Sitting of 20 May 2002

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

    Minimum Income Guarantee
    Norman Lamb: If he will make a statement on the take-up rate of the minimum income guarantee. [55487]
    The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney): More than 2 million pensioners benefit from the minimum income guarantee. Those pensioners are on average £20 a week better off. Some 3,400 pensioners in the North Norfolk constituency are claiming MIG.
    We have introduced several measures to make it easier for pensioners to understand and claim their entitlement, including a new 10-page claim form and a dedicated MIG claim line, and claims for MIG are now invited when pensioners apply for their retirement pension.
    Norman Lamb: May I draw the Minister's attention to research carried out by a university of East Anglia student, Victoria O'Brien, which I will send to him? It sets out the
    2
    extent and impact of the lack of take-up of the minimum income guarantee in North Norfolk and nationally. In particular, I draw his attention to the estimate that in North Norfolk alone the poorest pensioners are failing to receive between £2.5 million and £4.5 million. The impact on them, and on their access to food, heating and so on, is obviously considerable. What further steps is the Minister taking, beyond the big initiative back in 2000, to ensure that the poorest pensioners get what money is due to them?
    Mr. McCartney: I would welcome a copy of the review of MIG by the hon. Gentleman's constituent. Local authorities also conduct reviews. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell), my Department, the local authority and community groups have collectively made a great effort extensively to increase the number of those who can benefit from MIG. We will do anything that we can to achieve that in North Norfolk and more widely between now and the introduction of the pension credit, which will be a further major boost by the Government to older people's income.
    In my first answer, I told the hon. Gentleman about some of the measures that we have taken, but since September last year we have also been making more information available. We have been looking at older people's life cycle events and linking those to our attempts to involve them in claims. We have introduced a dedicated Pension Service, the role of which is to act as a first-hand evidence system and an advocate on behalf of older people. Between now and the introduction of the pension credit, the Government are taking a whole range of measures, including advertising and making direct contact with older people and with organisations that represent them. We want to ensure that we build on the success of benefiting 2 million people.
    Let me put the matter into context: when we came into power, more than 2 million pensioners were not getting the benefit of MIG, which we introduced from a standing

    3
    start. Those pensioners were in poverty, forgotten about and voiceless, but under this Government they are out of poverty and have a very strong voice.
    James Purnell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the pilot programme to which he referred has increased the take-up of MIG from 76 per cent. to 81 per cent. in less than 18 months? Will he consider encouraging all local authorities to set targets to raise the take-up of MIG in that way, specifically using the unique system developed in Tameside whereby pensioners can claim online? Just by putting in their national insurance number and their council tax benefit number, they can automatically find out whether or not they are entitled to MIG.
    Mr. McCartney: I honestly did not know that my hon. Friend was behind me when I mentioned him; I thought that I would give him a plug for his excellent work anyway. I hope to visit his borough in the next few months. It has an exemplary record in introducing systems of working directly in the community. Those include making household visits to everyone over 60, introducing new technology, setting up local advice centres in conjunction with our departmental officers and working with community groups. As a consequence, there has been a huge increase in the take-up of MIG there. Indeed, more than £800,000 of additional income has been claimed through MIG simply as a result of the campaign.
    I shall study that best practice in the hope that we can introduce it as part of the local work by the Pension Service. We need to look at the best of what local authorities do and at the best of what we do, put the two together and ensure that every pensioner who is entitled to income from the Government gets it.
    Mr. Paul Goodman: With up to a quarter of those eligible for MIG not taking it up and with the take-up of housing benefit and council tax benefit falling, is it not now clear that the Government's mania for means-testing, which leads to low take-up, is betraying the very vulnerable people whom they were elected to represent?
    Mr. McCartney: One of the main reasons why the take-up of housing benefit has fallen is not a lack of take-up by older people but the fact that the Government have got more than 1 million people back into work. They are getting a fair wage, so they do not have to claim housing benefit, unlike the position that they were left in by the previous Government. As well as MIG, we are introducing the pension credit, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support that measure in the Lobby on Thursday. The pension credit means not only that 5.1 million pensioners will get additional income, but that, for the first time, many pensioners will get access to both housing benefit and council tax benefit because of our changes to the rules on capital. That would never have been done under the Conservatives.
    Mr. Frank Roy: The Minister will agree that take-up of any benefit is important, but it is especially vital for our poorer pensioners. Will he assure me that pensioners will be able to visit the new Pension Service agency centres
    4
    throughout the country and speak to staff face to face to ensure that they receive the benefit to which they are entitled?
    Mr. McCartney: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. One of the new pension centres is situated in his constituency. It will be welcomed by pensioners in Scotland and will provide new jobs in the area. The role of the Pension Service is to create pension centres that will deal with up to 80 per cent. of the total case load. The other 20 per cent. includes household visits, take-up and special needs campaigns and issues associated with people with special needs such as language and disability. We will focus the local service to deal with that work on a local basis. Older people will have the choice of doing their business through pension centres such as the one at Motherwell or receiving home visits and participating in other local activities. By providing that choice, we will make improvements for the older pensioners who need to access such services from time to time.

    Pensions
    Angela Watkinson: When the ratios of pensioners' income being derived from funded pensions from the state will be reversed. [55488]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Alistair Darling): In 1998, we set out our long-term objective of ensuring that funded pension provision is substantially increased. That remains our position.
    Angela Watkinson: I see three obstacles to achieving the Government's target of 40 per cent. of pensions deriving from state funding: first, the increasing number of pensioners on means-tested benefits; secondly, the poor performance of many private pension plans, which are giving pensioners a much poorer income than they ever anticipated; and thirdly, the very poor performance of mortgage endowments, which means that many pensioners will not clear their mortgage debts and will still be making mortgage payments in their retirement years.
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Lady makes three points. In relation to endowment products, she raises a matter of concern, especially for people who were possibly not given the right advice some years ago. Of course, the regulatory framework has been greatly strengthened since that time, but she is right to express concern about people in that position. She also referred to private pension funds. As we discussed in the previous Question Time and on other occasions, increased longevity and the fall in the stock market have caused a number of companies to rethink their position. Interestingly, in the now corrected Office for National Statistics data, of which the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) made so much, we find not only that there was no £100 billion fall in pension assets, as he claimed, but that contributions rose by £27 billion, which is encouraging.
    In making her first point, the hon. Lady complained about the pension credit, which will benefit more than half of pensioner households by an average of £400 a year. If the Conservatives are against that, we look forward to hearing more from them. About 2 million people are benefiting from the minimum income guarantee, which will be £100 next year. The state second pension sees

    5
    18 million people gain, and some of them are getting more than double what they would have received under the former state earnings-related pension scheme.
    The hon. Lady was right to raise her point about endowment mortgages. On her other two concerns, the Government will make proposals on private pensions, and we are absolutely right to make state provision available, especially for those on low incomes, and to ensure that saving pays—something that never used to be the case.
    Mr. Frank Field: Does the Secretary of State accept that the great driving force affecting funded provision is the new accountancy rules, which will make it more difficult for the Government to achieve objectives that the whole House supports? Is there not a case for suggesting that the Government should request the accountancy body to withdraw the rules to allow further consideration? Some accountancy rules are necessary in deciding what liabilities appear on what balance sheets, but the current rules are harmful to long-term funded pension provision.
    Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend refers to the accounting rule commonly known as FRS17. It is not FRS17 or any other accounting rule that is closing down pensions: companies are choosing to close down those pensions, but they should take a long-term view on their pensions just as they do on other matters. They would not make a major investment decision on one set of accounts, and they should not make a long-term decision on pension funds purely in relation to what is shown in respect of one accounting requirement. I have told the Accounting Standards Board that I think that FRS17 is exacerbating an already difficult situation. I find it difficult to understand why we have an accounting standard that is not shared by other countries—the standard used in the United States, for example, is different—and I have suggested to the board that it might be better for everyone concerned if we had a standard that allowed companies to look at their pension funds over a period of years, rather than taking a snapshot decision that could be grossly misleading.
    I must make the point that companies considering their pension funds should themselves take a long-term view, and that simply getting rid of, or rewriting, FRS17 would not solve the problem that some occupational funds face. I certainly would not argue in favour of the Government taking over accounting standards, because I believe that there is some merit in those matters being independently scrutinised. I happen to think that the Accounting Standards Board has got it wrong on this occasion, and that it should accept that.
    Mr. Steve Webb: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the lesson of history is that one group that, on average, does badly out of privately funded pensions is women? Women past and present tend to have fewer and lower occupational pensions, and lower private pensions. Is it not also the case that only one in three of the Government's new shiny stakeholder pensions have gone to a woman? Will the Secretary of State tell us what projections his Department has produced of the future entitlements of today's working women to funded pensions? If no such projections have been produced, will he commission a study of women's pension entitlements,
    6
    to ensure that history does not repeat itself and that women do not remain the poor relation in private pension provision?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman omitted—by accident, I am sure—to mention that most of the gainers under the pension credit will be women. He is right to say that women have not done so well out of funded pensions—partly because of low pay, and partly because, historically, there were fewer women in the labour market—and that the beneficiaries have predominantly been men. The pension credit, however, will predominantly benefit women. The state second pension—which I think that the hon. Gentleman opposed, although I might be wrong about that—will also benefit women, particularly those on low wages. Indeed, some 18 million people on low wages, and others, will gain from the state second pension, and women who take career breaks to look after children or other people will also now get a pension, whereas in the past they got none. So, in relation to both the pension credit and the state second pension, women have gained as a result of the changes that the Government have made.

    Child Support Agency
    Mr. Huw Edwards: What measures are taken against self-employed absent parents who accumulate excessive arrears to the Child Support Agency. [55489]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Alistair Darling): Assessing liability will be simpler under the new scheme, so a higher proportion of the agency's time will be spent on enforcement. Changes to legislation since January 2001 have enhanced the CSA's powers to recover sums due. For example, non-resident parents now face a penalty of up to £1,000 for refusing to co-operate.
    Mr. Edwards: I thank my right hon. Friend and congratulate the Government on certain changes that are being made. Does he agree, however, that it is disgraceful that certain self-employed fathers can escape their responsibilities to the Child Support Agency and to their children? I draw to his attention the case of Mr. Julian Barnes, who has made not one child maintenance payment to his former partner, Elaine Lanchbury, in seven years, and to that of Mr. Alan Shinton, who was recently assessed and ordered to pay the CSA £19,295.19. Does my right hon. Friend agree that people who are responsible for bringing children into this world must be responsible for their upbringing? Will every effort be made to make these parents maintain their responsibilities?
    Mr. Darling: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Responsibility for maintaining children rests with the parents of those children. When we talk about the Child Support Agency, we should never forget that we are talking about making sure that money goes to support children. That is sometimes overlooked by some of the parties involved.
    In relation to the self-employed, my hon. Friend is right to say that, in the past, too many such individuals have managed to escape an award being made and enforced, simply by refusing to hand over information. As a result

    7
    of powers that we took in the child support legislation passed two years ago, it is now possible for the CSA to get information from the Inland Revenue so that individuals cannot play one part of the state off against another.
    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing both those cases to the attention of my noble Friend, Baroness Hollis—[Interruption.] Getting up at 5 am is starting to play tricks on me.
    Under the new system, which I want to introduce as quickly as possible, the agency will be able to put the calculation of maintenance in place more quickly, and to get payments made without the delay that is unfortunately characteristic of the present system. The situation will improve and, once the new system is in place, it should do so quite dramatically.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I echo the words of the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards), but will the Secretary of State's new assessment regulations cover the unacceptable situation, which I suspect all hon. Members have in their case files, of a self-employed man who deserts his wife or partner, leaving the children, and then claims that his income is a quarter of the actual amount? Although I agree that it is difficult for the CSA to find out the exact position, should not there be some system under which the burden of proof falls on the deserting father, rather than his wife having to prove that he is earning much more than he claims?
    Mr. Darling: One reason why we took additional powers was to enable the CSA to access the records lodged with the Inland Revenue. It was very difficult to do so in the past. I am sorry that some Conservative Members opposed that measure when it went through the Commons. It is right that we should be able to access information held by the Inland Revenue. Very often, we found that people would not tell the CSA about their income, but that the Inland Revenue knew of it. We are keeping all those matters under review. The key must be to ensure that the money due to the child of that self-employed person—it is not for the benefit of the former spouse or partner—is paid, and as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Russell Brown: I fully support my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards), but may I draw to the Secretary of State's attention a case that has led to arrears for one of my constituents of £30,000? A woman with three children has not received a penny from her ex-partner. She has been to an appeals tribunal twice and won twice. Her ex-partner has been found guilty of diverting his income, yet nothing has happened. Such situations are atrocious, and even something as simple as removing an individual's driving licence would clearly help. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should put more pressure on some of these absent parents?
    Mr. Darling: The common theme of all three questions is that the agency should spend more time on enforcement. I wholeheartedly agree. The problem under the present system is that too much time goes into calculating what is due. The key is to make the calculation quickly and then to spend more time on enforcement. My hon. Friend will know that we took powers two years ago
    8
    to ask courts to remove driving licences when people would not comply. Interestingly, when courts have been invited to do so, all bar one of those affected paid the money that was due. That shows that there is some value in ensuring that people's responsibilities are brought home to them.
    John Barrett: Can the Secretary of State give any comfort to the many mothers who are owed excessive amounts by announcing a time scale for change in the current system? In my constituency, one parent is owed in excess of £15,000 by a husband who is apparently living the high life.
    Mr. Darling: As the agency improves its performance in calculation and compliance, more effort is going into recovering sums due. As I told the House in March, until I am satisfied that the new computer network that is necessary to operate the new system of child support is operating effectively and acceptably, I am not prepared to authorise my officials to commission it. I hope to be able to tell the House something in the not too distant future. I am pleased to say that testing has continued and that good progress is being made. As soon as I am satisfied that the system will operate in the way intended, I will let the House know and, as I undertook to hon. Members, I will give sufficient notice in advance of its introduction so that all concerned can prepare for it.

