Ministerial high-level strategic group that my Department and others, including the DTI, have with the research-based pharmaceutical industry, agreement was
438
reached between the industry and the Government to institute work that will look specifically at how primary care trusts can contribute more effectively to clinical research.
A number of points were made about clinical academics and that profession's relationship with the expansion in medical school places. The Department of Health and HEFCE have established a joint group to oversee the implementation of medical schools expansion. That group's membership will include the Chair of the General Medical Council's education committee. Part of the group's remit will he lo monitor recruitment to posts needed to facilitate the expansion of medical students. It will identify other issues related to that expansion and recommend appropriate action. The group's first meeting is scheduled for tomorrow. Clinical academic staffing is a key issue on the agenda.
The noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, is right to suggest that we ought not to confine our remarks to medical teaching and research. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness's pioneering work in excellence in nursing research and teaching. My comments in terms of principles should be applied to the other health professions.
It is good to welcome back the noble Lord, Lord Walton, to our debates. He specifically mentioned issues relating to clinical scientists. Last year, I was pleased to launch a new clinical scientists scheme—which came about as a result of long-standing concerns about clinical academic career prospects. A report by the Academy of Medical Science recommended extra clinical scientific posts and we were able to build on that recommendation.
In additional to work at national level, I envisage local partnerships involving strategic health authorities, workforce development confederations, primary care trusts, NHS trusts, universities and other education establishments. Those partnerships will in the main be across the areas of strategic health authorities—which in any case have a strong performance management role in relation to PCTs and will be well able to pick up on issues of concern if they consider that the actions of PCTs are damaging the interests of teaching research in their strategic health authority areas.
It is extremely important that one of the non-executive members for each strategic health authority will be from an institution within the higher education sector responsible for the delivery of pre-registration education in medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, nursing or other allied health professions. That will enable strategic health authorities to be clear about their responsibilities in relation to teaching and research. My experience of non-executives appointed from higher education institutes is that: they are not backward at coming froward. I am sure that they will be encouraged to do so.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Noakes, were concerned that central funding for research, learning and development would not be spent appropriately at local level. All the funding is allocated directly to NHS providers, including

439
primary care organisations. Funding streams are separately accounted for while other dedicated funding streams for teaching and learning—such as the PGEA and study leave for general practitioners—are also managed separately, to ensure their protection. Those arrangements secure the teaching and research funding protection that your Lordships rightfully sought.
As to the amendments, PFI is a bit of a red herring. I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, to visit the Norwich and Norfolk NHS Trust, which only opened a few months ago. There is a new medical school across the road. The noble Baroness would see for herself that it is impossible within a PFI scheme to enhance teaching, research and clinical services.
Amendment No. 3 would confer a general power on the Welsh Assembly to establish local health boards. As to my comments about teaching research, such matters are for the Welsh Assembly. It would be inappropriate to include specific limited examples in a general permissive power, as that would frustrate the whole purpose of establishing a national assembly. I assure the noble Baroness and others that I recognise the issues that have been raised.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, it is not the intention to sabotage the role of the National Assembly for Wales. Its purpose is to ensure equal provision and that standards of educational facilities in Wales match those in England.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness should take up that matter with the Welsh Assembly. It is not an issue on which I, as a Department of Health Minister, can comment.
I hope that I have convinced your Lordships that I regard education, training and research as extremely important. I so agree with the noble Lord, Lord Walton, that high-quality teaching of research is crucial. It is the bedrock of the NHS and of the superb professionalism of our staff. It goes wider. It is a critical factor in the success of the UK as a nation. I understand that your Lordships are concerned not to see any dissipation—and no one should doubt my determination to enhance our teaching and research capacity. The proposed new clause is superfluous. Key is vigorous action.
Clear recognition of PCTs' responsibilities in teaching research, streamlining of the relationship between the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills, the strategic alliance between the Department and HEFCE, the initiation of work with the research-based pharmaceutical industry on PCT contribution to clinical research and the special group involving the Department and HEFCE to oversee the implementation of medical school expansion and pick
440
up on points made about clinical academics is a powerful package of measures—one that will ensure that we enhance teaching research in this country.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and I thank noble Lords for their powerful contributions to the debate today and previously on the Bill. It seems as though the Government are taking some welcome measures, but it is a complex package with bits here and bits there. That underlines our belief that we need to have a duty on the face of the Bill.
We continue to believe that support for research, education and training must placed on the face of the Bill and not be allowed to become actions which "can" take place rather than "must" take place. During the passage of the Bill there have been opportunities for that change to be made but it has not happened. I therefore do not feel reassured and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
4.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 131; Not-Contents, 108.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Ackner, L.

Elles, B.

Addington, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Alderdice, L.

Elton, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Ezra, L,

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Ferrers, E.

Ampthill, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Fookes, B.

Ashcroft, L.

Fowler, L.

Astor, V.

Freeman, L.

Astor of Hever, L.[Teller]

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Barker, B.

Geddes, L.

Blaker, L.

Greenway, L.

Blatch, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Boardman, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Bowness, L.

Henley, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Higgins, L.

Brightman, L.

Holderness, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Hooper, B.

Burnham, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Byford, B.

Howe, E.

Caithness, E.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Cobbold, L.

Jopling, L.

Colwyn, L.

Kimball, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Cox, B.

Lyell, L.

Craigavon, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cuckney, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B

Cumberlege, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

McNally, L.

Denham, L.

Mar, C.

Dholakia, L.

Marlesford, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dundee, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

441

Monson, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Montrose, D.

Roper, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Russell, E.

Moynihan, L.

Saatchi, L.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Sandwich, E.

Newby, L.

Seccombe, B.

Noakes, B.

Selborne, E.

Northbrook, L.

Selsdon, L.

Northesk, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Northover, B. [Teller]

Stewartby, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Swinfen, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Taverne, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L

Tenby, V.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Patten, L.

Trumpington, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Vivian, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Waddington, L.

Plumb, L

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Walmsley, B.

Rawlings, B.

Walpole, L.

Razzall, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Rees, L.

Weatherill, L.

Rennard, L.

Wigoder, L.

Renton, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alli, L.

Grocott, L.

Andrews, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Haskel, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hayman, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Berkeley, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hoyle, L.

Billingham, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Borrie, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bragg, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Brett, L.

Brookman, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jones, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Judd, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Layard, L.

Christopher. L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Lipsey, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Crawley, B.

David, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Desai, L

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dixon, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Donoughue, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dubs, L.

Mitchell, L.

Elder, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Moser, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Nicol, B.

Filkin, L.

Pendry, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Peston, L.

Gale, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gilbert, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Rea, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Grabiner, L.

Richard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rooker, L.

Grenfell, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

442

Sawyer, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Uddin, B.

Serota, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Sheldon, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Simon V

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Stallard, L.

Whitty, L.

Wilkins, B,

Strabolgi, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Williams of Mostyn. L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Thornton, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.32 p.m.
Clause 3 [Directions: distribution of functions]:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 4, line 9, at end insert "; or
() are to be exercisable by the National Specialist Commissioning Advisory Group,"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apology for coming back to the issue of specialised commissioning albeit, if hope, somewhat more briefly than in our discussions on Report, but I do so in order to obtain further and better particulars from the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, if he is responding. I am glad to see that he will. I recognise that the wording of the amendment may not provide the perfect vehicle for debate.
On Report, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, declared that the Government were adopting a pragmatic approach to commissioning for specialised services. That was welcome, as was the information given to the House that the Minister of State, Mr Hutton, had commissioned a review with the intention of issuing guidance in the autumn on arrangements relating to the period beyond 2002–03. However, the importance of the issue and the need for national and regional commissioning merits recognition in the Bill.
In its last report in 1999–2000, the national specialist commissioning advisory group was asked to look at regional specialist commissioning. A new report must be somewhat overdue. It remarked that a common characteristic of these low volume services and treatment was that they were often of high cost requiring specialist technical expertise and a concentration of clinical care.
Implementing new arrangements for such services was a key aim of the original White Paper, The New NHS: Modern, Dependable issued shortly after the Government came to power. It concluded that the internal market's fragmentation between multiple GP fundholders, as they then were, and health authorities had made it difficult to ensure properly co-ordinated commissioning arrangements for those services. A more systematic approach was needed if fair access was to be guaranteed and if clinical staff were to be supported in developing the most suitable and effective care. The new arrangements should be capable of commanding the confidence of clinical units concerned while being clearly accountable to health authorities and PCTs. I believe t hat those criteria are valid today. I do not believe that the

443
Government's current vague expressions on the way in which those arrangements will be carried out meet those criteria.
Let me take haemophilia as an example. Some 6,000 people are affected, costing about £115 million per annum to treat. Within this total, £20 million is spent on patients with inhibitors—that is, resistance to treatment with Factor VIII or IX as appropriate—principally in relation to the 100 or so with high titres. Immune tolerance treatment for such patients typically costs at least £1 million per patient. That is a high figure. Orthopaedic procedures, such as knee or hip replacements, are also very expensive as are major spontaneous bleeds.
Currently, commissioning for haemophilia is arranged by health authorities or specialist consortia, not least to spread the risk of costly and largely unpredictable episodes affecting patients with inhibitors. These arrangements are by no means considered perfect and there is broad support for a national approach to commissioning. Conversely, delegation of responsibility to primary care trusts has been described by Dr Mark Winter, chairman of the Haemophilia Alliance which represents patients and clinicians, as "a catastrophe waiting to happen".
I have taken one example of specialised commissioning and treatment. We must not assume that the problem will be solved if we delegate specialised commissioning to consortia of PCTs. We must consider those individual areas of specialised commissioning and decide what is appropriate for them, in particular whether national and regional commissioning are appropriate. We need clarity and accountability. We need to decide what is done at the appropriate level.
In referring to regional commissioning one is in a sense referring to strategic health authorities in the context of the Bill—although I regret it—but clearly there needs to be expertise and reference at the strategic health authority level if we are satisfactorily to have the expertise to commission some of these services.
The debate is perhaps a reprise but slightly more concrete in some respects. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, in moving the amendment, the noble Lord outlined why specialised services are a matter of great concern in the NHS. These Benches support the thrust of the amendment. It ensures that the commissioning of specialised services is done at the right level in the NHS. We believe that that is the correct direction although the amendment may not be in quite the right form.
Highly developed skills for the commissioning of specialised services exist at regional level. I refer to the eight old regions, not the four virtual regions which are being created. The regional specialised commissioning groups ensure that patients have specialised services available to them and the providers of those services have the funding, security and stability which allows them to develop those services.
444
Pure dogma has driven the Government to propose the break up of those regional groups and to devolve commissioning responsibility to PCTs. PCTs demonstrably do not have the confidence to handle specialised commissioning even if—and it is a big "if"—they have a commitment to specialised commissioning. Only a couple of weeks ago, the Joint Consultants Committee issued a press release saying that it is very worried about specialised commissioning given the lack of readiness of PCTs. This is not a problem that will go away despite the many assurances and expressions of confidence that we have had from the Front Bench opposite.
Has the Minister ever heard of the management maxim, "If it ain't broke don't fix it"? No, the Government's approach is to break it first and then try to fix it. At a stroke the Government will smash the eight regional arrangements into 300 PCT-sized bits which do not work. They will then rearrange them into 28 strategic health authority-sized networks which might work if they are performance managed—but we have no evidence on which to be sure. If noble Lords have ever wondered what nonsense on stilts looks like, this is it.
At Report stage the Minister gave us a glimmer of hope when he referred to the possibility that regional specialised commissioning groups will continue beyond 2002–03. He said that it may well be that they will not be dismantled. We were heartened to hear both that and the review proposed by Mr Hutton. Perhaps I may put a couple of questions to the Minister about Mr Hutton's review? Will he say a little more about it, who will be involved in the review and whether it will seek out the views of the National Specialist Commissioning Advisory Group of specialised service providers throughout the country and, importantly, the view of patients? Will he commit to making public the review and the evidence obtained for it?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, in my naivety I thought that on Report I had made everyone, if not totally content, substantially satisfied, about the queries. Clearly, I was premature on that.
As we know, specialised services are those where patient numbers are small and quality can only be achieved by bringing together a critical mass of patients in each centre. This means that there will he relatively few centres offering treatment and there will not be a specialist centre in every local hospital. Therefore, PCTs acting in isolation could not deliver the quality and cost effectiveness which we all believe is essential for the future.
However, under shifting the balance of power, primary care trusts are responsible for commissioning health services for their local populations. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked whether I had ever heard of the quotation, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Yes, indeed. What is "broke" is the current centralisation of the NHS, on the basis that all of its functions and products can be run on the old command and control model from Whitehall. That is why we believe it is right to establish PCTs, which are

445
much better and more in touch and have a greater understanding of the needs of the public and patients and can take a wide and long view of how best to meet those needs. That is why we believe it fundamentally right to make sure that one did not half-bake devolution to them, but gave them full budgetary responsibility as far as it is practicable and sensible to do so.
We believe that that is a much better approach— although it will require joint working between PCTs to deal with joint commissioning—than to have some rather arbitrary definition, inevitably by central government, about which functions should be dealt with at a different level from PCTs. The thrust of the Government's approach is to devolve, but to set very clear outcomes and standards to be achieved rather than to second guess the mechanisms in detail.
However, I sought to signal in the last debate that we recognise the importance of getting it and the process of development and evolution right rather than suddenly throwing it all up in the air. PCTs both now and in the future will be expected to work together on a consortium basis to secure specialised services. That will certainly be true immediately and it is likely to be true for many functions for the future. In the short term they will be expected to honour existing agreements, financial and otherwise, negotiated by regional specialist commissioning groups. Those groups will continue for at least a further year with PCTs replacing the former health authority members. RSCGs have a specific role in developing PCT capacity to commission specialised services as part of a planned transition to successor arrangements. Ensuring that enough people with the right skills continue in their roles is particularly important in the context of specialised services.
As I believe I indicated last time, there are already encouraging reports of PCTs working together to ensure that specialised services are effectively commissioned. Sometimes these consortia cover populations the size of a strategic health authority and sometime larger populations.
As noble Lords have implied already from the slightly hesitant way in which they signalled that this was a probing amendment, the role of strategic health authorities will be to oversee the consortia arrangements with regional directors of health and social care, ensuring that specialised services are delivered properly across the whole region. Strategic health authorities are not there to commission services, as the amendment suggests.
The amendment also refers to very highly specialised services which are vulnerable for some reason. They will continue to be centrally commissioned under the auspices of the National Specialist Commissioning Advisory Group. But such arrangements are only suitable for those very highly specialised services where there are a handful of providers and perhaps a couple of hundred patients across the whole country. This is not the case for most specialised services.
446
I also indicated that while there is a clear national list now, that will change over time as technology changes. However, that is not to imply that we see a case for a rapid expansion in any way of the list of functions currently handled by the National Specialist Commissioning Advisory Group.
The Government are adopting the pragmatic approach to commissioning and I believe that has been acknowledged. Current commissioning arrangements will be left alone where they are working well. The experience of PCTs, when they are essentially funding and supporting the new arrangements, will have to make a case both to each other and in practice to the SHA for any significant change to those commissioning arrangements. So it is not a carte blanche situation, being completely free to throw away good practice and common sense.
We have considered further the valid points made by noble Lords during the passage of the Bill. I would like to add emphasis to the review headed by my right honourable friend, John Hutton, into specialised services and the commission arrangements, in particular for the regional-type services covered by several strategic health authorities, with a view to issuing guidance in the autumn on arrangements beyond 2002/3.
The review will canvas views as to how best to integrate the current regional specialised commissioning group arrangements with the new health and social care regional boundaries in order to ensure that highly specialised services covering large geographic areas are properly planned, funded and monitored. It will be a wide review. We shall be interested to hear views from any organisation in the health service which has concerns, interests or issues relevant to the review's terms of reference. I emphasise that those views should be submitted.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, gave a specific example of haemophiliacs. He touched on a point which we did not go into in much detail on the last occasion concerning the consortia arrangements. While they are fundamentally concerned to deal with the need to commission over larger-scale populations, they are also a means of sharing risk so that there is no postcode lottery in the future. Therefore, any PCT which might, for example, have a sudden movement into its area of a number of people unfortunate enough to be really high-cost haemophiliacs, would not thereby have its budget skewed, damaged or put at risk other patients. That was a very legitimate concern raised by the noble Lord. That is why joint arrangements will also be put in place, not just for commissioning, but to pool risk.
There is a good example already of a highly successful haemophiliac service commission consortium in south-east England covering over 80 PCTs and a population of 13 million, with financial risk-sharing arrangements. So I am not speaking just from theory, but from practice. Clearly, when one finds such examples one wants to ensure that they are assessed and the good practice is retailed to others, where appropriate.

447
I hope that I can reassure noble Lords that the National Specialist Commissioning Advisory Group will continue doing its valuable work in relation to the very highly specialist services. But it is right that the primary care trusts should commission other specialist services under the careful scrutiny of strategic health authorities. PCTs will have the best knowledge of the needs of their population and are best placed to provide for their needs, in some cases in isolation, but in many cases working in firm consortia arrangements with others. For these reasons we resist the amendment as we believe that it is not necessary.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Quite clearly, from the Minister's reply I believe that further torture of him has produced results at Third Reading. I thank him in particular for the point he made about the pooling of risk in the way in which the consortia are constructed. There is a flaw, however. Only time will tell how matters work out in terms of the logic of some of the Government's proposals in this area. I refer to the blanket view that all centralisation is bad and that decentralisation is good for all purposes. That is the initial ground on which one stands.
As a federalist, I have always believed that devolution is best done to the appropriate level. It is not always a question of saying that everything must be pushed down to the lowest possible level. The appropriate level is where the expertise and resources are best deployed. That is the problem that we shall have to address in the future.
I accept the Minister's assurances about the ambit of Mr Hutton's review and in particular about the level of consultation that will be invited from all bodies in terms of the way in which the consultation is conducted. However, there is a lot more water to flow under the bridge. We very much hope—a hope shared by those on other Benches—that the regional groups will be retained as we believe that they fulfil a proper and useful function. We shall be looking at where the expertise properly resides; at the performance management and assessment carried out by the strategic health authorities; and in particular cases at whether or not a specialised piece of commissioning has been carried out at the appropriate level.
For the moment, we are content to examine the Minister's reply and to hold him to account at a future date. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Baroness Finlay of Llandaff moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
"DUTY OF LOCAL HEALTH BOARDS AND NHS TRUSTS REGARDING EDUCATION, TRAINING AND RESEARCH IN WALES
Local Health Boards and NHS trusts, and those commissioning specialist services on behalf of the National Assembly for Wales, shall have a duty to safeguard and promote education, training and research."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment appears to be consequential on Amendment No. 1. Therefore, I assume that it will be accepted in principle by the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am advised that the practice of the House would be for the Government not to oppose the amendment. However, I should like to place on record the fact that I regard this—particularly in relation to a matter which I believe is for the Welsh Assembly—as a substantive and different matter from the issue of teaching and research.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Commission for Health Improvement: constitution]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 19, line 41, at end insert—
"() After paragraph 5 there is inserted—
"5A (1) The Secretary of State may direct a Special Health Authority to exercise—

(a) his function of appointing the chairman and the other members referred to in paragraph 4(c), and

(b) any functions conferred on him by regulations under paragraph 5 in relation to the appointment or tenure of office of the chairman and those other members.

(2) The National Assembly for Wales may direct a Special Health Authority to exercise—

(a) its function of appointing the member referred to in paragraph 4(b), and

(b) any functions conferred on it by regulations under paragraph 5 in relation to the appointment or tenure of office of that member.

(3) If the Secretary of State or the Assembly gives such directions, the 1977 Act has effect as if—

(a) the directions were directions under section 16D of that Act, and, accordingly,

(b) the functions were exercisable by the Special Health Authority under section 16D.""

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 26.
Amendment No. 26 delivers the commitment that I made on Report that the NHS Appointments Commission will be responsible for appointing the chair of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health. But we go further—demonstrating that we are committed to the independence of the commission and distancing the appointments process from the Secretary of State. These amendments enable the Secretary of State to delegate to the NHS Appointments Commission such of his functions as may he appropriate in relation to the tenure of office, terms of appointment, dismissal and so on of the chair and members. The details of how such arrangements with the NHS Appointments Commission might work in practice are still subject to discussion with the chair of the commission and his team.
We have also been persuaded that similar arrangements should be made for the appointment of the chair of the Commission for Health Improvement.

449
The Secretary of State will now have the power to direct a special health authority to appoint the chair and members of the commission. This power will extend also to the Assembly and the appointment of its member.
Dame Deirdre Hine has announced that she does not intend to seek reappointment. I should like to take this opportunity to place on record my gratitude and that of the Government for the key personal contribution that she has made to the development of the commission.
Through Amendment No. 4, the next chair will be appointed by the independent NHS Appointments Commission. This anticipates arrangements to be made for the new health inspectorate, as was recently announced by the Secretary of State. Again, my right honourable friend will be able to delegate to the NHS Appointments Commission his decision-making powers in regulations relating to the appointment and tenure of office.
I believe that these amendments follow the discussions that we had at previous stages. I very much hope that noble Lords will accept them. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, we greatly appreciate the amendments that the Minister has brought forward in relation both to the CHI and to the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health. We are glad that he has agreed with us.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister one question. Why are the amendments phrased in terms of directing "a special health authority" to carry out the appointments and functions of the Secretary of State? Given the wording, that could be any special health authority—for example, it could be NICE or any other NHS body; I probably do not even know the current list of bodies which are special health authorities. Why does not the Bill simply mention the NHS Appointments Commission?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I can—
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, if the Minister wishes to respond at the end, that would seem to be convenient. Perhaps I may just insert my twopenny-worth into the proceedings.
I welcome not only the amendments but also the assurances that the Minister gave. Otherwise, we should spend many happy hours debating "may" and "shall", as we have on other occasions. In particular, these are important for the independence of the CHI and the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health. I suspect that the Minister may have set a precedent for discussion of future health Bills. But as an opening of the door to greater independence for these two bodies, this sets an excellent precedent and runs counter to previous legislation to quite a degree.
I associate myself with the Minister's warm words about Dame Deirdre Hine. She has done a splendid job. There may have been a difference of approach in the way in which the CHI has been run in terms of its
450
developmental role. However, the Minister has explained that on a previous occasion. I believe that a rather different role is envisaged for the CHI in future but that does not detract at all from the way in which it has been a resounding success in its first period.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the word "direct" is used as opposed to "delegate". Does that mean that the direction cannot be revoked afterwards without primary legislation?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords. The Secretary of State has the power of direction, and I suppose that what he directs he may "un-direct".
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, perhaps I may put a brief question to the Minister. Subsection (2) states that,
"The National Assembly for Wales may direct a Special Health Authority".
I understood at an earlier stage of the Bill that the health authorities in Wales are to be called "health authorities", not "special health authorities". It is simply a matter for clarification. The intention of the amendments is most welcome.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my understanding in relation to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is that, clearly, the NHS Appointments Commission will do the appointing. But because the NHS Act itself does not provide for the National Health Service Appointments Commission we could not now place it on the face. It is a special health authority. When the Secretary of State makes a direction, clearly that responsibility will be given to the NHS Appointments Commission. But the appointments commission was set up by secondary legislation. That is why the amendment is termed in the way it is.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Establishment of Patients' Forums]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 21, line 17, at end insert "(including services provided by an independent hospital, independent clinic, independent medical agency, or care home under arrangements made by the NHS trust, Primary Care Trust or Care Trust for which a Patients' Forum is established)"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 6 to 9 and 11 to 15.
On Report, I suggested to the Government that if they intended to be consistent about patient and public involvement and give full recognition of the growing role of the private and voluntary sectors in delivering healthcare to NHS patients, there was one important way in which the arrangements in the Bill needed to be buttressed; namely, by ensuring that the functions of a patients forum could be extended to every location in which publicly funded care was delivered. It is no good to an NHS patient if he finds that having been moved

451
to, say, a private care home to recuperate from an operation, he cannot then access the local patients forum if he needs to do so.
Similarly, if the acute trust looking after our old friend, Mrs Archibald, decides to send her to a local private hospital to have her operation, why should she be suddenly cut off from the trust's patients forum? When considering the provision of mental health services of the significant proportion of NHS patients who are treated in the private sector, what is the argument against making sure that such patients in privately run treatment centres have exactly the same guarantee of representation as they would have in an NHS facility?
I know that the Minister is sympathetic to that argument, but his main rejoinder last time was to say that the amendments were superfluous because when the NHS contracts with independent providers, the inspection rights of patients forums will be set out in the relevant contract. That is fine as long as the contract covers the issue. Experience of the past few years shows that it is sometimes very difficult to get health authorities to insert such arrangements into their contracts, despite departmental guidance to that effect. Even if we take it as read that visiting rights have been included in a particular contract, how can those rights be enforced? The patients forum itself will not be a party to the contract.
I agree with what the Minister said on Report, namely, that with the NHS becoming a much larger purchaser of services within the private sector, the rights of inspection should feature more prominently and perhaps more automatically in contract negotiations. But, for the reasons that I have given, I do not think that that is good enough. As I said on Report, the Bill places very specific duties on patients forums. Clause 15(2)(a) states that they must
"monitor and review the operation of services"
and Clause 15(2)(b) states that they must
"obtain the views of patients".
Patients forums should not have to be dependent on the vagaries of a contract to fulfil those duties.
The other matter covered by the amendments relates to overview and scrutiny committees, which ought to be able to scrutinise services delivered to NHS patients in whatever setting those patients are being looked after. The Minister helpfully said on Report that he would consider the issue. I understand his point that the remit of OSCs covers NHS bodies that may or may not agree contracts with the private sector. I am not sure that it is possible for an OSC to engage in the proper scrutiny of services unless it can call the provider of those services directly to account. That should be part and parcel of the deal that the private service provider enters into in exchange for accepting NHS patients.
I hope that the Minister will be reasonably sympathetic to these probing amendments. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I strongly support the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on Amendments Nos. 5 to 9 and 11 to 15. To some extent, there is a sense of déjà vu about our debates. The Minister may recall that we had very similar debates when we discussed the inspection powers of CHI, which seems like a long time ago but was probably three or four years ago, during the passage of the Health Act 1999. At that time, we said that it was utterly logical for CHI, as the audit and inspection body being set up at the time, to cover not only NHS facilities but private facilities as well. The case is even stronger and more cogent now as services will be commissioned by the health service and not only private health care is involved.
We know from the stated plans of the Secretary of State that it is intended that the NHS should have flexibility to commission the NHS internally or, as seems to be more and more likely, from the private sector, and even from overseas, so flexibility is being built into the system.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, made the case extremely well. He referred to the vagaries of contracts, and as a lawyer, I agree that that is absolutely true—indeed, more so than he can say. The contents of a contract depend on the bargaining power of the parties. If it is a distress purchase, commissioned by a health trust that has to buy care very quickly from a specialist provider, it will be in no position to insist on very much. It may have a degree of leverage on the price but I doubt that it will have much leverage on whether there should be powers of inspection for the patients forum. Leaving it to the parties to decide the contents of the contract sounds to me, as a lawyer, an extremely faulty way of going about things. The issue would be far better expressed in legislation.
Lord Rea: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has given serious consideration to the amendments. The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have said many times that the private sector will be brought in increasingly to provide services that were formerly provided by the National Health Service. It, therefore, seems completely logical that patients and citizens should be able to comment on such services through patients forums and scrutiny committees. If not, how will those services be monitored? Will withdrawal of the contract be the only discipline available? That is not desirable as the services will be integrated by then and will be difficult to replace. I shall be very interested to hear my noble friend's reply.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has explained very well the fragmentation that could complicate the life of patients when they are looked after in a variety of health establishments. The Minister knows the

453
complications of hospital infections, which need all the monitoring they can get. That is only one example of the complications that could arise.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the intention behind the amendments, although I do not believe that they are necessary.
NHS patients remain NHS patients wherever they are treated and there is no question that it is extremely important that patients forums can enter premises and inspect services. That is the Bill's intention. The difference is the legal basis that underpins the arrangements.
First, I remind noble Lords that it is not necessary to list care trusts as a separate entity that must allow patients forums entry rights. Care trusts are either NHS trusts or primary care trusts that have been redesignated as care trusts under Section 45 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001. As such they are already provided for under the terms of Clause 17 of this Bill.
Secondly, Clause 15(2) covers all services arranged by the trust, including those provided in independent clinics, hospitals, medical agencies or care homes, local authority care homes or directly by the NHS. Whenever NHS care is provided the service can be reviewed by patients forums as per Clause 15(2).
Thirdly, NHS patients remain NHS patients wherever they are treated. As I said, it is important that patients forums are able to enter premises and inspect services. That has always been our intention. NHS bodies will be expected as a matter of course to set out rights for patients forums in the individual contacts that they agree with independent providers.
Both the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to contracts. I am aware that the details of such contracts have been a source of some concern to community health councils in the past. That is one of the reasons why we are currently discussing with the independent sector a set of standard terms and conditions for NHS bodies to use when drawing up contracts for acute hospital care. Naturally, in such standard terms and conditions we shall include appropriate provisions to safeguard the rights of patients forums. We shall stress the importance of those provisions in the accompanying guidance.
In addition, we are considering whether the patients forums' non-executive director on the trust board should be given a specific responsibility for ensuring that contracts include details of the arrangements for patients forums to exercise their functions. We shall also consider whether they should monitor arrangements for forums to review, monitor, and inspect the services provided by the trust through arrangements with non-NHS providers.
I acknowledge the concern to inspect nursing homes and other healthcare establishments under the Care Standards Act 2000 in order to ensure that they meet appropriate standards of care. As the National Care Standards Commission has taken over the regulation
454
and inspection of the bodies specified in these amendments from local authorities and from health authorities, such inspection will enable the closest attention to be paid to those private sector providers.
In addition, through the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, patients forums will be able to report matters of concern to the National Care Standards Commission, the Commission for Health Improvement, and any other body that they consider appropriate under Clause 20(6) of the Bill.
As regards overview and scrutiny, I make it clear, again, that the definition of "health service" will, in any case, include services provided to NHS patients under arrangements made by a trust. It is irrelevant whether the service is provided by the trust, or under an arrangement made with an independent body. The patient remains an NHS patient, and the health aspect of the service received can be scrutinised by his or her local overview and scrutiny committee. Although the pathway is somewhat different because of the different legal basis of an NHS organisation and of an independent provider, I am satisfied that patients forums will have the ability to undertake inspections within the private sector where they are dealing with NHS patients.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. I am also grateful to those noble Lords who took part in this debate, not least the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who was right to point out that the bargaining power of the parties to contracts in this sort of instance will vary considerably case by case. Nevertheless, it is heartening to hear that the Government are considering the possibility of a standard form of words for such contracts. It is also helpful to know that they are thinking in terms of giving a specific role to the patients forum member sitting on the trust board to ensure that contracts do include suitable provisions.
However, we return to the fundamental point; namely, that when it comes to enforcement of the contract, the patients forum is in rather a difficult position because it has no locus in that respect. I very much take on board what the Minister said about overview and scrutiny committees. Again, I found his response encouraging. I take it from his remarks that the overview and scrutiny committee will be able to look at the service actually delivered to the patient—the patient experience—wherever that service is delivered. Therefore, it will not need to confine itself to cross-questioning the trust that commissioned that service; it can question directly those who provided the service in the private facility, whether it be a hospital or a care home.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I should clarify the position. I believe that the overview and scrutiny committee would be in a position to invite a private sector provider to appear before it. Therefore, it would be for the private sector provider to decide whether or not to accept that invitation. What is not in doubt is the fact that the arrangements made by an

455
NHS organisation for commissioning those services would be covered by the responsibility of the overview and scrutiny committee. In accordance with the legislation, the committee would be in a position to require a representative of that body to appear before it.
Earl Howe: My Lords, again, I thank the Minister for his most useful clarification.
As regards the National Care Standards Commission, it would be reassuring to know that a line of communication will be established between the commission and the relevant patients forum. Although the Minister mentioned the likelihood of the National Care Standards Commission wishing to report to the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, or possibly even the CHI, there is perhaps another line of communication available in this case—namely, the relevant patients forum. I leave that thought with the Minister. We have had a most useful debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 6 to 9 not moved.]
5.15 p.m.
Clause 16 [Establishment of Patients' Councils]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 22, line 4, leave out "from among"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment to remedy a drafting defect that crept into the Bill on Report when the amendment introducing what is now Clause 16 was accepted. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Entry and inspection of premises]:
[Amendments Nos. 11 to 15 not moved.]
Clause 19 [Suppkmentary]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 25, line 17, after "Authority," insert "an overview and scrutiny committee or joint committee within the meaning of sections 7 (functions of overview and scrutiny committees), 8 (joint overview and scrutiny committees etc) and 10 (application to the City of London) of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 (c. 15),"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 17, 18, 22 and 24. We debated these amendments on Report. They propose a duty of scrutiny for local authorities in substitution for the power of scrutiny conferred on them by the Health and Social Care Act 2001. This is an important issue. When confronted by a matter brought to their notice by a patients forum, my concern is that some local authorities may simply choose to ignore it and do nothing; either because they have other priorities, or because they do not have the necessary resources.
As matters stand, there is nothing in this Bill or elsewhere to ensure that patients forums will be listened to; yet scrutiny of health issues by local authorities is absolutely central to patient and public representation. It is a function currently carried out by
456
CHCs. If nobody has a statutory duty to scrutinise health issues, and, where necessary, take action, patients forums will simply be left talking to a brick wall. In fact, except in the context of minor matters that can be sorted out within the narrow confines of a trust, forums will almost cease to have a point.
On Report, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, argued that under the Local Government Act 2000 local authorities already have a "responsibility"—I use his word—to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their areas. He added:
"It could not be clearer that they are responsible for promoting the health and well-being of their communities".—[Official Report, 30/4/02; col. 619.]
On those grounds the noble Lord considered my amendment unnecessary.
As the noble Lord is aware, I took his statement to mean, first, that local authorities already have a duty to promote the health and well-being of their communities; and, secondly, that the provisions of the Local Government Act are directly relevant to the scrutiny of health issues. I withdrew my amendment on that basis.
Following the debate, the noble Lord was kind enough to write to me to correct my interpretation of his words. He said that when he had spoken of local authorities having a responsibility to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their areas, I should have understood him to mean that they had a power to do so. I do not think that I can be blamed completely for having interpreted the noble Lord's words as I did. However, that was a helpful clarification and I am grateful to him.
The other part of the noble Lord's argument was also important. I have had an opportunity to examine the Local Government Act 2000. Section 2 contains the power that I have just mentioned, and Section 4 contains a duty for a local authority to prepare a strategy for promoting or improving the economic, social and environmental well-being of their area and contributing to the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom. Perhaps two questions arise from that. First, given that health is not specifically mentioned in the Local Government Act at that point, can the Minister confirm that Ministers and the Department of Health have received legal advice that,
"economic, social and environmental well-being"
in the Local Government Act subsumes health?
Secondly, can he confirm that the power contained in Section 2 of the Local Government Act should be interpreted as implying a power of scrutiny of health issues? If the answer to both those questions is yes, I would find that encouraging. If it is yes, can the Minister say whether the Government are prepared to issue guidance to local authorities to make that matter clear, and whether they could incorporate guidance about the content of the strategy mentioned in Section 4 of the Local Government Act to the effect that the strategy should cover health issues as well as all the rest?