    Stakeholder Pensions
    Ms Bridget Prentice: What assessment he has made of the contribution of stakeholder pensions to saving for retirement. [55490]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): Stakeholder pensions have made an encouraging start, and figures from the Association of British Insurers show that about 815,000 had been bought up to the end of March 2002. They have also had a wider beneficial effect on pension provision, helping to drive down other personal pension charges and stimulating the provision of personal pensions. Everyone now has access to a good-value pension arrangement. That is all good news for consumers.
    Ms Prentice: While I appreciate my hon. Friend's reply, two things concern me. The first is the suggestion from the Financial Services Authority that there should be compulsion on private pensions and the second is the report published today that says that a number of private pension companies are apparently unaware that we are all living longer thanks to wonderful advances in medical science and our health service. Does she have any comment on compulsion in pensions and what has she to say to encourage people to take up stakeholder pensions, given their success so far?
    Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend is right that there has been discussion around and about in the pensions industry on whether there should be compulsion. Opposition Members have raised the issue in debates, as have my hon. Friends occasionally. The Government have no plans to make it compulsory for employers to contribute to their work force's stakeholder pensions. In respect of living longer,

    9
    I agree with my hon. Friend that it is entirely a good thing. Perhaps we should make that clear. [Interruption.] I am not going to claim that the Government are making people live longer. It is a Monday afternoon; I am not going to make claims like that.
    The fact that we now have a low-cost simple vehicle that people can save into helps to ensure that they can make proper provision for their old age. People now live longer in retirement, so it becomes all the more important that they make proper provision during their working lives to enable them to enjoy their retirement with an adequate pension. In that respect, the stakeholder pension is important. The value of new regular pension premiums rose by 52 per cent. in 2001. That is due in part to stakeholder pensions—I am not going to say that it is all due to them—and it shows that when people are provided with simple low-cost vehicles that they can save into for their retirement, they start to do so. Members on both sides of the House should welcome and encourage that, and I hope they all do.
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I am in favour of increased life expectancy, having reached an age when mortality becomes all the more apparent. My hon. Friend will have seen the weekend reports that private pensions are not worth while for those on average or lower incomes. She will also be aware, as we all are, of the deterioration in employee occupational pensions. Is it not time for the Government seriously to consider a substantial increase in the basic state pension, funded by compulsory savings from employees and compulsory larger contributions from employers?
    Maria Eagle: First and foremost, my hon. Friend is looking particularly well this afternoon, even if he is feeling mortality closing in on him. On his points about the basic state pension, Government policy in respect of the balance between state pensions and private provision is clear and he will have heard it discussed during debates on the State Pension Credit Bill. We believe that the balance is about right. We all recognise the fact that the key to ensuring that people have enough money to lead a pleasant and well-provided old age is a mix between private and public pensions. We must encourage people to save, where they are able to do so, into a good private pension, and that is what we intend to do.

    Labour Market
    Mr. Bill Rammell: If he will make a statement on trends in the labour market since 11 September. [55491]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): There are problems in the world economy, but the UK is withstanding them better than other major countries. Compared with last September, there are more than 70,000 more people in employment and unemployment is broadly unchanged. Our labour market is in a strong position: the number of people in employment is at a record level—up by more than 1.5 million since 1997. The number of job vacancies is high—more than 10,000 are being notified to jobcentres every working day; and recent unemployment levels are the lowest since 1975.
    Mr. Rammell: I welcome that response, which clearly indicates that, contrary to some predictions, we have not gone into an employment downturn since 11 September. Indeed, in my Harlow constituency, the claimant count this month shows that unemployment figures continue to fall. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that certain sectors of the economy, especially telecommunications, face continuing problems because of the worldwide situation? Does he agree that where redundancies occur, it is the responsibility of both national and local government to work with employers and trade unions to help people to retrain and up-skill to take advantage of the job opportunities that are available?
    Mr. Brown: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. On job losses in the telecommunications industry, specifically in his constituency, I can confirm that Harlow jobcentre is in touch with local employers and that we shall do whatever we can to stand the corner of his constituents. Nevertheless, as he says, it is a fact that unemployment has fallen—it has halved in Harlow's travel-to-work area since 1997.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: The Minister said that notwithstanding problems in the world economy, the United Kingdom's employment trends are better than those in many other countries. Is it not interesting that since 11 September last year—and, indeed, for some months before that—those trends have been particularly favourable compared with those in the eurozone? Will the Minister do the sensible and honourable thing on behalf of the hard-working British public in recommending to the Treasury, both to the First Lord and to the Chancellor, that we keep the pound?
    Mr. Brown: I always try to do the sensible thing on behalf of the hard-working British public. I think that our colleagues in the European Union have much to learn from the way in which we manage the labour market.
    Mr. Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend will recognise that in constituencies such as mine, it is high-paid and high-skill jobs in the aerospace industry that have been lost or put at risk the most by what happened on 11 September. Will he reiterate that the Government remain committed, for the benefit of constituencies such as Burnley and, indeed, of the whole country's economy, to maintaining high-skill jobs at the sharp end and to doing everything possible for investment to secure those jobs in the future?
    Mr. Brown: I understand what my hon. Friend says. It is true that in constituencies such as Burnley the labour market is undergoing a period of adjustment. To address some of those local issues, we have introduced a number of special programmes designed to bear down on unemployment, especially long-term unemployment. My hon. Friend is right that there has been movement in the labour market away from employment in manufacturing towards employment in the service sector, but it would not be true to say that there are not secure, well-paid careers in the service sector—there are.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister agree that in this longest, deepest recession, which has been compounded by 11 September, two

    11
    sectors—the airline industry and farming—have been particularly badly hit? Will he give some assurance to constituents of mine who came to see me having, in the case of the husband, just been made redundant from farming? Will people get a fairer hearing and more assistance from the jobcentre and Employment Service staff than was the case in that instance?
    Mr. Brown: I do not agree with the hon. Lady that we are in a long and deep recession. Indeed, there have never been so many people in employment. However, I am happy to consider cases of individual constituents who, according to the hon. Lady, have been displaced from employment in agriculture. It is fair to point out that agriculture employs fewer than 1 per cent. of the total work force, but if the hon. Lady has a constituent who is looking for work and needs help, and she writes to me about the case, I shall see what I can do.
    David Cairns: The electronics sector has also suffered since 11 September. After many years of decline, unemployment in my constituency has risen sharply since 11 September. A characteristic of the sector is the number of people employed on short-term and casual contracts. Too often, Government employment initiatives are not sufficiently flexible to deal with people who experience periods of unemployment. Will my right hon. Friend consider the operation of Jobcentre Plus and the new deal to ascertain whether people on short-term contracts can be caught more quickly and helped back into work so that they can benefit from the booming economy elsewhere?
    Mr. Brown: Employment on short-term contracts is relatively low nationally, but if it is a peculiar feature of the labour market in my hon. Friend's constituency, I shall, of course, consider the problems that he mentioned. However, I must emphasise that the trend that he cites goes against the national trend. Perhaps he wishes to draw some local circumstance to my attention. I assure him that the staff who work for Jobcentre Plus—as it will become—are there to help his constituents. If he wants to draw a specific problem to my attention, I shall examine it.

    Child Support Agency
    Mr. Andrew Turner: How many staff vacancies there are in the Child Support Agency. [55492]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): When expressed as the equivalent number of full-time posts, the latest available estimate for staff vacancies in the Child Support Agency is 798. At the end of March, the agency had just over 12,000 staff. That gives a vacancy rate of 6 per cent. We are taking several steps to fill those vacancies.
    Mr. Turner: If there are so many vacancies, why does the Child Support Agency, like many other Government agencies, refuse to consider people over 65 who apply for jobs with them? Instead of waiting for Europe to direct the Government to do what is clearly right, why do not Ministers end Government age discrimination?
    Malcolm Wicks: Many companies and public services have vacancies, not least because unemployment has
    12
    declined—by 48 per cent. in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. We are taking several steps, which include recruiting and promoting opportunities for evening work and family friendly employment. I acknowledge that there is a debate about ageism and appropriate retirement rates. That will continue in future, because as hon. Members have pointed out earlier, we are all getting older.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: There will be a greater demand for staff at the Child Support Agency, and vacancies will increase when the reforms are introduced later this year. The reforms introduce two standards on maintenance payments. One is the new rate of 15 per cent. and the other is the old rate of 30 per cent. That will create a greater anomaly and more staff will have to be recruited to deal with it. Will my hon. Friend address that?
    Malcolm Wicks: I do not recognise that the reforms will lead to more staff. We are simplifying the formula for child support and placing greater emphasis on enforcement. It was pointed out earlier that hon. Members of all parties are worried about absent parents who do not understand their obligations. We are therefore emphasising enforcement.
    I pay tribute to the staff of the CSA who, in the past five years, have seen maintenance increase from £400 million to £800 million. That is a credit to them.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: As the Minister said, the new formula will increase the efficiency of the staff of the CSA but will it better take account of cases in which the care of children is genuinely shared 50:50 between the parents, especially as 100 per cent. of child benefit has to go to one parent?
    Malcolm Wicks: Yes is the short answer. Some children are brought up by both parents and we want to encourage that. The formula therefore takes account of it.

    Pensions
    Mr. Hugo Swire: If he will make a statement of the number of final salary schemes that have closed since 1998. [55493]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Alistair Darling): Since 1998, about 4 per cent. of known defined benefit schemes have notified the pension schemes registry of their closure. The overriding issue is how much is being saved towards a pension. The fact is that most people are not saving enough towards their retirement. Therefore, building on the reforms we have already made, we shall be making further proposals to help individuals and companies to make provisions for retirement. As I said at the previous Work and Pensions Question Time, I expect to publish our proposals this autumn.
    Mr. Swire: We are now witnessing the demise of the final salary pension scheme with the day-to-day closure of more and more of those schemes. Do the Secretary of State and his Government accept that the increasing burdens they have placed on such schemes since 1997 include the disastrous abolition of advance corporation tax

    13
    relief, which is responsible for the precarious situation in which many of today's and tomorrow's pensioners find themselves?
    Mr. Darling: No. Interestingly, the chairman of the National Association of Pension Funds said in his recent address to the association's annual conference, at which I spoke, that he and his association were not calling for a return to the old ACT system. When we made the changes four or five years ago, we also cut corporation tax. It is now at 30 per cent., something that the party of which the hon. Gentleman is a member never managed to achieve in its 18 years in power. That has helped investors, including pension funds.
    The real reason why companies are facing difficulties with their final salary schemes is, first, because of increased longevity, which means that costs are rising; and secondly, because the stock market has fallen quite dramatically, for reasons of which we are all aware. That is putting pressure on them. Their contribution holidays have ended and so on. The annuity rules have nothing to do with the final salary schemes. I can understand why the hon. Gentleman personally may want to see some changes: people in the top 5 per cent. of the income bracket may gain from them. However, the majority would not.
    As I have said, we want to build on the reforms that we have already made. We intend to bring forward proposals this autumn, which will build on the recommendations from the Sandler and Pickering reviews. They will help companies and individuals to make better provision for their retirement.
    Mr. John McFall: Does the Secretary of State agree that the flight from final salary schemes is down not to FRS17 or the Government's inaction but to the almost £30 billion fall in equities in the market, as indicated by Boots, which moved from equities to bonds? Recognising that there is a £27 billion shortfall in savings, will he take the opportunity to ensure that companies that are not performing as they should by their employees close the savings gap? Otherwise, in future, many pensioners will be in penury.
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right that there is a savings gap. Whether it is £27 billion or something near it, no one can be sure, but what is beyond doubt, as I said earlier, is that most people are not saving enough for their retirement. One of the measures that will help will be to strip away some of the unnecessary regulation in the pensions industry.
    We have reached the stage where the buying of pensions has become so complex that even when people want to get a pension and are seriously thinking about making provision for themselves, they are sometimes faced with a five or six-hour selling process. That is why about 10 days ago I advocated setting out perhaps a small range of stakeholder-type products suitable for pension savings. They would be simple, regulated products but the selling of them would not be so bound up in red tape, as it is at present. All these measures are being considered by the Sandler and Pickering reviews. We will publish them in the summer and publish proposals in the autumn.
    We are looking at other matters. There are measures that we can take to help individuals and companies to increase the amount of saving. I cite one example,
    14
    in relation not to pensions but to ISAs. We were criticised heavily by the Conservative party when we replaced PEPs and TESSAs with ISAs. It is a fact that 12 million people, about one in four working adults, have saved £78 billion since ISAs were introduced That shows what can be done with a simple, easy to understand product that removes some of the mystique and complexity that currently surrounds the selling of pensions.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Does the Secretary of State agree that the problem is not just that final salary schemes are closing, but that conditions for existing pensioners are often changed retrospectively by employers, and that trustees are proving ineffectual or insufficiently independent? Does he also agree that the arrangements need to be looked at afresh, to breed some confidence in this rather battered sector?
    Mr. Darling: There has been criticism of some pension trustees. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) asked about FRS17. In many cases, transparency in companies' affairs might have revealed serious problems with pension funds, particularly smaller funds, which tend not to be examined as efficiently as those of bigger companies. That is an example of how greater transparency and openness would help pensioners.
    The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) will doubtless be aware that, as part of our general review of pensions, Brian Davis—former chief executive of Nationwide building society—is examining the operation and powers of the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority. When he makes his recommendations later in the year, I hope to build on them, and on the general recommendations put before the House to improve pension provision in this country.
    David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend understand how deeply disappointing it is for long-serving employees to discover that, as a result of changes in their company's pension scheme, they will receive a significantly reduced occupational pension? That is totally unacceptable. What would happen if Members of Parliament and Officers of the House discovered late in the day that their anticipated pension was to be substantially reduced? This issue constitutes a clear injustice in the labour market, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will pursue the matter.
    Mr. Darling: A company scheme involves a contractual agreement between the company concerned and its employees—it is not something that the Government underwrite or stand behind. Of course, the Government do pay money into contracted-out pension schemes and take certain steps through national insurance contributions and tax relief.
    On the general proposition, as I have told the House on several occasions, we are considering a range of measures that will help individuals as well as companies. As I said, it is not the accounting standard that is causing the difficulties with certain pension schemes. Not all companies that are deciding to close their pension schemes have to do so; in some circumstances, they could

    15
    continue with them. Long and hard thought should be given to their obligations to their employees—both current and retired.
    Mr. David Willetts: May I invite the Secretary of State to agree with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—sadly, he is not in his place—the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) and the many other of his colleagues who have signed early-day motion 1180, which expresses concern at the impact of advance corporation tax on the former registered dockworkers pension scheme? That early-day motion also notes that their dividend income has been reduced by 33 per cent., and that that income could have been reinvested, or provided higher benefits. Instead of the complacency that the Secretary of State has shown this afternoon, why does he not listen to his colleagues? They understand the damage that the tax increase is doing to people's pensions, and everything that their early-day motion says about the dockworkers pension scheme applies to every other pension fund in the country.
    Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions has just reminded me that, under several of the privatisations that took place when the hon. Gentleman was a Minister and his party were in office, pension schemes were sometimes the biggest casualties. I had no idea that the hon. Gentleman has joined the campaign group to which he refers, and I am sure that they will welcome him as a new recruit.
    On the hon. Gentleman's central point, I do not accept the underlying proposition that he attributes to the early-day motion—I have not seen it—tabled by my hon. Friends. The changes that we made to the corporation tax regime four years' ago were entirely right. If the hon. Gentleman was right to argue that they were the cause of current problems, one would have expected them to have occurred four years' ago, but they did not. The problems have been provoked by two factors: companies are belatedly waking up to the fact that beneficiaries are living longer; and, for reasons that we all understand, the stock exchange has fallen dramatically. That has concentrated minds in an unprecedented way. Those are the underlying reasons for the current difficulties, and it is the Government's job to ensure that we introduce proposals that can help individuals and companies. That is precisely what we will do later this year.
    Mr. Mark Hoban: If he will make a statement on the availability of occupational pension schemes for future pensioners. [55494]
    The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney): It is estimated that occupational pension schemes are available to 16.4 million employees, or 66 per cent. of the total number of employees in Great Britain. Many of those employees who do not have access to an occupational scheme will have access to either a stakeholder scheme or the second state pension.
    Mr. Hoban: I thank the Minister for his response. Will he ensure that one of the outcomes of the numerous reviews that the Secretary of State outlined in his earlier answers will be a legal and regulatory framework that will
    16
    ensure that the decline in occupational pension schemes is reversed, so that more occupational pension schemes will be available to future pensioners?
    Mr. McCartney: The whole purpose of the reviews is to ensure that we encourage people to save in a way that they have not previously, and that schemes do not suffer overbearing regulation or disproportionate costs. The difficulties of management of such schemes make it less likely that they will continue or even be set up in the first place. I would welcome the hon. Gentleman's views on the proposals when they are published. It is also important that we review proactively the role of the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority. It will be the first time that it has been reviewed since its establishment. The purpose of the review is to ensure that the body is recognised as one that represents the interests of pensioners when it considers the general problems of schemes or particular problems connected with the management of schemes.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Will the Minister of State take any notice of the chairman of the National Association of Pension Funds at its annual conference less than a fortnight ago when he said:
    "The Government is pursuing policies which have actually undermined company pensions."?
    Does not the Minister of State feel some regret now that the Budget last month made no reference to pensions or savings? In order to save the time of the House, I shall not invite him to read out the long list of companies that have changed their pension arrangements from defined benefit to defined contribution schemes. Instead, I invite him to name one company that has moved in the opposite direction in the past 12 months.
    Mr. McCartney: I would prefer to have a proper debate instead of juvenile ping-pong over the issue. So far this Question Time, we have had an adult debate about the issues. The hon. Gentleman asked for a list, so I shall give him one. The companies in question include BAE Systems, BP, British American Tobacco, Diageo, Corns, the John Lewis Partnership and Tesco, among others. However, I do not rest my case on that list. This is the first Government in a long time to set up several reviews in partnership with industry, the outcome of which will be to strip out regulations and burdens on schemes—both continuing and those being set up. This is the first Government to introduce stakeholder arrangements and pension forecasting. All that is being done in partnership with industry and, with all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is a hell of a different picture now compared with when he left office a few years ago.

    Benefit Fraud
    Mike Gapes: If he will make a statement on new measures he plans to combat benefit fraud. [55495]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): In April, we introduced a range of measures using powers taken in the Fraud Act 2001 which will help us to tackle the fraudster. Investigators can now request information from banks and utilities to find evidence of fraud. They also have stronger

    17
    powers to tackle employers who collude with their staff to defraud the benefit system. We now also have the power to remove benefits from those people who persistently abuse the system. That shows the Government's determination to crack down on the fraudster.
    Mike Gapes: I welcome that reply, and those measures are long overdue. Previous Governments allowed far too much fraud by employers and unscrupulous people and it is good that this Government will put that right. Can the Minister give us some indication of the effectiveness of the measures that have been taken so far? Will he give consideration to further measures in the future, including perhaps biometric cards or other technological means to ensure the effectiveness of identity checks?
    Malcolm Wicks: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the possibility of identity fraud. We have systems and technologies enabling us to identify it wherever possible, and we are beginning to win the war against the social-security fraudster. Between 1999 and March 2001 we reduced the amount of fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance by 18 per cent., nearly double our first milestone of 10 per cent. Moreover, that was achieved a year ahead of schedule.
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I acknowledge that much has been done, which is right and proper, but will the Minister turn his attention to housing benefit fraud and to the verification framework in particular? According to recent written answers and departmental research, central Government expenditure on the framework has amounted to nearly £1 billion, for a net win of £100 million annually. Bearing that in mind, along with some of the administrative delays caused by the framework, will the Minister ask his officials to conduct a cost-benefit analysis?
    Am I not right in thinking that last April, more than a year ago, the Department decided to undertake a housing benefit review? I do not think we have heard any more about that to date.
    Malcolm Wicks: We are conducting a research exercise to produce an up-to-date figure for the amount of housing benefit fraud. We are not complacent, but we feel that the money we are spending will prove cost-effective. More and more local authorities are safeguarding the system by adopting the verification framework. They can now adopt chunks at a time, by means of a modular approach.
    As with fraud related to income support and jobseeker's allowance, we are confident that we are beginning to win the war—but yes, much more needs to be done.
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Does my hon. Friend agree that employers frequently know that their employees are cheating the system? Subject to evidence, should such employers not be prosecuted for aiding and abetting?
    Malcolm Wicks: Yes. There is capacity in the system for employers to collude with employees, but we are on to the problem. It should be tackled, and it is being tackled.
    Mr. David Willetts: How many national insurance numbers are there in the country? Will the Minister give us the latest figure, and tell us how much greater it is than the entire British population? Will he also tell us what measures he has taken to tackle abuse of national insurance numbers, one of the most rapidly growing forms of benefit fraud?
    Malcolm Wicks: We are tackling the abuse of national insurance numbers. We now employ rigorous processes when people apply for them, and a number of people are turned down every week and every month.
    I realise that there is some confusion about the total amount of national insurance numbers. We are conducting an analysis in the Department, so that everyone knows what we have already made clear in parliamentary answers—that there is a difference between those of working age with national insurance numbers and those who have retired, but must still have numbers for obvious social-security purposes.
    Mr. Willetts: Is the Minister aware that there are more than 80 million national insurance numbers, 20 million more—
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Alistair Darling)rose—
    Mr. Willetts: It seems that the Secretary of State is going to answer my question. I look forward to hearing his answer.
    Is the Minister aware that, according to the most recent parliamentary answer, there are more than 80 million national insurance numbers, over 20 million more than the entire British population? Whatever ingenious explanations the Minister offers, in terms of national insurance numbers for the deceased husbands of widows and suchlike, we still have a problem: far more national insurance numbers are being issued than there are people who legitimately need them.
    Malcolm Wicks: Unlike a previous Administration, we are being rigorous about the issuing of national insurance numbers. As I have said, we turn down numerous people every week and every month. We are conducting an exercise so that we can explain fully to the House why the numbers in existence are in existence, but when someone dies, the widow or widower's entitlement is an issue. Common sense suggests that the national insurance number should therefore be retained.

    Single Room Rent Restrictions
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: What assessment he has made of the impact of single room rent restrictions on the accommodation situation in seaside and coastal towns. [55497]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): We introduced improvements to the single room rent provisions last July. They now strike a more effective balance between ensuring that young people have access to accommodation

    19
    while making sure that the benefit system does not provide them with better housing than young people who are in work.
    We also plan to commission a joint study with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to examine the impact of these changes later this year.
    Mr. Marsden: Grateful though I am to my hon. Friend for that reply, does he appreciate that the present restrictions bear down particularly hard on young people in seaside and coastal towns who are looking for work? Streetlife, a charity in my constituency, said that it had about 30 landlords who would take young people presenting as homeless before the rent restriction was introduced. Since its introduction, the number has declined to zero. I ask my hon. Friend, in whom I have
    20
    great faith, to speed up the review that is taking place over the summer and, notwithstanding that, to put some oomph into his officials, who have been remarkably complacent about the issue in recent years.
    Malcolm Wicks: I can assure my hon. Friend that our officials have plenty of oomph—those who work on behalf of the House and the public are very energised people. We have changed the system for single room rent. It used to be limited to the average cost of a non-self-contained room with a shared toilet and kitchen. It now allows someone to have exclusive use of a bedroom, with shared use of a toilet, bathroom, kitchen and living room. I looked up the evidence, and about 71 per cent. of all single adults under 25 without children who live in the privately rented sector have accommodation of that kind. I am confident that we are striking the right balance but, of course, we keep all such matters closely under review.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had any request from the Ministry of Defence to make a statement on the relief—let us use the polite word—of Brigadier Lane in Afghanistan? Does not the House of Commons deserve to know what the heck is going on in Afghanistan, particularly in the prisoner camps? If what was outlined in "The World Tonight" on Friday and to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and me is true, it is almost holocaust-like and the west should be ashamed. If the reports are true, should not the House of Commons be told?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's first question was whether I had been contacted by any Minister with regard to a statement. The answer is no. It is the responsibility of the Minister concerned to come before the House.
Sir Sydney Chapman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise, not for the first time, the inordinate length of ministerial replies to supplementary questions, as the Question Time that has just finished showed. Will you make a study of Hansard tomorrow and, if you believe it appropriate, write to Ministers or communicate with them to ask them to make their replies shorter? They really are becoming longer and longer.
Mr. Speaker: I have already made a study, and we reached only Question 10. I agree that ministerial replies to supplementaries are far too long. They should be brief, and so indeed should the supplementary questions. I hope that Ministers take note—we should get further down the Order Paper than Question 10.