457
What the Minister was essentially saying on Report was that my amendments were unnecessary for the reasons I have given. He was also arguing that the amendments, in so far as they created a duty, were undesirable, on the grounds that it is wrong, as he saw it, to impose duties on democratically elected bodies such as local authorities. I have reflected on that argument. I am not sure what I think of it, really. It was clearly Parliament's intention when it passed the Health and Social Care Act 2001 that local authority overview and scrutiny committees should have the function of scrutinising matters relating to health. In other words, it was not in Parliament's mind that local authorities should pay lip service to the function or that they should fail to perform it at all if they did not feel like it. The whole point of setting up overview and scrutiny committees was to ensure that the scrutiny function currently performed by CHCs should be safeguarded.
I believe that we should ensure that the edifice of patient and public involvement really does stand up, which is why I am proposing this amendment. In other spheres, the Government have not been averse to imposing duties on local government—witness for a start Section 4 of the Local Government Act. In a matter as important as this, I really see no reason why there should not be such a duty in order to ensure that what the Government themselves say they want really does happen. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I rise to give partial support to this group of amendments. In particular, I think that Amendment No. 16 has quite a lot to commend it in terms of seeking to ensure that overview and scrutiny committees are added to the list of bodies to which patients forums will provide information. We on these Benches believe that it will be essential for overview and scrutiny committees to receive information from patients forums in order to inform their scrutiny role. Patients forums will have useful information about the performance of individual NHS trusts and their patients' experience. We are not so convinced about the changing of a power to a duty, but the position is somewhat complicated by the Minister's previous statements about the duty already being contained in legislation. Indeed, I suspect that the LGA is in some confusion as to whether it is a duty or a power.
Our nervousness about the possibility of turning the power into a duty is based on whether the additional resources would be made available. We believe that local government is making efforts to ensure that there is effective overview and scrutiny. However, it is early days yet. We believe that there will be an opportunity in future health Bills—we are quite sure that the House will be considering a number of health Bills before too long—to tweak the legislation to ensure that, if local government is falling down in overview and scrutiny, we can rectify the matter. Nevertheless, there is nervousness about whether resources will be available if that power is turned into a duty.
458
We therefore offer partial support for Amendment No. 16. We also rather regret the way in which the groupings have been made, particularly as regards Amendment No. 24. We are therefore prepared to accept Amendment No. 16, but not the other amendments in this group.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall speak first to government Amendment No. 22.
As I have previously stated, we are committed to ensuring a robust framework representing the public's concerns to government where there is inadequate consultation over major changes and where there are concerns over the merits of proposals for change. Our lawyers have confirmed that there could be some ambiguity in the provisions in the Local Government Act, as amended by the Health and Social Care Act 2001, about OSCs and their ability to refer matters to the Secretary of State for Health. In case any local authority was uncertain about whether it has the power to stick a stamp on an envelope and send its views to the Secretary of State, we think it appropriate to remove that doubt by amending the relevant provisions of the Health and Social Care Act. Amendment No. 22 does just that.
Amendment No. 22 makes it explicit that OSCs may make reports and recommendations to "the relevant authority"—the Secretary of State, in relation to England—thereby ensuring the referral framework that we think is necessary. The detail for referrals will be prescribed in regulations as is the case with the current arrangements for community health councils. I hope the House will agree that this amendment is an important one and that it is right to ensure that there is no doubt about this fundamental element of the PPI system. For OSCs to be truly powerful in delivering local accountability, they need to have the power to trigger action at Secretary of State-level if necessary. I am sure that they will do so.
I turn to Amendment No. 24. I have on a number of occasions made it clear that we think that it is not right to compel local authority overview and scrutiny committees to scrutinise health services through a statutory duty. Not only would that be completely out of kilter with the existing role of OSCs in other areas, but, more importantly and more critically, it is wrong to compel a democratically elected independent body to do something in this particular circumstance. I think that the implication of the amendment is that noble Lords have some doubts as to whether councillors would carry out one of their key roles—that of local accountability. However, the health of the population will be a key concern for overview and scrutiny committees and their constituents as decisions affecting people's health have a direct impact on the well-being of the people who elected them. As elected representatives, they will be keen to be seen to be addressing issues that matter to their electorate. If they do not, one would expect them to suffer the consequences.
For this reason, the decision whether to scrutinise the NHS must rest with local people and their representatives. Given the diversity of Britain, the

459
breadth of health issues, and the fact that judgments will have to be made about authorities, simply imposing a duty—which is what I think the noble Earl, Lord Howe, wishes, and I respect his reasons for advocating it—would leave open massive issues about which matters the OSCs should examine at any given time. Each year they would have to decide where scrutiny was most needed. In practice, no one can do everything all at once.
I turn to some of the legal issues raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I believe that I referred to both a "role" and a "responsibility". I also grant that it was not at all foolish to infer that that implied a duty rather than a power. Under Section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000, the local authority has a power to do anything it considers likely to achieve the promotion or improvement of the social, economic or environmental well-being of its area. Section 4 goes further and says that the local authority must prepare a strategy for promoting or improving the economic, social and environmental well-being of its area. There is nothing to prescribe what a local authority must consider in developing the strategy under Section 4. However, in practice and in almost all circumstances, it will develop the strategy in collaboration with others. I am sure that that has been the thrust of government advice to local authorities and to PCTs. It is therefore reasonable to expect that this will involve local authorities in considering health matters.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked about government advice to local authorities on preparing the strategies. Off the cuff I cannot recollect that. I am certain that such advice has already been given. Whether it includes advice explicitly about liaison with the health service I do not know but we shall check that. In any event, were it not to do so, it is a point that we would consider for future issues of such guidance.
The Local Government Act 2000 goes further. Section 21(2) gives overview and scrutiny committees a broad advisory role in relation to functions of the whole authority and matters affecting the locality. OSCs have the power to review, scrutinise and make reports and recommendations in relation to matters set out in Section 21(2). By virtue of Section 7 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001, the power of the OSC includes a power to review, scrutinise and make reports and recommendations on matters relating to health.
The noble Lord also referred to concerns about implementation. We are currently halfway through a national consultation on the policy framework. Draft regulations and guidance will be prepared during the summer. We shall consult on those around September. It is envisaged that the new provisions will come into force in late 2002 with a full training and implementation programme to assist the roll-out. CHCs in particular are to be involved in the development of the implementation plan.
With regard to the view of local government, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, may have mentioned this matter previously but the LGA, in briefing it circulated when the Bill was in Committee,
460
recognised the need for OSCs to carry out health scrutiny—which I hope gives some comfort to the noble Earl, Lord Howe—but did not want this power to be a duty. I believe that I signalled that issues of resources would form part of the discussions and negotiations between the LGA and central government in terms of the level of expenditure and grant that would be considered appropriate in future.
I refer to the dalliance of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, with Amendment No. 16, with regard to whether OSCs should have a duty to give information to patients forums. One hopes that they will so behave. However, if we are resistant to imposing a duty of the type that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggests, the logic is that we would also resist imposing a duty on them with regard to giving information to patients forums. That measure will occur in practice if local government and the health service promote it vigorously and learn from experience and try to learn from good practice in local authorities that do that well. That is what needs to happen. I do not think that changing the words in the Bill would make a fundamental difference to that. For those reasons, we resist Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18 while standing four square with the noble Lord and the noble Earl as regards the importance of making sure that local government seizes this significant role and tries to ensure that it is carried out to the benefit of the public.
5.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord is always courteous and helpful in his responses and I am grateful to him on this occasion as on others. He made two comments that I considered particularly helpful. First, he referred to Section 21 of the Local Government Act 2000. I understood him to say that that section contains a power to scrutinise health services. I was not aware of that and it is a helpful clarification. Secondly, the noble Lord helpfully referred to guidance to local authorities. I am grateful for his undertaking to look again at what guidance has been issued.
I am sorry obviously that my arguments have not won the day. The argument with regard to imposing duties on local authorities is perhaps a stronger one than the noble Lord would have us think. It is interesting that the Greater London Authority Act 1999 has a provision at Section 34 to impose a duty on the GLA to exercise all its powers in a way best calculated to promote the health of Londoners. I am not sure why there is thought to be such a difference of principle as regards this Bill and as regards a general duty for local authorities. However, we have made progress on that issue. I am grateful for the noble Lord's comments.
I welcome government Amendment No. 22. It comes rather at the eleventh hour, but better late than never. I shall have more to say about that amendment later in today's proceedings. I am disappointed that it is framed in the way that it is as I think that it could be stronger. It seems to me that it is not the same to say that a local authority can make reports to the Secretary

461
of State as to say that it has a right of referral. A right of referral is a much more robust and clearer arrangement. The matter remains a little wishy-washy. I accept gratefully what has been offered—I certainly do not object to what the Government propose—but I shall return to the matter later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.]
Clause 20 [The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 26, line 15, after "bodies" insert "or persons"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, at Report stage the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, tabled an amendment the purpose of which was to broaden the functions of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health by giving it the unfettered role of representing the interests of patients and the wider community. It was an important amendment which went to a Division and was defeated. I have not sought to bring back those particular issues at Third Reading. I have instead tabled Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 which are narrower in scope. Specifically they are designed to extend the matters upon which the commission is permitted to make representations and to widen the audience, as it were, of those to whom it is allowed to speak.
We can see in subsection (2)(a) of Clause 20 that the commission has the function of,
"advising the Secretary of State, and such bodies as may be prescribed, about arrangements for public involvement in, and consultation on, matters relating to the health service in England".
In other words, the commission's functions are all about process. The rest of the clause continues in that vein. What the commission does not appear to be about is the experiences of real patients or the configuration of health services. That, for me, is a missed trick. At the moment CHCs and their national body, ACHCEW, can carry out a wide variety of activities. They can brief the press about hospital closures or policy changes affecting the health service. Another thing they can do is brief Members of both Houses of Parliament about issues relating to patient representation. It is no secret that ACHCEW has briefed me for this Bill and has done so very well. If the Government are serious about having a national body which is there to support the empowerment of patients—and that is what the commission is supposed to be about—surely to goodness it has to be allowed to do more than just comment to the Secretary of State about the arrangements in place to deliver that empowerment. This whole exercise should not just be about structures and processes; it should be about what matters to patients, and the commission should be allowed to speak out publicly on any matter if it wishes to.
The scope of these amendments is much more restricted than the one that was defeated at Report stage. I am not now proposing an unfettered power because the amendments would in fact allow the Secretary of State to decide exactly how the
462
commission should operate. But when it comes to the matters where the commission has a legal standing, do think that we need to progress beyond the scope of subsection (2) and the relatively narrow set of issues detailed in subsection (6)—the safety and welfare of patients. We need a body that can speak out on matters that bear upon the health service more generally. Again, I think of exercises such as Casualty Watch or speaking out on a particular PFI project. Why should it not be allowed to do such things? The danger, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said on Report, is that once the commission's permitted activities are set in stone in the Bill, any attempt to stray beyond them will technically be ultra vires. We should build in an element of flexibility.
I hope that the Minister will treat these amendments more kindly than the amendment that we debated on Report. They are intended to be helpful. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I regret the fact that the amendment tabled on Report was not agreed to. I assure the Minister that these amendments are not the previous amendments in a different guise. They are much more limited in their extent and would, as the noble Earl explained, simply widen the subject matter on which the commission can make representations.
Without the amendment, as the noble Earl explained, the commission would be restricted to making representations about the arrangements for patient and public involvement, as opposed to the issues that really affect people's health and health services. In view of the information that the commission will be amassing, it would be a waste to have such a body if it was not able to make representations to the Secretary of State and others on the issues that really matter. That would leave patients and the public effectively without a voice on health services at national level.
As the noble Earl explained, AC HEW is currently able to draw on the information, experience and expertise of CHCs and its own research to inform what it says or asks for—indeed, campaigns for—at the national level. Recent examples include: changes in investment in accident and emergency services, which was a result of its regular "casualty watch" survey; debates on charging for NHS services, which were stimulated by its recent report, A tax on illness; and the representations that it is currently making on patient confidentiality.
The amendments would allow the commission to take up such issues at the national level; it would otherwise be prohibited from doing that. It should be noted, however, as the noble Earl pointed out, that the commission will still be restricted to making representations to bodies and persons who are prescribed by the Secretary of State. If the Minister would state which bodies and persons he envisages the Secretary of State prescribing, we should all find that

463
extremely useful. We are keen to ensure that the commission can make representations to the media, politicians and so on if it feels that that is appropriate.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I want to ask one question, which I have asked on several occasions but to which I have not received an answer. Is there going to be a body that can put forward people's views on the closure of hospitals? CHCs have been able to do that.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham; I thought that I had answered that question on several occasions. The role of the CHC in relation to significant changes of services is being transferred from appointed bodies—the CHCs—to democratic local government. The overview and scrutiny committee of the principal local authority in an area, which is democratically elected, will deal with those issues. It will have the right to call in officers of NHS bodies to examine them. If there is disagreement on a proposal, that can be referred to a national body, the Independent Reconfiguration Panel, which will advise the Secretary of State. Far from dissipating the current mechanism, we have strengthened it by linking it to locally elected councils.
I accept that the amendments are worded differently from those that we debated on Report. However, they cover much the same ground. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, clearly hark for some national body to focus on representing what might be the views of patients. The noble Earl referred to their attempts to speak out. That misreads the whole purpose of the commission.
Subsection (2)(a) clearly states that it will advise the Secretary of State,
"and such bodies as may be prescribed, about arrangements for public involvement in, and consultation on, matters relating to the health service in England".
The principal aim in that regard is to ensure that we get patient and public involvement right. I do not believe that the public interest would best be served if such a commission allowed itself to go down the track of having a representative role, which we know cannot be carried out by such an appointed body. That is why I resisted the amendments on Report.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, underestimated the commission's functions. He described that as involving a rather process-oriented set of roles. Paragraphs (a) to (h) in Clause 20(2) contain a very powerful set of responsibilities, which will ensure that we get public and patient involvement right. I draw his attention in particular to paragraph (d), which refers to,
"providing assistance to Patients' Forums and Patients' Councils, and facilitating the co-ordination of their activities".
The commission has the potential to help local patients' forums by pulling together their activities, which will enable patients' forums to work together.
464
When a number of patients' forums wish to come together over various issues, the commission will help and enhance that process. That is a much better approach. It involves using experience at the local level—helping patients' forums to come together to express views on patients' experience and thinking rather than seeking at a national level to carry out a role that I do not believe such bodies can be expected to carry out effectively.
I point out to the noble Earl that Clause 20(3) gives the commission the function of promoting,
"the involvement of members of the public in England in consultations or processes".
The arrangement is not focused solely at prescribed bodies. The commission has a much wider role—to examine the way in which individuals' involvement in the National Health Service can be enhanced and developed. It is much better for the commission to focus on helping to ensure that we get effective public involvement rather than being side-tracked by attempting to have a representational role that I do not believe it could carry out effectively.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, although I am disappointed by what he said. I took great care to frame the amendments in such a way that they did not replicate the amendment that was defeated on Report. It would not have been proper to raise the same issues.
The whole point of these amendments is to give the Secretary of State the option of broadening the functions of the commission—the areas of activity in which it can engage. I do not belittle the functions listed in Clause 20(2). Broadly speaking, the commission is an enabler, which will assist patients' forums and communicate with the Secretary of State. I understand that that is a very important role. But for whom will it speak? I do not believe that it will speak for patients. That is the source of my disappointment. It will speak for the bodies, structures and processes that represent patients, which is at one remove from the coal face.
I understand the Minister's reluctance at this point to confer on the commission what he termed "a representative role". Again, I say that I took care not to be prescriptive in these amendments. If they were accepted, it would be entirely up to the Secretary of State to determine the extent to which the commission should widen the scope of its activities. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, listed a number of subject areas which I considered to be very relevant in that context.
I wanted to stand here with a clear conscience in speaking to the amendments and to convey to the House that I believed they were substantively different from the amendments that we debated and rejected on Report. I believe that I can do so. For that reason, I feel that I can take the opinion of the House.
5.51 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 19) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 100; Not-Contents, 104.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Alderdice, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Kimball, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Lyell, L.

Astor, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Astor of Hever, L.[Teller]

Marlesford, L.

Barker, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bell, L.

Monson, L.

Blackwell, L.

Montrose, D.

Blaker, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Blatch, B.

Moynihan, L.

Boardman, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Bowness, L.

Naseby, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Newby, L.

Burnham, L.

Newton of Brain tree, L.

Buscombe, B.

Noakes, B.

Byford, B.

Northbrook, L.

Caithness, E.

Northesk, E.

Campbell of Alloway. L.

Northover, B.

Chilver, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Clement-Jones, L. [Teller]

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Colwyn, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Plumb, L.

Cox, B.

Rawlings, B.

Craigavon, V.

Rees,L.

Cumberlege, B.

Renton, L.

Denham, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Dholakia, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Roper, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Russell, E.

Elliott of Morpeth,L.

Saatchi, L.

Falkland, V.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Ferrers, E.

Seccombe, B.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Selborne, E.

Freeman, L.

Selsdon, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Skidelsky, L.

Geddes, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Glentoran, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Greaves, L.

Tope, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Trefgame, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Trumpington, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Vivian, L.

Higgins, L.

Walmsley, B.

Holderness, L.

Walpole, L.

Hooper, B.

Weatherill, L.

Howe, E.

Wilcox,B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alli, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Andrews, B.

Chandos,V.

Archer of Sand well, L.

Christopher, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Berkeley, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Bhatia, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Blackstone, B.

Crawley, B.

Borrie, L.

David, B.

Bragg, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Brennan, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Brett, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Brookman, L.

Desai,L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Donoughue, L.

466

Dormand of Easington, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dubs, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Elder, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Mitchell, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Nicol, B.

Filkin, L.

Pendry, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Peston, L.

Gale, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Pry s-Davies, L.

Gilbert, L.

Puttnam, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Grabiner, L.

Rea, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gregson, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Grenfell, L.

Richard, L.

Grocott, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Haskel, L.

Rooker, L.

Hayman, B.

Sawyer, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Sewel, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Sheldon. L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Simon, V.

Hoyle, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Thornton, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Turnberg, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Uddin, B.

Judd, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B

Lipsey, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Whitaker, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Whitty, L.

Wilkins, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, I.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved]
6.1 p.m.
Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 21:
Page 26, line 45. leave out "Primary Care Trusts" and insert "Overview and Scrutiny Committees".
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a very straightforward amendment. It is, in a real sense, consequential upon the amendments carried on Report in relation to patients councils. In line with those amendments, I believe that it makes sense for the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health to operate with reference to the boundaries of local authorities which have overview and scrutiny committees.
That will not always be possible, but if the object is for the commission to provide support to OSCs for their scrutiny function, then it must be desirable for the commission to operate on all fours with patients councils, with which it will be intimately bound up. Clearly, in an area where there is, for example, a large county overview and scrutiny committee, there may be a need, following local discussion, to operate with reference to a smaller area. My amendment allows for that. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am not entirely convinced that now is the right time to debate

467
this issue. My understanding of the amendment passed on Report establishing patients' councils was that the intention was that the councils would take over the functions of the commission at the local level. In Clause 16(4)(a) it is made clear that it will be the function of the patients' council to,
"facilitate the co-ordination of the activities of member Patients' Forums including by the provision of staff and services to Patients' Forums".
I am not clear why the noble Earl thought it important to debate this issue at this stage. I believe that an important element of the Government's proposal is that wherever possible the focus of patient involvement should be at the local level. Surely that means, as far as the health service is concerned, that it will he most appropriately placed in the primary care trust area.
I suspect that the other place will have something to say about patients' councils and your Lordships may be able to debate this matter again fairly shortly. Perhaps we should return to this debate at that time.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am sorry that the Minister feels that way. If we are to have patients' councils, as I hope, it no longer makes sense for the commission to operate within the relatively narrow purview of a PCT. The Minister said that his understanding was that the patients' councils would take over the functions of the CPPI. I do not completely hold with his choice of words. The commission will still have a role. Effectively, it will act as the secretariat to patients' councils, an extremely important role. Nevertheless, de facto I believe that if we have patients' councils the commission will have to operate by reference to overview and scrutiny committees because that is the way in which patients' councils, by and large, will be configured. I am sorry that the Minister does not feel that he can accept the amendment. In the circumstances I shall not press it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 22:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause—
"OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEES
In section 7 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 (c. 15) (health-related functions of overview and scrutiny committees), in subsection (3)(b), at the end there is inserted "or to the relevant authority"."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 23:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause—
"REFERRAL OF CONSULTATION ARRANGEMENTS AND DISPUTED DECISIONS
(1) In section 11(2) of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 (c. 15) (public involvement and consultation) paragraph (a) is omitted and there is inserted—
"(a) The Secretary of State.
(aa) Care Trusts".
468
(2) Before an establishment order for a Strategic Health Authority, an NHS Trust, a Primary Care Trust or a Care Trust is made, varied or revoked the Secretary of State shall consult those bodies in subsection (5) whose districts are wholly or partly within the area of operation of the relevant authority or trust.
(3) Any Strategic Health Authority considering whether to exercise its powers under section 17A of the 1977 Act (health authority directions: distribution of functions) shall first consult the bodies provided for in subsection (5) whose districts are wholly or partly within the area of operation of the relevant Primary Care Trust.
(4) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision—

(a) concerning the application of section 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 such that if in the view of any of the bodies in subsection (5) consultation arrangements are inadequate, the body in question shall refer the matter to him,

(b) for the referral to Strategic Health Authorities of disputed decisions concerning substantial variations or developments in the planning or operation of health services by bodies detailed at subsection (5),

(c) for circumstances in which bodies detailed at subsection (5) shall refer decisions concerning the planning or operation of the health service to him including the circumstances in which referrals shall be made directly to him by Patients' Forums and Patients' Councils on the failure of overview and scrutiny committees to respond to a referral made to them under section 19(2)(m) of this Act, and

(d) placing a duty on him and those bodies receiving referrals to respond to them with a specified time limit and giving reasons for any decision taken in relation to the subject matter of the referral.

(5) Those bodies referred to at subsections (2) to (4) are—

(a) overview and scrutiny committees or joint overview and scrutiny committees provided for in sections 7 (functions of overview and scrutiny committees), 8 (joint overview and scrutiny committees etc) and 10 (application to the City of London) of the Health and Social Care Act 2001,

(b) Patients' Councils,

(c) Patients' Forums."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the arrangements for patient and public involvement concern one matter and one matter alone: accountability. There are two strands to the way in which accountability works, depending on whereabouts in the hierarchy of responsibility action is initiated. Action is initiated either at the top, in which case there has to be consultation at national and at strategic level with local communities, or it is initiated at local level. At local level there are often powers to trigger action at a national level. In those cases there needs to be a right of referral upwards from local communities to national and strategic level.
This amendment, which has been debated on earlier occasions, seeks to preserve those lines of accountability to ensure that national accountability for what happens locally is not compromised. The advent of strategic health authorities, as branch offices of the NHS, means that they must be built into the mechanisms as well. On many occasions the Government have said that overview and scrutiny committees will have rights of referral as robust as those held by CHCs. With great respect to the Minister, at the moment that is not the situation. As I have indicated on previous occasions, the right of

469
referral between local communities and the national government is absent from the Bill and from the Health and Social Care Act. That omission needs to be rectified.
I am delighted that the Minister has tabled Amendment No. 22. That amendment will give overview and scrutiny committees an explicit power to make reports and recommendations to the Secretary of State. However, I do not believe that that amendment is an adequate substitute for the one that we are now debating. I am seeking a robust replacement for the referral powers of CHCs, which is a much wider and a more significant matter. The government amendment gives only a permissive power to overview and scrutiny committees to make referrals. The wording of the relevant part of my amendment stipulates that referring such matters should be mandatory. That wording replicates the wording of the regulations that cover CHC referrals. It is a significant point and there is a significant difference.
We can all too easily imagine a situation where an OSC may he aware of flawed plans or flawed consultations about an important change to the provision of services, yet choose not to refer them, perhaps—dare I say—for political reasons. I touched upon that point at the previous stage of the Bill. To put it mildly, that would not be a satisfactory state of affairs. The word "referral" carries the implication, to my mind, of a two-way dialogue. My amendment puts a statutory responsibility on the Secretary of State to provide a full and timely reply to whatever may be referred to him. That is how proper accountability should work. Making reports and recommendations, as under the government amendment, does not imply that a response is required in the same way as a referral does.
On the face of the Bill we already have a right of' referral by patients' forums to overview and scrutiny committees. If we compare that right with the terms of Amendment No. 22 we can see that it is more robust than the referral mechanism—if I can call it that—from local to national level. I ask why that should be.
Subsection (4) is an attempt to achieve those aims. It also requires the Secretary of State and care trusts to consult. That is especially relevant to specialised commissioning, where currently only the hotch-potch of PCTs will consult. Also, if a Secretary of State ever proposed to abolish a strategic health authority, it would be unreasonable for it to be expected to consult on its own demise. The Secretary of State ought to do that. That illustrates that it is not just health services that can trigger consultation, as the Minister implied earlier. I include care trusts again, not withstanding the Minister's reply last time, because it is far from clear whether a care trust would consider a duty to consult as applying to it once it was established as a new body. It is better to place the matter beyond doubt.
The amendment also requires consultation by strategic health authorities with local communities about the transfer of functions to PCTs. That would be important, for example, where a PCT was not ready to
470
take on such functions and the local community wanted a say in the matter. Last time, the Minister said that the provision in subsection (3) of the new clause was unnecessary, but without it PCTs may be given a completely different remit from the one for which they were established without any consultation. That would be entirely unacceptable.
Last time, the Minister said that he thought that the amendment would overcomplicate the Bill. I hope that I have shown that that is not so and that there are good reasons for every ingredient in it. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 23, moved by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. We welcome government Amendment No. 22 so far as it goes but, like the noble Earl, we believe that it does not go far enough. We make the same distinction as did the noble Earl between reports and referrals, referrals being a much more active process requiring a reply from the body to which the referral has been made.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, put a gloss on the Minister's reply on Report. I shall not repeat the points that he made about care trusts, but he did not put a gloss on some of the Minister's other replies, which it may be helpful for me to take the Minister through. First, care trusts should be specified because there is doubt about whether they are included.
Secondly, the Minister said of subsection (1) of the new clause that it would be only "cosmetic" to include the Secretary of State under the duty to consult because of shifting the balance of power, and so on and so forth. The reason for including the Secretary of State is so that he is forced to put in place appropriate arrangements for consultation on specialised or regional services. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, did not deal with that angle. For example, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, it would be unrealistic to expect a strategic health authority to consult on its own demise if that was proposed by the Secretary of State. That is a strong point that I re-emphasise.
The Minister said that subsection (2) was covered by the government amendment relating to consultation orders for strategic health authorities. He will note that subsection (2) of this new clause goes considerably wider. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, touched on subsection (3). I shall not repeat what he said.
On Report, the Minister said of subsection (4) and the issue of OSCs not having the right to refer:
"We are considering how best to provide for this within the framework of Section 7 of the Health and Social Care Act".
We have dealt with that today, but I hope that it will become clearer. After all, the Minister and his colleague, Hazel Blears, have been considering that since the beginning of the Bill's passage. The Minister said that,
"we shall be able to guarantee that a secure referral mechanism exists within our provisions".—[Official Report, 30/4/02; co1.636]
We welcome Amendment No. 22 on that basis.

471
The Minister summarised Section 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 as providing for people's views and concerns to be "fed into decisions". That is quite different from consultation on substantive issues.
So the Minister did not deal adequately with the points that I and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised. Several aspects of the new clause would be hugely beneficial to the Bill and I hope that he will take the time and trouble to respond to all of them.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, as noble Lords have recognised, we dealt with one of the issues that the amendment attempts to address under Amendment No. 22. I hope that that does not raise too high an expectation of further concessions.
Our amendment gives OSCs an explicit power to refer matters of concern to the Secretary of State—as we said, to put the matter beyond doubt—and subsection (4) of the new clause is intended to strengthen the mechanism for getting the views of OSCs, among others, to the Secretary of State. However, there is no benefit in making the further changes suggested in subsection (4). In fact, to do so would overcomplicate and muddle the arrangements. I shall seek to explain why.
Amendment No. 22 did not deal with the other aspects of Amendment No. 23—namely, the changes to the duty on the NHS to make arrangements to consult and involve the public in its decisions. Again, the amendment is unnecessary. It is unnecessary to include care trusts because, as we have said several times, PCTs and NHS trusts are already listed and care trusts will be either PCTs or NHS trusts. They cannot be anything other than one of those two, so they are already explicitly caught and provided for in the way in which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, wants. They will already be covered by the references to PCTs and NHS trusts.
Secondly, with regard to the Secretary of State, shifting the balance of power to the front line means that responsibility for the planning development and delivery of services is now with the front line. It would be inconsistent then to place a duty on the Secretary of State when the duty is already in place for local bodies—those bodies with responsibility for the services and the relationship with local people to be able to carry out the involvement and consultation activity.
Section 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001, which was referred to, already places a duty on NHS bodies, including strategic health authorities, to consult on services for which they are responsible. Including the Secretary of State under that duty makes only a cosmetic difference.
Subsection (2) of the new clause relates to the Secretary of State consulting bodies representing local patients on the establishment orders of NHS bodies. As noble Lords will know, we have already amended the Bill to cover the consultation of relevant bodies on
472
the establishment orders of strategic health authorities. Subsection (3), which places a duty on strategic health authorities to consult before directing PCTs to undertake their statutory duties surely gives rise to major consultation overload. We would be in danger of so much consultation as to make the process meaningless.
Although we recognise that the new clause attempts to clarify and rationalise the consultation arrangements, it goes far too far in its detail and perhaps muddles the arrangements already provided for.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, spoke about how important it was that overview and scrutiny committees acted with vigour and argued that referrals should be mandatory. I find it hard to believe that the major local authorities—the 150 social services authorities, which are some of the most powerful local authorities in the land—would be inhibited about referring matters to the Secretary of State or elsewhere, if they felt that there was something wrong with healthcare provision or facilities in their area.
The noble Earl made a more substantial point about anxieties that local authorities might, at times, behave in a party political way that might inhibit the vigour of their response. There is no black-and-white answer to that problem. Even if we created a duty to refer, it would not necessarily be meaningful; people can refer things without putting much power into it. The local authorities will have noticed what happened in the case of Kidderminster Hospital and are more alert to the importance of taking seriously the concerns of the local public about health provision and do not think that they can behave along rather crude party lines. I am not necessarily implying that that was what Bromsgrove District Council did in that case.
There has been previous reference to overview and scrutiny committees and how they will develop. The general advice, as I recollect it, was that they should not be whipped. They should give fairly full representation to all political parties, and they will have failed if they fulfil their duties in the kind of party political or partisan way about which the noble Earl was concerned.
The question of whether strategic health authorities would consult about changes in PCT functions was mentioned. There will be no duty of consultation, as such, on the delegation of functions. However, if the shift of functions affects the development of the service and the way in which it is developed, the public will be consulted, under Section 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001. I hope that that gives noble Lords sufficient comfort.
For those reasons—reinforced by what we said today—we believe that there is no need for the amendment. It should not be pressed.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. He repeated many of the arguments deployed last time and said, in particular, that the amendment would give rise to consultation overload. I do not see things in the same light. Consultation is an

473
integral part of the quality agenda. It is integral to proper accountability in the system, which, to their credit, the Government say that they want to achieve.
The overall trend in the Bill and in the Health and Social Care Act 2001 is to make the arrangements for consultation a good deal fuzzier. With CHCs, we have a clear, discernible process; what we are being given is more of a focus-group approach. I am not saying that focus groups do not have their merits. They are—or can be—useful devices. However, if legal duties to consult are lost and if the power of local communities to act against poor consultation or bad decisions is lost, the whole process will be reduced from a power to act to a power merely to talk. That is the background to the amendment. It is not superfluous.
The Minister said that paragraph (2) of the amendment was covered by the government amendment agreed to previously that relates to consultation orders for strategic health authorities. However, that paragraph of my amendment includes NHS trusts, PCTs and care trusts, which are, otherwise, missed out. It also provides for consultations on variations and revocations, not simply establishments. I do not share the Minister's view that it merely replicates the measures that have already been put in place.
In view of the hour, however, I shall not press the matter. The point has been made, and I do not feel that I can say any more. I thank noble Lords who contributed to the debate, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Clause 27 [Complaints about regulatory bodies]:
Baroness Finlay of Llandaffmoved Amendment No. 25:
Leave out Clause 27.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment refers specifically to the clause relating to complaints against regulatory bodies. When the clause was last debated, the Minister pointed out the importance of allowing members of the public to press for an explanation of delays, when they have made a complaint against a healthcare professional. The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, warned against a system that automatically allowed every complaint to come to the council if the complainant was dissatisfied.
The complaints procedures laid out here cause me great anxiety. Each regulator must have an appeals system in place and be able to receive complaints against the way in which it has conducted its business. Within its internal complaints procedure, the regulator must have a system for resolving such complaints. If the complaints are major, the body should—must—have a procedure for external review of its procedures. However, the internal complaints procedure should allow a complainant to return if he feels that his complaint has not been adequately heard or processed. There is no dispute that there must be a system that allows people to come back.
474
The data on such complaints will be contained in the annual report of the regulatory body. If the procedures are not conducted adequately, it will be evident from the report, as will the fact that the standards set for the complaints procedure are not being adhered to. There is now provision for the council to direct a regulator to alter its code of practice through the affirmative resolution procedure. That has already been debated.
If the complainant is not satisfied that the regulator has listened adequately to the complaint about the processes of that regulator, it would be appropriate for the complainant to go then to the health service ombudsman. I am concerned that, if the complaints procedure is internal to the council, the council will receive an inordinate number of complaints that should be dealt with by the individual regulator. It will undermine the council's ability to be an overarching body that can ensure that there is equity in complaints procedures.
My other concerns relate to the fact that there will be different patterns of healthcare delivery in different parts of the United Kingdom. The regulation of healthcare professionals is a reserved power: so it should be. There may be a situation in which a decision is made about a complaint against a healthcare professional acting in a certain way in one part of the United Kingdom, such as Scotland or Northern Ireland, that could, at face value, set a precedent. It could be that a similar-seeming complaint made in England could be treated in the same way, although, in fact, it should be interpreted differently when the relevant regulatory body consider the minutiae of the issue. Decisions are often similar on the surface but turn out to be fundamentally different. Another problem is that under Clause 27(3) and (4), the council will act as a court—over and above the regulators. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, previously alluded to a difficulty in relation to the delicate issues surrounding confidentiality and disclosure. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the noble Baroness raised some important points, with which I sympathise. Clause 27 is something of a Cinderella. We did not discuss amendments to it in Committee because we came to it at the end of the fourth day in Committee and it was getting very late. Also, it was practically the last clause to be discussed on Report. I am not clear that we have discussed all the important issues that arise from the clause.
Clause 27 gives wide powers to the Secretary of State to establish complaints procedures—many of which can override the provisions of the regulated bodies. I refer in particular to Clause 27(2)(g), which allows the Secretary of State to specify what happens in relation to the important area of confidentiality.
On Report, the Minister said that the Government's decision was that Parliament should decide on important and sensitive issues. It is not that simple. Admittedly an order made under the clause will be by the affirmative procedure, but we know that your Lordships' House and another place can do little to

475
orders. We have no ability to amend, so are left with the possibility of rejecting the whole order—which is often taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
The Secretary of State will be the decision maker, which adds to Clause 27 being unsatisfactory, with worrying implications—particularly in relation to important matters that are properly dealt with by the regulatory bodies but which could be overridden. We do not know how the powers will be used. The Explanatory Notes are silent and the Minister has said nothing—certainly not in your Lordships' House—about the Government's intentions. Will the Minister say how and when the Government intend to use the powers in Clause 27? What consultation will there be before those powers are used—and what role does he expect the professional bodies to play in the development of a further tier to the complaints procedure?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am not in a position to give a timetable for which such regulations might be brought before Parliament, but of course there would be full consultation. The regulatory bodies themselves will no doubt play an important role in putting forward their own views.
Clause 27 is one of a number of clauses that develop the theme of the careful balance that we have attempted to strike between the benefits of self-regulation, the role of the regulatory bodies and the overriding public interest. The changes made as the Bill has progressed through both Houses have achieved that balance—which is why the regulatory bodies have expressed satisfaction with the outcome of discussions.
Clause 27 is not to be seen as a means of overturning decisions of fitness-to-practice committees but as a power to investigate maladministration. The noble Baroness suggested that the ombudsman should have a role in relation to the regulatory bodies—but they are not subject to any ombudsmen because they are not government bodies. Our debates would suggest that none of us wishes them ever to be seen as government bodies. If an ombudsman cannot be involved, there is a persuasive argument for the council to carry out that function in relation to maladministration.
While I hold the regulatory bodies in the highest regard, one cannot say that all of them have uniformly been particularly efficient in conducting their own disciplinary cases. In the past, some complainants have been the subjected to long waits, have had little idea about the progress of their cases and have received little information about the process as a whole.
The regulatory bodies themselves recognise those problems and are working hard to put them right—but a backstop is needed, to permit another
476
body to investigate where there is evidence of maladministration. Clause 27 provides that ability. Regulations for its operation would have to be brought before your Lordships' House and be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which will provide sufficient safeguards.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, would the Secretary of State only trigger the powers in Clause 27 if there was evidence of maladministration among the regulatory bodies?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords—I would not say that at all. It is clear that we will wish to establish a scheme and produce the necessary regulations in due course.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for going some way to providing reassurance in respect of the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. I am slightly concerned that the Minister has left the matter so open. I am glad that the concept of maladministration will be the underpinning principle by which Clause 27 could be invoked. There is certainly a need for some form of backstop to protect the public. The Minister is correct when he says that delays in processing complaints cause undue tension and distress. While there are still some gaps left, I am grateful for the Minister's reassurance that there will be limits on the way that Clause 27 is used. I beg leave to withdraw to amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6 [The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 87, line 33, at end insert—
"5A (1) The Secretary of State may direct a Special Health Authority to exercise—

(a) his function of appointing the chairman under paragraph 3, and

(b) any functions conferred on him by regulations made under paragraph 4 in relation to the appointment or the tenure of office of the chairman and the other members.

(2) If he does so, the 1977 Act has effect as if—

(a) the directions were directions of the Secretary of State under section 16D of that Act, and, accordingly,

(b) the functions were exercisable by the Special Health Authority under section 16D."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Mobile Telephones (Re-programming) Bill [H.L.]
6.39 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a short and technical Bill, but it seeks to tackle a fast-growing problem; the theft of mobile phones.
Tackling mobile phone theft is a key to driving down street crime. There is no doubt that the theft of mobile phones is a significant and genuine problem. The Home Office research report, Mobile Phone Theft, published in January 2002 showed that mobile phone theft is fuelling the rise in street robbery. For example, in 2000–01. mobile phones were stolen in 28 per cent of all robberies, compared with 8 per cent three years previously.
In the Metropolitan Police area alone, the percentage of offences where a mobile phone is among the items stolen has risen from 25 per cent in 1999–2000 to 50 per cent in 2001–02. The Home Office has been working with the mobile phone network providers to address the problem of mobile phone theft. We set up a steering group with the police and the industry in January last year to develop an action plan of practical measures.
Significant progress has been made. The Mobile Industry Crime Action Forum, two members of which I met today, agreed earlier this year to share information about stolen handsets. We have encouraged mobile phone operators and retailers to promote security information on their websites and manufacturers to give greater prominence to security advice in their manuals. And we have now issued more than 2 million of the crime prevention leaflets advising on measures to take to avoid mobile phone theft.
I now turn to the specific issue that is addressed by the Bill. We announced in February that by the end of the summer all of the five main network providers will have in place the technology to disable a phone across all networks once it has been reported as stolen.
Mobile phones can be disabled through a serial number on each handset, known as the International Mobile Equipment Identity number—the MEI number. That is a 15-digit number which is programmed into the handset and is also visible on the body of the handset. The number appears on the records of network providers each time the phone is used. Phones reported as stolen will be barred from further use by reference to that number.
Barring the handsets in that way should act as a strong deterrent to the thieves, preventing them from being able to use the phones that they steal. And if they cannot be used, they cannot be sold on—there is no market.
However, barring a handset is not effective if the IMEI number is changed. Changing the number makes it impossible for the operators to track and disable it. At present, it is relatively cheap and easy to change the IMEI number of a mobile phone by using software to reprogramme the handset. Such software
478
is freely available. Indeed, it may he bought or downloaded from the Internet. The police, for example, have seen a promotional leaflet offering for sale a kit which will change an IMEI number in five seconds. The kit costs £145. If the number is changed, a stolen phone reprogrammed in that way can then be sold on the black market.
Existing international security standards state that the IMEI number should not be changed and that it should be resistant to change. We are encouraging the manufacturers to do more to achieve this, but the present position is that numbers cart be changed.
Perhaps I may give a further example to indicate the extent of the problem. BT Cellnet, which is now 0–2, estimated in July 20011 that there were potentially 1–5 million phones on that particular network whose IMEI number had been changed from their manufactured number. The Metropolitan Police and the mobile phone industry found that of a sample of 300 stolen phones only 10 per cent were being re-used with their original IMEI numbers. They concluded that the remaining 90 per cent were either disposed of or, as seems more likely, being reprogrammed. Furthermore—and this is the nub of the reason for the Bill—it is not currently illegal to reprogramme a phone in this way. That is the situation which this narrow and technical Bill seeks to address.
In February, the Government indicated their intention to outlaw the activity at the earliest opportunity as part of the wider package of measures and actions we are developing to help tackle the problem of mobile phone robbery. In the meantime, we are continuing to press manufacturers to stop the problem at source by making it more difficult to change the identity of a handset.
Perhaps I may give the House a further example. Apparently, the most duplicated IMEI number on the BT Cellnet records had been copied no fewer than 9,495 times at the time the information was provided to me. Two days later when it was checked again, a further 18 versions of that number were on the system. There is therefore no question that there is a big industry out there.
I turn to what the Bill will do. It will create a new criminal offence of unauthorised reprogramming of mobile phone handsets. Specifically, it will be an offence to change or interfere with the operation of a phone's unique identifier; that is, the IMEI number. It will also create linked offences of possessing, supplying or offering to supply equipment for that purpose. It will be an offence to be in possession of equipment with the intention of unauthorised reprogramming.
There will be occasions when the manufacturers of a mobile phone will need to change the IMEI number. No offence will be committed if the change is made by manufacturers or with their written consent.
The new either-way offences of changing or interfering with the equipment identifier of the mobile phones without authorisation and possessing or supplying the equipment for that purpose will carry a maximum penalty on indictment of five years'

479
imprisonment, or an unlimited fine, or both. In the magistrates' court, an offender may be punished with six months' imprisonment or a fine of up to £5,000 or both. The offence will be an arrestable offence under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
I accept that the penalties, in particular for what appears to be a non-violent offence, look severe and we make no bones about that. The courts are cracking down on street robbers and those who fuel their activity, and they must expect to be dealt with harshly. Street crime is a problem and we are determined to deal with it.
The creation of the new offences will close the existing loophole and send out a strong signal that Parliament is not prepared to tolerate the activities of those who seek to derive financial benefit from preying on their fellow citizens and abusing the lawful and profitable trade of mobile phones in this way. The mobile phone industry, the police and, I understand, all political parties are behind the initiative.
I fully accept—although I make no promises—that there may not be a large number of prosecutions for the new offences. The legislation will help the police target and catch those involved in the reprogramming of mobile phones. With a telephone number being copied so many times, as in the example I gave, there is obviously an industry out there—one might say a cottage industry but a very big one. We do not believe that any legitimate business will be affected by the Bill. We have established with the industry that there is no legitimate reason for any individual to be involved in reprogramming a mobile phone.
We are determined to do everything we can to stop the theft of mobile phones, which is doing much to fuel robbery and the general fear of crime on our streets. The Bill will close a gap in the law. It does not deal with everything but it is highly targeted. I fully admit that in introducing a Bill beyond the middle of May and hoping that it will become law before the Summer Recess we must be very modest in our intentions; otherwise, Parliament rightly would not stand for it. We have a serious problem on our hands and this is a narrow Bill to deal with a narrow issue—I accept that it does not deal with all the issues relating to the mobile phone industry. In any event, the Bill is not being introduced in isolation because many other issues relating to street crime are being taken forward in a number of other wider initiatives.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Rooker.)
6.48 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the Minister for offering that explanation of why the Bill is necessary. He was right to point out some of the Home Office research into this matter.
No one can be in doubt that we need legislation to curb such criminal activities. However, we need to distinguish between those who steal phones because
480
they are somebody's possession and they do not have one, as against the organised criminals who find that mobile phones are easy to dispose of because there is a market here and abroad and such equipment can easily be converted into currency.
There is an ugly side to such criminal activities which no civilised society can tolerate. In January, we saw headlines in our paper about a mobile phone thief who was jailed for four years with a dire warning that such a sentence would act as a deterrent.
The judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, goes beyond the theft of mobile phones. It is about mugging, violent attacks and the bullying of victims. Of course it is questionable whether prison sentences for young people are effective in preventing such crime. We know that imprisonment does little to provide a deterrent. However, we cannot ignore the fact that according to the British Crime Survey about 470,000 mobile phones were stolen in incidents involving householders in 2000. The figure is an underestimation since the research does not cover commercial targets or incidents involving those under 16.
This must be a worrying trend. It causes a large blip in our crime figures. The fear of crime must never be underestimated. We must add to that factor violence against victims. We know little as to how much of the activity is geared towards converting phone thefts into currency to satisfy a drug culture.
It is for all those reasons that we need legislation to ensure public safety, reduction of this high level of crime and punishment for those who perpetrate such crime. The Bill, therefore, has our broad support.
There are, of course, areas of concern. Children aged between 11 and 15 years account for over half the annual 1 million victims estimated by the police. The Bill does little to address that issue because we are dealing only with legislation which creates a number of offences relating to the electronic identifiers of mobile wireless communication devices and those young people of 11 to 15 years will hardly feature in that category.
It would be impossible to identify how many young people between 11 and 15 years are involved in the process that leads to re-programming of the equipment. I suspect that, like most street crimes, it is more for personal benefit rather than through organised criminal activity that phones are stolen from and by that age group. It would be wrong, therefore, to build up expectations that the legislation would have any effect in that regard but that does not mean that it is not necessary.
We are dealing with the two ugly sides of phone thefts. In the youth offending pattern we need to ensure that there are adequate sentencing guidelines which will deal with the matter in the context of street crimes taking into account the aggravating factor if violence is involved.
Equally, the mobile telephone industry needs to develop a role of public education. I met with the representatives of the Mobile Industry Crime Action Forum and was impressed with the action it is taking.

481
It has created an industry group to address the problems. I understand that there is an agreed equipment identity register. It has undertaken member activity to bring increased awareness of safety issues. It also has a close liaison with the Government and the police on measures to combat this type of crime.
The forum supports the Government's Bill. It will curb the activities of individuals and organised gangs on reprogramming stolen devices, which criminals do with impunity. But there should be a warning for the mobile phone industry as well. In the present days of technological advancement it must invest enough resources to ensure that technology is available to demobilise any stolen property. That cannot be beyond the means of science today. It would be nice to hear what the industry is doing about it.
I do not believe that we should delay this legislation unnecessarily. However, it would be helpful to know the following. Is there any legislation in European Union countries on similar lines to ensure that overseas bases are not used for reprogramming? I take it that we have no jurisdiction over what happens in other European Union countries. Is there any estimate of how widespread the activity of reprogramming is? The Minister was good enough to give some examples. Is this activity limited to some big crooks; or do we take it that almost anyone with know-how can manage to manipulate mobile phones? What consultations are taking place with the mobile phone industry to ensure that there is a programme of public education about the seriousness of using phones which have been tampered with?
Will the Minister explain the rationale underlying the five years' imprisonment? How was that period arrived at? The penalty is severe but I suspect that the maximum would apply only in exceptional cases where widespread recycling of stolen sets was involved. In that case I have no doubt that the custodial option may be appropriate.
We support the Bill. At present no offence directly covers tampering with the unique identification device on a mobile phone. I suspect that there would he a handling offence under Section 22(1) of the Theft Act—for example, dishonest assistance in the retention, removal, disposal or realisation of stolen goods knowing or believing the same to be stolen. I wish the Bill a speedy passage so that we are able to ensure that the level of this crime diminishes in this country.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, it is a pleasure to add my voice in support of the Bill. We shall do what we can to speed through the procedures in this House and send the Bill winging on its way to another place as soon as reasonably possible.
It is a highly technical subject but it is intimately involved with a deep social problem at present: the disastrous increase in street crime. Whether that involves the young stealing for status, the slightly older young stealing to fund a drug habit, or organised crime is neither here nor there. It is a dreadful fact that the
482
advent of the mobile phone, which has been such a blessing in so many ways to so many people., has also become a curse.
The Bill is particularly welcome because it is a keystone in a tide of action over the summer by the industry—manufacturers and service providers—to try to make these wonderful gadgets useless as soon as possible after they are stolen. That is what it is all about. The manufacturers and the service providers have done a remarkably good job. We have heard about the organisation that they have established. I am grateful for the briefing I have received from that body and others. It has helped me to understand the issues.
As the Minister said, the remaining key problem—this little Bill is a keystone in the arch—is that it is possible to reprogramme a mobile phone's unique identification number and the service providers cannot crack that problem.
It is a simple Bill. One could almost say that one has no problems with it. Clause 1 makes the reprogramming of mobile telephones an offence and provides a severe penalty, which I believe is justified. If such reprogramming is an unofficial criminal industry it needs to be stopped. Therefore, the penalties should be severe. Like the Minister, I hope that the number of prosecutions under the legislation will be small. It would be gratifying to find that not everyone was "doing it", as is said. But if people are going to get involved in the activity, they should be aware that the penalties are severe, and rightly so. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, I have some doubts about the five year penal penalty because the prisons are already overcrowded. It seems to me that heavy financial penalties may well be more appropriate, particularly if the activity is a commercial enterprise.
We have difficulties with the wording rather than the principle of Clause 2. In order to modify a mobile phone's unique identification number, the object in the clause which one has to have under one's control is a computer. But we all of us have computers. I quote from the Bill:
"A person commits an offence if he has in his custody … anything which may be used for the purpose of changing or interfering with the operation of a unique device identifier".
The Bill continues,
"and he intends to use the thing unlawfully for that purpose".
The other part of the "thing" that is necessary in order to undertake this criminal activity is a particular type of program on the computer. I do not believe that it is a specific type of program. Regrettably, that can be downloaded from the Internet so that when, under Clause 2(2),
"A person commits an offence if he supplies anything which may be used for the purpose of changing or interfering with the operation of a unique device identifier"
or he offers to supply, that could apply to both the computer and the program. But, as we have heard., the computer can be sold perfectly innocently and properly. It is used almost universally throughout the country. The program is available. Although we can make it an offence in this country to supply, if it is available on the Internet then it will be available. It seems to me that we have a little difficulty here.

483
It comes back to the addition in the Bill of the words "intent" and "belie". I do not know how it is possible to find someone guilty of selling something to a person who intends to use it in an improper way. The purchaser is most unlikely to have confessed to the vendor that that was the intent. For the life of me, I do not see how the vendor could judge such an intent. I think of PC World and Dell which sell computers by the dozen every week. Even though they may make it very plain that the improper use of a computer is an offence, it would be impossible to prevent them selling the computers. Equally, it would be impossible to restrict the availability of the program. As the Explanatory Notes to the Bill state, there are perfectly proper uses for the programs which have nothing to do with criminal activity.
We shall have to look at Clause 2 of the Bill with a view to trying to tighten up the wording. At the moment I do not believe that it would be effective. Clause 1 is fine and the offence is quite clear. If someone is caught in the act of altering a mobile phone's unique identification number, there is no problem. But if one tries to restrict the availability of equipment we should try to tighten up what is on the face of the Bill in order to make it better before we send it to another place. I do not believe that that will be a great task. I am sure that if we put our heads together before Committee stage we should be able to work out something fairly quickly.
As I said, this is an important and welcome Bill. In a sense it is a keystone in the arch of measures setting out to reduce what has turned a blessing to society, as I said earlier in my remarks, into a curse for too many people. Therefore, it is a wholly welcome piece of legislation. I shall be very glad to do all I can both to improve it and to get it through the processes as quickly as possible.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am most grateful for the tone and the content of the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Dixon-Smith, on this Bill. Quite clearly, there will be a Committee stage when we shall deal with some of the issues which have been raised.
Perhaps initially I may deal broadly with some of the points which have been raised. We are not aware of any legislation overseas, but the officials I met this morning from the Department of Trade and Industry stated that they have a plan of action to discuss these matters with overseas governments. Other than our European partners, the key government is the United States of America. If we can get them on board we could be very effective.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, raised a point about severity of sentences. There is a problem with that. In the Bill it is an either-way offence and therefore a distinction can be drawn between individual theft and the activity of organised criminals. It is the latter who receive the tougher sentences or the unlimited fines. It may be that that is the way to hit such people.
484
As regards intent, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, both the police and the Crown Prosecution Service have been fully consulted on the development of the new offences. They are confident that they will be able to mount successful investigations and prosecutions. I can say more about that at Committee stage. The police are fully behind the legislation.
The Bill covers only one aspect of the matter. From August the mobile service providers will be able to make the IMEI number ineffective on all lost or stolen phones. From September it is anticipated that there will be a database shared by the service providers and accessible to the police, which will contain details of all stolen mobile phones. In a way those are extras, but they will provide good armoury. It is hoped that the way the Bill is drafted will take account of the changes in technology. I am not au fait with the technology, but I understand that the new technology is called "blue tooth" technology. I have never heard of the phrase before. I have had it explained to me. It is quite incredible as regards mobile phones. Quite clearly, the future is blue rather than orange but not of a political hue. I am grateful for the remarks of noble Lords and I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Latin America
7.3 p.m.
Baroness Hooperrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what part they intend to play in the EuroLatin American summit planned by the Spanish presidency of the European Union, particularly in view of recent developments in Argentina and Mercosur.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, when I originally tabled this Unstarred Question, the date of the European Union-Latin American Summit was not known. It now transpires that it will take place in Madrid tomorrow. This debate is, therefore, most timely, if a little at the ultimo momento. My apologies go to those approaching the Box who may have been adversely affected as a result.
Perhaps I may also add that this morning I was honoured by being appointed a Companion of the Most Distinguished Order of St Michael and St George for services to UK-Latin America relations.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, this, too, was entirely coincidental, but I feel that this debate is a fitting way to celebrate.
Perhaps I may begin by congratulating the Spanish presidency on its initiative in calling this EU-Latin American Summit. Again, in the light of recent dramatic events in Venezuela as well as those in Argentina, this is a good opportunity to ensure that Latin American countries are aware of European

485
interest and opportunities for trade and investment so that they do not feel that they are solely dependent on the United States.
I hope that the Summit will not be a "one-off" and that a regular EU-Latin American dialogue will continue to take place in future years. I urge and ask the Government to make it clear that the United Kingdom supports such a dialogue and has a useful and important, not to say key role to play in promoting further and better links with Latin America.
Over the past five years Canning House, the Hispanic and Luso Brazilian Council of which I have the honour to be president, has arranged European Union-themed conferences in Brazil, Mexico, Argentina and Chile, which have tied in with the bilateral negotiations for free trade agreements between the EU and Mexico, the EU and Chile and between the EU and the Mercosur countries, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay.
The only such agreement to come into effect so far is the Mexican agreement. The Mexican Minister for the economy, who was in London last week, told me that Mexico's trade with the EU has already increased by 20 per cent as a result. That must be good news. I therefore ask the Government to play a role in ensuring that the negotiations with Chile are concluded as rapidly as possible and that the more complex negotiations with Mercosur are pursued vigorously.
As I understand it. the stumbling block, as ever, in the negotiations is that of the common agricultural policy and its system of subsidies, given that primary agricultural products form a significant element of the economies of all four Mercosur countries.
We all know that further reform of the CAP is—and has been for a long time—high on the UK agenda. Therefore, in this, our interests coincide. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us as to the progress of these important negotiations.
In discussing the EU/Mercosur relationship, it may be of value to examine Mercosur and its members in a little more detail. As a regional organisation, Mercosur—which literally means the southern market—looked to our experience in the Common Market, now the European Union, and started in 1991 (some 11 years ago) with four members—two large and two small: Brazil and Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay. It has since concluded a special association agreement with Chile, and similar arrangements are under discussion with Mexico and Venezuela.
Intra-regional trade increased enormously and tariff barriers have been systematically reduced. Even in the political field there has been benefit. A few years ago, when the incident took place in Paraguay and it looked as though the military were taking over, under the pressure of the other Mercosur partners the country succeeded in maintaining a democratic process. That, too, must be very good news.
Merrcosur has helped its member countries to weather the previous world and regional recessions, and two years ago its member countries could be said
486
to have fulfilled the Maastricht criteria rather better than some European countries. It is true that when Brazil devalued the real by 28 per cent some three years ago, Argentina was adversely affected because of its increased volume of exports to Brazil: its hands were tied because the peso was tied to the dollar. That was not the sole cause of Argentina's present troubles, but it was undoubtedly a factor. But on the whole, Mercosur has proceeded at a cracking pace. I hope that the present troubles, caused largely by the situation in Argentina, will not prevent it from continuing.
The current troubles in Argentina have been a shock to us all. From the UK point of view, we have many special links with Argentina. There was the historic support for the independence movement provided by George Canning to San Marti, and the liberation of the Southern Cone countries at the beginning of the 19th century. There is a long-standing British-Argentine community: there are English-speaking schools; and the English Speaking Union and other such organisations are based there. I have led trade missions there, as have other noble Lords, to promote and consolidate this special relationship and to increase our trade. I very much hope that current British investments, particularly in the energy field—British Gas has an important stake there—as well as in banking and in traditional companies such as ICI, will continue to hang on in there.
Victor Borges, the famous Argentine thinker and writer, once said:
"To understand Argentina you have to understand Europe—Argentina is a country of European exiles".
Europe must stand by Argentina as it goes through its present agonising period of reconstruction and reorganisation, and we must be constructive in our suggestions.
We must remember that, for example, an individual living in Buenos Aires enjoyed a lifestyle very similar to ours. There is a strong middle class in Argentina. They, as well as the increasing numbers of people below the poverty line—with real levels of unemployment at 30 per cent in some places—are having a very bad time. I do not think it is too dramatic to say that it could happen to us. Life in Argentina was very good. It is very sad to think what is happening now.
We are all looking to the IMF to provide a solution. Perhaps the IMF should have done something three years ago, when Brazil devalued its currency. Perhaps the provisions of Chapter 11 should have come into play at that stage. My suggestion, therefore, is that the Government should press our European partners not only to stand by Argentina in this crisis but to look more generally at the way in which the IMF operates and reacts, so that preventive action can be encouraged before it is too late.
Because of the time factor, I have dwelt on the countries which are the particular focus of my Question. However, there are many issues affecting Chile, Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela and the Central American countries which will doubtless arise