BILL PRESENTED
  REGULATION OF CHILD CARE PROVIDERS
  Mr. Geraint Davies, supported by Ms Debra Shipley, Jane Griffiths, Ms Karen Buck, Mr. Brian H. Donohoe, John Austin, Ms Julia Drown, Mr. Frank Cook. Chris McCafferty, Linda Perham, Ms Oona King and Siobhain McDonagh, presented a Bill to make provision about child care providers: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 June, and to be printed [Bill 140].
Orders of the Day

  Adoption and Children Bill
  [3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

  Adoption and Children Bill
    Clause 81

      RESTRICTION ON BRINGING CHILDREN IN
      3.34 pm
      The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): I beg to move amendment No. 59, in page 44, line 21, after "are" insert "natural".
      Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that with this we are discussing Government amendments Nos. 60, 61, 29, 298, 299, 255, 38, 27, 28, 306 and 39.
      Jacqui Smith: The amendments are largely linked to the Bill's inter-country provisions, which are an important part of the package of measures that the Government are putting in place to ensure that inter-country adoption takes place only where, as a minimum, the same safeguards as for domestic adoptions have been applied.
      Clause 81 re-enacts the restrictions in the current legal framework that make it a criminal offence for British residents to bring a child into the United Kingdom for the purposes of adoption—in other words, intending to adopt them in the UK—unless they comply with prescribed requirements. The Adoption of Children from Overseas Regulations 2001 make it a requirement that prospective adopters apply to a local authority or voluntary adoption agency to be assessed and approved under similar procedures as those followed in domestic adoptions, and to have a certificate of eligibility issued by the Secretary of State.
      The clause also extends the restrictions to include British residents bringing a child into the UK whom they have adopted outside the British islands within the past six months and do not intend to adopt in the UK, thereby closing an important loophole. It is our intention that the prescribed requirements and conditions that must be met by people wanting to bring a child into the UK for the purposes of adoption—prospective adopters—should be similar to those made under the current legal framework: that the prospective adopters apply to, and are assessed by, an adoption agency in the UK; that while going through the assessment process the prospective adopters provide as much information as requested by the agency; that the prospective adopters agree to the carrying out of police and medical checks; that the case is referred to an adoption panel; that the home study assessment and such other information as is required by the overseas authority is sent to the central authority—the Department of Health in England and the National Assembly for Wales—so that it can be checked that the proper procedures were followed and all the relevant information collected before a certificate of eligibility is issued on behalf of the Secretary of State and sent to the relevant overseas authority; and that within 14 days of arrival in the UK with a child that they intend to adopt, notice of an intention to adopt is given to the local authority in whose area the prospective adopters reside.

      23
      The effect of those provisions is that the prospective adopters must first be assessed and approved as suitable to adopt in the UK before adopting overseas. If they do not do that, they are guilty of an offence. We will, of course, consult on draft regulations and guidance that set out the requirements that must be met prior to bringing them into force.
      Clause 81 also increases the penalties for those found guilty of breaching the restrictions on bringing, or causing to bring, a child into the country. At present, the maximum penalty on conviction is three months' imprisonment or a fine of £5,000, or both. We have strengthened that so that there is a maximum penalty in a magistrates court of six months' imprisonment and/or a fine of £5,000, and the possibility of an even higher penalty if the magistrates court refers the case to a Crown court, or if the defendant enters a plea of not guilty and elects for a Crown court trial. In such cases, the maximum penalty will be 12 months' imprisonment or an unlimited fine, or both.
      Finally, clause 81 allows us to apply with modifications and disapply the provisions in chapter 3 on inter-country adoption cases. It is our intention to modify the provisions to provide that, where the proper procedures have been followed, children brought to the UK for adoption spend at least six months living with their prospective adopters prior to an application being made for an adoption order, and at least 12 months where they have not. We also intend to ensure that children adopted from overseas are able to obtain access to information that the agency holds about them, although the exact nature of such information will vary depending upon the procedures in the child's state of origin. Clause 121 makes similar provision for Scotland to that made by clause 81 in respect of England and Wales.
      Clause 84 allows us to put in place arrangements for the recognition in England and Wales of adoption orders made overseas. It permits the Secretary of State to make an order specifying the adoption orders to be included. The clause also allows the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out the criteria that an overseas country's procedures must meet in order for the country to be included in the list of countries whose adoptions are recognised—sometimes known as the designated list.
      The current designated list was created in an order made in 1973. It was amended in 1993 to add China, but other than that it has remained unchanged. It has always been our stated intention to review the designated list. However, that is not possible without changes to primary legislation, as the removal of a country from the list would automatically remove recognition of adoptions made before the review, which would undermine the status of children and adults adopted in the past from countries included on the list. Clause 122 makes similar provision for Scotland to that made in clause 84 in respect of England and Wales.
      Government amendments Nos. 59 and 60 seek to clarify the definition of the word "parent", as referred to in clause 81, in relation to overseas adoption. The policy intention is for the restrictions provided for by clause 81 not to apply where the adopter or prospective adopter is a natural parent of the child. Those amendments respond to concerns expressed by stakeholders that the term
      24
      "parent" includes an adoptive parent, and therefore that the provision in clause 81(1)(b), which imposes the restrictions that I explained, is nullified by subsection (2), which provides that those restrictions do not apply to a parent of the child.
      Mr. Julian Brazier: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way so early in her speech. Hon. Members understand the point that she is making, but will she explain why she feels it necessary to use the word "natural", rather than "genetic"? The term "natural parent" suggests that birth parents are the only parents who are natural. Surely adoptive parents would be natural. Why not use a more narrowly defined word, such as "genetic"?
      Jacqui Smith: We understand from our discussions on the Bill that there are a lot of sensitivities about the nature of birth parents and their relationship with the child and the nature of adopters. It is generally recognised, however, that the use of the phrase "natural parent" conveys what is necessary. I suspect that we will continue to discuss some of the sensitivities involved in the use of such terms.
      In response to those concerns, and following further consideration of the wording of clause 81, we seek to make amendments Nos. 59 and 60 to clarify the meaning of the word "parent".
      Amendment No. 61 will provide a power to impose functions on a local authority where notice of intention to adopt has been given to the authority in respect of a child brought into the United Kingdom under clause 81(1)(a). The amendment will ensure that the maximum possible protection is conferred on children brought into the United Kingdom for the purposes of adoption. Where subsection (1)(a) applies, a person who brings a child into the United Kingdom for the purposes of adoption will be required to give a local authority notice of his or her intention to adopt within 14 days of returning to the United Kingdom.
      In such a case, the intention is to impose specific functions on local authorities by regulation, following full consultation. The regulations are likely to require a local authority to visit the child, to inspect premises, to require specified information in respect of the child and prospective adopters and to monitor the child. In summary, amendment No. 61 will afford the maximum protection to be conferred on a child brought into the country for the purposes of adoption.
      Amendment No. 27 is similar to amendments Nos. 59 and 60. It will ensure that the Scottish restrictions in clause 121—on bringing a child who is not habitually resident in the British isles into the United Kingdom—do not apply to a natural parent or relative.
      I shall now deal with the amendments—in particular, amendment No. 29—that we have tabled to the defence provisions. We tabled the amendments to ensure that the clauses comply with the way in which the courts are now interpreting defences in the light of article 6 of the European convention on human rights, which states:
      "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
      As several amendments follow the same principle, I am sure that hon. Members are paying close attention.

      25
      3.45 pm
      The amendments change the legal burden in the defence provisions to an evidential burden to comply with recent court judgments. When a person is charged with an offence in contravention of a clause that provided a defence, he will not have to prove the matter set out in that defence on the balance of probabilities. The change means that if there is sufficient evidence that a defence provision may apply to the case before the court, it will be for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it does not. We consider that to be the appropriate balance in the light of convention case law.
      To counterbalance that change in the burden of evidence, the amendments also amend the formulation of "did not know or have reasonable cause to believe" currently in the Bill, to "did not know, and had no reason to suspect", which provides a higher test. Amendment No. 29 applies to the offence of arranging the removal of a child from the United Kingdom for the purpose of adoption, in contravention of clause 83, and I have explained the principles behind that.
      Amendments Nos. 298 and 299 substantially amend clause 84. In Committee, I set out our plans to bring into force some of the Bill's provisions before full implementation. As part of the early work, we intend to begin the process of reviewing the designated list, but we want to do so in light of the regulations that will prescribe the requirements. The review will involve bilateral discussions with countries to decide which ones should be included in the list on the basis that their adoptions are likely to meet the requirements set out in regulations. Having completed the review, the Secretary of State may make an order that adoptions made in those countries from the date that the order is made are to be overseas adoptions for the purposes of the 1976 Act and the Bill, which means that they will be recognised in the UK. As it stands, we cannot begin the review against those prescribed requirements before the commencement of the Bill as a whole, and we are keen to get on with it.
      I stated in Committee that I would table an amendment on Report to allow us to set in place the new arrangements in 2003, should we be in a position to do so. The revised clause 84 will enable the review to begin in advance of the commencement of the Bill as a whole. However, the review of the designated list is likely to be a time-consuming process and we will not be able to complete it in respect of some countries by the time it comes fully into force. So the amendments to clause 84 also provide the necessary flexibility to continue to recognise adoptions from those countries currently on the designated list that have not yet been reviewed.
      Amendment No. 298 largely replaces what is now clause 84. Amended subsection (1) re-defines overseas adoption for the purposes of the Bill and the 1976 Act. Subsection (2) enables the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing the requirements that should be met by an adoption that is made after the commencement of the regulations for it to be an overseas adoption. Those are likely to be: that the law in the overseas country ensures that the child has been freely given up for adoption and that that has not been induced by payment or compensation of any kind; that the overseas country makes attempts to place the child in a family in their own country; that it confirms that inter-country adoption is in
      26
      the child's best interests; that the domestic and inter-country adoption arrangements and requirements are the same; and that profit is not made from the process.
      Those are the main requirements in the amendments on the inter-country provisions. The key consideration is that the Bill already significantly strengthens and clarifies the position on inter-country adoption. Its additional restrictions and tougher penalties will protect vulnerable children overseas by acting as a deterrent to those who do not want to go through the proper assessment and approval procedures. It should also help us to ensure that a consistent service is provided to those who wish to adopt overseas, and that they are helped to navigate the often complex procedures. The amendments will provide for the Bill to go even further to strengthen the safeguards and procedures for children who are adopted overseas, and I commend them to the House.
      Mr. Brazier: I shall focus mostly on Government amendments Nos. 61 and 298, although I want to press the Minister for a moment on the point that I made in an intervention in relation to Government amendments Nos. 59, 60 and 27.
      Terminology is of some significance. To many adoptive parents, it seems sad to hear the genetic parents of the children concerned, many of whom have been most unnatural in their treatment of their children, referred to as "natural parents", as if adopting were somehow unnatural. Why cannot the much more usual terminology of "birth parents" be used, or a more technical term such as "genetic parents"? That is not clear to me.
      Sandra Gidley (Romsey): I have some sympathy with the use of the term "birth parents". Would the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that the term "genetic parents" can cause problems, as genetics do not always bear out—in probably 20 per cent. of cases, I understand—what a child believes to be truly his or her parentage?
      Mr. Brazier: The hon. Lady is taking us into a terminological minefield. Perhaps she and I can agree on the most commonly used phrase: "birth parents". We do not want to spend too much time on the terminology, but the fact is that many adoptive parents resent the idea that it should be suggested in law that their relationship with the children concerned—the adoption of whom has often involved them making huge sacrifices—is somehow unnatural.
      In relation to Government amendment No. 61, it is worth making a few background points on clause 81. The United Kingdom still has a bolt-on inter-country service, both currently and even after the introduction of this Bill, rather than, as is the case in many other signatories to the convention, a system that is specially designed to deal with overseas adoptions. The amendment takes a small step in the right direction of putting Britain into the mainstream of convention-signing countries that receive children for adoption. Adopters will now have to notify their local authority about their new child's arrival. That should mean that the local authority is then obliged to make welfare visits: alas, these are all too frequently not done because of the pressures on social services staff.
      The provision will help a little with the difficulty that adopters have in trying to get recognition of the probity of inter-country adoption within their local authorities, but,