487
at the summit—such as the prevention and containment of the narcotics trade, as regards which Britain, as a consumer country, is working with many of the producer countries. There are the law and order issues, where again we can co-operate and exchange ideas for best practice. There are endless cultural opportunities. The British Council plays a very positive role in that respect, as does Canning House. We look forward in particular to the Aztec exhibition which is due to take place at the Royal Academy in November this year, and which we hope will be opened by President Fox of Mexico. It will be the largest collection of Aztec art and artefacts ever to be put on show.
Given my admitted partiality for the region, perhaps I may be permitted to summarise by saying: the good news is that the democratic processes remain in place in all these countries. Inflation remains under control. Looking at the broad picture, it is interesting to note that foreign direct investment continues to flow into the region and portfolio investors, encouraged by greater global liquidity, are recognising the good value that can be found in companies in Latin America. The collapse of Enron has perhaps shown that even major groups in the developed world are not without risk; and in terms of emerging markets, Latin America is a star. I feel sure that the Government, and particularly the Minister with responsibility for Latin America, Denis MacShane, will make this known and will improve on the position.
In conclusion, perhaps I may thank all those who will contribute to the debate and say how much I look forward to the Minister's reply. I hope that we may receive some feedback from the summit meeting in due course.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House—those present and those absent in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on the honour accorded her today. It is a signal recognition of all that she has done over so many years to promote relationships between our country and South America. It is also a recognition of the depth of the relationships that have extended over centuries between our two regions.
This is an important debate. Of all the nations outside the British Commonwealth (England and its ex-colonies) the one European nation which has the greatest connection with the developing world is Spain. It is a happy coincidence that the Spanish presidency should coincide with the Latin American summit this weekend. It is a happy coincidence not only culturally but economically.
The two topics that I wish to raise for consideration are, first, business and, secondly, people. In regard to business, it should be noted by the rest of South America that the two countries, Mexico and Chile, with which the European Union has reached economic accords, have achieved that result by free market
488
development, economic and political stability and a firm intention to develop their countries' economies towards Europe as well as north towards America.
Mexico and Europe have over £1 billion of trade a year. Some 23 per cent of Mexico's foreign investors are European companies. It is a country which can look forward to a confident future with the help of Europe, as can Chile.
That example should be followed by the interregional contact established between the European Union and Mercosur. From the many meetings that have taken place, there now appears to be a finality to the future arrangements in terms of political dialogue, economic co-operation and the promotion of common business interests.
There are two aspects that I would emphasise. If it works, the Mercosur example should be followed by the Andean countries and it should act as an encouragement to Mexico and the Central American countries which are themselves considering a common market arrangement in that part of the world.
The one sector in which this country should play its part in developing its European contacts with South America is the energy sector. Petrol and gas exploration, which is central to our national economy domestically and abroad, is a major element of future investment and development in South America. Britain should play its part nationally and through Europe.
All in all, Europe works well with South America, a relationship promoted in particular by this country and Spain. Business works only if those participating in it share common values and common trust. I shall refer to two countries whose people need co-operation from our end in a very important way. The first is Colombia. That blighted country has 1·5 million displaced people, of whom more than 1 million are children. Those internal refugees are living in dire circumstances. Europe has a major programme, of which we should be proud. We should ask yet more of it to help that country.
I turn finally to Argentina. It beggars belief that the fourth or fifth richest country in the world at the end of the Second World War should be in its present disastrous condition. How could it happen? There are many theories and many beliefs. But it is solutions we should be looking for, not explanations. Nearly half the population of an educated and civilised country are living in poverty or near poverty. The middle class is on its knees. It is a country whose people have no confidence whatever in either politicians or public institutions.
That terrible state of affairs demands our help. It is difficult to know precisely how such help can be given, but Europe is an obvious source of rescue for a country whose people deserve it whatever we think of its politicians who have produced the present situation.
Those are two examples of countries in a continent experiencing much difficulty but where great hope still exists. It is a hope that Europe should nurture, both in business and with regard to people. How far we in Europe have come with those in the Americas! Many

489
years ago my Spanish wife asked an Irish relative of mine the word in Irish for mañana to which he replied that there was no word that embraced such a sense of urgency.
The Government's timing is most efficient. Our debate is taking place on the day before the international conference. I hope that our comments will be heard and that my noble friend the Minister will tell us in due course that the United Kingdom will play a full part in European Union efforts to improve business and the progress of the people in South America.
7.24 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, in offering my sincere congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on her honour, which is very much deserved. She and one or two others have kept the flag of Latin America flying in the House and she thoroughly deserves the acknowledgement that she has now achieved for all her work here and in Latin America.
I also welcome the role of the Spanish presidency and the Euro-Latin American Summit. In the early days of the European Community the United Kingdom was regarded as particularly well placed to keep open the channel of communication between Europe and the United States—Norte America in Latin American parlance.
Now Spain can demonstrate its special role vis-à-vis Latin America, which is a sub-continent that some people in this country and in this place feel has been somewhat neglected by us in modern times. I remember being in Cuba, where Spanish colonial rule is a good deal more recent than in other parts of Latin America, and admiring the way in which the Spaniards could swim through those dangerous currents and conduct good commercial relationships with that difficult country.
This initiative can be seen in different ways, both in Latin America and the European Union, as a recognition of the substantial social and economic strength of the region. It is an indication that the EU and its members could provide another powerful partner to balance the United States, or as the culmination of a number of trade negotiations that have been running for some time, either bilaterally, as with Chile, or with Mercosur, the negotiations of which have been described in great detail.
I remind the House that during his visit to Brazil in August last year the Prime Minister said that the EU should overcome its old practices of farm subsidies and trade barriers which disrupted the economy and hurt developing countries. Do the Government now feel that a treaty with Mercosur is still available, if not immediately, then in the fairly short term, especially as a similar sort of arrangement appears to be on the verge of being successfully concluded with Chile?
A major source of concern for all participants in the summit must be the current parlous condition of Argentina financially, economically and politically. Banks have closed or been suspended; the currency has
490
plunged against the dollar and is not in use as a means of exchange in some parts of the country. The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, reminded us that Argentina was one of the most powerful and richest countries in the world not that long ago. Output is expected to decline by 10 to 15 per cent this year. The numbers of unemployed and the poor grow and the political processes seem incapable of resolving such situations. One must ask what others can do. I want to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, in asking whether the UK Government think that any action on behalf of the EU could assist Argentina in its current plight and what such action might be. Are proposals of support expected to come out of this summit? If so, what conditions might be required of Argentina in terms of better governance?
Argentina is not the only country in Latin America which faces difficulties. In Colombia a drug-fuelled war still rages. The Government of Venezuela have recently been badly shaken, although they may yet reestablish themselves. Peru, Ecuador, Paraguay and Bolivia are still very poor, although they are no longer among the poorest nations in the world.
Vincente Fox, the first non-PRI president of Mexico for 70 years, is not finding it easy to bring in the tax, constitutional and economic reforms with which he wanted to modernise and transform his country.
Cuba still manages to defy the US embargo, which is now 40 years old, and still, by its very existence, causes ripples of unease as neighbours pick their way between Castro and Uncle Sam. In fact, it would be interesting to know whether Fidel Castro has been invited to this conference; and, if so, whether he will attend. He is one of the least travelled and longest serving heads of state in the world today.
However, one should not allow doom and gloom to dominate one's view of Latin America. As has already been said, its people have a strong dose of what one might call "Europeanism". They are well educated in comparative terms. When I lived in Peru 30 years ago, I remember being convinced—with some reason—that there would he more illiterate people in Peru and in all of Latin America, both as a percentage of the population and in absolute terms, by the end of the century than was the case at that time. I have been proved completely, and thankfully, wrong. Widespread education provision is available to a large percentage of the population in all the Latin American countries.
People in Latin America have also achieved much in other ways; for example, access to clean water, which is always a guide to health, is widely available. Indeed, the majority of the population in most of its countries now have access to clean water. Moreover, the use of contraceptives has increased enormously and infant mortality has significantly reduced in the recent past. These countries have a great deal to offer to the world, even if they sometimes seem curiously unable to preserve a stable government for any useful length of time. There must be something that we can do to assist them—we, who represent some of the most powerful, rich and reasonably well-governed countries —to play

491
their full part in the world and to maintain good relations with us. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the United Kingdom will play a full part in the summit to promote such ideas.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness concludes, perhaps I may inform her that according to Spanish press reports President Castro of Cuba applied for a visa at the Spanish embassy the day before yesterday.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, sometimes President Castro is not as quick on the draw as one might suppose. Let us hope that he makes it to the summit.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for instigating this debate. I am pleased to intervene briefly in my capacity as secretary of the British-Argentine Parliamentary Group. The noble Baroness is our distinguished vice-chairman. I am delighted to join other speakers in congratulating her on her honour. Her work in the region has been outstanding over many years. It is very gratifying to see her recognised in this way.
As my noble friend Lord Brennan said, the economic and social difficulties facing Argentina are immense, and, for us, their scale is difficult to comprehend. They have had nearly four years of recession, a reduction of 4 per cent in its GDP in 2001, an unemployment rate of over 20 per cent, and one-third of the population is now living in poverty. That is the background against which the government of President Duhalde took office.
Many of us who are happy to be regarded as friends of Argentina and its people looked on in disbelief at the television coverage over Christmas of civil disorder, looting of shops, and other displays of public fury at the consequences of economic collapse, especially those affecting the value of savings deposited in the banks. It must have crossed many people's minds—it certainly crossed mine—that a return to military dictatorship might not have been very far away. But, thankfully, that has not happened, and the democratic system remains in place.
The institutions of the country, law and order, and democracy have survived, despite awful recent events. Elections are planned for September of next year, and we must hope that they take place. The only form of destabilisation that we hope has applied in Argentina relates to the national football team, certainly as far as concerns the forthcoming match on 7th June. However, we should all hope that the adoption of a flexible exchange rate system, the devaluation of the peso, and the other measures that have been put in place, succeed in helping Argentine products regain their competitive edge in international markets, and provide an economic recovery largely led by exports. In this fragile situation, the last thing that Argentina needs is any resurgence of protectionism on the part of
492
its principal trading partners; namely, the United States and the European Union. I shall return later to the issue of protectionism.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said, Mercosur is an enormously important and potentially attractive economic block. It has a population of 209 million inhabitants, with a combined GDP of 1·071 billion dollars. It is the most important integrated market after NAFTA, the European Union, and Japan.
The performance of Mercosur in promoting regional trade and integration has already been impressive. Between 1990 and 2000 trade within the group grew by 328 per cent, from 4·1 billion dollars to 17·7 billion dollars. Outside the group, Mercosur trade with the rest of the world increased by 178 per cent during the same 10-year span. In particular, European Union exports to Mercosur rose by 254 per cent in that period.
The bloc has also succeeded in attracting foreign direct investment to its member countries with one of the best performances among emerging markets after China. Argentina alone received 98·7 billion dollars of total foreign investment between 1994–2001, and European Union countries were the leading investors with an inflow of 53·1 billion dollars—which accounts for 54 per cent of the total.
Trade and economic bilateral relations between Argentina and the United Kingdom have also benefited from the development of Mercosur. British companies that invested in Argentina have been able to use that as a base from which to expand business in the wider regional market. If the Argentine economy stabilises itself, as we all hope it will, Mercosur will be a very attractive market for encouraging trade and investment opportunities with European Union countries generally. When he replies, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to say that the Government will do their best to promote this within the Community, especially at the forthcoming conferences.
Mercosur is playing an important part in helping to set up the Free Trade Area of the Americas (the FTAA), following the summit held in December 1994 in Miami attended by heads of state and governments of the 34 democracies in the region. The aim is to complete negotiations for the single market by January 2005, and eliminate barriers to trade and investment. The FTAA could create a market of 780 million inhabitants, 10 trillion dollars of GDP—that is, one-third of the world's GDP—and more than 20 per cent of world trade.
Mercosur is also engaged in negotiations with the European Union, with the aim of achieving gradual and reciprocal trade liberalisation. This follows a framework treaty signed in Madrid in 1995. The ultimate aim is to establish a free trade area with the European Union. In the sixth round of negotiations held in Brussels last year, Mercosur presented a proposal asking the EU to adopt a number of measures to eliminate trade barriers that affected bilateral trade, such as agricultural export subsidies.

493
Indeed, the noble Baroness referred to the common agricultural policy and the block that that is imposing at present on this sort of important development.
The second European Union-Mercosur summit in Madrid offers a great opportunity to give a new impetus to the bilateral trade and economic negotiations process, so that it will then be possible to move on to the next stage of the negotiations. It is very much in Europe's interest to speed up the process, because a free trade zone stretching from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego could give the United States a huge competitive advantage in the region, if that was at the same time accompanied by trade liberalisation between Mercosur and the European Union. I hope that my noble friend will agree with that and confirm that the Government see themselves as having a role to play in providing a bridge between the EU and Latin and South America.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, it will come as no surprise to your Lordships' House that I believe that Her Majesty's Government should play a major part in the Euro-Latin American Summit. Our deep-rooted and longstanding historical ties of friendship and trade provide us with a solid foundation for our relationship with Latin America. In the 19th century, British engineers in Latin America built ports and railways, and British entrepreneurs provided capital to finance foreign trade and to launch the oil industry. In more recent years, the work of the British Council and the BBC World Service, as well as trade organisations such as the Latin American Trade Advisory Group, the UK/Brazil Joint Business Council and the UK/ Colombia Trade Facilitation Group—in addition to Europe's generalised system of preferences and a series of EU horizontal programmes, as well as the EU cooperation strategy—have brought us much respect in the region and have succeeded both in bringing our business communities together and in establishing, cultural, social, economic and political contacts.
In an interdependent world, all countries face common challenges: how to compete and prosper in a world economy; how to halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction; how to prevent terrorism and stop the production, trafficking and consumption of drugs; how to reconcile economic growth with the sustainable use of shared natural resources; how to protect our environment; and, critically, how to strengthen at home and abroad the rule of law and democracy upon which foundations are built for future security, stability and prosperity.
The countries of Latin America, and Mercosur in particular, are natural partners in seeking to address these challenges. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to outline the Government's policy goals and the means by which these goals will be achieved with this in mind. These policy goals should include not only trade and economic issues but also the promotion of democratic institutions and respect for human rights; the improvement of judicial systems to ensure they deliver transparent, equitable justice; the fight against drugs and transnational crime; the
494
importance of sustainable development and the encouragement of sound environmental practices; and the substantial reduction of poverty through growth and job creation, as well as assistance in the creation of better health and education systems.
For the sake of brevity, I shall concentrate my remarks on a number of key themes which I believe to be a priority in Europe's relationship with Latin America today. Economic liberalisation and free trade are two of the pillars upon which the architecture of a market economy are built. Britain has long been one of the foremost advocates of efforts to liberalise world trade and pursue transatlantic and global free trade. As long as trading blocs are inclusive and not exclusive and as long as the development of trading relations within blocs is not at the expense of economic relations with the outside world, regional integration is to be welcomed. NAFTA, Mercosur, the Andean Pact, the Group of Three, the Central American Common Market and a host of European multilateral and bilateral free-trade agreements are all evidence of the vigour with which Latin American economies have embraced the principles of liberalisation and open markets.
Indeed, Mercosur, the common market of the southern cone, is now the fourth largest trading bloc in the world, identified by I he Export Forum as one of the key target areas for the United Kingdom Like the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, I hope that the Minister is equally confident that the aim of a free trade area of the Americas will contribute to greater growth in the region and wider opportunities for trade.
One key matter of importance to those attending the Euro-Latin American Summit is democratic development. I hear what my noble friend Lady Hooper has said—I also congratulate her most warmly on her honour—but neither democracy nor prosperity can endure unless they are broadly based. The policies of free markets and open investments which are the key to sustained growth will not be fully unlocked while people feel shut out or left behind. Fairness before the law is not an option for some while institutional weaknesses remain. As in some parts of Asia, a booming economy can be hijacked by corruption and lack of transparency and accountability.
I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to say what initiatives the Government propose to take with our European colleagues to encourage the development of democratic institutions, legal systems, reliable civil services and higher levels of citizen participation, so that the region's economic success is firmly underpinned by a higher level of democratic development, a robust civil society and a broad-based middle class.
I should like in conclusion to say a few words about drugs. The global drug industry is particularly associated with the cartels of Latin America. I applaud the steps the countries of the region have taken to cut coca production, criminalise money laundering and permit extradition. However, the evil of drug abuse knows no borders. It is incumbent upon us to continue

495
to provide counter-narcotics assistance to Latin American countries both bilaterally and through international organisations such as the European Union in order to reduce the tragedies caused by the abuse of drugs both in the United Kingdom and the region.
Colombia is a country in the front line of the fight against drugs and the war against drugs traffickers. Some 80 per cent of the world's cocaine supply is produced in Colombia or transits that country. It therefore must be a top priority to tackle the problem at source in Colombia, for what happens to the drugs trade in Colombia affects every government involved in the battle to stamp out drugs. I echo the reflections of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, on this subject.
As I have said before in this House, Europe and Latin America have a joint interest in political stability, the promotion of democracy, the security of our investments and in further developing a thriving and growing trade partnership. I say to the Minister that Latin America, and in particular Argentina at this time, offers a compelling case for closer, active British and European engagement. I look forward to his response.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on her new honour. As has been said, as president of Canning House, she has worked assiduously to improve relations between this country and Latin America. She must be very pleased about the happy coincidence of the honour bestowed on her, today's debate, and the very high profile now assumed by relations between the European Union and Latin America, as demonstrated by tomorrow's prime ministerial-level meeting in Madrid. I understand that, as has been said, that meeting will be starting at 9 am mañana
Perhaps I can illustrate the work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, by giving one small example. After a parliamentary delegation of which I was a member returned from Bolivia, a group of us, with the noble Baroness, held a meeting with the director of the British Museum, to see whether we could ensure that the right contacts were being made with the Andean ambassadors in relation to the creation of a gallery of Andean civilisation. We shall be delighted to see that project going forward soon. Incidentally, Bolivia is, I think, the one country that straddles Mercosur and the Andean Pact. Cultural tourism in the Andes is not yet quite the thing for the grey generation, but I am quite sure that it will develop as one of the most sought-after experiences.
As I am mentioning distinguished colleagues in this field, I am delighted to see that my speech will be followed by that of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, who could forget 99 per cent of what he knows about the subject and still know a lot more about it than I do.
496
Following preceding comments, I shall briefly contrast Bolivia with Colombia. When we were in Bolivia, it was said that the elimination of coca growing by the peasants, and the reduction of smuggling of the drug, was costing the country 500 million dollars annually in lost trade. The EU and the US helped fill the gap of 500 million dollars by giving 50 million dollars each.
While we were in Bolivia Plan Colombia was announced under which the US provided 3 billion dollars to Colombia. Some Bolivians asked us rather plaintively, indeed, rather resentfully, "Do we have to cause as much trouble as Colombia to get that sort of money"? I am afraid that the answer is "Yes". It is rather like the upside down world experienced recently in the Balkans where the EU is still spending 1 billion euros on aid but 5 billion euros a year on ongoing military security expenditure. The Foreign Secretary and the United Nations have adopted an imaginative new outlook as regards the new programme of considering failing states before they become a mess. That constitutes an important challenge to the world community; namely, how to approach such a matter with some delicacy as we cannot always sweep up at enormous expense when the real job is to make sure that good governance is taken forward. I pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, as regards Bolivia and the Andes, where the key to success concerns the economics of alternative employment.
It has been said that the developments between the EU and Latin America are reversing the famous Canning dictum which states, if I may paraphrase, that the time has come for the old world of Europe to redress the balance of dominance in Latin America of the United States. That is certainly an idea whose time has come. I argue that the model of Europe—in my case that of Jacques Delors although that does not reflect everyone's view—is far more relevant to Latin America than the American model. The social dialogue that takes place between the EU and Mercosur is a good example. There are a number of reasons for that—language has been mentioned—but the ethnic/religious range of experience is also relevant. That dialogue has made it easier for us to visit many of the Latin American countries. I wish to put on record the thanks of the TUC delegation that recently visited Colombia for the help provided by the Foreign Office. It is never easy to meet imprisoned trade union leaders.
My limited experience leads me to believe that there is scope for greater EU cohesion—I hope that the Minister will comment on the matter—as regards missions in Latin America in 15 countries from 15 EU countries. I believe that that adds up to 225 delegations. We do not need so much duplication of experts on water supply, for example. Latin America could be used as a test bed as regards joint EU missions. I hope that that point will be commented on.
I hope that the Minister will also comment on the EU "road map". In parts of eastern, central and south eastern Europe the EU "road map" is not seen as a threat or the EU as a potential protectorate. It is rather

497
like the thing that you fling in the back seat of the car that you pick up when you have lost your way. Even when you think that you are going in the right direction you occasionally look at it. I was interested to note that Chris Patten, in introducing the summit, talked about the launch of the euro, the common foreign and security policy and the beginnings of autonomous military capacity in Europe. He mentioned those matters alongside an enormous range of events leading up to the summit in Madrid and the negotiation of association agreements between the EU and Mercosur and the EU and Chile and so on.
I refer to Argentina in comparison with Brazil. I very much echo the comments of my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester in that regard. However, it was not so long ago that we did not make any distinction between Argentina and Brazil. President Cardoso was in London recently. I refer to a most fascinating presentation at Canning House showing the enormous social progress and the doubling of productivity and of social provision in Brazil in the past 10 years when inflation was 40 per cent at the start of that period. It now has virtually 100 per cent education provision and AIDS is declining. It would be useful to discuss how some of the elements of that successful model could form part of the ELI contribution at the summit to promote the development in a positive direction of all of the economies of Latin America.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, whose remarks about the desirability of Latin America following a European example seem to me to deserve much attention.
I had the distinct impression that when I had the honour of joining your Lordships' House some 21 years ago the only contact there seemed to be between Latin America and this legislature at Westminster was a distant recollection of a comparison made by Disraeli who said that the Treasury Bench in another place reminded him of,
"one of those marine landscapes not very uncommon on the coasts of South America. You behold a range of exhausted volcanoes. Not a flame flickers on a single pallid crest. But the situation is still dangerous. There are occasional earthquakes, and ever and anon the dark rumbling of the sea".
The late Lord Beaconsfield, I should advise your Lordships, had more imagination than experience of Latin America. Things have changed. Judging from the number of distinguished noble Lords who are taking part in this debate, matters have changed radically. Some noble Lords may recall the commercial relations of this country in the 18th century when more Members of this House were shareholders of a South Sea company specially designed to trade with the Spanish empire than were not, but most of us will think of more modern and desirable commercial opportunities for the present.
Some of us, especially those interested in an ethical foreign policy, will recall how Britain led the way in the 19th century to end the slave trade to Latin America and may even recall that Lord Palmerston was wont to
498
say in his last years that the one thing he was really proud of was ending the slave trade to Brazil. Many noble Lords will recall—as did the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan—how Canning helped Spanish American independence. Others will recall the number of British volunteers who fought for Bolivar, particularly in Venezuela at the battle of Carabobo. Others will remember how a Member of this House no less, Lord Dundonald, when he was Admiral Cochrane, founded the navies of two Latin American countries.
Other noble Lords will be reminded when thinking of Argentina how once that country was considered to be the sixth dominion and others—this has been touched on—will not be oblivious of the fact that the oil of Mexico carried here by Lord Cowdray seemed to secure victory in the First World War. I am even tempted to remember how two Lords, the third Lord Albermarle and his brother, Admiral Lord Keppel, captured Havana in 1762 and launched Cuba on a rapid era of economic development. I shall address that subject in a lecture in Havana later this year.
We know that Latin America is composed of old if not always of close friends. As for the future I have eight matters which we should think about in relation to this fascinating continent. First, the history which I have mentioned should be remembered by officials, politicians and businessmen as, for Latin Americans, the history of the British and European relations with Latin America in the past will not be forgotten. Secondly, we should be inspired by the fact that, despite border disputes and a reputation for violence in Latin America and despite refugees, which have been mentioned, interstate wars have practically never occurred. It seems to me that the last interstate war in Latin America was the War of the Pacific in the 1880s, unless we include —1 do not really think that we should—Castro's attempts to overthrow other Latin American countries by terror in the 1960s.
We might also note that despite the fact that there is a multitude of peoples in Latin America—I believe that there are more than 50 separate peoples in Mexico alone, speaking different Indian languages— there is remarkable racial harmony. The Zapotecs and Mixtecs in Mexico might well be able to give Europeans a lesson in harmony. I refer not only to the Balkans. Race relations in general also continue to be relatively harmonious, even in Brazil and Cuba, which have large black populations. Even before the revolution, and probably after it, Cuba has had a relatively good record in terms of black/white relations.
I turn to literature. Surely someone should mention it. The great writers of Latin America include, for example, the late Octavio Paz, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Mario Vargas Llosa, Carlos Fuentes and Guillermo Cabrera Infante, a Cuban Englishman whose naturalisation papers I had the honour to sign. All of them exert considerable influence over the intellect and the imagination of Europeans.
Where too would Europe be, I ask noble Lords, without Latin American music, from the bolero to the salsa?

499
The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, referred to the Aztec exhibition, which will be held in the Royal Academy later this year. In saying that noble Lords should go and see it, I should declare an interest: one of my sons, Isambard, designed the catalogue and I myself have written an essay for it.
I should refer to Mercosur and drugs, to new democracies and to new opportunities for commercial undertakings. Although I probably could do so, I shall leave that to others. In the short time that I have at my disposal, I conclude by recalling a point that is perhaps equally important. There was a 17th-century saying in Spain that if someone is very good mannered, they are as polite as a Mexican Indian. This House believes that manners make the man. That courtesy, so characteristic of Latin Americans, is now not confined to Indians but extends through all parts of the racial make-up of the continent. That is another reason why we should feel pleased and proud of our growing affectionate attachment to our Latin American cousins.
8.3 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I never thought that I would be able to lay claim to the mantle of Disraeli. However, I speak of Latin America with more enthusiasm, if not imagination, than expertise. It is particularly daunting to follow such a magnificent tour de force, delivered in such celebratory language. The spirit of this debate is celebratory indeed. I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness on a magnificent honour, which is magnificently deserved. It is good to share in that this evening.
I am afraid that almost immediately I shall plunge the House into gloom. I thank the noble Baroness for giving us an opportunity to voice celebration and concern about the future of Latin America. As many noble Lords have said, this debate takes place during turbulent times. Even if we had not had the coincidence of the Madrid Summit, this would have been an extremely timely moment at which to discuss Latin America.
Far be it from me to talk about Europe—that has already been magnificently covered—but the European Union has been building links with Latin America since its inception. During the past decade we have celebrated and rejoiced as Latin America and Europe have grown closer together—we have doubled our trade and we have begun to build up agreements with Mexico, in particular, Chile and of course Mercosur. Those are the foundations for a much better future.
It is not simply in response to their roles as major trading partners that we should be concerned about the collapse of the Argentinian economy, the peace talks in Colombia or the chaos in Venezuela. We should also reflect on what those traumatic events mean for our international and Atlantic relationships and our hopes for building stronger civil societies. Even without the Madrid Summit we should surely be concerned, if we are to meet our own international
500
development targets, that after a decade of reform and democracy income equalities are still widening across Latin America. Two in five people in Latin America live on less than two US dollars a day—that is, 168 million people—and 77 million of them live on less than one US dollar a day. Moreover, 80 per cent of all the indigenous people fall into that category. Fuelling that continuing poverty, particularly in Central America, is the failure to ensure that education reaches the poorest.
The debate asks the Government what role they intend to play in the summit. I believe—I absolutely follow the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, in this respect—that we should ensure that at the first opportunity the summit should celebrate and promote the great economic and social diversity. Far more people know about the violence and the salsa than about the great liberal traditions and the great literature. It should also make it crystal clear that investment in Latin America—and in greater social protection and civil society—is not an act of international charity but a global safeguard. The EU's own five-year regional strategy document makes it clear that the political challenge internally in Latin America is to consolidate democracy and the rule of law and that the international challenge is to encourage the capacity of the countries of the region to take a more active part in international policy.
Those must be the priorities, because unless Latin American countries become more involved in international discourse and international action, we will never win against international terrorism or global poverty, as we want to do. We need the intelligence, the humanity and the practical experience that Latin America can bring in that respect.
I hope that the UK would will work hard to ensure that the summit takes every opportunity to respond to the "deepening gloom" across Latin America. I hope that we will make a positive and optimistic response to that by taking the lead in promoting an enhanced commitment to building democracy. It is time to reinforce what we can do. For 10 years we have rejoiced in the growing democracies. That would not have been possible without the courage and determination of the people of Chile, Venezuela or Argentina. The agreements that we have created bear witness to the relationship between economic growth and democracy in the democratic clauses that are attached to the agreements.
However, the reality check is that after decades of collaboration and support, economic growth has not meant better lives for the poorest. Human rights, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, still have a fragile hold in many countries in Latin America. The debacle in Venezuela, with the attempted overthrow of President Chavez, the continuing trauma in Argentina and the festering corruption and violence witnessed in Central America are all evidence of how fragile those democracies are. I endorse all of the calls that have been made for us to stand by Argentina as best we can.
I hope that our Government will take every opportunity at the summit to raise the confidence of European investors as a whole, but also to commit to

501
a practical and realistic programme with robust systems of accountability, particularly for technical, social and educational assistance.
I hope that we will give a special priority to educational assistance. Unless we do that, neither aid nor trade will ultimately make a difference in the long run. The needs are immense: more resources for more schools, particularly in the rural areas; more teachers and teacher trainers; more vocational trainers; more technicians and engineers; more advisers; and more appropriate technologies. In the short term I think of the gifted and dedicated Argentinian teachers I know. They look to Europe for advice and support. Although they are now living off their savings, they continue to teach, despite not having been paid, because they know that the future of their children is their only future. I think of the very bright children whom I have seen in remote areas of Guatemala and Honduras who are taught in schools which have bare walls, a few benches and hardly any resources to speak of and yet who believe that the future is for them. Therefore, I hope that the summit will make a priority of meeting their human rights through education.
I also hope that it will recognise that attaching a democracy clause to trade agreements means having to take action when there are defaults on human rights. I hope that it will mobilise the range of investment that is needed for greater equality as well as greater growth. Above all, I hope that Chris Patten is right when he says that the summit,
"provides a high profile platform to make a substantial joint contribution to stabilising the international environment, economically as well as politically".
8.10 p.m.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on receiving her honour and on initiating such a wide-ranging and timely debate. I hope that she feels rewarded by the knowledge that has been deployed in the debate and by the evident interest in and feeling for Latin America that has been displayed by all who have spoken so eloquently about its needs.
In this country, despite our recognition of Latin America's trading importance and our interest, and the interest of successive governments, in promoting democracy and human rights there, too often, after the high drama has been played out, the press loses interest. Therefore, I believe that this debate is valuable, coming as it does on the eve of the most welcome Spanish initiative in holding the Euro-Latin American Summit in Madrid. It gives Europe an opportunity to develop the co-operation which was begun across a wide front on foundations laid in Rio in June 1999.
The EU is the first trading partner of Mercosur, Chile and the Andean group. The decade from 1990 saw a doubling of European Union trade with Latin America, with exports from Europe reaching 54.5 million euros. European firms have played a significant role in the privatisation process. Between 1996 and 1999 the European Union became the largest source of direct investment in Latin America.
502
We also welcome the progress in the negotiations on liberalising trade. Those have already extended to agricultural exports with Mercosur and Chile. II hope that, in replying, the Minister will he able to say something on the progress made in the April talks in Buenos Aires, particularly on political co-operation and trade facilitation measures.
With regard to Mercosur, I simply say that its objectives seem entirely admirable. I slightly regret that it has followed almost exclusively an intergovernmental approach, not following the European pattern of initiatives from a body comparable to the Commission. I believe that that has resulted in it being somewhat slower to achieve its goals than might otherwise have been the case.
Turning to the Madrid summit, I notice in the letter sent to all the participating heads of government that our own Prime Minister was asked by Prime Minister Aznar to introduce the subject of international terrorism. I hope that Tony Blair will tackle not only terrorism in that context but also the causes of terrorism, for that is where I believe the European Union has a particular role to play in Latin America.
In a debate as brief as this, it is difficult to decide whether to do a complete tour d'horizon—a historical analysis as brilliant as that of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas—or to decide where to point the searchlight. I am afraid that I have felt it necessary to focus particularly upon the parlous condition of Argentina. Its spectacular debt default in December casts a lurid light over the scene, and it is the most present destabilising threat to the continent, which has, to some extent understandably, resisted the worst of the fall-out.
It would be hard to exaggerate the awfulness of the Argentinian financial disaster. However. I believe that there are some parallels with the Russian default of 1998. But Argentina appears to lack a President Putin to face down corrupt provincial oligarchs and governors whose attitudes to public spending, failure to collect taxes and willingness to print provincial money threatens hyper-inflation — perhaps as high as 60 per cent this year—and a massive decline in GDP, possibly by as much as 11 per cent this year. The hardship that that involves scarcely needs to be spelled out to the House.
The IMF, which has bailed out Argentina before without securing the required reforms, has no choice but to insist on the necessary painful disciplines. Argentina's federal government must refuse the bailout money to the provincial governments. An anticorruption campaign must be mounted and with urgency, taking on the tainted judges, congressmen, civil servants and others who have sapped confidence in the ability of the country to govern itself.
Order must be restored to the banking system, the payments system and the foreign exchange market. Economy Minister Lavagna needs all the technical help that he can find from the international community, and particularly from the European Union—his most important trading partner. The need is to restore investor confidence. The role of private

503
capital is the key to this resource-rich country and not another bail-out from the IMF. The bankruptcy code needs to be reformed and creditors need to be able to recover their assets. However, what has been called the "standard cold turkey approach" is unlikely to succeed unless domestic and international confidence is restored by the active involvement in that process of internationally respected monitors and advisers—here, again, Europe could play its part, perhaps through members of the Bank for International Settlements—reporting to the Argentinians and the world that the painful adjustments are being made.
Russia has shown that short-term pain can quite quickly lead to a real turn-round. If the pitfalls of the quick fix are to be avoided and if investment is to be resumed, workers must become profit-sharers and equity holders. Privatised business must cease to be monopolistic.
Finally, I draw attention to the wise words of Anne Krueger, the deputy managing director of the IMF, spoken less than a week ago when she drew attention to the importance in the context of Argentina of strengthening,
"the social safety net at this time".
That is where the public funding must not be cut. I have no doubt that, in the talks in Madrid, our Government will seek to impart to their European partners the urgency which is required to save that great nation and rich country from economic, social and political collapse.
8.18 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I, too, extend my appreciation to my noble friend Baroness Hooper for initiating this debate. I congratulate her on her timing and her very well-deserved honour.
It is always so worth while listening to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, who has such a wealth of expertise and experience in this area, and to the other well-informed and interesting contributions from all noble Lords who have spoken during the debate.
Summits such as this one are essential in building on the cultural and economic relationships that we are forming with Latin America. The first summit of leaders from the European Union, Latin America and the Caribbean, which took place in Brazil in 1999, marked the start of a new strategic partnership. It increased mutual understanding in the political, economic and cultural spheres.
The objective then was to strengthen political, economic and cultural understanding between the two regions in order to encourage further development. It is therefore timely that in the coming days we shall have the opportunity to evaluate the progress since the Rio summit and to set the direction for the future of the partnership. It is also timely as the European Union has undergone a significant transformation with the launch of the euro in 12 member states.
504
Over the past few years, the European Union has gradually deepened its economic and trade links with Latin America, at a bilateral level with Mexico and Chile and at a regional level with the "Mercado del Sur" or Mercosur. Indeed, the European Union is Latin America's second trading partner, being the first partner for Mercosur and Chile. We have enjoyed close links with Mercosur since its creation in 1991, witnessing the process of regional integration between Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay and providing technical and institutional support. That has resulted in a doubling of trade between 1990 and 2000. Trade at the bilateral level has also been nurtured. As neither Mexico nor Chile belong to any regional Latin American groups, they have developed stronger bilateral links with the European Union. Mexico is the only country on the American continent actually to have signed a European free-trade agreement with the European Union.
However, we have also heard that while much progress has been made, the continent is now facing a serious financial crisis and economic instability. Argentina, which, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, is a wonderful country with educated people, is going through a difficult period. There has been a 70 per cent fall in the value of'the peso since the 11-year peg to the US dollar was ended in January, which has sent the prices of imported goods soaring. According to a survey by the Argentine business chamber, CAME, the prices of fresh eggs and vegetable oils, as well as the prices of computers and televisions, have risen by between 100 per cent and 200 per cent.
The new Argentinian Government have devalued their currency by at least 30 per cent in order to boost exports and to help restore Argentina's foreign currency earnings, which may be needed to pay off huge foreign debts. There is an unfortunate consequence, however, for those businesses that have invested in Argentina and which may now suffer as their investments in the country become less valuable. I fully support my noble friend Lady Hooper and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, in saying that we should help Argentina in whatever way we can to overcome her present problems.
In contrast to its regional peers, the Peruvian economy is pulling clear from a recession. Last year it even managed to edge out a slight increase in growth. So far, however, the recovery remains based on two singular events: the ramp-up of commercial production at the Antamina copper-zinc mine, which is on its way to becoming one of the country's largest mining operations, and additional public spending. That in no way represents an economic recovery, so it is with sadness that at this stage the Government see fit to close the CDC office in Peru.
The European Union needs to maintain a close relationship with Latin America if we are to continue to have a major and positive effect on improving economic and social development. There is a risk that governments will become distracted by the financial crisis, creating an opportunity for an increase in drug

505
trafficking, money laundering, drug abuse, organised crime and, of course, terrorism, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Moynihan.
The European Commissioner, Chris Patten, was right when he said that the Madrid summit,
"represents the opportunity to build upon the common foundations which we put in place at Rio and to launch specific and ambitious initiatives to strengthen our ties".
The summit will provide a high-profile platform to make a substantial joint contribution to stabilising the international environment, economically as well as politically. We on this side of the House look forward to the Minister's response and a further Statement on the summit. We also hope that the Government will play an active and a supportive role at the Madrid summit. not only to further economic and cultural links, but to bring stability to the region.
8.24 pm.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, we have had an extremely interesting and wide-ranging debate. If this were a sermon for which I needed a text, my noble friend Lord Brennan has provided me with one. He described the countries concerned in this debate as countries of "much difficulty but great hope". I am grateful to him for that text as it sums up a number of contributions.
I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. By now she must be feeling embarrassed by the adulation. She said that the timing of the debate was a pure coincidence. As well as her knowledge of La tin America I thought that maybe she had considerable skills in persuading the powers that be to hold an appropriate debate on an appropriate day. She could not have picked a better day.
Foreign ministers of the European Union, Latin America and the Caribbean countries have already gathered in Madrid for a meeting this evening. Tomorrow, the full summit of heads of state and government will begin. During the summit the EU will be holding separate meetings with representatives from the Mercosur countries, the Central American and Andean states and Mexico, as well as individual meetings with many countries—noble Lords will agree that they are important countriesx2014;including the Caribbean.
Heads of state and heads of government from 48 countries will be at Madrid, together with foreign ministers and other representatives. It struck me that in replying to this debate, with 48 countries and 12 minutes in which to reply, I could speak for 25 seconds on each country. Mercifully not every country has been referred to. As the House will know, my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Denis MacShane, are representing the Government.
I want to speak about the importance of Latin America and the Caribbean to this country. Our strong historical ties, have been emphasised by many speakers—I shall not try to add to what has been said—most notably by the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Moynihan, and my noble friend Lord
506
Brennan. We have heard a tremendous depth of history and experience that we would do well to remember.
Our current relationship is driven by a renewed emphasis on modern political, cultural and economic links and on significant trade with and investment in Latin America and the Caribbean. A number of noble Lords stressed the importance of the economy and of trade, particularly my noble friends Lord Lea, Lord Faulkner and Lord Brennan. Annually, our exports are worth some £2·5 billion and the list of British companies operating in the region reads like an A-Z of the FTSE 100. Brazil and Mexico are particularly important for UK exports.
Political links with Latin America continue to grow. Between May 1997 and the end of 2000, over 70 British ministerial visits to the region took place My noble friend Lord Lea rightly reminded me that not only are ministerial visits important, but also trade union visits and others. Last summer, the Prime Minister took relations an important step further when he visited Brazil, Argentina and Mexico, and had an extremely important meeting with Caribbean leaders in Kingston, Jamaica.
With Brazil and Mexico, bilateral ties have been given additional impetus by regular high-level talks covering a range of global and regional issues. Brazil and Mexico are not just key players in Latin America. Their population growth and the size of their economy makes them increasingly important global players.
Of course, there are problems. The issue of drugs was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. There are also the problems of human rights and conflict resolution. They are important matters in our relationships with Latin America and the Caribbean. Drugs-related terrorism of both the left and the right threaten democracy in Colombia and could spill over into neighbouring countries. The influence of drugs and drug-related crime has dramatically affected the economic and political stability of the Caribbean, most notably in Jamaica. We all share a common interest in ensuring that the men of violence do not prosper and that democracy and the rule of law prevail. The importance of democratic institutions was repeatedly stressed, and rightly so, by my noble friend Lady Andrews.
Our relationship with the Caribbean region is as strong as ever. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary paid full testament to the strength of that relationship in his opening remarks at the recent UK-Caribbean Forum in Guyana earlier this year. He underlined our readiness to engage 'with our friends in the Caribbean to tackle the many challenges that we face. The forum agreed to take forward work in a number of key areas: regional security; trade and investment; sustainable development; and health, especially the spread of HIV/AIDS.
I turn to the purpose of the summit. It is the second event of its kind, following the first three years ago in Rio. I can give an absolute assurance—almost every speaker asked for an assurance on this point, and it is nice when one can stand at this Box and, hopefully,

507
give an absolute assurancex2014;that the Government attach tremendous importance to the summit and to the work that we hope that it will undertake.
To recap on some of the events since the last summit, Rio gave political impetus to trade negotiations with Mexico, leading to entry into force of the EU-Mexico Association Agreement in October 2000. It also gave impetus to negotiations with Chile, the conclusion of which will be celebrated in Madrid—a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. Other examples of co-operation since Rio include human rights, higher education and many other important issues that time does not allow me to enumerate. My noble friend Lady Andrews mentioned the importance of education. The first EU-Latin America and Caribbean Ministerial Conference on Higher Education was held in Paris in November 2000.
The summit's principal purpose will be to give political impetus to the process of building a deeper strategic relationship between the EU, Latin America and the Caribbean. That relationship will centre on the key issues where both regions have mutual interests and concerns. Those can be summarised under three headings that will provide the timetable and framework for the summit: political, economic and cultural, and there will be one session on each. Of course, we cannot anticipate precisely what the summit will endorse, but we hope that there will be a political declaration, a paper on common values, and an assessment of progress made on projects since the last summit.
We have a real incentive for the summit to produce some practical commitments from everyone taking part. We want discussion at Madrid to focus on areas where the two regions can work together and can make a real difference. We want heads of government to agree to undertake a series of commitments that will benefit both regions that, above all, will be relevant to the interests and well-being of ordinary citizens in the two regions. That undertaking will form the political declaration to which I referred.
The summit agenda is ambitious. Four areas are especially important to us and we very much hope that commitments in those areas will form part of the final communiquéé. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked about the summit's objectives, and I shall touch on those four key ones. They are, first, terrorism and the international response to it. That will be no surprise to noble Lords. The second is agreement on moving forward on further world trade liberalisation following the Doha meeting. The third is agreement to work together to make a difference on sustainable development, not least in the run-up to the World Summit in Johannesburg. The fourth is the encouragement of more investment in the Latin American and Caribbean regions—never forgetting, as my noble friend Lady Andrews said, that it is not just a question of achieving economic growth but of ensuring that it is sustainable and coupled with strategies for the elimination of poverty.
508
Throughout the preparation process, we have worked to keep those four areas in focus and to ensure that they receive adequate attention at the summit. As I said, we have agreed the themes for discussion, but of course not all countries approach the summit in exactly the same way. Some Caribbean countries are especially concerned that we should pay more attention to the special problems that their economies face. Some Latin American and Caribbean countries would like new trade agreements with the EU. There are calls for a greater EU commitment on aid to the region and a recognition that the disbursement of aid, especially in the Caribbean, needs to be speeded up and made more effective. Those are all complicated economic and political issues and we hope that they will get a good airing at Madrid.
As was no surprise to anyone interested in the region, several speakers mentioned the problems of Argentina. The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, described the situation well when he said that it is hard to exaggerate the awfulness of the economic disaster that has overtaken the region. The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, spelt out some of the consequences and tremendous difficulties caused by inflation.
The Government are watching the economic crisis in Argentina with much concern. We support the efforts of President Duhalde's government to tackle the serious problems that they face. We have stressed to Argentina that it must do all that it can to carry through a sound and sustainable economic policy consistent with the criteria set out by the International Monetary Fund. We recognise that that may take time; no one underestimates the scale of the challenge that Argentina faces.
I must say a word about the Caribbean. A key issue for the Caribbean is, of course, sustainable development. The region has requested our help in representing their concerns about the lack of attention that they receive in addressing their development needs. The UK is therefore pleased that sustainable development features prominently on the agenda for the summit and we look forward to the discussions, which we hope will lead to a greater awareness of the concerns of small states and allay the sense of marginalisation which Caribbean leaders have reported.
Latin America and the Caribbean matter greatly to the UK and I hope that I have been able to reassure all those who have spoken in the debate in the short time that I have had. I welcome the opportunity provided by the debate for me and others to spell out the importance that we all attach to the region. We look forward to developing new and closer links with all the countries of the region. We want to work together to tackle some of the international problems and challenges that we will face this decade. We welcome the opportunity offered by the Madrid summit to make progress on those matters.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes to nine o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the
  Tax Credits Bill

    The Committee met at four of the clock.
    [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale) in the Chair.]
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard. The one difference is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in the Grand Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
    I should explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting. The Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will resume after 10 minutes.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): I am sure that I, along with other noble Lords, may make procedural mistakes. I hope that I shall have the indulgence of the Committee if I do.
    Before we embark on the business of the Committee, I wish to make an apology, particularly to Members of the Opposition Benches. On behalf of the Government, I apologise sincerely for the fact that so many Government amendments appeared on the Order Paper on Monday. I am acutely aware of the serious inconvenience that this will have caused noble Lords and I accept that it is completely at odds with the practice of the House.
    Apart from the provisions in relation to children in respect of whom care is shared—these are the provisions I promised the noble Earl, Lord Russell, at Second Reading that we would come back with—these are technical amendments and drafting changes to improve the clarity of the Bill. The changes result from technical clarifications in the early part of the Bill. The amendments are numerous because similar consequential changes had then to be repeated in a number of different clauses. Many of those changes follow the splitting of Clause 17, which would otherwise have become unwieldy.
    CWH 2
    It was not possible to table parts of the package of changes earlier because the technical points arc interrelated. I am afraid that the need for these amendments came to light after the Bill had been considered in another place. This is a highly technical Bill and, despite all the efforts of counsel and officials, the amendments were not ready to be tabled earlier.
    We first gave priority to tabling amendments that made substantive changes, such as those in relation to appeals and to the annual review of the value of tax credit, and also—this was extremely, but rightly, timeconsuming—to making draft regulations available to assist understanding of the Bill well in advance of Committee.
    I am most grateful for the co-operation shown by noble Lords in rearranging the timing of Committee days. We, on our side, are trying to do as much as we can to minimise the difficulty these late amendments have caused. I have made available my speaking notes on the technical amendments. I am happy to arrange briefing meetings with officials to talk through those technical amendments, or to write to noble Lords with more detail. I am happy to flood noble Lords with as much paper as they can possibly manage.
    Nevertheless, I fully accept that it is unacceptable for amendments to be tabled so late and in such numbers. The Paymaster General, Dawn Primarolo, wishes to join with me in offering our most sincere apologies for what has happened.
    Lord Higgins: I am sure that the Committee would wish to accept the Minister's very gracious apology. After more than 35 years in Parliament, I cannot quite recall anything precisely the same happening. In particular, the timing seems quite extraordinary. The matter has gone right the way through the House of Commons without any second thoughts being expressed on behalf of the Government. As the Minister rightly said, the amendments were tabled only at the very last minute, with the result that the Committee's session on Tuesday had to be abandoned. I fully accept the Minister's apology which, as always, is combined with the helpful way in which she provided the Committee with papers and meetings and so on. But I am not sure that we should leave the matter there.
    The Minister is accountable to Parliament and parliamentary accountability flows through the Minister. We are not able, if something has gone wrong, to summon officials to explain what happened. This was a matter of great controversy, Members will recall, back in the mid-1980s when the Treasury and Civil Service Committee went into this matter in great depth as a result of trickledown and so on. Finally the Liaison Committee produced a report on it. Basically, what was then agreed—and it is the principle on which we operate—is that the Minister is accountable to this House. If something has gone wrong in the department, the Minister will carry out an investigation and explain what happened following that investigation.

    CWH 3
    It seems quite extraordinary, however, that these are not simply technical amendments; they are most certainly drafting amendments. It would seem that the draftsman had something of a brainstorm. At the very last stage of the Bill, as it entered your Lordships' House, he decided that the thing was structurally wrong and therefore he had to table all these amendments.
    Whether it was one draftsman or a change in draftsmen or that the draftsmen were distracted from their business to do something else, we do not know. If this kind of thing were to happen in business life, the individual would undoubtedly feel it appropriate either to be fired or to resign. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will feel it appropriate to find out precisely what happened and perhaps come back to us again at a later stage as a result of her inquiries. I am not talking here of some junior officials. Parliamentary draftsmen used to be paid rather more than permanent secretaries and certainly much more than Ministers. Thus the matter really is quite serious. I hope that the Minister will agree—as I say, we fully accept her apologies—none the less to carry out further investigations so that she can tell us, because we have no means of finding out from officials, how this matter arose as it did.
    Earl Russell: I thank the Minister very warmly for the trouble she has taken to help us deal with this situation as it has arisen. In particular I should like to thank her for her speaking note, which enables me —I hope—to make sense of what these new amendments are trying to do and to see that they are, as she assures us, innocuous and indeed possibly even rather sensible.
    However, that is—as the Italians say when two trains meet at a junction—coincidenza. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, I can recall such things happening before. For example, there was the Social Security Bill in 1990, on which 50 pages of government amendments were tabled on the morning of the first day in Committee. One of those, in my opinion, was so objectionable that I ended up disgracing myself by having the Chamber counted out by dividing against it at 12 midnight, the Minister having resisted my invitation to defer dividing until Report stage. I can say only that I was consoled by the opinion of the Court of Appeal on that matter that the Secretary of State's interpretation of the clause was so unreasonable that Parliament cannot possibly have intended it.
    It reminded me of the delightful case of the judge's children who saw crate after crate of champagne being carried into the house and asked, "Mummy, what's that for?". Reply: "Daddy's been upheld in the Appeal Court!". So I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that the fact that these particular amendments are not ones that we should make a meal of does not mean that this is something that we should accept as being capable of becoming normal practice. It is, after all, Parliament, not parliamentary counsel, that makes the law. It is not my fault that it makes the law.
    CWH 4
    The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has asked questions in the past about the chain of accountability of parliamentary counsel. Those are not our business as a Committee, but they are points that may concern us as individuals in the future. I am sure the Minister will be at one with the rest of us in saying that, however good her own record on this—and it is absolutely excellent and I congratulate her on it—we should not allow the matter to rest. It should not happen, again because next time it might not happen under quite so good a Minister.
    Title postponed.
    Clause 1 [Introductory]:
    Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 1:
    Page 1, line 4, at end insert—
    "() The provisions of this Act are concerned only with the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration and regulation of taxation or the imposition for financial purposes of charges on the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund.
    The noble Lord said: I again thank the Minister for all the help she has given us on the drafting of the various proposals and explaining what they are. From force of habit, whenever I am opposite the noble Baroness I declare an interest as the chairman of a company pension fund. I am not sure whether that is relevant on this Bill, but on every other Bill I have discussed with the Minister it has been.
    The amendment is somewhat unusual. I believe the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was under the impression that I would in some way use it to criticise the Speaker.
    Earl Russell: I would be very grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, would not persist with this amendment. It deals with a matter which, in the words of Section 1(2) of the Parliament Act 1911, is to be settled solely by
    "the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons".
    I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is a quite old enough hand to have had no such intention, but I am also certain that he is a quite old enough hand to know that one is not always interpreted according to one's own intention. It is not as widely appreciated as it should be that quarrels between the Houses are extremely difficult to resolve because there is no authority with power over the two Houses, both sovereign over their own procedure. They are therefore not to be lightly bridged. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will go no further.
    Lord Higgins: Had the noble Earl allowed me to finish my sentence, I would have been able to explain precisely what I had in mind in tabling this amendment. The noble Earl suspected, I believe, that I was in some way going to criticise Mr Speaker. After 33 years in the House of Commons, that is not something I am likely to do. On the contrary, it seemed to me that Mr Speaker's decision was admirable and one on which he ought to be congratulated.
    There is not the slightest doubt, if one consults Erskine Maj, that whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not is entirely a matter for Mr Speaker, as the noble Earl

    CWH 5
    rightly says. If he decides it is a Money Bill, then it is a Money Bill; if he decides that it is not a Money Bill, then it is not a Money Bill.
    The only reason I tabled this amendment was to stress, as my noble friend Lord Saatchi has stressed, that the more this House can participate on matters financial, the better it may be. Certainly, if Mr Speaker had decreed that this was a Money Bill, then the whole of Part 2 would have received no parliamentary consideration. However, it has been decided that it is not a Money Bill and therefore we can proceed in this Committee.
    My only point in relation to the amendment is that I was not absolutely clear, when I first saw the Bill, which parts of it were outside the remit of a Money Bill and therefore led to the determination that it was not a Money Bill. Can the Minister enlighten us on that? I understand that the advice is that there is nothing wrong with this amendment. Criticising Mr Speaker is the last thing I would do. The decision he has made is in every way admirable and enables us to look at this Bill constructively. I beg to move.
    4.15 p.m.
    Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, with impeccable care, has dropped his match outside the box of gunpowder. I am extremely relieved that he has done so, though not particularly surprised. However, if one carries matches and lights them, and then starts a general debate in the neighbourhood of a box of gunpowder, the likelihood of the flame spreading to one or two places where they might not be quite so welcome is by no means negligible. I believe that we discuss matters such as this at our peril. If the amendment were carried it would have absolutely no effect as the decision is, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins rightly said, entirely one for the Speaker the House of Commons.
    If we were to push the amendment to a vote on Report and carry it, it would change absolutely nothing whatever. I cannot therefore see that it is a necessary, valuable use of the Committee's time. In general, the view of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that we have something to contribute on financial law, is one with which I have some sympathy, but I do not believe that this amendment is a useful or particularly wise way of proceeding with it. I hope that when we come to Report stage it will not be tabled again.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: All that I need do is to confirm what both noble Lords have said, which is that the decision as to what is a Money Bill is exclusively a matter for the Speaker. The amendment is defective because it alleges that the provisions of this Bill are concerned only with the imposition. The Bill also includes child benefit transfer matters, which would rule it out of classification as a Money Bill whatever the situation. I believe that that answers the particular point of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, of whether there were matters in this Bill which would by definition rule it outside the classification.
    CWH 6
    I hope that your Lordships will accept the words of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and that we can now put the issue to bed.
    Lord Higgins: In the light of the. Minister's reply, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 2:
    Page 1, line 6, after first "credit" insert "or benefit"
    The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 2, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5. These amendments relate to the wording in Clause 1, which makes radical changes to the Governments' proposal with regard to the whole tax credit scheme. It is suggested that after the first tax credit we should insert the words "or benefit", and similarly in the following line.
    It is our contention that the terminology used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has a passion for tax credits in every conceivable form, is not entirely appropriate as far as this Bill is concerned, although we have of course deferred the decision on the title until later. Effectively, many of the payments which will be made under this Bill are not tax credits at all. They are not credited against people's tax for the simple reason that they are not bound to pay any tax. Therefore it is a confusion to use the expression "tax credit".
    As I pointed out at Second Reading, this is not a proper tax credit scheme of the negative income tax kind which was proposed as long ago as 1972. This is simply an abuse of terminology as far as concerns much of the payments under this Bill. Perhaps the Minister can tell us— no doubt we will return to this point at various stages in our proceedings—what percentage of the amounts paid out under this Bill is expected to be deducted from tax and what percentage is simply going to be paid out as benefits, otherwise there is likely to be very considerable confusion in the terminology.
    The other aspect of the matter is that, by calling them tax credits, the Government seek to give the appearance that the amount of public expenditure on social security benefits is less than it is and, as a result, alter the overall position of the Government, who were elected in 1997 on an undertaking by the Prime Minister to cut the costs of social security. In fact from 1996–97 to 2003–04, there was a bigger increase in social security spending, allowing for the tax credits, than there was over the same period for either health or education.
    Our contention is that using this terminology is misleading and inappropriate. At the very least it ought to be made clear in the course of the Bill that what is now being called a "tax credit" is in fact, to a large extent, a social security benefit. That would seem to be the very least one can do. Of course, in later amendments we will come to various specific proposals as to which tax credits are abolished, which ones are superseded, and so on. We can return to that issue when we get to the appropriate amendments.

    CWH 7
    But, as far as these amendments are concerned, it would clarify the position if we were to accept them. I beg to move.
    [The sitting way suspended for a Division in the House from 4.21 to 4.31 p.m.]
    Earl Russell: The amendment raises a couple of issues that we shall have to look at at some stage of the progress of the Bill, and this seems as appropriate a moment as any. Both of them were discussed to some extent in the Commons, but neither was brought to the point of resolution.
    We have here two different approaches to the giving of money, one under tax and the other under social security. There are a whole collection of minor legal differences, some of which are capable of being of very practical importance. One of them is the definition of the household, which is rapidly becoming a fairly lively issue in politics these days. As the Minister knows very well, although not everybody else does, social security has from the beginning, ever since Beveridge, run on a definition of the household that relies on the couple as the common economic unit rather than on the simple fact of marriage. This has not been true of the Inland Revenue.
    If I have followed proceedings in another place correctly, it appears that, because the child credit is a family benefit, it is going to be governed by the social security definition of a household unit, but the rest will be governed by the tax definition of a household unit. There is a case for unifying these definitions of the household unit.
    The social security definition has worked extremely well. It is much more in line with the way the world is changing nowadays. There would be a strong case for going over to that altogether. Maybe the Minister will say that the time is not yet right for that, but times are capable of becoming rotten as well as ripe. I shall not insist on putting any dogmatic view on that before the Committee, but we ought to think about it.
    The other issue that arises from these two definitions—the social security and the tax definitions— was raised by my honourable friend Mr Webb in another place. If a benefit counts as a family benefit within the meaning of EC Council Regulation 1408/71, then it gives rise to reciprocal rights in other countries under European law. If it does not, it does not. I gather that this reciprocity applies to part of the credit but not to the rest of it. That is another issue on which I would not wish to put any dogmatic view before the Committee, but on which perhaps all of us ought to think further. I would be extremely grateful for the Minister's thoughts on this question.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Minister's thoughts on this question at the moment are largely theological rather than practical, just as we had a similar debate on the exact status when we were dealing with the introduction of the WFTC Bill.
    CWH 8
    I would like to make some general points about the two amendments and then to address the specific questions that have been raised. Again, as it is Committee stage, if I have overlooked anything, I am sure that noble Lords will come back to me.
    These amendments concern the argument that tax credits are not properly taxed, but to a large extent should be regarded as benefits. The two noble Lords who spoke previously have approached this from two slightly different angles. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said that they should be benefits because he does not regard them as being genuinely offset against tax, whereas the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is more concerned with the integration of the separate assessment for taxation—the household assessment for the benefit system—and how, therefore, one integrates the two in any meaningful way. The concerns come from different heresies, if I may say so, from the Government orthodoxy.
    The aim of Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 is to re-cast them as benefits. The key point of the Bill, as with the original working families' tax credit legislation, is to overcome that distinction between tax and social security, benefits and tax credits, which these amendments seek to preserve as far as support for children is concerned.
    At this point, perhaps I may trespass on where we may go later. One of the difficulties that divides social security from taxation, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell hinted, in practical terms is also one of the big obstacles people face when seeking to move from being out of work and then into work. That is because out-of-work benefits form one chimney of support labelled "benefits", while another chimney of benefits and tax credits is labelled "in work". The problem of porting from the one to the other, with the attendant delays and risks, mean that the perception of risk—the perception that one's housing benefit may not turn up; the perception that payments for one's children may not turn up—affects the decision to go into something fairly precarious—work—when people have been away from the labour market and now face possibly no more than modest entry wages.
    We know what inhibits people from moving into work. It is the fear of insecurity of income; problems about best buy packages; worries that the job will sustain the additional costs which going to work will generate. That is why here we seek—unlike in the original WFTC Bill which tried to strengthen financial support for families—not only to add to the financial support for families, but to restructure the arrangements. Thus we are moving away from the chimneys—out-of-work benefits; in-work benefits—to a horizontal slice, in particular for child tax credit, which will integrate the out-of-work benefits one receives for children with the in-work benefits for children so that one can port them across the two, thus bridging the risk, the possibility of exclusion, the possibility of failure, involved in crossing that divide, which I know currently affects lone parents in particular.