      27
      sadly, it probably does not go far enough, and certainly not as far as was envisaged by the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999. There is, indeed, a question. The 1999 Act envisaged that any adoption of a child into the UK should be treated as though it were an agency adoption. That ensures that local authorities oversee the assessment of adopters and review the child's progress once the child comes into the UK, and that the rest of the protective measures apply. Given that this Government amendment is, effectively, less strong than the 1999 provisions, what happens to those provisions? They have not yet been put into operation, so are they simply to disappear?
      The Minister referred to the importance of helping overseas adopters, as we do other adopters. They battle with paperwork and practicalities here and in the sending country almost alone. There is no specialist agency of any kind to help them here. When the British adoptive family have returned to the UK with the child, they have hitherto received very little assistance from most local authorities. Sometimes, there has been monitoring of the early days of the adoption, but, mostly, work pressures in local authorities have prevented even that.
      It is worth noting that very few overseas adoptions have broken down over the years. The one group that has been thoroughly researched is the 500 or so children who came from Romania in 1991 and 1992. About 20 of those 500 adoptions have broken down—that is only 4 per cent., which is an extraordinarily low figure and much lower than the rate for domestic adoptions. It is particularly remarkable, given the horrendous conditions—we all saw the pictures on television—from which the children came.
      Jonathan Shaw: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House the average age of the children who came from Romania? Children from the UK who are adopted tend to be older and, therefore, have more problems.
      Mr. Brazier: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a direct answer, but I believe that the children from Romania came from across the age spectrum. They were certainly not all babies, which seems to be the point behind his question.
      Before I move away from the subject of Romania, it is worth putting on record the anger that many adopters feel about the activities of Baroness Nicholson. She was sent to Romania by the European Parliament to consider the position there, and in her report on adoption in Romania she makes an attack that appears to be corroborated by very little evidence. The suggestion that children were being sold from Romania so frightened the authorities there that overseas adoption from that country to this country has stopped completely, thus denying many children the opportunity of a loving family to adopt them.
      The fact that such a high proportion of overseas adoptions succeed is a towering achievement and testimony to the intense commitment of overseas adopters. Surely help should be available to them. It is well known that early intervention with a problem is usually productive and often saves the relationship. The amendment should help a little, because social workers will have a duty to monitor families just as they do with domestic adoptions. I hope that the barrage of quality protects indicators—it seems to get larger every year—
      28
      will be followed up and delivered despite the extreme overstretch that many local authorities, including mine, have experienced.
      Government amendment No. 298 will amend clause 84 and it is clearly designed to deal with cases such as that involving the Kilshaws. As the Minister said, it will close the current loophole that allowed the Kilshaws to get round having a local authority pre-adoption vetting. They used a private home study that went directly to a US-based agency, which then allowed the adoption. A number of such adoptions have taken place each year. I am not attacking the Kilshaws under parliamentary privilege—enough has already been said about that case—but there is a danger that those with genuinely sinister motives, such as paedophiles, might take advantage of the loophole. Therefore, it is right to close it and to bring the rules for UK adoptions from the US into line with those for other countries. However, in the Kilshaw case, it must be pointed out that the American and British laws together finally delivered a satisfactory result.
      The Kilshaw case resulted in much animus against American adoption agencies. However, although the state of adoption law in some American states is not very good, it is better in many states than it is in this country. Furthermore, many couples in this country make up for the complete absence of proper independent advice in this country about overseas adoption by approaching an American agency. Very often, American agencies can assist British couples in adopting children from countries outside America and Britain.
      Taken as a whole, the amendments make a number of sensible changes to improve the administration of overseas adoption. We are minded to support them, but we still feel that there should be a little more carrot—a little more positive assistance for people who bring children into this country, often from the most appalling conditions, and give them a loving home.
      4 pm
      Dr. Vincent Cable: When the Minister sums up the debate, will she tell us her assessment of the Bill's likely effect on the volume of inter-country adoption? Will there be significantly more of it or significantly less, or will the level remain about the same?
      I have no professional interest in adoption, whether overseas or domestic, and I have no personal experience of it. However, I have dealt with the casework of constituents who have attempted overseas adoption, and they have found the procedures in this country amazingly negative and labyrinthine. First, they go to the local council's social services department, where they find that social workers are unremittingly hostile because they seem to feel that there is something not quite correct about adopting children from another culture. They fear, often completely wrongly, that they may be stolen or that there may be profit involved. Cases may go, on appeal, to the Department of Health. I was involved in one such case, and found that there was hostility there too. If the case gets through that hurdle, it has to go through immigration control, where such adoptions are viewed very negatively, as a loophole in immigration regulations.
      There is not only anecdotal evidence of that approach; there is evidence of it in the number of such adoptions. We seem to have one of the most restrictive regimes for inter-country adoptions in the western world. I understand

      29
      that there are about 300 applications a year, fewer than the number of inter-country adoptions in small countries such as Norway and about a tenth of the number in France. There may be technical reasons for that, but in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I assume that it is the result of our extremely restrictive philosophy.
      Most of the Minister's introduction was about strengthening restrictions and tightening controls. She said nothing to imply that there was anything worth while about inter-country adoption. However, in many cases it may be a very desirable activity. There are people who are genuinely humanitarian and who wish to give children a home, and if one of the partners has a link overseas, inter-country adoption may be a perfectly natural thing to do. I would hope that the Minister would be a little more positive about the spirit behind such adoptions.
      I sense that my sentiments are echoed by many of the countries with which we deal. For example, India and Colombia, which have developed sophisticated domestic monitoring systems to prevent abuse and profiteering, have found this country absolutely impossible to deal with because our philosophy is so negative. South American countries such as Peru have followed the same route. This country is clearly sending out the message that it does not want inter-country adoption, so it makes it as difficult as possible for parents to pursue that course. I hope that the Minister will make her approach clear.
      I listened to some of the debates that took place last week. The philosophy behind much of the Government's thinking, on unmarried couples for example, is that it is better to have an imperfect relationship than to leave a child in an orphanage, and surely that is even more the case here. There are many children in dire circumstances who would benefit from adoption. If the right procedures and proper protections are in place, why cannot overseas adoption be not merely tolerated but actively encouraged?
      Laura Moffatt: Will the hon. Gentleman please explain to the House what an imperfect relationship is?
      Dr. Cable: I do not want to reopen the debate that we had last week. I happily supported the principle of giving unmarried couples the right to adopt. The Government seemed to say—I fully supported them—that it was often better for unmarried couples rather than married couples to adopt because that widened the pool of adoption and brought more people into play. I am simply asking them to follow through the same logic in relation to the very specific problem that we are considering.
      Mr. David Hinchliffe: I did not intend to speak in the debate on this amendment, but I am stimulated by contributions from the Conservative Front Bench and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable).
      I have grave doubts in principle about overseas adoptions. Last week, I mentioned the circumstances that I witnessed in Romania. I know nothing about Baroness Nicholson's report, which I have not read, but I share her concern about procedures for removing very poor children from Romania. I believe strongly that our contribution in such circumstances should be to try to work with the authorities and the children and their families to ensure that poverty and deprivation are addressed in their own country.
      30
      I mentioned my visit 10 years ago to a nursery in Romania containing 100 children below the age of five. I remember the children climbing all over me while I stood. On starting in child care work, I found that when somebody goes into a children's home, children who do not know them climb on to them for love and for the sake of touching somebody. My experience in Romania was the same. The nursery was supposedly an orphanage, but, as I said last week, when I asked the woman in charge how many of the children were without families, she told me that only one out of 100 was an orphan. The rest had families, mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters who loved them dearly, but could not afford to bring them up.
      I passionately believe that we need to tread carefully in relation to overseas adoptions. I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that we will consider how this country might assist in protecting youngsters in countries such as Romania who are removed from their families. It can happen for what might seem the very best of reasons. Indeed, I and one or two other members of the Select Committee on Health had contact with a previous scheme in which poor children were removed from this country to the other side of the world for the very best of reasons. When they came back, a number of them asked, "Why did you do it, Britain?"
      Would we honestly argue that children in this country who are in poverty and are deprived and living in very difficult circumstances should be sent overseas and adopted there because we cannot look after them and support their families? I do not think so. I hope that we will tread very carefully in dealing with these matters.
      Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Broadly speaking, I fully support the amendments, which are a useful step forward.
      Mention has been made of the Kilshaw case. I am not here to use parliamentary privilege in an unfair way either, but I point out that the case highlighted numerous problems that are addressed by the amendments, which are most welcome. Many criticisms are made of social services. It is obvious that they are under a great deal of pressure, but the Flintshire social services moved rapidly indeed in that case and deserve credit for what they did. Equally, the Government have listened to the evidence taken in the Special Standing Committee. The amendments are welcome and the Bill is far better now than a few months ago.
      The hon. Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) referred to youngsters in Romania. I visited Belarus not so long ago and saw similar circumstances in which children were seemingly being offered to all and sundry, which is completely unacceptable. The comments made by the hon. Member for Wakefield were absolutely right: we need better liaison between UK authorities and those in other countries.
      The memorandum submitted by the Adoption Forum to the Special Standing Committee states, among other things:
      "There is no provision for help or advice beyond the home study. Prospective adopters will still be on their own battling with the bureaucracies of two countries—their own and the country of origin of the child."
      Here is the crunch:
      "How are people to find reliable contacts and agencies abroad when there is so little official help on offer?"—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 21 November 2001; c. 171.]

      31
      I fully support the contention of the hon. Member for Wakefield that we need to make it possible for these countries to address their problems rather than offer their children for adoption. Will the Minister consider this point, however, in the cases where adoption is a viable alternative—perhaps the viable alternative? This argument was put to various bodies during the evidence taking, and, as far as I can see from the Bill, we have not progressed much further since then. I am not levelling criticism unfairly or casually; many of the amendments have plugged the gap that existed, and they are welcome. I would, however, like the Minister to address the small point that I have just raised. Apart from that, I am very pleased to support the amendments.
      Jacqui Smith: We have had a short but useful debate, in which different views have been expressed on whether the Government should further restrict inter-country adoption or take an even more positive approach to it. This partly represents the sensitivity and the concerns of people engaged in such adoption; it also reflects a failure to understand some of the progress that is being made in the Bill.
      To return to the point pressed by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) about the use of the word "natural", I am not sure that I am going to be able to satisfy him today, so to speak. The Government considered other terms, but they were all seen to have problems attached to their use, some of which have been mentioned today. Perhaps I could write to him about why "natural" is the most appropriate term.
      Several hon. Members have understandably mentioned the Kilshaw case in relation to safeguards. I note the presence in the Chamber of my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson); he was, of course, the Kilshaws' constituency MP. I understand that he supports the views of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) about the important contribution made by Flintshire social services, and about the importance of ensuring—as we are doing in the Bill—that significant changes are made to protect children from the kind of events that we saw in the Kilshaw case. This will be assisted by the Government's decision to restrict the bringing into the country of children adopted in other countries within the last six months. As I suggested in my introduction, that is quite an important loophole that the Bill will enable us to close.
      Several hon. Members have mentioned the need for more support for those engaged in inter-country adoption. The hon. Member for Canterbury talked about the need for inter-country adoption agencies. I believe that some agencies already concentrate on inter-country work, and it is also possible for inter-country adoption agencies to be set up under the Bill. I would say to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) that it is not the intention of the Bill either artificially to increase or artificially to hold back the number of inter-country adoptions. It is not clear whether the number will increase, although it has risen steadily over the last couple of years. The Bill will, however, improve the quality of procedures for those wanting to adopt from overseas. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Twickenham that there is hostility in the system to inter-country adoption. I shall outline some of the action already taken by the Government.
      32
      We have introduced the provisions in the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 that place a clear duty on local authorities to establish an inter-country adoption service. Those adopting from abroad are already eligible under provisions relating to adoption support, which we have debated at some length. However, procedures are necessarily tight in order to protect and safeguard children. Given the concerns that hon. Members have expressed and what we know about some cases, it is important that those safeguards are in place.
      4.15 pm
      We have fewer inter-country adoptions than some other countries, but we have 10 times the number of domestic adoptions than in Norway, for example. There is an important cultural issue to be considered. In many countries, there is nothing like the emphasis—if any emphasis at all—on the adoption of children out of care that there is in this country. Hon. Members will recognise that it is a very important priority for the Government not only to maintain but to increase the ability to adopt out of care. That is quite often the reason for discrepancies in adoption figures among countries. In addition, The Hague convention, against which I have not heard any hon. Member argue, requires that we tighten controls in order to proceed with our ratification.
      Prospective adopters have the support both of their agencies and of the Department of Health's adoption unit in finding out the information that they need to help them adopt children from overseas. I do not quite understand the accusation made by the hon. Member for Twickenham that, somehow, Government officials are attempting to make life more difficult for those who want to adopt from overseas. I have evidence of people thanking officials in my Department for the assistance that they have been given on inter-country adoption.
      The hon. Member for Canterbury suggested that the provisions in the Bill were weaker than the 1999 measures. In fact, clauses 81 and 84 are tighter in the sense that the Secretary of State will have to prescribe the requirements that ought to be met by local authorities in discharging their responsibilities to those adopting from overseas. Without that provision, the Secretary of State would not have any criteria to work to and would therefore be more likely to be challenged.
      We recognise that a balance needs to be struck between enabling parents who have a genuine wish to adopt and a contribution to make in adopting a child from overseas, and the very important need to ensure that our legislation protects children not only in this country but overseas. As we have made clear throughout proceedings on this Bill, whether we are considering domestic or inter-country adoption, we must ensure that the needs of the children are at the centre of policies. I commend the Government's amendments to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.
      It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [16 May], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour.