    CWH 9
    Anything that goes to re-casting the benefit—here are benefits, here is tax expenditure—seriously subverts the philosophy of what this Bill seeks to do; namely, structurally—not only financially—to overcome the mindset that states, "This is what you get when you are out of work; this is what you get in work. There is a real problem in moving from one to the other". Structurally, that is what the Bill addresses when compared with the old Bill. It also rightly enhances support for people with children and those without children.
    There are a number of reasons for what we seek to do. First is the presentational point about not stigmatising those who have to claim support for their children through a separate system because they are out of work. There are problems about moving to and from work. Many lone parents move to and from work several times during the course of the year, in particular when their children are young. They may stop work over the holidays. We do not want them to have to approach two different departments every time. We also want to ensure that those on the lowest incomes will gain a level of support, and we are doing that.
    All these "peaches" of the new system have been widely welcomed by the relevant pressure groups. I am not aware that any of those groups which respond to the needs of families and children have asked us to revert back to what I have termed the "chimney" attitude towards benefits, as opposed to this portable development of a citizen's income for children.
    I turn now to Amendment No. 5, and also to the point about streamlining our new system. We are introducing two tax credits to replace the six existing and often overlapping strands of support listed in subsection (3), which we shall discuss later.
    Amendment No. 5 would replace "both" with "all". That shows that the line of argument being advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, would add to the complexity of the current systems. It would create confusion for the sake of what I think is a debating point.
    That is our philosophy. We want to make a structure as well as a method of financial support that delivers to the people for whom the move into work, staying in work or changing in work can be precarious. We believe that the Bill achieves that.
    The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked me a set of particular questions. I shall give him the information I have and he can come back to me if he thinks I have not addressed all his points. I am not sure that he asked me about the number of people affected, but I shall give him the information anyway. We expect approximately 6 million families to be eligible for the new tax credits. I should like to bank that information now, because we may wish to come back to it on other amendments. My understanding is that 1.7 million of those families pay neither tax nor NICs, mainly because they are on IS and JSA. Just under a further million—900,000—will receive more tax credits than they will pay in tax or NICs. More than two fifths will
    CWH 10
    be receiving more money out through NTCs than they pay through tax or NICs. Those are the statistics on beneficiaries.
    The latest estimates arc that around 10 to 11 per cent of the new tax credits will score as negative taxes in 2004–05 and later years, and 89 to 90 per cent will score as public expenditure. The proportions will be slightly different in 2003–04 at about 13.5 and 86.5 per cent respectively, partly because of the way in which the transitional arrangements will work.
    Finally, I am sure that the accountancy point will come up in later amendments but I shall try to hank some more information. On 20th February 2002, the Office for National Statistics announced that the working and child tax credits would be classified in the national accounts as negative taxation to the extent that credits are less than or equal to the tax liability of the household, and as public expenditure where credits exceed the liability. That decision is consistent with OECD guidance, which has recently been reviewed following extensive consultation, including with the UK.
    However, in contrast to the ONS, the OECD will also be applying the same classification rules to WFTC and other current tax credits giving more consistency. I understand that the OECD's position is likely to be adopted by other international bodies.
    I hope that I have addressed the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. If I have not done so, I shall do my best to come back on them. If I still cannot answer to his satisfaction, I shall of course write to him.
    I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Russell, believes I have addressed his point, but, by going on into blue sky as to what we are trying to do with the structure, I recognise the real problems that arise in trying to integrate the theological basis of our independent taxation system with the household basis used for social security. He will recognise some of the problems that are generated as a result. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
    4.45 p.m.
    Lord Higgins: First, I thank the Minister for that reply. We shall give careful consideration to the point about the vertical as against the horizontal philosophy behind the tax, which she has put forward so clearly. Some further thought will be needed.
    On the basis of the figures that the Minister has given roughly 90 per cent will not be deducted against tax and only 10 per cent will be, yet this is called a Tax Credits Bill. That seems wholly disproportionate. Ninety per cent of the amount is expenditure. The 10 per cent that is deducted against tax conceals the reality of how much the Government are spending on social security, with the result that the figures for increases in social security compared with, say, education or health are confused. This confusion would seem to affect not only the public. Part of the effect of this Bill is that it is yet another takeover bid

    CWH 11
    by the Treasury—that cannot seriously be denied—and the role of the Department for Work and Pensions is steadily diminishing.
    When we come to the public expenditure review, I am not clear whether the only part debated in that review is the 90 per cent and the department somehow gets away with the other 10 per cent, particularly in relation to negotiations with other departments, and has an advantage that they do not have. To the extent that the Chancellor himself is involved in this anyway, one must suspect that the allocation of resources may get somewhat distorted as a result of this.
    It is not at all clear, therefore, that this is other than smoke and mirrors to a large extent. The terminology is undoubtedly confusing. As I understand it, 90 per cent of it is not a tax credit but a benefit payment, and that is how it ought to be described.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We can debate this endlessly. My view is that we are seeking behind this to do two things—that is, to address family poverty and to encourage people into the labour market if they currently are not. These two matters go together. We know that those who are poor are those who, very often, are lone parents or have a disability, who are out of the labour market and who, as a result, remain and linger on benefits. We also know that one of the difficulties for people going into work, particularly
    Women—and some men—with relatively low intellectual capital is that entry wages going into work are something like 40 per cent of the median wages. Thus, there is a real "best buy" problem, particularly when you take into account things like childcare.
    We want to support the move into work and to sustain those who are in low paid work through a form of tax credit. As the noble Lord will know, wages do not reflect family size and family need. The tax credits can pick up that strain and make it possible.
    It is also the case that not only does tax credit have less of the hinterland of social security behind it, and is therefore more likely to encourage people to draw on those benefits in work, but people's individual circumstances may change quite frequently over time, both into work and out of work if you are a lone parent with young children, and also in terms of extending your hours or reducing your hours. For example, a couple may have only very modest entitlement, but if the relationship breaks up both parties, for whatever reason, may come on to it.
    Given that, we want one consistent system that is transparent, that is portable from out of work into work, that encourages people to draw on it and that, as a result, will meet our dual objectives of addressing family poverty and supporting people in work. Trying to turn the nomenclature back to before the days of 1998 is not particularly helpful or useful. If I have addressed the substantive points about percentages and money and so on to the noble Lord's satisfaction, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
    Lord Freeman: Before my noble friend addresses the points raised by the Minister, does the Minister agree that, although the Government will clearly know how much has been claimed under the tax credits for a particular financial year, the Inland Revenue will not know how much to apportion to negative tax? We will not know the amount of tax assessed to households for perhaps up to nine to 10 months after the end of the tax year. Does the Minister therefore accept that sampling and estimates will have to be made and corrected in future years in order to meet the OECD guidelines?
    Lord Higgins: I shall make one further comment and then I shall not continue on the amendment. I have some difficulty in following the Minister's argument. She says that the crucial things are reducing family poverty and encouraging people into work—both of which we are all in favour of. However, it is not clear to me in the least why calling it a tax credit rather than a benefit achieves either of these objectives.
    She also seemed to imply that, if it is a benefit, there is a degree of stigma attached to it and that we should not become involved with the Department for Work and Pensions; rather we should become involved with the Treasury, whom we all love.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I choose my words carefully and I did not use the word stigma—I do not think my Secretary of State would tolerate my suggesting that any such item could be associated with the Department for Work and Pensions.
    Lord Higgins: That is why I cannot follow the noble Baroness's argument. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 3 to 5 not moved.]
    Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 6:
    Page 1, line 11, leave out paragraph (a).
    The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 6 tabled in my name and that of my noble friend. This is the first of a series of amendments dealing with deleting the various subsections of Clause 1. It suggests that we should leave out Clause 1(3)(a), which reads as follows:
    "The following (which are superseded by tax credits) are abolished—
    (a) children's tax credit under 257AA of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988".
    The first point I wish to make relates to all the following amendments in the series and concerns the use of the word "superseded". It is not clear whether this is purely a terminological expression or whether it means that, for example, the children's tax credit will be superseded by the child tax credit. If that is the case, then a crucial question arises as regards whether the actual benefit changes, or whether we are purely changing the name here. If the benefit does change, as well as the change in name, then will those who are at present receiving children's tax credit gain or lose as a result of the rather odd expression "superseded" or perhaps "supercession" of this particular children's tax credit, to be replaced by a child tax credit?

    CWH 13
    What is the present position with regard to the children's tax credit; that is, that which is to be superseded? We come now to the well-known problem so far as take-up is concerned. It was pointed out a few days ago by my opposite number in the other place, Mr David Willetts, that there has been a serious problem in the take-up of the children's tax credit. As a result of that, the Treasury has probably not spent—
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Did the noble Lord mean the children's tax credit? Does he mean that particular credit as opposed to any of the other ones? Could I ask him to check on that point?
    Lord Higgins: It would not be surprising if I am confused. If I am confused, then everyone except for the noble Baroness will be confused. That is a rather immodest remark but, at all events, I may well have got it wrong.
    What I seek to make clear is, so far as the children's tax credit is concerned, to what extent has there been take-up, and to what extent has the department underspent? Turning to the other side of the coin, to what extent does the noble Baroness think that take-up will improve as a result of ceasing to call it the "children's tax credit" under Section 257AA and instead calling it a child tax credit? This highlights the extraordinary way in which these terms are bandied around, are created and abolished at will, so leading to general confusion. It is hard to know what the public will make of it. One cannot help but feel that this way of expressing changes is not ideal.
    We hope that the Minister will clarify in particular what is meant by the expression "supercession" and whether there is also a change in coverage. To what extent does the Minister think we will derive any benefit from this remarkable change? It seems extraordinary that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is constantly changing these terms, with the result that there is considerable confusion. I hope that at least the Minister can explain the reason for the change and explain the particular points that I have raised. I beg to move.
    Lord Newby: When I read the first page of the Bill I was rather pleased to see the phrase,
    "which are superseded by tax credits"
    I thought that was a helpful explanation by the parliamentary draftsmen so that somebody who was coming to it afresh would understand what on earth the Bill was about. It is very complicated. I have heard that the aim of the new form of drafting by parliamentary counsel is to clarify and simplify matters. I thought this was a classic example of parliamentary counsel guiding a new reader through the beginning and early stages of the Bill so that they could see that these credits had a lineage. Perhaps the noble Baroness can enlighten me if I am wrong, but I thought there was nothing more sinister in it than that.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am grateful for the support I have just been given, and I am delighted that parliamentary counsel has been the recipient of so much praise this afternoon, under the circumstances.
    CWH 14
    We had a general debate about what we are seeking to do on Second Reading, so I shall deal specifically with the amendment. The children's tax credit was introduced by the Finance Act 1999 and was expected to benefit 4.6 million families. It replaced the married couple's allowance for couples aged under 65 with an income tax relief targeted on families with children. Alongside increases in child benefit and in income support child premiums, it redirected resources towards families with children. As a result, it is worth more than twice as much as the married couple's allowance that it replaced—more than £;10 a week more this year. The children's tax credit is gradually withdrawn from families containing a higher rate taxpayer and in such families must be claimed by the higher income partner in a couple.
    As an income tax relief, however, the children's tax credit could only provide support to families that included a taxpayer. Its value for taxpayers on the lowest incomes was restricted by their tax liabilities. In a couple, because of the link to paying tax, it is more likely to be claimed by the man. The withdrawal of the credit for higher rate taxpayers is based on the income of the higher earning partner, working with the grain of independent taxation. One effect of this has been that families on the same joint incomes have been entitled to different amounts of children's tax credit depending on the distribution of income between the partners.
    Those points are addressed in the design of the child tax credit, which can be claimed by taxpayers and non-taxpayers alike. It is paid direct to the main carer for children and is based on family income in all cases. Under the child tax credit, a couple with an income of £40,000, however it is split between the partners, will receive that £545 a year. For a single-earner couple on that level of income, that represents £320 a year more than they would have received from children's tax credit. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Higgins directly, this tax credit changes the structure to that degree.
    The noble Lord asked about problems of take-up. I am not aware of problems of take-up with children's tax credit, which is the one he was referring to—that is why I queried him. I suspect that he and his noble friend may have been probing the wider issue of WFTC take-up. My information is that at April last year, children's tax credit was worth up to £10.17 and went to 4.6 million people. The Inland Revenue invited claims from taxpayers and received 3.7 million forms. Three million of those have already had their PAYE codes adjusted. That is why I have no reason to believe there is a problem here. If, on reflection, the noble Lord thinks he may be referring to WFTC take-up, of course I am happy to explore that. With those remarks, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
    5 p.m.
    Lord Higgins: We are grateful to the noble Baroness for that statement of the Government's intentions. I understand from what she said that there are a number of people who lose and a number who gain. We will

    CWH 15
    turn later, of course, to the issue of paper and so on. To what extent does the change from the children's tax credit to the child tax credit alter the papers? Does it alter them significantly? Furthermore, is it now the case that whereas before part of the benefit was claimed against the single person's income, all of it will now be related to the income of both parents—assuming that there are two of them?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: On the second point, yes. On the first, what the children's tax credit becomes is the family element in the new tax credit scheme, which tapers out at the £50,000 to £58,000 figure on just under a 7 per cent taper. We explored taper rates at Second Reading and we can come back to it. But the noble Lord is correct.
    Also, I apologise to the noble Lord that I overlooked his push on me on the word "superseded", which I should perhaps put in as it was of concern to him.
    Clause 1 is an introductory clause which encapsulates what the Bill is about. It declares that new tax credits are to be created and sets out what they replace. Technically the repeal of existing systems is effected in Schedule 6 and in the relevant secondary legislation, so no technical weight is attached to the term "superseded". As the Liberal Democrats indicated, it is a helpful description by parliamentary counsel as to the intent of the Bill. We are not amending an existing Tax Credits Bill; we are replacing the original Bill with a new one.
    Lord Higgins: I am again grateful for that further explanation. I am right, therefore, that the expression "superseded" does not simply mean that there is a change in terminology but also that there are significant changes in the actual benefits which individuals will receive. I note that the Minister indicates assent. Again, we shall study carefully what the Minister says and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 7:
    Page 1, line 13, leave out paragraph (b).
    The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 7 is somewhat similar to the previous amendment and we have clarified a number of points in relation to it. The question is whether or not one should clarify the position with regard to the working families' tax credit.
    It seems quite extraordinary after five years or so of this Labour Government that we constantly have these changes. I suggest that the Chancellor suffers from rather severe myopia; that is to say, we spent many hours going through the original working families' tax credit legislation, seeking to improve it, at which stage we had assumed that it would be relatively permanent. In reality, as has been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Saatchi, the life expectancy of any of the Chancellor's tax credits is about six months.
    CWH 16
    Yet again, the working families' tax credit is to be superseded—or, more accurately, abolished in this case—and in place of it we shall get the working tax credit; another change in terminology. It is not clear why the original aspect of it could not be retained, except that the word "families" is now deleted. It seems extraordinary, however, that we should have a situation where these constant changes are made and the Committee is burdened with tackling legislation which is then effectively replaced by further legislation. Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us exactly the reason for this change and, apart from the change in terminology, what we will gain from it and the extent to which any individual may gain. I beg to move.
    Earl Russell: We spend half our time in Opposition criticising government for being inflexible. We spend the other half criticising government for changing their mind. We cannot have it both ways. The Minister is attempting a pretty far-reaching change in the way we look at the whole question of social security, taxation and support. I am entirely in sympathy with the philosophy of the attempt, but it will take a good many tries to get it right.
    A case could be argued—there are one or two examples recorded in the Commons committee proceedings where this is made clear—for saying that it could possibly have been done a little more slowly so that some of the questions could have been thought out a little more before the Bill was tabled. However, for a Minister to change his mind in the face of new information cannot be regarded as a crime. I cannot help but sympathise with Keynes when he said:
    "When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do …?".
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Keynes also said:
    "Look after unemployment and the Budget will look after itself".
    I think that we are reaping those rewards in the current state of the economy.
    I can respond to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in a somewhat mechanical sense by saying this takes out the word "family". Under the existing system, working families' tax credit applies to the set of benefits available to people in work. In future, the working tax credit will be the benefit that adults attract when they are in work, whether or not they have children. That will be independent of child tax credit which will apply from being out of work and then into work. That is the technical reason why we are changing the terminology. We are deconstructing the original "chimney" and approaching this horizontally. Thus working tax credit will apply to the adult element.
    I could go beyond those words and give the noble Lord a fuller answer. However, given the general support for the principle expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, needs me to go further.
    Lord Higgins: Some time after the two quotations referred to by the noble Earl and the noble Baroness were made, someone else said:
    "We are all Keynesians now".
    Whether that is true of the Government, I am still not entirely clear. The Minister has explained that.
    What I am not clear about is why the Chancellor thought vertically at the time of the working tax credit. but now suddenly thinks horizontally. He might have considered that possibility in the first place. However, again I thank the Minister for her explanation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 8:
    Page 1, line 14, leave out paragraph (c).
    The noble Lord said: The amendment, standing in my name and that of my noble friend, concerns the disabled person's tax credit. The noble Baroness has kindly provided a great deal of information behind the scenes on various aspects of the Bill. On Second Reading I expressed my concerns about the 16 hours requirement and entitlement to claim the working tax credit benefit. The noble Baroness very kindly sent one of the many letters she has written spelling out the matter.
    However, concern has been expressed by outside bodies working with the disabled about that aspect. Of course we all wish to see the circumstances created where the disabled are facilitated in their desire to work and to benefit from them doing so. Perhaps the Minister might give the Committee a brief summary of the points set out in her letter, which I am sure will be of interest to outside bodies. I beg to move.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendment No. 8 seeks to delete the reference to disabled person's tax credit in Clause 1(3). Like working families' tax credit, the disabled person's tax credit was introduced in 1999, building on the foundations of the disability working allowance. So far as I recall, I believe that DWA had in the region of 16,000 claimants. The disabled person's tax credit now reaches over 32,000 claimants with an average award of £77 a week.
    The reason behind these proposals is to integrate disabled people into the labour market. We believe this will be welcome to them. Support for workers with disabilities will be provided through the working tax credit framework rather than through a tax credit that focuses on a disability. This may sound rather sentimental, but it is important that we talk about abilities rather than disabilities as far as possible. However, disabled people will have access to additional elements in WTC to provide them with appropriate levels of support.
    Secondly, under the working tax credit, where there are two disabled workers in a couple, two disability elements will be payable and there will no longer be a lower withdrawal threshold for individual disabled workers. Another important improvement from which disabled people will benefit more than many is that
    CWH 18
    they will no longer be hit by the capital rule when there has been a settlement by virtue of an injury, because only notional income will be taken into account.
    As I have said, the rates will go up. At the moment, a single disabled worker will have access to support of £68 per week. From April 2003, they will have around £5 more than under DPTC. The minimum income for such a worker on 35 hours a week will be 194 a week, compared with £172 this April. For someone working 16 hours, the minimum income rises to £135 from £127 now.
    One further welcome advantage, which I hope will also be welcomed by Members of the Committee, is that proposals for childcare, in particular home childcare, should also be particularly beneficial to disabled people. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, welcomed that on Second Reading. He also asked about the 16-hours rule, as has the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, this afternoon. I reaffirm my response on Second Reading that there is no proposal to move from 16 hours being recognised as the appropriate demarcation of someone being in the labour market. At less than that, people tend to be supported through their benefits with disregards—for example, a lone parent may be on income support and work up to a disregard of £20 and only when she works 16 hours a week does she enter the territory of a work-supported benefit as opposed to an out-of-work supported benefit, as in the past.
    The question is whether the 16 hours is about right. It is equivalent to about two days' full-time work. I also suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that it was not particularly helpful to suggest that disabled people should have a lower number of hours before they could claim the new working tax credit. Instead, it seemed to me that the permitted work rules—and, above all, the permitted supported work rules—would be particularly beneficial to disabled people in that situation.
    On Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Rix talked about people with learning disabilities, who are likely to be in a supported work environment. Under the permitted work rule they can work and receive £66 per week in addition to their benefit indefinitely. We think that those needs can be met in a more appropriate and focused way by keeping the 16-hour rule but allowing people below that on 113 or S DA to have the £66 per week for 26 weeks if they are in permitted work, and indefinitely if they are in permitted supported work, which is likely to be run by a voluntary organisation or a public body.
    I have taken rather more time to respond on this occasion, but it was important to put on the record that this may be a more appropriate and helpful way forward. With that, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
    Lord Higgins: That was an extremely helpful explanation. I am sure that those outside concerned with the problems of the disabled will be extremely interested in what the Minister has said. I therefore thank the Minister very much indeed and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
    Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 10:
    Page 1, line 20, leave out paragraph (e).
    The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 10 in this series of amendments is concerned with paragraph (e) which states:
    "increases in benefits in respect of children under sections 80 and 90 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (c.4) and sections 80 and 90 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (c.7)".
    It is proposed by the Government that those benefits should be superseded and incorporated—that is perhaps the most accurate way of putting it—into the child tax credit.
    Again, I have to ask the Minister whether that involves any specific change in the allowances, rather than just a change in terminology. We also have to consider the position with regard to child benefit, which the Prime Minister recently suggested—the subject of some controversy—might be reduced as some form of penalty. I sought to clarify the position on that by way of a Parliamentary Question. I asked the Minister to what extent any reduction in child benefit would result in the benefits which we are now discussing being increased, for example, so that the effect was totally nullified.
    Perhaps the Minister could tell us in regard to the benefits which are dealt with in paragraph (e), or the new benefits which are dealt with under the new title of "child tax credit", whether, if the Government have decided that they ought to penalise people having child benefit for this or that social reason, it would in fact result in both the present benefit or the replacement benefit being increased so that the effect was largely nullified. I beg to move.
    5.15 p.m.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, pressed me on two points. The first was on child benefits and sanctions, and the second was whether it was simply an alteration by name or whether there was any substantive change in the structure of CDIs.
    On job benefit and sanctions, it is the case at the moment that if one is on income support or JSA, one's child benefit counts as income and therefore has an effect on the level of income support and JSA which one currently receives. Clearly, in any proposals to connect payment of child benefit with any sanctioning of behaviour, those arrangements could be adjusted accordingly. I hope that answers the noble Lord's question.
    CDIs are the child dependency increases which go with current national insurance benefits like incapacity benefit, such that they receive those benefits almost as an alternative to being topped up by income support benefits for their children.
    I burned the midnight oil on this about a year ago to get my head around its implications. Ultimately, it did not seem sensible to continue to keep child dependency
    CWH 20
    increases for those social security benefits of which the major one is incapacity benefit, for two main reasons. The first, and the main one, is that if we are trying to simplify the system so that all child support is based on one benefit—child tax credit—it is foolish to have some other benefit like incapacity benefit retaining its own provision for children. Therefore, in the name of simplicity, it is right to take that out.
    Secondly, it is also the case that over the last few years the level of CDIs have effectively been frozen because of the growth in child benefit, which has offset them. In any case they were diminishing in value. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that at the moment, there are around 250,000 families in receipt of one of those child dependency increases. They will be protected. What we are saying is that, in future, new claimants to that benefit will have their support for children carried through the new tax credits.
    I hope that noble Lords are reassured that the existing CDIs will begin to wither on the vine; that in any case and for the sake of simplicity we believe that all child support should be carried with the children's tax credit, but that existing recipients of those CDIs will have their position protected. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
    Lord Higgins: That certainly was an interesting reply in two respects. What the Minister describes as CDIs, which I presume are the benefits covered by subsection (e), will continue for existing beneficiaries, but new beneficiaries will come under the child tax credit system. I hope that I have understood that correctly.
    I am not entirely clear whether that means any of those beneficiaries will now receive less than they would otherwise have received. Clearly the people—I was going to say "grandfather", which would really confuse the issue—who are already in receipt of the benefits covered by subsection (e) will continue to do so and will not lose out. However, I am not entirely clear whether new claimants who would have received those benefits, and who will now receive child tax credit, will get the same amount as those who are already in receipt of it.
    The other part of the answer from the noble Baroness was extremely interesting. The Prime Minister proposes that one should use a reduction in child benefit on families who are behaving in a manner of which he does not approve. I have pointed out—the noble Baroness has confirmed it—that that would not be effective because they would simply receive other benefits instead.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I did not say that. I said that were the Government, after reviewing these proposals, to proceed with them, they would have the option of ensuring that, as a result, other benefits would not compensate. I say simply that that would be an option were Government to pursue those proposals.
    Lord Higgins: What the noble Baroness has said is that unless the proposal is to be totally ineffective, what they will do is not merely clobber child benefit, but other benefits as well. That is an aspect of the Prime Minister's proposal which perhaps had not previously emerged.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps the noble Lord could repeat that. I become nervous when the noble Lord starts attributing views to the Prime Minister via myself. I would be very grateful if he would say those words again.
    Lord Higgins: The Prime Minister made a proposal that, in certain circumstances, child benefit should be withdrawn from families because the family concerned was performing in a way which, for various reasons, he felt was wrong. The point I sought to make earlier was that apparently this would be ineffective. If he were to do that, then all that would happen would be—this was confirmed by the noble Baroness's Parliamentary Answer—that in effect such families would receive other benefits instead.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I wonder whether—
    Lord Higgins: Perhaps I may finish and then the noble Baroness can respond. That is what I understood her to say. The noble Baroness went on to point out that if that were to happen, then one might need to make adjustments to other benefits. Thus if this proposal were to go ahead, and apparently the Prime Minister is persisting with it, we would find either that it would not be effective—because the other benefits would not he reduced—or it would he made effective by clobbering not simply child benefit, but any other benefits which might replace it.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That happens at the moment. It is a little hard for me to say that this is "wide of the Order Paper" when earlier we were talking about Keynes. However, child benefit will not be taken into account as income for child tax credit. The amount of child benefit as payment is therefore not in fact relevant to child tax credit.
    Having said that, it remains the case that, at present, if one is on income support or JSA, child benefit is counted as income, which is therefore taken into account when determining the level of IS or JSA. We have established that. One of the highly desirable features of moving on to child tax credit is that we will not have such incidents of netting-off taking place as they did in the past. What I made clear is that, if on reflection the Government decide to go ahead with these proposals, then they would have the option of ensuring that they were effective by taking into account child benefit as income, and therefore not simply compensating for it with an uplift in other forms of benefit. That should not surprise the noble Lord. Were these proposals to be pursued, I do not doubt that this would be one of the considerations informing further reflection.
    Lord Higgins: It is certainly a point that we would wish to return to at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
    Clause 1 agreed to.
    Clause 2 [Functions of Board]:
    Lord Saatchimoved Amendment No. 12:
    Page 2, line 8, at end insert "or in cases where an individual is not paying tax, the Department of Work and Pensions"
    The noble Lord said: As this is the first lime l have spoken, I should like to draw the Committee's attention to the declaration of interest that. I made at Second Reading. I thank the Minister for her gracious apology at the start of our proceedings today and for her entire attitude towards the problems that arose as a result of what she described.
    So far as we are concerned, the Bill has a fine, worthy aim—that is, to help to boost the income of people in low paid jobs—and we support that. I hope that it will be recalled later that the amendments moved by my noble friends Lord Higgins and Lord Northesk and myself, and all the amendments moved from our Benches, were brought forward in a spirit of our working to assist the Government to make the Bill as effective and as workable as possible.
    Having said that, Amendment No. 12 relates to the wider issue that we discussed earlier and to which we will return at several stages during the Committee stage of the Bill—that is, the question of whether tax credits will be paid to people who do not pay tax. The Minister will recall my second question in a letter I wrote to her on 23rd April. I asked how much of the total cost of the Bill will be paid to those who do not pay tax—that is, those who will he receiving credits as benefit? Unfortunately, although I have received a reply from the Minister, that point was not dealt with. I should be grateful if she can say what is the answer to that question.
    The question seeks figures—how much of the total cost of the Bill will be paid to those who do not pay tax—and in order to answer it the Minister will have to say what is the total cost to the Exchequer of all tax credits; what will be the cost of these particular tax credits; and, of those amounts, how much will be paid to people who do not pay tax—that is, to people who receive credits as benefit.
    Having said that, and given that the reply to my letter did not deal with that point, perhaps I may pursue the amendment, the purpose of which is to suggest that where an individual is paying tax the Inland Revenue should deal with that person via the tax credit procedure set out in the Bill; but where an individual is a non-taxpayer, he or she should deal with the Department for Work and Pensions.
    Having brought forward the amendment, I can immediately see many problems with it. But it does touch on a central aspect of the Bill—my noble friend Lord Higgins has referred to it and we will certainly be returning to it—that is, the question of tax credits being paid to people who do not pay tax. I should be