      33
      Amendments made: No. 60, in page 44, line 22, at beginning insert "natural".
      No. 61, in page 44, line 42, at end insert—
      (b) if notice of intention to adopt has been given, impose functions in respect of the child on the local authority to which the notice was given'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

    Clause 83

      RESTRICTION ON TAKING CHILDREN OUT
      Amendment made: No. 29, in page 46, line 21, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
      ( ) A person is not guilty of an offence under subsection (4) of causing a person to take any step mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (3) unless it is proved that he knew or had reason to suspect that the step taken would contravene subsection (1).
      But this subsection only applies if sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether the person had the knowledge or reason mentioned'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

    Clause 84

      OVERSEAS ADOPTIONS
      Amendments made: No. 298, in page 46, line 40, leave out from "adoption'"' to end of line 10 on page 47 and insert"—

      (a) means an adoption of a description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State, being a description of adoptions effected under the law of any country or territory outside the British Islands, but

      (b) does not include a Convention adoption.

      (2) Regulations may prescribe the requirements that ought to be met by an adoption of any description effected after the commencement of the regulations for it to be an overseas adoption for the purposes of this Act.
      (3) At any time when such regulations have effect, the Secretary of State must exercise his powers under this section so as to secure that subsequently effected adoptions of any description are not overseas adoptions for the purposes of this Act if he considers that they are not likely within a reasonable time to meet the prescribed requirements.
      (3A) In this section references to this Act include the Adoption Act 1976.'.
      No. 299, in page 47, line 12, at end insert—
      ( ) In this section—
      "adoption" means an adoption of a child or of a person who was a child at the time the adoption was applied for,
      "regulations" means regulations made by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Assembly.'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

    Clause 87

      SECTION 86: SUPPLEMENTARY
      Amendment made: No. 255, in page 48, line 14, at end insert—
      ' "Prescribed" means prescribed by rules.'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

    Clause 88
      OVERSEAS DETERMINATIONS AND ORDERS
      Amendment made: No. 38, in page 48, line 28, leave out "colony" and insert "British overseas territory".—[Jacqui Smith.]
    Clause 121

      SCOTTISH RESTRICTION ON BRINGING CHILDREN INTO UNITED KINGDOM
      Amendments made: No. 27, in page 69, line 6, leave out "parents," and insert—
      natural parents (whether or not they have parental responsibilities or parental rights in relation to the child), natural'.
      No. 28, in page 69, line 24, at end insert—
      '( ) In relation to a child brought into the United Kingdom for adoption in circumstances where this section applies, regulations may provide for any provision of Part II of this Act to apply with modifications or not to apply.'—[Jacqui Smith.]

    Clause 122

      AMENDMENT OF ADOPTION (SCOTLAND) ACT 1978: OVERSEAS ADOPTIONS
      Amendments made: No. 305, in page 70, line 1, leave out from first "adoption" " to end of line 11 and insert"—

      (a) means an adoption of a description specified in an order made by the Scottish Ministers, being a description of adoptions effected under the law of any country or territory outside the British Islands, but

      (b) does not include a Convention adoption.

      (2A) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations prescribe the requirements that ought to be met by an adoption of any description effected after the commencement of the regulations for it to be an overseas adoption for the purposes of this Act.
      (2B) At any time when such regulations have effect, the Scottish Ministers must exercise their power under subsection (2) so as to secure that subsequently effected adoptions of any description are not overseas adoptions for the purposes of this Act if they consider that such adoptions are not likely within a reasonable time to meet the prescribed requirements.'.
      No. 306, in page 70? leave out lines 14 to 19 and insert—
      '(2D) In subsections (2) to (2C), "adoption" means the adoption of a child or of a person who was a child at the time the adoption was applied for.'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

    Clause 125

      EXTENSION OF THE CONVENTION TO BRITISH OVERSEAS TERRITORIES
      Amendment made: No. 39, in page 71, line 6, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
      '( ) The British Nationality Act 1981 is amended as follows.
      ( ) In section 1 (acquisition of British citizenship by birth or adoption)—

      (a) in subsection (5), at the end of paragraph (b) there is inserted "effected under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom",

      (b) at the end of subsection (5A)(b) there is inserted "or in a designated territory",

      (c) in subsection (8), the words following "section 50" are omitted.

      ( ) In section 15 (acquisition of British overseas territories citizenship)—
      (a) after subsection (5) there is inserted—
      "(5A) Where—

      (a) a minor who is not a British overseas territories citizen is adopted under a Convention adoption,

      35

      (b) on the date on which the adoption is effected—

      (i) the adopter or, in the case of a joint adoption, one of the adopters is a British overseas territories citizen, and

      (ii) the adopter or, in the case of a joint adoption, both of the adopters are habitually resident in a designated territory, and

      (c) the Convention adoption is effected under the law of a country or territory outside the designated territory,

      the minor shall be a British overseas territories citizen as from that date.",

      (b) in subsection (6), after "order" there is inserted "or a Convention adoption".
      ( ) In section 50 (interpretation), in subsection (1)—

      (a) after the definition of "company" there is inserted—

      "'Convention adoption"' means an adoption effected under the law of a country or territory in which the Convention is in force, and certified in pursuance of Article 23(1) of the Convention",

      (b) after the definition of "'Crown service under the government of the United Kingdom'" there is inserted—

      "designated territory" means a qualifying territory, or the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, which is designated by Her Majesty by Order in Council under subsection (14)".
      ( ) After subsection (13) of that section there is inserted—
      "(14) For the purposes of the definition of "designated territory" in subsection (1), an Order in Council may—

      (a) designate any qualifying territory, or the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, if the Convention is in force there, and

      (b) make different designations for the purposes of section 1 and section 15;

      and, for the purposes of this subsection and the definition of "Convention adoption" in subsection (1), "the Convention" means the Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of Intercountry Adoption, concluded at the Hague on 29th May 1993.
      An Order in Council under this subsection shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

    New Clause 14

      PROCEEDINGS IN GREAT BRITAIN
      Proceedings for an offence by virtue of section 9, 57, 90, 91, 92 or 119—

      (a) may not be brought more than six years after the commission of the offence but, subject to that,

      (b) may be brought within a period of six months from the date on which evidence sufficient in the opinion of the prosecutor to warrant the proceedings came to his knowledge.

      In relation to Scotland, "the prosecutor" is to be read as "the procurator fiscal".'.—[Jacqui Smith.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Jacqui Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 30, 31, 233, 62, 63, 32, 144 and 145.
      Amendment No. 130, in clause 128, page 72, line 13, leave out from "that" to end of line 14 and insert—
      the person may attend and be heard.'.
      36
      Government amendment No. 226.
      Amendment No. 131, in page 72, line 32, leave out from "and" to "at" in line 33 and insert—
      who has not given notice under subsection (4) of that section.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 235 to 237.
      Jacqui Smith: The amendments deal with offences and proceedings relating to adoption, and new clause 14 has its roots in the scrutiny by the Special Standing Committee. Clause 95(2)(a) sets a three-year time limit for bringing proceedings for all offences under the Bill. The net effect of that is to extend the time limit for summary only offences from the standard six months to three years, and to place a three-year time limit on the either-way offences, which are not normally time limited.
      Members of the Special Standing Committee will recall that concerns were expressed about the three-year time limit. Offenders could escape prosecution, it was suggested, if the offence came to the attention of the authorities more than three years after it was committed. Under the operation of the current three-year inspection cycle, inspectors could discover too late that an offence had been committed immediately after their last inspection. Members of the Committee also suggested that unlawful activities might not come to light until several years after the offences were committed.
      As we undertook to do, we have examined those concerns and we agree that issues need to he addressed by amendment. We considered when each offence would be likely to come to the attention of the authorities. In that context, we concluded that the Bill deals with three groups of offences, each of which we intend to provide for differently.
      The first group comprises offences under clauses 81 and 83, relating to issues involving inter-country adoption, which we have just discussed. Each contains an either-way offence triable before a magistrates court or a Crown court, which provides for a higher penalty than the Bill's summary only offences. As there would have to be exceptional reasons for placing a time limit on an either-way offence, we shall remove the current time limit on the two either-way offences.
      In the second group, all the other offences are summary only and may be tried only in a magistrates court. We are removing the time limit from most of those—in a moment I shall explain which summary offences will be treated differently—as we would expect the adoption agency or prosecuting authority to receive information or notice soon after the offence was committed.
      Such offences are linked to activities in which the agency is involved, and it should soon learn of an offence or expect to be informed by others involved—for example, where the court orders the prospective adopters to return the child to the agency or the birth parents remove the child from the prospective adopters without the leave of the court. Therefore, we shall remove the three-year time limit, allowing the standard six-month time limit for most summary only offences to apply automatically.
      To reiterate, those are offences that we would expect to be discovered within that six-month time limit. However, as members of the Committee pointed out, some may go unnoticed by the adoption agency or other authorities where an agency is not involved in making arrangements

      37
      for an adoption. In the bipartisan spirit in which we are considering the legislation, although that will not happen often, I have to say that it was the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) who raised the issue in Committee. Moreover, the agency may itself commit an offence soon after an inspection visit, and that may not be discovered until three years later when the next visit takes place.
      We considered extending the time limit to four years to provide for the three-year inspection cycle, but we were concerned that cases in which, for example, arrangements are made for the private adoption of a baby or an infant, or even of an unborn child, might be missed. The offence could be concealed, perhaps until the child needed to enter primary school. The new clause therefore sets a new time limit of six years for bringing proceedings for offences under clauses 9, 57, 90, 91, 92, and 119.
      We think that that will provide sufficient scope to bring prosecutions against those who arrange private adoptions. The prosecuting authorities will be able to decide that if no harm has come to the child, it is not in the public interest to prosecute the parents. However, the longer time limit provides sufficient scope for the authorities to bring prosecutions against those who arranged or facilitated that private adoption. That is why we decided to set a time of six years.
      The new clause extends to Scotland as well as to England and Wales, as it imposes a time limit in respect of clause 119 that extends to Scotland.
      Government amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32 relate to my earlier arguments about the series of amendments that change the legal burden in the defence provisions to an evidential burden to comply with recent court judgments on that point. I know that hon. Members were listening carefully when I outlined the reasons for that. To counterbalance the change in the burden of evidence, the amendments also amend the formulation used in the clause—that someone
      "neither knew nor had reasonable cause to believe"—
      to the question of whether they
      "knew or had reason to suspect",
      which provides a higher test.
      Government amendments Nos. 144 and 145 will ensure that only an evidential burden is placed on the defendant, and that clause 115(3) is compatible with article 6 of the European convention on human rights. They also align the clauses with the defences for electronic distribution of advertisements in the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill.
      I now turn to Government amendments Nos. 62 and 63. When clause 97, which was then clause 96, was considered in Committee on 4 December, we—I am using the royal we, because I was not present on that day—agreed to consider the drafting of the clause. The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), set out the following areas for examination: first, whether there should be an automatic bar on the identification of children in the county court and the High Court to match that already in place in the magistrates court; secondly, whether county courts should have the ability to revert to open court in individual cases; and thirdly, whether to tighten the wording of the clause to ensure the anonymity of those involved in adoption proceedings.
      38
      Amendment No. 62 deals with the second of those points. The Government have considered whether county courts should have the ability to sit in open court in individual cases, and we believe that it is important that the family courts have sufficient flexibility to carry out their duties without unnecessary bureaucracy and without causing unnecessary delay. It would be undesirable for a case that is being dealt with at an otherwise suitable court centre to be transferred to the High Court solely to allow judgment that does not even identify the child concerned to be given in public. Amendment No. 62 gives county court judges the discretion to hear adoption proceedings in public when they consider it appropriate to do so—for example, where it is in the child's best interests or in the public interest.
      Through amendment No. 62 we are modernising and clarifying the language used in the Bill by substituting for the phrases "in chambers" and "in camera" the phrase "in private". That clarifies the policy intention by ensuring that only those concerned with the case are present and that the public are not admitted. Recent case law has again stressed that "in chambers" is not the same as "in private", so non-parties could seek to enter a hearing in chambers. The amendment updates the clause with the more modern terminology of
      "heard and determined in private",
      which provides consistency with the language used in the rest of the statute book.
      On the first point raised in Committee, the Government have considered the issue of the identification of children involved in adoption proceedings, and we believe that there should be an automatic bar on the identification of children in the county court and the High Court to match that already in place in the magistrates court. Amendment No. 63 therefore inserts in the Children Act 1989 a reference to the Bill, to align the protection of children under that Act and the Bill.
      That will ensure that children are protected at all levels of courts by making it an offence to publish any material that is intended to identify, or likely to identify, first, any child as being involved in any proceedings before the courts in which any power under the Bill may be exercised by the court with respect to that or to any other child or, secondly, an address or school as being that of a child involved in any such proceedings.
      I believe that the amendments have fulfilled the commitment that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department made in Committee to consider the points that arose, and I hope that in the light of that explanation, hon. Members will support the new clause.
      4.30 pm
      Tim Loughton: I acknowledge the Minister's characteristic graciousness in alluding to the useful debate in Committee. Practical and useful points were made there, and in the interests of bipartisanship, I must acknowledge that the Government have generally taken them on board. However, I fear that that will make for a boring debate this afternoon, as is witnessed by the lack of hon. Members in the Chamber.
      I broadly welcome the amendments. I am especially pleased about new clause 14 and the consequential amendments that change the basis of the six-month and three-year restrictions that currently apply. We had a good

      39
      debate in Committee about offences that are often undetected for a long time and hidden by those who are clever at getting around the law. There are shortcomings in part of the inspection system, but the work of the National Care Standards Commission will improve matters in future. Some agencies are inspected on a three-year cycle and the prosecution period is limited to three years, whereas it may take a long time after inspections for some matters to come out of the woodwork. The measure is therefore wholly sensible, and we welcome it.
      We welcome the application of the new clause to the more serious case of private adoptions. Like private fostering, those are an unknown quantity. We know that some cases have sprung from lack of proper checks, which is understandable because the private adoptions and fostering have not been officially recognised.
      Government amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32 deal with the change to the evidential basis for the burden of proof, which echoes recent arguments in Committee on the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill. The Minister has not had the pleasure of being party to those debates, but I have, as I try to juggle those responsibilities with my others in connection with this Bill.
      The amendments are consistent with those that we considered to the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill. However, it always pains me when I read phrases such as:
      "only applies if sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether the person had the knowledge or reason mentioned".
      I fear that plain English has not prevailed.
      The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): I did not say that.
      Tim Loughton: The Minister says that she did not say that, but that is the wording of her amendment. I fully realise that it is legalistic jargon, but such terrible English pains me, and it seems to be used all the time nowadays.
      Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 refer to the change to proceedings in court. Amendment No. 63 refers to the Administration of Justice Act 1960. The Minister responded positively to sensible points that were made in Committee to ensure the anonymity of vulnerable children in sensitive circumstances. I shall not shed tears for the dismissal of the terms "in camera" and "in chambers". It may sadden lawyers, but it is good news for laymen and supporters of plain English.
      The Minister might have said more about amendments Nos. 235 to 237, which single out the treatment of corporate bodies and partnerships. I may have missed her comments but I do not think that she referred to those amendments. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) may want to speak about his amendments, with which we have some sympathy.
      We believe that the Minister listened to the discussions in Committee, and the amendments are broadly sensible, so we welcome them.
      Mr. Hilton Dawson: Two of the amendments in this group—Nos. 130 and 131—are in my name. I will not press amendment No. 131, which has been
      40
      largely accepted by the Government: Government amendment No. 226 is very similar to it, so I will not waste anyone's time quibbling. That amendment relates to amendment No. 111, which we discussed on Thursday. It was the shining example among my 30-plus amendments: the Government accepted it completely. With that little triumph achieved, we will quickly pass on and feel that we are working on the same lines.
      I hope that we can also be on the same lines over amendment No. 130 which is similarly about the participation of parents and of anyone who has an involvement in these issues; perhaps it is particularly about the participation of parents, though. The Bill basically says that someone who has given consent for a placement or for adoption need not be required to attend court unless the court insists on it. The amendment says that the person, whether at placement order stage, at the stage of variation of such an order, or at adoption order stage, has a right to attend and be heard.
      This is a matter of fundamental human rights. It is about the proper participation of parents in perhaps the most fundamental decisions that any parent can make about the future of their child, and perhaps the most fundamental decisions that any court can make about the future of children. It is not an amendment tabled by some idiosyncratic Labour Back Bencher. It is supported by a vast range of children's organisations. I think that almost every children's organisation that has been involved in making representations on the Bill supports it.
      The amendment relates to the concerns that many of us have—unfortunately, we did not have time to air those concerns on Thursday; I hope that we will get the chance later today to refer to them—about the nature of consent under the Bill. The Children Act 1989 is to be changed fundamentally. Parental responsibility could be transferred to other authorities—to the local authority, to the agency, to the adoptive parent—without going through court. Fundamental decisions could be taken at the consent stage, without taking every case to court for a placement order. Huge decisions about children's lives could be taken under the scrutiny of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service—we will return to that point later—without involving the courts. In fact, without returning to court, decisions could be taken that militate against previous court decisions concerning Children Act section 8 orders, residence, or contact.
      In essence, the amendment would enable parents to "attend and be heard" at crucial court proceedings at the stage of placement, of possible revocation of placement, and certainly of adoption hearings. The argument might be advanced that, if accepted, the amendment would introduce another stage, through which those who have perhaps not attended to their children's best interests could disrupt, delay and prevaricate over the best efforts of all concerned to meet the interests of vulnerable children. However, I have greater faith than that in the court process and in those who work with children.
      I hope that it will be accepted that parents have a right to attend and be heard at these crucial stages, and to participate not just in discussions about whether adoption will proceed, but about crucial issues such as contact with

      41
      extended family and siblings. It is a matter of human rights and—most importantly—of the best interests of children, so I hope that the amendment will be supported.
      Sandra Gidley: I, too, welcome Government new clause 14, and echo the frustration expressed about our proceedings in Committee. Certain hon. Members were delighted when any of their amendments were accepted, and felt that the Government were ignoring them. I am pleased to say that that is no longer the case, as most of our concerns have been addressed through this group of amendments, which will probably improve the process.
      I greatly sympathise with amendment No. 130, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). A change in emphasis whereby parents would have the right to be present at a hearing is a sound one. Although we can find our way around the system with ease because we do so every day, not everybody feels that way. We tend to forget how difficult it is for others to realise that they have to do certain things at a certain time—such as applying to be present at a hearing—particularly if they are going through a traumatic and stressful time. Anything that would help such people to be part of the process is very welcome.
      Through our constituency surgery cases, we have all discovered how easy it is to be wise after the event and establish what should have been done. However, if parents can be involved at every stage, such situations might decrease. In certain cases, social services could decide that the parents are not doing a very good job and put the child up for adoption themselves. In such cases in particular—I am thinking of one fairly close to home—parents often feel victimised by the system and by social services, and excluded from the whole process.
      4.45 pm
      I do not want to go into the rights or wrongs of individual cases, but I contend that it is fairer to encourage the parents to be there. It is also fairer for social services departments if the parents are involved. The parents may not like what happens, but they will be able to witness the process and, probably, take part in it in some way.
      Many of the adoption agencies have raised concerns about the human rights aspects. I hope that the Minister will explain how the Bill fits in with the human rights legislation, especially relating to the rights to a fair trial and to a family life.
      Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) is right to say that we are in accord on amendments Nos. 226 and 111—the latter was debated last week—and on his amendment No. 131. He should not be so modest about the impact that he has had on the course of the legislation.
      The Government acknowledge the importance of ensuring that the views of parties to proceedings are appropriately put before the court. The way in which views of the parties—for example, the birth parents of the child—are put before the court will vary in different circumstances and in different types of proceedings. The requirements in the Bill to notify parents and guardians of adoption hearings represent minimum requirements to be set out in court rules. We have already said in Committee that the full detail on representation and party status in proceedings will be set out in secondary
      42
      legislation such as court rules. We can do that by virtue of the wide rule-making power contained in clause 128(1). We have of course listened closely to Members on both sides of the Special Standing Committee on this issue and we will consider the points made by them when we come to consult on detailed proposals.
      Amendment No. 130 clarifies that a parent or guardian can attend a hearing for a placement order, for a variation or revocation of such an order, or for an adoption order, and may be heard as to their view regarding the proceedings. That is not necessary, because it is legally implicit in the current drafting that notice is given to a person for the same purpose that he is entitled to receive it—that is, to give or withhold consent, apply for leave or whatever. The amendment would not add anything of substance to what is implicit in the Bill.
      The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) invited me to comment on amendments Nos. 235, 236 and 237. As he suggested, clause 130 makes provision in relation to offences by bodies corporate and unincorporated bodies. If an offence under the Bill is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or owing to the neglect of, an officer of a body corporate or an unincorporated body, that officer himself, as well as the body, is guilty of the offence. In cases in which the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members rather than by officers, the provisions of the clause apply equally to members as to officers.
      Amendment No. 235 inserts three new subsections into clause 130. It clarifies the position on taking proceedings against unincorporated bodies under the Bill. The amendment provides for the procedural provisions that already apply to the prosecution of corporate bodies to apply to the prosecution of unincorporated bodies. The second new subsection provides for any fine imposed on an unincorporated body on its conviction for an offence under the Bill to be paid from the funds of the body, rather than from the funds of its individual members.
      Amendment No. 237 inserts another new subsection into clause 130. It makes specific provision in respect of partnerships, which are a type of unincorporated body. The amendment provides that if an offence is committed by a partnership and it can be proved that it has been committed with the consent or connivance of a particular partner, or that it is attributable to the neglect of a particular partner, that partner as well as the partnership is guilty of an offence. That aligns the provisions on partnerships with the provisions already included in the clause on bodies corporate and unincorporated bodies more generally, and makes the potential criminal liability of a partner clear.
      Tim Loughton: I thank the Minister for her clear explanation of the three Government amendments.
      I said earlier that we were potentially sympathetic to amendment No. 130. I feel even more sympathetic to it after hearing it explained by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). We discussed the issue in Committee, in the context of another part of the Bill. It was generally felt then that information should be made readily available at various stages of the adoption process through various court procedures. Given the emotional state in which people may be when giving up children for adoption, it is even more incumbent on the

      43
      system to give them every opportunity to participate, to know what they are entitled to, and to be satisfied that the procedures are taking place in accordance with the law and in a fair and balanced way.
      I have no doubt that, as the Minister said, what is already in the Bill makes that legally implicit, as she put it, because notice is given. The Minister also said that the Bill set out minimum requirements for court rules, rather than a requirement for the full explanation that would eventually be on offer. I do not disagree, but, as I have said, we are talking about people who are fairly vulnerable emotionally. If I were involved in an adoption process and received notification from the court that unless I wished or was required to attend I need not do so, I would take that almost as an invitation not to turn up. It would, I think, be more positive and more sensitive to put this more clearly and fairly, and say that a person is entitled to turn up and entitled to speak if he or she sees fit. That, I believe, is the intention of the amendment.
      The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre pitched it fairly high, saying that this was a fundamental human right. It is certainly a fundamental human right for people to be fully involved in the process, but I think it only fair and sensible—in order to achieve an equitable result that everyone will accept long after the matter has passed through all the necessary court stages—to make clear to people exactly what they can do, and are entitled to do. That is all that the amendment proposes.
      I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman wants to press the amendment to a vote, but I wanted to reinforce its aims in the hope that the Minister would beef up the directions given to courts when their rules were being established, rather than treating the requirement as a minimum requirement and letting it slip through as such. I think there is a world of difference between being negative and being positive—encouraging people and telling them their rights.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I remind Members that we are not in Committee. I was perhaps rather generous in allowing the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) to speak again.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    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'.—[Mr. Hinchliffe.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Clause 90

      OFFENCE OF BREACHING RESTRICTIONS UNDER SECTION 89
      Amendment made: No. 30, in page 50, line 5, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
      '(2) A person is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) of taking the step mentioned in paragraph (f) of section 89(2) unless it is proved that he knew or had reason to suspect that the child was handed over to him in contravention of paragraph (e) of that subsection.
      (3) A person is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) of causing a person to take any of the steps mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (h) of section 89(2) unless it is proved that he knew or had reason to suspect that the step taken would contravene the paragraph in question.
      ( ) But subsections (2) and (3) only apply if sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether the person had the knowledge or reason mentioned'.—[acqui Smith.]