    CWH 23
    grateful for the Minister's view of a situation where individuals who are not working, either through choice or otherwise, and are therefore paying no money to the Inland Revenue, will nevertheless be receiving money from the Inland Revenue. I beg to move.
    5.30 p.m.
    Lord Newby: There is a certain logic in what the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi says, in that when somebody receives tax credit, it should be dealt with by the Inland Revenue and when he receives a benefit, it is not. He possibly underestimates the extent to which people are not, for long periods, in one category or another. During the course of the year, many people will be in work for some of the time and out of work for other periods. My own experience of dealing with the Inland Revenue is that it is difficult enough to establish an understanding of one set of rules and one department. For people on low incomes—shuttling in and out of work, sometimes having jobs for very short periods and then, for family or other reasons, not being able to continue with them—there may be an accurate question as to whether the Inland Revenue is the right department, but it must make sense for one department to be responsible for a particular benefit rather than two.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I entirely share that view. The noble Lord has essentially returned to the points made by his noble friend about the nature of tax credits and whether it is right for them to be the vehicle for providing support to those outside the traditional tax system. The noble Lord is absolutely right that there is considerable mobility between those in and out of work, particularly for the families who are going to be enjoying this support. We are talking about people who are probably in the next to bottom quintile of the income range—those in the bottom quintile are likely to be on benefit. These are people whose work is precarious, who very often find their hours reduced, who may well find themselves made redundant and whose partner may or may not be able to go to work as a result. They are families who move in and out of work and need to deal as far as possible with one system. It will be handled by the Inland Revenue. Clearly, anyone who is currently on IS or JSA will be able to get access to this information through Job Centre Plus, so an integrated service is being provided.
    The proposition lying behind the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, would bifurcate—cut right through the middle of—our overriding aim of integrating out-of-work and in-work support and thus dealing with both family poverty and the move into the labour market.
    Clause 2(1) brings tax credits under the care and management of the board. This means that the board will be able to appoint people to administer tax credits and will be responsible for accounting for them. It derives from the Inland Revenue Regulation Act 1890. The concept of care and management cannot be applied to the Department for Work and Pensions
    CWH 24
    because it does not have a parliamentary remit, so the amendment is technically flawed, although that should not perturb us particularly, as it is a probing amendment.
    The more fundamental point is that the amendment would cut across our aim of achieving a single framework of support. The majority of those who will be eligible for tax credits will already be customers of the Inland Revenue, because they receive WFTC, DPC, DPTC or children's tax credit or are taxpayers. They are already relating to the Inland Revenue as they receive this through their wage packets. In the new system, the same framework will also apply to families with children in which the adults are out of work or do not currently qualify for income-based support. Those are the key features of the new system, which seems to have been widely welcomed.
    I could go into technical detail about the board and so on, but we are going back to the bigger issue behind the Bill: whether we should try to separate out support for those in work and support for those not in work, with one being dealt with by the Inland Revenue and the other by DWP. The whole point of the Bill is to bridge that divide, which can impede people trying to make rather a risky journey from being out of work to being in work. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will not seek to pursue his amendment. I am happy to try to give him more technical information about the specific responsibilities of the Board of Inland Revenue, but he was probably after the bigger point.
    The noble Lord also raised a point about numbers. I am sorry if I did not reply as fully as he would have liked to his letter. In a sense, I thought that I had given some of the statistics to his noble friend. About 10 to 11 per cent of the money going on the new tax credits will score as negative tax. I gave those figures on an earlier amendment. The rest of it will therefore be scored as public expenditure, out of a total cost of nearly £15 billion for CTC and WTC put together. I thought that I had answered that point in my reply earlier when I suggested that we bank those statistics, but if I am able to help the noble Lord any further, I shall certainly do my best.
    Lord Saatchi: As much as anything else, I was seeking information with this amendment and I am grateful to the Minister for what she has said. Did I correctly hear her say that the total cost of tax credits was £15 billion?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The total cost of family support through the CTC and WTC together is nearly £15 billion. The additional support over and beyond the current system is about £2.7 billion.
    Lord Saatchi: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Burnham): Before I call Amendment No. 13, I have to tell your Lordships that if it is agreed, I cannot call Amendment No. 14.
    Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 13:
    Page 2, line 9, leave out subsection (2).
    The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 14. I understand very well the issue of pre-emption that has just been explained. Amendment No. 13 would delete the whole subsection. The argument is to some extent focused by the reference to "gross" in Amendment No. 14.
    We are somewhat puzzled by this provision, which seems to us to be potentially open to dispute. It suggests that the section of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866, which refers to gross revenues being paid into the Exchequer, is suddenly, after a century and a half,
    "to be construed as allowing the Board to deduct payments for or in respect of tax credits before causing the gross revenues of their department to be paid to the account mentioned in that section".
    The Act seems to have survived pretty well without this provision for 150 years or so. If I understand it correctly, it enables the Treasury to pay into the Exchequer less than the amount that it would pay under the provisions of the 1866 Act. I am particularly puzzled by the words,
    ""before causing the gross revenues of their department to be paid".
    I would have thought that, if you deduct payments for and in respect of tax credits, the amount you are paying in is not the gross amount but the net amount. I simply do not understand why the term "gross amount" is used in this context. I beg to move.
    Earl Russell: Is that provision of the Bill simply the reverse of what was normal practice in the Exchequer before 1640? It had both advantages and disadvantages, but usually the advantages outweighed the disadvantages.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I was promptly provided with a page or two of the 1866 Act to see whether the noble Lord and I would have a debate about how we construed it, but we would certainly have to ask the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to umpire.
    I believe it is fairly straightforward. Amendment No. 14 would change the reference to accounting for gross revenues under Section 10 of the 1866 Act to a reference to "net revenues". It is simply drafting. The reference to "gross revenues" is necessary to bring tax credits into the ambit of that legislation, under which the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise account for the money they have collected. We cannot refer back to the Act of 1866. While it is true to say that the receipts paid to the Exchequer by the board will be net of tax credits—that being the point of subsection (2). The use of the term "gross revenues" is a drafting device to ensure that the cross-reference to Section 10 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866 works. A reference to net revenues would be meaningless in this context because there is no such
    CWH 26
    reference in Section 10 of the 1866 Act to which a drafting device could link. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
    Lord Higgins: While we have the greatest respect for the draftsmen—qualified a little on our earlier proceedings—I see the point made by the noble Baroness. Having said that, however, surely it would be possible to devise some other form of words which would amend the 1866 Act. Perhaps it would be better to amend it rather than simply to say it should be construed. It could be amended in a way which would enable the board to deduct the payments for the tax credits. However, if the tax credits arc to be deducted, then the amount which will be paid in is a net amount and not a gross amount.
    I take the point on drafting made by the noble Baroness, but I say simply that it is not an accurate way of drafting this. The 1866 Act should be amended rather than construed. Then the amount that will be paid in will be a net amount and not a gross amount. I can see that there may be some problem because it may be that other departments are paying in gross amounts, but the reality is that this department will not be paying in a gross amount. It will be paying a net amount after the deduction of the tax credit, as is made perfectly clear in the clause.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If the noble Lord is making a point about the drafting, I am sure he is correct and I would be happy to follow up the point by writing to him about the implications of seeking to do as he suggests; that is, retrospectively to amend or consolidate—I do not know what would be required here—the wording in the 1866 Act.
    However, a different point can be made here which concerns whether people know what is happening by the use of this phraseology, as opposed to why it is being deployed. That point concerns transparency and accountability to Parliament. I believe that Clause 2(5) should address any of the noble Lord's concerns on that. It requires the Inland Revenue to set our accounts for tax credits, distinguishing the amounts for each tax credit. That is a more rigorous procedure than that undertaken in respect of voted money.
    I can develop that argument hut, if the noble Lord is concerned that we are concealing what is happening, then that is not true. If he acknowledges, however, that we need this as a drafting device but wonders whether there is some other way of approaching it, I would be perfectly happy to follow that up in writing.
    Lord Northbrook: I support my noble friend Lord Higgins on this amendment. So far as I can see, to the layman, regardless of the 1866 Act, they are net revenues.
    Lord Higgins: Perhaps the Minister would write to me and then, if need be, we could return to the matter on Report. In the interests of transparency as well as of drafting, there is a case for making some kind of change to this clause. However, I take the point made by the Minister in relation to subsection (5), which

    CWH 27
    may result in the matter being made more transparent. Whether that would be consistent with Section 2 is a matter to which we will need to give some thought, but we certainly should not spend more time on it now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
    5.45 p.m.
    Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 15:
    Page 2, line 15, leave out "include" and insert "exclude"
    The noble Lord said: This is a somewhat related point. The subsection states:
    "For the purposes of the Inland Revenue Regulation Act 1890"—
    we are getting more up to date—
    "the definition of 'inland revenue' in section 39 of that Act is to be taken to include tax credits."
    Tax credits are quite clearly not revenue. Tax credits are paid out as benefits in 90 per cent of cases, as the noble Baroness has told us. In the remaining 10 per cent of cases they are simply a deduction from tax and thus no tax will be received as a result. Whatever else may be the case, it cannot conceivably be construed as inland revenue. This ought to state that tax credits will be excluded. I beg to move.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Like WFTC and DPTC, the working tax credit and child tax credit are to be administered by the Inland Revenue as part of the tax system, and will therefore fall within the overall administrative responsibilities of the board of Inland Revenue. Those responsibilities are generally set out in statute, and Clause 2 ensures that the new tax credits are covered by the relevant legislation. The effect of Clause 2 is substantially the same as that of Section 5 of the Tax Credits Act 1999.
    The board's powers and responsibilities are derived, in the first instance, from the Inland Revenue Regulation Act 1890, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins said. All of those powers and responsibilities relate to "inland revenue". The provision in Clause 2(3) is therefore necessary to ensure that the 1890 Act also extends to the board's tax credit responsibilities. The effect of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord would be to prevent the board administering tax credits since they would remain outside the scope of the Inland Revenue Regulation Act. The usual statutory framework under which the board operates would not apply to tax credit; for example, the power to appoint staff or responsibility to keep accounts.
    Given that, we have been debating at length the question of whether tax credits are properly to be treated as tax forgone and how they should be accounted for, but this amendment would prevent the board administering child tax credit and working tax credit at all, whether or not for those who have tax to
    CWH 28
    pay. It would be far-reaching and damaging in its consequences and I hope with those remarks the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
    Lord Higgins: If I understand the noble Baroness correctly, I have a very simple question. Why does the expression "inland revenue" not have capital letters?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Pass, my Lords.
    Earl Russell: Is this a case for my favourite quotation from John Locke? "Printers have ways all their own, not united by the general plan which should cement mankind."
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Whether it is printers or whether it is anything to do with what happened within parliamentary reference I do not know, but I shall come back to the noble Lord on that. I do not know the answer.
    Lord Higgins: I was not making a facile point, though it may have sounded that way. If I understand her original answer correctly, the noble Baroness is saying that it is a definition of the department which enables the department to administer the tax credits. That is not at all what appears on the face of the Bill. Clause 2(3) appears to relate to what is defined as "inland revenue". If it means the Department of Inland Revenue, it ought to say so.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is not a printer's mistake. I have now been given some guidance on this. The reason "inland revenue" is not in capital letters is that it is not a reference to the department, it is a reference to what the department does. In other words, the powers are exercised under the 1890 Act in connection with "inland revenue" which, for the purposes of the Act is defined in Section 39 of that Act as,
    "the revenue of the United Kingdom collected or imposed as stamp duties, taxes ֵ and placed under the care and management of the commissioners and any part thereof".
    In other words, it is referring to the revenues rather than the Inland Revenue.
    Lord Higgins: In that case we have gone full circle, and the business about whether it meant the department and whether that meant they were unable to deal with the matter is a total red herring. We are now back to whether or not a tax credit is revenue, and a tax credit is not revenue. It is either expenditure or it is a tax deduction, but by no conceivable meaning of the word can it be revenue.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I want to be helpful to the noble Lord, but I am not sure what he is concerned about. I know he disagrees about the difference between whether this is a tax credit or a benefit, given whether one is in work or out of work. I know he disagrees about whether the Department for Work and Pensions or the Inland Revenue as a result should administer it. But he seems to be seeking to retain a distinction of chimneys, thus putting wedges between those out of work from moving into work.

    CWH 29
    However, it cannot be a point about scrutiny because we can pursue that through some of the remarks I made earlier about parliamentary scrutiny. It cannot be a point about the functions of the board in terms of its powers because without such powers the hoard cannot operate as regards tax credits in terms of appointing staff and checking accounts. Ultimately, I do not understand what it is the noble Lord is asking.
    Lord Northbrook: My noble friend is saying that this is not revenue but money paid out.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is theological. The effect of the amendment would be that the usual statutory framework under which the board operated did not apply to tax credits and that the board's usual powers—those I have already outlined; that is, to appoint staff and to keep accounts—did not apply to tax credit. I am not sure that I can help the noble Lord any further on this.
    Lord Burnham: I suggest that the Committee adjourn for the Division?
    [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 5.51 to 6.3 p.m.]
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, was pressing me on what "inland revenue" means. The imprecise answer is that it means whatever we care to assume it means for these purposes. Perhaps I may give him a more precise description. In the 1890 Act, "inland revenue" is a reference to the scope of the board's activities. Even then, in the 1890s, the Board of the Inland Revenue would have had to dispense payments as well as bring in revenues—for example, for the War Department and so on—if Churchill was to have fun in the Boer War.
    In order to apply the statutory framework under which the board operates, we use the term "inland revenue" to cover all the board's responsibilities. It will also be extended to include child benefit under Clause 49. The board's powers and responsibilities are derived from the 1890 Act. We therefore need to ensure that it also applies to tax credits, and this provision applies it. In other words, this is a device for expenditure and income and not only the acquisition of income, if I may put it in those terms.
    Child benefit, statutory maternity payments and the like are clearly patterns of expenditure but come within the framework or the phrase "inland revenue". I do not know whether that helps the noble lord and it is why I have been baffled. It is rather like a trading account and the term "inland revenue" is used to cover both aspects of it.
    Lord Higgins: I am grateful for that reply. I referred yesterday to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh when in another context I mentioned the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland saying,
    "Words mean what I say they mean&".
    I hesitate to suggest where I might have cited that quotation previously in today's proceedings, but in any case I have been told by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that it was Humpty Dumpty and not the
    CWH 30
    Red Queen. In essence, what the noble Baroness could say—I would not dream of calling her Humpty Dumpty, although conceivably I could call her the Red Queen—is that the expression in the subsection means what it means and what the Treasury says it means, but I am not prepared to go along with that. It would be best to sort this out between now and Report stage because it would he singularly tedious not to have it resolved before Report. However, it may be that the draftsman will produce another 35 pages which will make the matter clear. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 16:
    Page 2, line 24, at end insert "and the amounts deducted by them from inland revenue"
    The noble Lord said: This is a related amendment and seeks to clarify the position. Earlier the noble Baroness referred me to Clause 5 in order to reassure us with regard to subsection (2). In fact, we say here that, in expressing,
    "the amounts of the several payments made by them 4317 or in respect of tax credits",
    we suggest that they should also include the amounts deducted by them from inland revenue. That may be an appropriate way of ensuring that the report to the hoard is comprehensive. I beg to move.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: These amendments relate to the accounting requirements on the Board of Inland Revenue in relation to tax credits. Subsection (5) requires the board to show how much it has paid out by way of child and working tax credit, its administrative costs in respect of those credits and how much it has received by way of tax credits.
    Amendment No. 16 continues the theme of Amendment No. 15, which we have just been discussing. If we do not know whether it comes from the Red Queen or Humpty Dumpty, always trust my noble friend Lord McIntosh. He knows more quotations and their sources than anyone else—from fictive sources as opposed to non-fictive sources; I make that distinction. The amendment would prevent tax credits from falling within the definition of "inland revenue" for the purposes of the Inland Revenue Regulation Act 1890. Consistent with that, the amendment of Lord Higgins seeks to make payments of tax credits be accounted for as deductions from inland revenue. Since, however, for the reasons we have just explored, it is necessary for tax credits to fall within the definition of "inland revenue" for the purposes of the Inland Revenue Regulation Act, the board will not have made any deductions from inland revenue for which it needs to account.
    Amendment No. 19 probes the requirement for the board to account for tax credits it has received. This may look odd at first sight, but it is aimed at requiring the board to account separately for recoveries of overpaid tax credit, as it does for recoveries of tax underpaid. The idea is that amounts of tax credit recovered paid out and amounts recovered should be

    CWH 31
    accounted for separately in the interests of transparency. In light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will warm to the provision.
    Amendment No. 16 makes a point which we have covered in some detail on other amendments. It is not an amendment that could have any substantive effect and therefore I urge noble Lords to resist it.
    Lord Higgins: At least the recovery of overpayments might conceivably be regarded as inland revenue, having previously been expenditure for which they did not account. I do not want to persist with this. It is related to the earlier amendment and perhaps, if the noble Baroness is writing to me, she could refer to this as well. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Saatchimoved Amendment No. 17:
    Page 2, line 25, after "expenses" insert "of the Board"
    The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 17, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Higgins, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 18. The Government propose to impose on employers, regardless of their size or profitability, the whole burden of administering the tax credit scheme. I believe that large companies have the machinery and the people to handle this very well and can generally look after themselves. So my remarks are directed at employers who may be small or very small businesses, sometimes just one person.
    Smaller employers do not have and cannot afford the substantial departments to administer this scheme. That is why our Benches in this Chamber and, I believe, the Liberal Democrat Benches also on previous occasions, have attempted to mitigate these burdens or to seek compensation for them from the Treasury in one form or another. There have also been many attempts during the passage of the Bill in another place to attempt to reduce, mitigate or seek compensation for these burdens but the Government have remained unmoved. Therefore, we have given up on the notion that the Government might consider help for small businesses in these matters and, instead, we propose what I hope the Minister will agree is a very modest amendment indeed.
    The amendment seeks only to require the Treasury, at the very minimum, to assess and to record the estimates of the amount of the cost to employers or, if the Minister prefers, the cost to small employers, of carrying out the new tasks which the Bill will require of them. Why do we ask for this? Because we believe that such a responsibility being placed on the Treasury will have the healthy effect of focusing the Treasury's attention on the issue of the cost of the Bill to small businesses.
    It is not only our Benches which have raised this point. During the investigation of the new child tax credit by the Social Security Select Committee in another place, similar concerns were expressed. It was said there that businesses should not be treated as a social welfare arm of the Government, and speakers
    CWH 32
    pointed to the risk of invasion of employee privacy and also to the risk of distraction from the wealth-creating activity of those small companies.
    I believe it is also true that the Government's own Better Regulation Task Force recognised the regulatory burdens associated with the predecessor, working families' tax credit. In that case, in a report on payroll burdens, they said that,
    "businesses now see themselves becoming unpaid benefit offices"
    That report noted the particular burden for small firms, which is what I am stressing here, as a result of the working families' tax credit. I believe that that task force calculated that of the £105 million of recurring costs for all businesses on the WFTC, £25 million would fall on companies with just one to four employees.
    Most of the local businesses I know employ that number of people, yet those businesses represent the bulk of employment in the economy and are the true engine of its growth. Any government which wants that growth to continue should want those companies to employ more people. Yet there are fears that the Bill, as it stands, could act as a disincentive to employing people because it invites extra cost and red tape for doing so.
    Members of the Committee will forgive me if I say that, if we put unacceptable burdens on the businesses that support those people, we risk destroying the mechanism that creates those jobs. Those jobs lie at the heart of any government's ability to generate wealth which is where the resources for all our public good come from.
    This is not a matter of great principle between the Opposition Benches and the Government but it is a matter of balance. Therefore I look forward to hearing that the Minister takes the point.
    The contrary view would be that the Government can see the very great charm from the Treasury's point of view of' making employers free suppliers to the benefit system. The problem is that the line and worthy aim of the Bill, to which I referred earlier, of helping people move from welfare to work, will not be achieved precisely because of the burden that the Bill places on business. For example, a report entitled Work in Progress on the working families' tax credit from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux found that employers have sacked workers entitled to a pay boost, or cut their hours, because they want to avoid the red tape of paying WFTC through the wage packet. Apparently this report was based on more than 700 cases involving people affected by that new tax credit. The study cited an example of a lone mother with three children who lost her job when the tax credit was put in her pay.
    According to those who are familiar with the situation in small companies, some people have found that receiving the tax credit from their employer is not worth the trouble it can sometimes cause. Some employers apparently consider the administrative burden to be too great for them to manage and, in a small number of cases, people have been sacked merely for claiming tax credits. We may think that that is

    CWH 33
    monstrous, but it is an illustration of the pressures that small businesses are sometimes under. Other staff have put pressure on employers to reduce their hours so that they do not qualify for these credits and avoid being threatened with dismissal.
    The House had previously voted by 161 to 121 for a Liberal. Democrat amendment to allow small employers to opt out of the system. On that occasion, it was decided not to risk a confrontation with another place by insisting on two amendments on which this House had defeated the Government. During that debate —although I was not present—I believe that the Minister urged this House to accept the decision of another place to reject the amendments. One of those amendments would have allowed employers with fewer than 10 employees to be exempted from paying the tax credit to their employees, payment being made instead by the Inland Revenue itself. On that occasion, the Minister said that that amendment would strike at the heart of the tax credit policy and was therefore unnecessary and inappropriate.
    In response, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—while agreeing that this was not an appropriate issue on which to force a battle between the two Houses—made clear that he had called for an "opt-out" and not an exclusion. The noble Lord said that it would have prevented small employers having to fund the cost of administering the new system.
    I have spoken at length because our Benches certainly have given up the hope of persuading the Government to compensate or find ways of dealing with this issue other than by requiring small companies to do the work for them. I do not know what is the view of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. We shall hear that in a moment.
    I hope that the Minister will at least accept this very modest amendment, which, after all, seeks only the publication of regular information about the scale of the burden that is being placed on business so that people can focus on it as an aspect of the working of the Bill. I beg to move.
    6.15 p.m.
    Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, is right. We on these Benches feel a considerable sympathy with this amendment. My honourable friend, Mr Webb, in the debate in another place, attempted to achieve the same end by the much more far reaching device of giving up the method of paying through the pay packet. There is a whole range of issues here in which—as the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, rightly said—there is a problem of balance.
    When you are dealing with a small business which employs, perhaps, three or four people, and it has to take on an extra person simply to understand the paperwork, which is quite complicated, that may make a real change to the finances of the business and possibly even threaten its viability. We do not want to diminish the number of small businesses in this country because they are one of the vital parts of the economy and one of the sectors which are capable of growth. The Exchequer will be as much a loser as the small businesses if we do not get this right.
    CWH 34
    Though I have sympathy with the small business, I have also perhaps even more sympathy for those who are dismissed by businesses—some of them businesses which, if I may so put it, are big enough to know better—for either claiming working families' tax credit or still claiming statutory sick pay (cases of that are still coming in 12 years after the Bill went through), or, in spite of the fact that it is illegal, for pregnancy. The fact that dismissal for pregnancy is illegal seems to have done surprisingly little to deter employers from continuing to do it. One wonders whether either the enforcement is sufficiently rigorous or the penalties of sufficient size to act as a necessary deterrent.
    Talking of employers who are big enough to know better, the last case of this sort that came to my attention was a threat of dismissal to somebody short of 12 months' service for taking one day off work with a slipped disc. I do not think that sort of thing is in employers' interests any more than it is in employees' interests. Labour is one of the raw materials of business. One would not treat one's other raw materials with that degree of indifference. If one does, it costs. Maybe the Minister will look again at my honourable friend Mr Webb's suggestion for moving away from the pay packet as the vehicle of delivery. They have gone a little way in that direction: possibly there is a little further that they could go. Possibly also before Report stage of the Employment Bill, the Minister might have a quiet word, of which I shall not need to know anything, with her noble friend Lord Sainsbury or Turville.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am pondering the implications of that last remark. I do not think it is what is needed, but I shall perhaps have a conversation.
    Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 together are aimed at bringing forward the issue of the compliance costs to employers of paying tax credits with wages. They insert a reference to the expenses of the board alongside the proposition that the board's accounts should include an estimate of the cost of tax credits to employers.
    Members of the Committee opposite would like to impose a requirement to have the board's accounts reflect an estimate of employers' costs of administering tax credits. It would, of course, not be right to require the board to account for costs other than their own. The proper place to address employers' costs will be in the revised Regulatory Impact Assessment which is being prepared in the light of announcements made in the Budget.
    I am sure that we will have considerable debate on the issue when we reach Clause 24 of the Bill, which I shall not seek to anticipate, except to remind Members of the Committee that savings of 1 million a year are expected from the changes to the system for employers, and that those changes have been welcomed by employer groups.

    CWH 35
    To confirm that point, consultation has shown that organisations have supported the move to streamline the system of payment via the employer. Admittedly, we quote from the CBI, which tends to represent the major employers, but the CBI states that its members:
    "support and welcome the attempts made by the government to simplify the rules for tax credits. In particular&abolition of the need for employers to provide a proof of earning certificate—which should considerably reduce the number of routine administrative enquiries employers receive, simplification of the notice periods&providing automatic funding for employers who are already in receipt of advanced funding",
    and,
    "support the principle of moving from a fixed 6-month payment of tax credits to a rolling 12-month period".
    I could quote from the Institute of Payroll and Pensions Management or from the Association of Convenience Stores, the Institute of Directors and other organisations. Clearly, all businesses would prefer not to be paying out student grants or being responsible for the introduction of orders on child maintenance and the like. Having said that, the changes the Bill introduces over the existing tax credit system, with its accompanying savings of 11 million and its simplification and streamlining of procedures, have been warmly welcomed.
    It does mean, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested, that this is in part due to the fact that the child tax credit will be paid to the main carer and employers will now only be responsible for that element which is paid to the adult, the working tax credit, and therefore that too simplifies the situation.
    A couple of specific quotes have been made by the previous speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, echoed the NACAB point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on Second Reading relating to improper or illegal behaviour by employers, given the use of tax credits to try to reduce people's hours, or even to dismiss them.
    I said on Second Reading that such behaviour was illegal and could be pursued through the courts. I had only some very slight anecdotal evidence from NACAB, and certainly when I have been asked about it I have had no consistent evidence of this happening. However, once a person is an employee, he or she is protected against detriment or dismissal by the provisions in Schedule 3 to the Tax Credits Act 1999. Similar protection will be provided by Schedule 1 to the present Bill. I am happy to put that into Hansard so that NACAB in particular knows to which section of the Bill they can return.
    Earl Russell: I know very well that the protection exists, and I am grateful for it. The question on which I hope the Minister might have a quiet word with her noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville is how that protection might be made more effective, because it is certainly not sufficiently effective at the moment.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Obviously any case is a bad case in that sense, but I am in a dilemma because I have seen no serious evidence that this is a sustained
    CWH 36
    problem. I am not in any sense suggesting that the examples are not well-founded. However, I do not know how serious a problem this is. The point has never been made to me as I have gone round talking to groups of lone parent advisers for example. That it happens, on occasion, I do not doubt, but how serious or sustained a problem it is, I do not know.
    All I can do at this stage is try to help make clear the legal rights and legal dependencies of employees in the situation. We should not reward bad employers by seeking to change the structure of the Bill, which in my view is so beneficial to everyone else. That would be absurd. It is like saying that if a man threatens violence you do not make him pay child support, and you reward violent behaviour. You cannot do that.
    However, if I can help by making clear any of the legal provisions that protect employees in this situation, and indeed follow that discussion with Lord Sainsbury, as the noble Earl suggested, to see whether he has any DTI evidence of this happening, I am, of course, very happy to do so, because any case is a bad case.
    The second point I wanted to raise was the distinction between small employers and larger employers. There are two points there. First, there is an assumption that somehow a cap in hand process is very difficult, and that we should therefore lift this burden off the shoulders of small employers. I do not accept that description of the situation facing them. Whatever the size of their company, all they have to do is to pay out what the tax credit office tells them to pay. They do not have to do any of the calculations themselves. If they need funds, and the funds that they are holding for national insurance are not sufficient to meet their bills, the Inland Revenue will provide those funds.
    The arrangement in place with the Inland Revenue is as near to being automatic as one can get it. That has been recognised by employing companies.
    On a more philosophical point, I am not comfortable about trying to draw lines between small and medium-sized companies —those of up to 15 or 20 employees, or whatever the noble Lord has in mind—and larger ones. That was the argument used to stop discrimination against disabled people. I am sure I will have the support of the noble Earl, Lord Russell here. Ever since the Conservative government passed the very important Disability Discrimination Act 1995, we have been seeking, with all-party consent, not to say that someone's right to disability protection depended on the size of the company that employed them.
    In the same way here, we are concerned about making the move into work pay. It may not currently pay, because wage rates on entering work are often much lower than median wages. That problem is more likely to happen with smaller companies rather than large ones. It is therefore more important that the money is paid through the payroll for smaller companies than it is for greater ones.
    The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, may not share our approach to this, and obviously businesses might well prefer not to be involved with this at all. However, it

    CWH 37
    could not be a simple procedure. We must ensure not only that work pays, but that it is perceived to pay. The technical point is that it would be unreasonable to expect the board to account for costs other than its own. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
    Lord Northbrook: Can the Minister say where the figure of £11 million comes from for the savings of employers' costs?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The figure of £11 million has been provided by the Inland Revenue and accepted by the organisation, based on some of the changes being made. I shall be happy to write to the noble Lord about the particular improvements of this scheme over the previous one which will allow him to assess whether he feels the figure of £11 million is realistic.
    6.30 p.m.
    Baroness Andrews: I have listened with interest to what the Minister has said. I should declare an interest as an employer of a small business in the voluntary sector, which has grown from nothing to 35 to 40 people. During that time, many different evolutionary systems of tax credits have been introduced. They have been handled with great comfort and grace. Like any other small and, it is hoped, good employers, we see this is as very much part of being a good employer. In essence, these are support and benefit systems and tax credit systems which support a productive and effective workplace.
    We employ many young people with children and we have not found it difficult to do so. From my experience in the voluntary sector, I can say that I have heard no complaints from organisations of our size. I support the provision and the general philosophical point that has been made; namely, that this is very much concerned with developing a positive culture of good employer/employee relations.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I welcome the support of my noble friend. If the argument of discrimination against particular employees and pressure on hours were to apply, it would be more likely to apply under the old working families' tax credit system that we currently have in place, because by definition it has tended to target lone parents. By applying the working tax credit to adults, irrespective of whether they have children, if the employer is seeking to discriminate then, if he is a low-paying employer, he is going to end up discriminating against his entire workforce.
    Lord Saatchi: Did I understand the Minister correctly to say that the Inland Revenue had carried out a calculation?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I said that this figure was supplied to me and, I do not doubt, calculated by the Inland Revenue as a saving of £11 million in costs over the current compliance costs for employers for
    CWH 38
    the existing tax credit system. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, I shall he happy to write explaining how that figure was arrived at.
    Lord Saatchi: I am still puzzled about this. If the Inland Revenue is capable of making that calculation, it must be able to calculate the extra cost of administering the tax credit, deducting the beneficial savings of the workings of the new system, and therefore arriving at a net figure; that is, the figure of £11 million. Is that right?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Does the noble Lord mean for employers?
    Lord Saatchi: Yes, for employers.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The point I sought to make is that it is not the job of the Board of Inland Revenue to determine the costs for employers except in so far as it is calculated through the regulatory impact assessment.
    Lord Saatchi: I understand that, which is why I am puzzled by the fact that the Inland Revenue has made this calculation. I think that the noble Baroness said that it was not for the Inland Revenue to make these calculations. The noble Baroness said that they were made for the regulatory impact assessment.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is not for the board to account for costs other than their own in terms of public statements. The RIA has been published with the Bill. When, as requested, the board publishes its reports and so forth, it is not for the board to account for costs other than their own. That is all I seek to make clear. That does not mean to say that we cannot estimate those; it is not for the board to account for them.
    Lord Saatchi: If the Inland Revenue is capable of making this calculation of the saving, it means that it is capable of making the calculation and assessing whether there is a burden or—
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is not a question of capacity. It is a question of propriety.
    Lord Saatchi: Since the noble Baroness is relying on the Inland Revenue's calculations to dismiss the argument that there has been a burden placed on business, it is obviously reasonable to rely on the revenue's estimates to find out whether there has been a burden or a saving. The amendment seeks only to ensure that the revenue will repeat on an annual basis the exercise carried out to arrive at the figure of £11 million.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The right place for the costs, as I sought to point out earlier, is in the regulatory impact assessment, not in the report of the board accounting for its own accounts. That is all.
    The Committee will forgive me, but I suspect that again we may be considering angels on pinheads here. No one is suggesting that any attempt should he made to conceal or obfuscate the compliance costs for

    CWH 39
    employers, although I hasten to emphasise that those compliance costs are substantially reduced and their reduction has been welcomed by employers. The question is: at what point and in what way and to whom does the board account for its activities? This is not the right format. It is almost as mechanical as that.
    Lord Saatchi: I am happy to leave it at that, though what we have witnessed here is a consistent pattern on the Government's part to be unwilling to accept that this Bill places burdens on small companies. We can swap reports and evidence and quotations from different bodies.
    I hope that the Minister understands that, according to the research that one sees, one of the reasons why businesses have grown slightly disillusioned with the Government is this very problem of excess regulation and red tape. Therefore, in the interests of her own Government, the noble Baroness would do better to show more sympathy with small businesses than to dismiss their concerns with the use of the phrase, "All they have to do is to—"
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I was simply going to challenge the noble Lord about the whole issue of the Government's attitude to small and medium-sized enterprises. I shall write to him because this is important—rather than take up the time of the Committee now—setting out everything that this Government have done to support and help small and medium-sized enterprises, including having a stable economy, having low inflation, reducing corporation tax, helping cash flow, boosting investment, encouraging innovation and research work, encouraging the use of IT and so forth. I shall happily write him a 15-page letter setting out what the Government are doing to support small and medium-sized enterprises. I cannot let that statement go.
    I am saying that small businesses should not find this at all problematic. It is a simpler procedure than the one they currently operate—and that is certainly simple. All they have to do is to pay out the figure from the Inland Revenue. As my noble friend said, this is part of ensuring that those businesses will be able to attract a wider labour force than might otherwise be the case. The wages that they would otherwise be paying, which are extremely low although they are the minimum wage, may not offer the best package into the labour market for people with children. They now have a wider labour force on which to draw because people with children can now afford to work as a result of the support for their children coming through the child tax credit.
    That is the first point. My stats are out of date so I ask the Committee to forgive me if I am slightly inaccurate. When we last debated this issue of tax credits, I was able to point out to the noble Lord then that in the UK the non-wage labour costs represented an average of about 26 per cent ongoing costs to employers, compared with a figure in Europe which ranged between 40 and 50 per cent. I have seen nothing to suggest that that rough equivalent has changed. This country still has one of the best climates anywhere
    CWH 40
    in the OECD for small businesses and enterprises to flourish. What this does is ensure that they have a labour force also suitably equipped to come into the labour market.
    Lord Saatchi: I am happy to leave the matter there. I am sure we shall want to return to this very important subject in other stages but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.]
    Lord Saatchimoved Amendment No. 20:
    Page 2, line 28, at end insertߞ
    "() The treatment of the accounts kept by the Board shall conform to the standards established by the OECD."
    The noble Lord said: The background to this amendment can be found in box C2 on page 216 of the current Red Book. It is also dealt with in the exchange of correspondence that I have had with the Minister. The third point in my letter asked for confirmation that it was in fact the case that any money paid as a benefit—in other words, not as a reduction in tax—will be dealt with as public expenditure. This would represent a move to the OECD format for the public accounts. Box C2 deals with that, as does her reply to my letter, from which she quoted earlier. In her letter the Minister confirmed that,
    "the Child Tax Credit and the Working Tax Credit will score in Treasury publications as negative tax … to the extent that the credits are less than or equal to the tax liability of the family, with the remainder scored as public expenditure".
    The Minister said earlier that the latest estimates for the total value of tax credits was £15 billion, of which about 10 per cent—it states in her letter 10 to 11 per cent, but I shall stick with the round figure—of the new tax credits will score as negative tax with 90 per cent scoring as public expenditure.
    In order to explain why the amendment has been brought forward and has caused such difficulty I shall need to repeat a little history. I hope that the Committee will bear with me while I do so. The problem is that the Government have persisted for too long in a practice which many observers have described as "creative accounting". The background to this is that the UK adopted the 1995 European system of accounts, which is known as ESA/95, in September 1998. ESA/95 is an EU regulation that gives legal force to the internationally agreed 1993 system of national accounts, which is known as SNA/ 93. The UK had been required to make returns to Eurostat, which is the statistical office of the European Union, on an ESA/95 basis since April 1999. While the UK could have continued to publish national accounts data on that basis, it was decided by the ONS to adopt the ESA/95 for domestic as well as international purposes.
    While the Treasury generally follows ONS practice in publications such as the Red Book, from which I have been quoting, and the pre-Budget report, there were points at which—for reasons which are not clear and which I hope the Minister will explain; it would be comforting to know what were the reasons—

    CWH 41
    differences occurred between the Treasury and the ONS on the treatment of, in particular, the working families' tax credit.
    Many people believe—I am sure that the Minister is aware of this—that the Government defied international conventions under the European system of accounts, ESA/95, which had been adopted by the ONS. They defied the ruling by counting all of the working families' tax credit as negative income tax in their measure of the national tax burden. That was thought by many to be a breach of international accounting standards. People felt, but did not know, that as only a proportion of the working families' tax credit related to relieving an income tax liability, and the other part related to claims which could not conceivably be described as negative income tax because there was no income tax liability to be relieved, that treatment was inappropriate.
    I do not think that the critics then knew that the balance between those amounts, which one could describe as "illegitimate" as negative taxation, added up to 90 per cent of the total. Economists and others knew that there was a distinction, but I do not believe that anyone knew that the scale was as enormous as that. That is the background.
    When people were looking forward to this Bill, those who were anxious about this point in terms of treatment thought they could see a situation in which large amounts of government expenditure were then being transferred to a tax net-off and other amounts were about to be transferred as a result of the Bill. People thought, though they did not know the scale, that by the time we reached the end of the Bill, there would be a very large sum indeed being dealt with in this way. The noble Baroness has confirmed today that it is a very large sum—£15 billion a year.
    With a GDP of around £1,000 billion a year, £15 billion a year is 1.5 per cent of GDP. I believe the noble Baroness said earlier that the correct figure was £15 billion. I think she also said that the correct proportion of that 15 billion, which was to be treated as public expenditure rather than negative tax, was 90 per cent. What is puzzling—I am sure I have misunderstood this, but I would be grateful to understand it better—is that box C2 says that the change to treating the tax credits in line with OECD accounting principles adds about 0.5 percentage points to the tax GDP ratio for 1999–2000 onwards.
    That does not seem to add up. If the figure is £15 billion, which represents 1.5 per cent of GDP, and 90 per cent of it is what had previously been classified as tax reduction but is now being classified as public expenditure, that ought to make a difference of 1.5 per cent to the tax GDP ratio. I would be extremely interested to be better informed about what we must remember is probably one of the most important political statistics in Britain. General elections have certainly been won and lost on the basis of the figure that I am talking about.
    No doubt I am wrong, but I would like the noble Baroness to take the Committee through the calculation of the impact of the change described in
    CWH 42
    box C2 on the calculation of the so-called tax burden. I am very glad to see the Treasury Minister return, because I remember his admonishment that our Benches should not refer to something called the "tax burden" on the grounds that the word "burden" was offensive, as it sounded painful, and that the correct and preferred phrase was "net taxes and social security contributions as a percentage of gross domestic product".
    Taking the noble Lord's preferred wording, I wish to ask the noble Baroness to take the Committee through the previous treatment of tax credits, the new treatment that is proposed and the figures that go from one treatment to another. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
    6.45 p.m.
    Baroness Crawley: Is the noble Lord saying that the Treasury has been acting illegally in its accounting methods?
    Lord Saatchi: I do not know enough about such matters to comment on that, but the answer is almost certainly that it has not.
    I suggest that the treatment that has existed in the Red Book for some time has not been consistent with OECD principles. The noble Baroness said today that the Government would move to bring the treatment in line with OECD principles, which we would very much welcome. The most important aspect about the treatment of these tax credits is that they are dealt with on a consistent basis from year to year so that readers of the public accounts can discover what is going on. So any change in accounting practices is a red light to readers of public accounts.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may give the noble Lord an explanation. If I am obscure or ill-informed on any points, then I am sure that noble Lords will draw it to my attention.
    On the first point about OECD guidance, this has only recently been finalised following a long period of consultation. The Government have therefore decided to follow best international practice.
    Turning to the point about the 0.5 percentage point rise—the discrepancy between that and the £15 billion/90 per cent figure—this is the tax GDP ratio for 1999–2000. In other words, this is about re-classifying retrospectively the existing WFTC system under the new rules, as opposed to what would happen when the new tax credits come into play.
    Lord Saatchi: The phrase used is that this change adds about 0.5 percentage points to the tax GDP ratio for 1999–2000 onwards.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, but these figures are in fact for April 2003.
    Lord Saatchi: Is it possible for the Minister to write to me? What we would very much like to see is for the "before" and "after" treatment of tax credits to be

    CWH 43
    spelt out, along with the "before" and "after" impact on the tax GDP ratio. I believe that many people outside this Chamber would like to see that as well.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: All we are doing is revising previously published figures to be consistent with the new OECD guidance. That is all. The figures apply to the existing system. However, of course the noble Lord knows that I like nothing better than sending him letters.
    Lord Newby: The amendment deals with how one treats a tax credit which is partly—indeed largely—a benefit, as we have discovered this afternoon. We have grappled, as the Government have, with what is the most intellectually and politically satisfactory way of dealing with this. I suspect that all Members of the Committee would agree that the ONS/OECD definition—which the Government have now adopted—that tax credits are treated as tax credits and benefits as public expenditure, is the logical way forward. It allows us to see clearly where the balance lies between the two parts of these credits/benefits.
    Where the Government have been criticised—and retain a residue of criticism—is over the long time it has taken to reach this point. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, when he described the previous system of accounting as creative accounting. The main purpose—at a time when the Government were seeking desperately to prove that they wore an even thicker hair shirt than their predecessor—undoubtedly was to show that the tax burden, or tax rate, or level of taxation in the economy was low, and therefore the economy was safe in Labour's hands.
    One of the methods it used was this classification of the working families' tax credit in a way that was misleading—to the extent that no one could understand the figures at all. Therefore, on this side of the Chamber we welcome the fact that we have now reached a point at which it will be absolutely clear where the balance of benefit and credit falls.
    As Members of the Committee will know, I say those words as a member of a party which has not shied away from accepting levels of taxation which may be higher in order to achieve certain public policy goods. From the start we would not have found it difficult to accept that a slightly higher level of taxation was needed in order to deliver what the Government and other Members of the Committee would consider good, sensible benefits in many other respects.
    Having adopted the OECD guidelines and recommendations, I have sympathy with the amendment. We only hope that the Government now stick to them and, two years down the track, when other things may be happening to make life difficult for them, they do not seek to reclassify them and go back to their previous unsatisfactory practice.
    Lord Freeman: Perhaps the Minister could help the Committee. I refer to a point that I raised earlier. As I recall, the Minister said that the portion of total tax
    CWH 44
    credits we are talking about which effectively reduced the taxation of a household to nil would be treated as a tax repayment and the balance—approximately 89 to 90 per cent—would he regarded as public expenditure. That apportionment, incidentally, creates real administrative problems and the much simpler solution of my noble friends Lord Higgins and Lord Saatchi, of treating it all as public expenditure, would not create this simple problem; namely, that the apportionment must be an estimate.
    The Minister may have received advice earlier on this. If the calculation is to be made on the basis of P60s, it would be consistent with having the figures on public expenditure—and a 1 per cent variance is £150 million. The Minister talks about 10 to II per cent which is a difference of 150 million; a significant sum. If we rely on the employer's P60 calculation, it will reflect accurately as far as the employer is concerned where tax has been reduced to nil and therefore where the cut-off is. That is the only practical way forward that I can see. If we rely on the accurate figures, which is what the taxpayer returns—that could be a year later—we have first to calculate the household tax as opposed to the individual's tax. We will therefore have a timing difference. It is perhaps a technical point and the Minister may like to write to me if that is helpful. But will she accept that this apportionment is an estimate?
    Earl Russell: Perhaps I might add a few more words. I agree with the points that have been made all round the Committee about the need for a consistent standard of counting. But I want to take up two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi. First, he said that the proportion of GDP going on public expenditure is perhaps the most important political figure there is; or words to that effect. That is confusing the shadow with the substance. The proportion of spending counted as public spending is not an objective question.
    As this discussion illustrated, it is always a matter of classification. For example, when I first came into the House, health insurance added 400 dollars on to the price of every Chrysler car. That is not public expenditure but it was just as big a burden on the American economy as if it had been. When Mr Robin Cook paid a visit to Singapore shortly after this Government came into office, it was reported that Singapore's public expenditure was 18 per cent of GDP. It then emerged that if the Singapore Provident Fund was included, out of which all old age pensions were paid, the correct figure would have been 38 per cent.
    This is a purely subjective question. Thus, a lot of expenditure is a burden on the economy regardless of whether it comes out of a pocket labelled "private" or a pocket labelled "public". That is too easily lost sight of on both sides of the discussion.
    The other point I want to take up is the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, about the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, rebuking him for using the phrase, "tax burden". I remember when I first arrived in this House I said that I had never in my life protested about

    CWH 45
    my level of taxation and was not going to do so now. I remember the faces of absolutely blank astonishment on the Benches opposite. What they seemed not to understand—and I say this only in order to increase mutual understanding and not to change anybody's mind about anything—is that I feel about this exactly the same sense of repugnance that many people on the Conservative Benches feel about criticising the policy of a British government in time of war. That is something which I am prepared to do. I know it serves in Conservative Benches a sense of utter repugnance, even if they may in private think the criticism justified. I just ask them to understand that similar feelings exist in other parties, though they may take a very different form. If that is understood it will ease communication between us.
    7 p.m.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Since I became a taxpayer 45 years ago it has always been my principle that Labour governments, which I think ought to have taxed me more heavily, have taken several years to get around to taxing more heavily, and Conservative governments, which I think ought to tax me more heavily, have done it immediately on coming to office.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I will seek to be brief. I confirm what was said in the letter that the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi asked me about. He is correct that the new tax credits will be accounted for as negative taxation to the extent that they are less than or equal to the tax liabilities of the adults in the household. Otherwise it is public expenditure. That is consistent with the OECD guidance.
    Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, asked me to confirm that this was an estimate. Yes, it is an estimate, but that should not be surprising. The split between tax and public spending is based on an estimate using FRS and FES survey data, and that will be revised upwards or downwards in the light of new evidence. This process has been held to be satisfactory for OECD purposes. Obviously, we will also use the same procedure to estimate the total cost of new tax credits and other tax and benefit changes. All the time in social security we are estimating how much we are going to put in for what used to be called unemployment benefit. It may not turn out to be that precise figure, but it is an estimate. I do not see why that should be surprising.
    Finally, I would like to reinforce the point made so eloquently by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and by my noble friend. The burden of taxation has been mentioned. I believe that tax credits are an investment in our children to help them overcome poverty, above all by making it financially viable for their parents to work. The noble Lord's burden is my investment. I suspect we have different readings of how society should be organised. I hope none the less that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
    Lord Saatchi: Having heard what the Minister said, I was going to ask the opinions of others on the Committee on whether the noble Baroness would have
    CWH 46
    any difficulty accepting the amendment if I did not withdraw it. It simply says what she has said at the Dispatch Box and in her letter. The aim is simply that the treatment of the accounts kept by the board shall conform to the standards established by the OECD. Having heard what the noble Baroness has said, we welcome her late conversion. Therefore, instead of my withdrawing the amendment, would the Minister consider accepting it?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If the amendment is redundant, why should we accept it?
    Lord Saatchi: If the amendment does nothing other than reassure people such as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that there may be some other change of heart, given the Government's past practices in this area, that would be reason enough to agree to it, so everyone would know where they stood.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The amendment relates to the board's accounts. OECD treatment is a matter for Treasury figures. Obviously the Inland Revenue reports to the Treasury. I do not see the point. I would certainly resist putting additional words on the face of the Bill that do not add to the OECD accounting methods. As it stands, the amendment is redundant in terms of its policy thrust. In practice it would be flawed because the amendment relates to the board's account.
    Lord Saatchi: That is a pity. I am sure we will want to come back to this, perhaps later in Committee stage or on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 21:
    Page 2, line 30, leave out from "office)" to "the" in line 31.
    The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 21. This is a rather technical amendment which suggests that the passage in parenthesis in Clause 2(6)
    should be deleted. It states that:
    "In any declaration for the purposes of section 6 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 (c.9) (declarations on taking office), whether made before or after the commencement of this section, the reference to an offence relating to inland revenue is to be taken to include a reference to an offence relating to a tax credit".
    However, as I understand the parenthesis, it is suggested that that should apply whether this declaration is made before or after the commencement of this section.
    I am not clear how that will operate in practice. Let us suppose that this section had not yet come into effect, how could it refer to a tax credit which did not exist, albeit that the expression "a tax credit.' is rather ambiguous because we have about 39 different tax credits—I have lost count of exactly how many—some of which are being abolished and some of which are being introduced. Is this to include reference to all tax credits? In any case, how is it to be operated retrospectively? I beg to move.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am happy to explain the purpose of the provisions. Under the Taxes Management Act 1970, Inland Revenue staff and the Commissioners must make a formal declaration that they will not disclose any information received by them in the execution of their duties, except for the purposes of those duties, or in the prosecution of certain offences, or where disclosure is otherwise required by law.
    This obligation of confidentiality will extend to information received in connection with tax credits. This clause accordingly amplifies the relevant provision in the Taxes Management Act. The general duty of non-disclosure, tempered by the fact that disclosure is permitted in certain circumstances in the Bill—for example, prosecution of offences and so forth—it does not place retrospective requirements on staff, although I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, might well think so.
    The declaration taken by existing staff already imposes a general duty of non-disclosure in relation to the execution of their duties. These duties may, of course, change from time to time. Clause 2(6) relates to the scope for disclosure for the purposes of the prosecution of offences. All it does is to ensure that once the Tax Credits Bill takes effect, existing staff who deal with the new tax credits are subject to precisely the same confidentiality requirements as they already have in relation to tax matters.
    I hope that noble Lords will agree that it would make little sense for existing staff who started to work on tax credits to be unable to disclose information for the purposes of prosecuting a tax credit offence where they could do so in the case of an offence relating to an income tax matter. This provision avoids that situation and ensures that, as with similar provision made in earlier legislation, Inland Revenue staff are under the same obligations of confidentiality in relation to all the information they may receive in the course of their work. I hope that the noble Lord will feel comfortable with that explanation.
    Lord Higgins: I am grateful for the explanation. I have suddenly realised that I probably proposed the original Section 6 in the Taxes Management Act 1970, which is slightly worrying. I believe that I understand the point made by the noble Baroness. I would like to look very carefully at precisely what she has said since she was clearly reading it out rather than making it up as she went alone—
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I always read it out—
    Lord Higgins: As a consequence I am sure that the words were prepared adequately by the revenue. One of the great virtues of the Minister is that she does not always read out her brief, and therefore sometimes we understand what has been said. In all events, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 2 agreed to.
    Lord Saatchimoved Amendment No. 22:
    After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
    "SUBMISSION OF REPORT TO TREASURY BY BOARD
    (1) The Board shall submit a monthly report to the Treasury giving an account of its care and management of tax credits.
    (2) Among the matters the Board shall include in its monthly report are—

    (a) the Board's estimates of the total possible take-up of each tax credit, and the statistical and other assumptions upon which such estimates are made;

    (b) the Board's estimates of the total practicable take-up of each tax credit, and the statistical and other assumptions upon which such estimates are made; and

    (c) the actual take-up of each tax credit.

    (3) The Treasury shall publish the monthly reports of the Board and, where the take-up of any tax credit is less than 80 per cent of the estimate of the total practical take-up of the tax credit, shall lay before Parliament a report setting out the Treasury's estimate of the amount of moneys not spent by reason of the deficiency of take-up in the month to which the estimate relates.
    (4) The Treasury shall cause a sum equivalent to the amount in subsection (3) to be paid into a special account to be called "The National Tax Credit Take-Up Assurance Fund".
    (5) The Treasury shall lay before Parliament each year accounts of the Fund and proposals for its disbursement by way of improvements to the take-up of tax credits.
    The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 22, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 23 and 235. Amendment No. 22 would require the submission of a monthly report to the Treasury giving an account of its care and management of tax credits by the Treasury. In particular, the report would contain the board's estimates of the total possible take-up of each tax credit, and the statistical and other assumptions upon which such estimates are made.
    The board's estimates of the total practical take-up of each tax credit and the statistical and other assumptions upon which they are made would be the main part of the report. Together with that would be the actual take-up of each tax credit.
    The board's monthly reports would be published by the Treasury. If the take-up of any tax credit was less than 80 per cent of the estimate of its total practical take-up, the Treasury would lay before Parliament a report setting out the Treasury's estimate of the amount of money not spent by reason of the deficiency of take-up and the months to which the estimate related.
    Amendment No. 23 would add a requirement for the board to include in its reports the amount of tax that has not been paid as a result of tax credits that have been paid to persons otherwise not liable to income tax.
    Amendment No. 235 would insert a new clause requiring an annual report to Parliament. The key elements of the annual report would be a total estimate of the take-up of the working tax credit and an estimate of the take-up of the child tax credit, and the number of these in both cases. The report would also contain an estimate of the cost to employers of operating the working tax credit and the child tax credit.

    CWH 49
    At Second Reading, we discussed at length the central problem that, worthy though the aim of the scheme is, it may fail if take-up is too low. We know that the take-up problem is endemic to the system that the Bill puts in place. I am sure the Minister accepts that this is perhaps the fundamental problem. Many cities have a high level of social mobility and high population turnover. For many people in houses in multiple occupation, getting the post is a nightmare. Readership of local newspapers is low compared with the consumption of other forms of media. The multiplicity of media means that it is more difficult than ever to get a message through to people. Many languages are spoken in our major cities, so it is particularly difficult to reach minority communities, which are often among the poorest.
    The take-up of the working families' tax credit is estimated at 62 per cent and that only 72 per cent of entitled families with children had claimed the children's tax credit by December 2001. If those figures are wrong or out of date, I am more than happy for the noble Baroness to correct them.
    The result of those low take-up figures is that it has been estimated that £2.6 billion of budgeted expenditure on tax credits this year will go unclaimed. Again, if that figure is wrong or out of date, I would be grateful for the noble Baroness's view of what is the correct figure on the amount saved as a result of the non-take-up of tax credits.
    We are curious about where this money is and who has it. We are anxious to discover where that money is in the national accounts and whether it is possible for it to be earmarked and retained by those people who are meant to be its ultimate beneficiaries.
    I shall not dwell on the issue any longer at this hour. Those are the purposes of this group of amendments. I beg to move.
    7.15 p.m.
    Lord Newby: We are discussing three amendments. We have sympathy with two of them, but not as much sympathy with the first. I have major doubts about the sense of trying to pull this particular plant up by its roots every month. We have seen the report. It is not the kind of regime that is susceptible to sensible review on such a short timescale.
    I am also doubtful about the benefit of setting up the kind of assurance that the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, refers to. I am not a great expert on the way this credit will work in practice, and I am not sure how far payments of credit can be backdated. However, as long as there is provision for that to happen within a reasonable period, I doubt whether there is a necessity for a separate fund to be established.
    Where we have sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, is when it comes to the submission of an annual report. One of the great problems generally with legislation is that huge amounts of effort are spent in this Chamber and another place discussing how it will work and very little effort is then spent looking at how well it does work. In this case, there are a number
    CWH 50
    of key potential and actual problems with the working of the credit which deserve to be reported upon and considered by Parliament.
    The take-up is an absolutely key point. The question of fraud is another obvious point and the cost to employers, which we have already discussed, is another area which should he kept under full review. Therefore, while we have some serious problems with the first of these amendments, the second and third are eminently sensible and we hope that the Government will feel able to accept them.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 235 attempt to impose an obligation on the Board of Inland Revenue to produce and publish an annual report on its care and management of tax credits and to submit to the Treasury monthly reports on the take-up of tax credits. As I am sure Members of the Committee are aware, it is not appropriate for that kind of commitment to appear on the face of the Bill. There are other methods of scrutinising the impact of policy and how it is administered.
    Indeed, there are already well-established ways for Parliament to scrutinise precisely the information that noble Lords wish to be reported. The Board of Inland Revenue currently publishes an annual report covering all that department's activities and from 2003 it will also cover tax credits. That report is presented to Parliament by the Paymaster General, so it may he that that addresses the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Newby.
    Amendment No. 22 attempts to impose an obligation on the board to produce a monthly report on the care and management of tax credits, including take-up and so forth. Again, that is not appropriate. In addition to the annual report laid before Parliament. Parliament may also, if it wishes to pursue the items listed in that amendment, further scrutinise the chairman of the board when he appears before the Public Accounts Committee, and I rather suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, may have done something similar in the past.
    The Inland Revenue also produces quarterly statistical reports specifically covering W FTC and DPTC. I do not know whether Members of the Committee receive those automatically but I do and they are extremely long. They show exactly what is happening to payments and movements. A typical one is the quarterly report on working families' tax credit with all the relevant stats. It is always in the Library and in the Printed Paper Office, to the best of my knowledge, and is always available. So that information is already there and we expect to continue to provide it.
    Therefore, I should have thought that Members of the Committee already have an annual report as well as a quarterly report with very full information on the workings of the proposed tax credits.
    I turn away from the issue of scrutiny to the issue of take-up, which is at the heart of this new clause and also appears in the first half of Amendment No. 235. The take-up of WFTC is encouraging; 1.3 million

    CWH 51
    families benefit from WFTC; over 500,000 more benefited from family credit. Those families on average are receiving £35 per week more on WFTC than they would have done on family credit.
    As I said at Second Reading, take-up takes time to build. We saw that with family credit which went up from about 60 per cent in cash terms, to nearly 80 per cent and, in people terms, 75 per cent before it was replaced by WFTC. Again, the build-up of WFTC has been very satisfactory, including the fact that many of those who were eligible but did not apply for family credit went on to apply for WFTC because—and this is the main reason for them not applying—the benefit was worth more. Therefore, although we can have statistics about the number of people applying, we also need to see what the cash value is too. Many people, particularly if they are earning £50,000 a year, may decide that it is not worth applying for the family element of, say, £2 or £3 a week, and decide not to do so.
    In regard to the take-up of child tax credit, we are assuming that around ¾ million families with children will claim and benefit from it. We are publicising that extensively. I do not believe that we need special funds for it, but we are certainly publicising it extensively.
    We know already who many of the recipients will be. They are families who are currently claiming WFTC, DPTC and the child tax credit. Those families will be sent a form directly later this year. We also know, obviously, the families on IS and JSA who will be eligible. So there is a lot of automaticity in the process in addition to the publicity campaigns and working with voluntary organisations and so on.
    Finally, the amendments would require the board to lay an annual report before Parliament to give an account of its care and management. I had hoped that I had addressed this issue when I referred to the report already presented to Parliament by my right honourable friend the Paymaster General.
    Amendment No. 235, also seeks to impose upon the board an obligation to set out an annual report on the cost to employers of operating tax credits. We discussed this issue on a previous amendment. We do not think that it is appropriate. We believe that it is a part of the regulatory impact assessment.
    I am seeking to reassure the Committee that the mechanisms of reporting, scrutiny and ensuring take-up are well in place. Obviously, if noble Lords have any queries or wish to press me further on any of those three issues, I shall do my best to respond.
    Earl Russell: Somewhere in some kind of platonic heaven where Sir Humphrey keeps his inner Cabinet, there is, I suspect, a model government answer of a speech opposing an amendment for an annual report. One day, some time on, some future historian will have a great deal of fun going over the different models of that standard speech and trying to work out what change brought about which revision and whether they happened once a year or once every 50 years.
    CWH 52
    In this instance, perhaps there is a case for a revision. I know perfectly well that the Inland Revenue issues an annual report, but we are asking here—and this is part of the glory—for a considerable change of culture in both of the departments involved. If it does not produce that it will not be the success which we on these Benches hope and believe that it will be.
    It is perfectly possible for the Inland Revenue to produce an annual report which is very full, very detailed, and a great burden on the Minister's desk, but which does not really concentrate on the points involved in Amendment No. 235. One way of bringing about the cultural change that we want would be to invite the production of an annual report which concentrates on precisely those points where we are looking for cultural change.
    One sees in any public service job the effect of being constantly asked for information on some particular issue. It may create resentment but it also creates the desire at least of producing an appearance of doing something in that area. That may, in a kind of ritual manner, sometimes enter into one's soul and influence the way one thinks. That is a part of the argument for an annual report. Perhaps I may put a suggestion to the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi. I hope we may be seeing this amendment again on Report. Is there any chance of the last clause of Amendment No. 235 reading:
    "An estimate of the cost to employers of operating the child tax credit and the risk to employees of claiming it"?
    That is perhaps the balance for which the noble lord, Lord Saatchi, has called.
    The Earl of Northesk: Can I briefly tempt the Minister back to the issue of parliamentary scrutiny of fraud? Is it not the case that the Government have already conducted an investigation into fraud within the working families' tax credit and further indicated their intention that this report would be available to Parliament round about September 2001? Yet here we are, eight months later, with no sight of the report. Does that not in fact justify the principle of there at least being an annual report to Parliament on the basis of scrutiny into fraud and take-up?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Let me reflect on the last point and not get in the way of a negotiation between the two Opposition Front Benches on joint amendments to which they may sign up on Report. I agree with the noble Earl. I have never yet dealt with a Bill, either in Opposition or in Government, in which there have not been amendments calling for annual reports, for every negative regulation in sight to be affirmative and, as far as possible, for every affirmative regulation to be on the face of the Bill. I agree that, not necessarily in Heaven, but certainly in some purgatory, there are model speeches for all three of those issues.
    What matters first that the department—that is the Inland Revenue and, to some extent the DWP, because our concern is with abolishing child poverty—knows what is happening and that that information should be obtained in a properly researched, evidence-based way. Secondly, that information should be in the

    CWH 53
    public domain so that the Government can be held to account for their success or otherwise in meeting the objectives.
    I have tried to suggest to the Committee that both of those requirements are indeed the case. We currently monitor WFTC and DPTC regularly from administrative data captured on forms and so on. We supplement this information with data from surveys, such as the Family Resources Survey, the Labour Force Survey and the Families and Children Survey. We also work with the controllers of those surveys to include questions and ask whether the household is receiving WFTC, DPTC or children's tax credit. In addition to that, every quarter we publish those surveys on take-up. That information is there now.
    We also have the benefit of the annual report from the Inland Revenue. It would be helpful, if Members of the Committee wish to pursue this, if they could say what precise information is required, which will be quantitatively available. I do not mean risk, because that cannot be quantified in this sort of report. I can make a statement or an assertion, but this does not lend itself to counting. The sort of reports we are talking about lend themselves to counting. However, if there is any further information that noble Lords feel we should scrutinise, I would be very happy to reflect on that. However, I ask noble Lords to understand that surveys and quarterly inquiries require statistics, and statistics require countable units. I am not saying that they are more or less valuable than qualitative information, but we can only count what is countable. Therefore, in terms of reporting in that way, we are dealing with information that is secure and reliable, in the public domain and open to public scrutiny.
    If noble Lords wish to write to me and suggest that there are other things that are countable and should be counted, I would be very happy to see whether that was a reasonable request.
    Lord Saatchi: I thank the Minister for her reply. The noble Earl was trying to say that, although there are matters here that are capable of being counted, and should be counted and should be published on a regular basis—and we can agree about what the period should be—some statistical matters are capable of
    CWH 54
    being treated in that way and published, with full disclosure. We will certainly wish to pursue these concepts of disclosure on Report.
    Perhaps an even more important point, as the noble Earl was saying, is that part of the job of Parliament and the Committee is to focus the minds of Ministers, officials and those who are responsible on the priorities. As much as these clauses are about statistics, they are also about psychology and focus. I hope we will come back to these on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): We now come to Clause 3.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I apologise. We were moving notes between us and I was led by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, to believe that we could not take a new amendment after 7.30, but perhaps I am wrong on that. In response to a note sent me by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, I was happy to suggest that the Committee reconvene.
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I received no instructions. Does the noble Baroness wish to adjourn the Committee, as it is 7.30?
    Lord Higgins: I understood that the procedure here, which many of us are not familiar with, was such that we were not supposed to begin a new amendment after 7.30. I may have been misinformed, so I am not going to take responsibility for imposing the rules. We have made considerable progress, so it would seem sensible to adjourn.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If the noble Lord was misinformed, so was I. I am happy to suggest, if the Committee so wishes, that we reconvene at 3.30 p.m. next Tuesday.
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Committee stands adjourned until Tuesday 21st May at 3.30 p.m.
    The Committee adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before eight o'clock.

  Firearm Certificate Register
  Firearm Certificate Register
  TV Investigation into Firearms
  TV Investigation into Firearms
  Privy Council Silver
  Privy Council Silver
  Treasury Silver
  Treasury Silver
  Tax Returns: Penalty Notices
  Tax Returns: Penalty Notices
  Ministry of Defence Police
  Ministry of Defence Police
  Intellectual Property Rights
  Intellectual Property Rights
  Waste Electrical Equipment
  Waste Electrical Equipment
  Vehicular Access over Common Land
  Vehicular Access over Common Land
  Mineral Levels in Crops
  Mineral Levels in Crops
  Emergency Contraception
  Emergency Contraception
  Abortion and Infertility
  Abortion and Infertility
  Cancer Treatments
  Cancer Treatments
  Pesticide Residues in Fruit
  Pesticide Residues in Fruit
  Museums and Galleries: Public Appointments
  Museums and Galleries: Public Appointments
  Society Lotteries
  Society Lotteries
  Special Advisers
  Special Advisers
  Northern Ireland Constituencies
  Northern Ireland Constituencies