    Clause 91

      RESTRICTION ON REPORTS
      Amendment made: No. 31, in page 50, line 33, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
      '( ) A person is not guilty of an offence under subsection (2)(b) unless it is proved that he knew or had reason to suspect that the report would be, or had been, prepared in contravention of subsection (1).
      But this subsection only applies if sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether the person had the knowledge or reason mentioned'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

    Clause 95
      PROCEEDINGS FOR OFFENCES
      Amendment made: No. 233, in page 52, line 6, leave out subsection (2).—[Jacqui Smith.]
    Clause 97

      PROCEEDINGS TO BE IN PRIVATE
      Amendments made: No. 62, in page 52? leave out lines 17 and 18 and insert—
      'in the High Court or a County Court may be heard and determined in private'.
      No. 63, in line 18, at end insert—
      '( ) In section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 (publication of information relating to proceedings in private), in subsection (1)(a)(ii), after "1989" there is inserted "or the Adoption and Children Act 2002".
      ( ) In section 97 of the 1989 Act (privacy for children involved in certain proceedings), after "this Act" in subsections (1) and (2) there is inserted "or the Adoption and Children Act 2002'''.—[Jacqui Smith.]
      Mr. Dawson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am obviously completely unclear about what happens on Report, but what happens about amendment No. 130? Will it be taken later?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: The amendments are taken in the order in which they relate to the Bill.

    Clause 98

      OFFICERS OF THE SERVICE
      Ms Rosie Winterton: I beg to move amendment No. 135, in page 52, line 21, leave out from "of' to "rules" and insert—

      (a) any relevant application,

      (b) the signification by any person of any consent to placement or adoption'.

      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 136 to 140, 256, 142 and 143.
      Ms Winterton: We now come to a series of amendments to clause 98. Right hon. and hon. Members may recall that I said in Committee that the Government would consider the issue of avoiding conflicts of interest when appointing CAFCASS officers to act in adoption and placement proceedings. I also undertook to review the clause more generally.
      I am very pleased to move these amendments, which will not only address the conflict of interest issue but improve the protection for parents. They allow CAFCASS officers to witness consents to placement and adoption and improve the range of information that can be put before the court regarding the welfare of the child. The amendments will also allow officers to be appointed in applications for contact with a child who has been placed for adoption, and in other circumstances in the future, should we decide that they could assist children and families in other ways.
      Clause 98 currently provides that rules must provide for a CAFCASS officer to report to the court or act "on behalf of a child in placement and adoption proceedings, including the making, varying and revoking of placement orders, applications for making adoption orders and applications for the transfer of parental responsibility prior to an adoption abroad. In addition, the CAFCASS officer will witness birth parents' consents in those cases where the birth parents wish to consent. There is power for additional duties to be imposed on CAFCASS officers by secondary legislation. Clause 98 builds on existing provisions in the Adoption Act 1976, as supplemented by secondary legislation.
      CAFCASS officers play an essential role in recommending to the court what is in the best interests of the child, advising on the implications of giving consent in consent cases and being an independent witness of that parent's consent. Amendment No. 135 will enable CAFCASS officers to witness consent before the commencement of court proceedings. We envisage that officers will be provided in prescribed cases to advise birth parents on the implications of giving their consent and to witness their consent where it is given.
      Amendment No. 136 allows the Lord Chancellor to provide in rules for CAFCASS officers to carry out additional duties in prescribed cases if some were identified in future, such as in relation to post-adoption support or advice.
      Amendment No. 137 is a consequential amendment to align the language of "any relevant application" with the reference made in amendment No. 135.
      46
      5 pm
      The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that all relevant matters on the child's welfare are brought to the court's attention. Amendment No. 138 adds to the functions of CAFCASS the requirement that it report to the court, on the court's request, on matters relating to the welfare of the child. That is similar to provision under section 7 of the Children Act 1989. However, it improves the current position in respect of the work that CAFCASS officers can undertake in adoption, as it ensures that the child's welfare is the paramount consideration of the court, in line with clause 1.
      Amendment No. 139 aligns provision in the Bill with that under section 7(2) and (3) of the Children Act, whereby the issues to be covered in a report on the child's welfare must include any matter prescribed by rules, unless the court orders otherwise. Reports may be made orally or in writing as the court requires. We will consult key stakeholders on the rules, following the passage of the Bill.
      The Government acknowledge the importance of ensuring that the views of parties to proceedings are appropriately put before the court. The way in which the views of the parties—for example, the birth parents or the child—are put before the court will vary in different circumstances and in different types of proceeding. We have already said that the full detail on representation and party status in proceedings will be set out in secondary legislation, such as court rules. We have listened closely to Members' points in the Standing Committee and in today's debate and will consider them when we hold consultations on the detailed proposals.
      We must not pre-empt the consultative process, but it is anticipated that the welfare report will include the views of birth parents. Currently, their views are reflected only in the schedule 2 report or in the reports of the children's guardian or the reporting officer. Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 will, therefore, reflect the current law by ensuring that the representation of the views of birth parents is included in the process of making, varying or revoking placement or contact orders, and in the making of an adoption order. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson).
      The clause, as currently drafted, also provides for the preclusion of certain persons from being appointed to safeguard the child's interests: in the case of placement proceedings, a person employed by the local authority that made the application, and, in the case of adoption proceedings, a person employed by the adoption agency that placed the child would be precluded from being appointed to safeguard the child's interests.
      In Committee, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) tabled an amendment that would have extended the category of people who may not be appointed. We felt that the provision went too far, but I informed the Committee that I would give the matter further consideration. Having looked more closely at the provisions of clause 98, I think that the specifications for those who could act in the matter could be extended. Amendments Nos. 140 and 256 will fulfil that requirement. I hope that gives the hon. Gentleman some reassurance.

      47
      Amendment No. 142 removes the provision that allows a CAFCASS officer to act on behalf of the child and to witness consents. That provision is no longer necessary as the functions of reporting officer and guardian have been combined.
      The amendments address a number of the points made in Committee; they much improve clause 98 and I hope that the provisions—especially those in respect of the role of CAFCASS officers—will give my hon. Friends some reassurance about—
      It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [16 May], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Amendment agreed to.
      MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Amendments made: No. 136, in page 52, line 23, at end insert—
      '(lA) The rules may provide for the appointment of such an officer in other circumstances in which it appears to the Lord Chancellor to be necessary or expedient to do so.
      (1B) The rules may provide for the officer—'
      No. 137, in page 52, line 24, leave out third "the" and insert "any relevant".
      No. 138, in page 52, line 26, at end insert—
      (aa) where the court so requests, to prepare a report on matters relating to the welfare of the child in question'.
      No. 139, in page 52, line 28, leave out "other prescribed duties" and insert "prescribed functions.
      (1C) A report prepared in pursuance of the rules on matters relating to the welfare of a child must—

      (a) deal with prescribed matters (unless the court orders otherwise), and

      (b) be made in the manner required by the court'.

      No. 140, in page 52, line 32, leave out "or".
      No. 256, in page 52, line 35, at end insert—
      'or
      (c) is within a prescribed description'.
      No. 142, in page 52, line 36, leave out from "(1)" to end of line 38 and insert "or (1A)".
      No. 143, in page 52, line 40, at end insert—
      '( ) the making of an order under section 25, or the varying or revocation of such an order'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

    Clause 115

      OFFICE OF BREACHING RESTRICTION UNDER SECTION 114
      Amendments made: No. 32, in page 65, line 41, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
      '( ) A person is not guilty of an offence under this section (other than one of distributing an advertisement or information, or causing it to be distributed, by electronic means) unless it is proved that he knew or had reason to suspect that section 114 applied to the advertisement or information.
      But this subsection only applies if sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether the person had the knowledge or reason mentioned'.
      No. 144, in page 66, line 1, at beginning insert—
      Subsections (3A) and (3B) apply'.
      No. 145, in page 66, line 2, leave out from "means" to end of line 7 and insert—
      '(3A) A person is not guilty of the offence unless it is proved that he knew that what was distributed was an advertisement or information to which this section applies; but this subsection only applies if sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether the person had the knowledge mentioned.
      (3B) A person is not guilty of the offence unless it is proved that it was reasonably practicable for him to prevent the distribution: but this subsection only applies if sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether it was reasonably practicable for the person to do so'.—[Ms Rosie Winterton.]
      Mr. Henry Bellingham: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have just had a very short debate on the last group of amendments, on which I had some important points to make. It is most unfair that we have timetabling motions on such non-controversial Bills, and we are getting very frustrated. Is there any way to extend some of these debates?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I must inform the hon. Gentleman that I have no power whatever to override the programme motion to which the House has agreed.

    New Clause 7

      ACCOMMODATION OF CHILDREN IN NEED ETC.
      (1) In section 17 of the 1989 Act (provision of services for children in need, their families and others), in subsection (6) (services that may be provided in exercise of the functions under that section) after "include" there is inserted "providing accommodation and ".

      (2) In section 22 of that Act (general duty of local authority in relation to children looked after by them), in subsection (1) (looked after children include those provided with accommodation, with exceptions) before "23B" there is inserted "17".

      (3) In section 24A of that Act (advice and assistance for certain children and young persons aged 16 or over), in subsection (5), for "or, in exceptional circumstances, cash" there is substituted "and, in exceptional circumstances, assistance may be given—

      (a) by providing accommodation, if in the circumstances assistance may not be given in respect of the accommodation under section 24B, or

      (b) in cash.".'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Jacqui Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 15—Review of cases of looked after children.
      New clause 12—Advice and assistance for certain children in need—
      'In section 24(2) of the 1989 Act, there is inserted—
      "(f) provided with accommodation under section 17 in circumstances where he was unaccompanied by an adult.".'.
      Amendment No. 132, in clause 112, page 63, line 5, at end insert—
      (1B) Regulations may be made by the Secretary of State requiring the local authority to arrange for the appointment of an independent advocate on receiving representations under subsection (1).'.

      49
      Amendment No. 133, in page 63, line 27, at end insert—
      (3C) Regulations may be made by the Secretary of State requiring the local authority to provide independent advocacy to looked after children who make a complaint under the Children Act 1989.'.
      Jacqui Smith: We welcome the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) to our proceedings this afternoon—at last.
      The new clauses and amendments apply to powers under the Children Act 1989. In particular, they deal with the provision of accommodation, putting care plans on a statutory basis and ensuring their review. During the Special Standing Committee, concerns were raised about a problem that had arisen as a result of a recent judgment of the Court of Appeal—A v. London borough of Lambeth. The judgment meant that local authorities no longer had the power to provide accommodation to children in need and their families under section 17 of the Act, when accommodation was not available from any other source.
      I said that I would review the situation and table a suitable amendment to deal with the problem, with the ultimate aim of safeguarding vulnerable children and their families without placing unacceptable burdens on the system. Since then, there has been a further Court of Appeal judgment in the case of W v. London borough of Lambeth, which appears to overturn the earlier judgment. The original case may still go to the other place, and their Lordships might uphold the original judgment. In the light of the continuing litigation and continuing uncertainty, Government new clauses 7 and 15 seem all the more important to provide clarity and certainty about the state of the law on such issues.
      Historically, section 17 of the Children Act has been considered by the Government and local authorities to empower councils with social services responsibilities to assist children in need and their families by providing them with accommodation or, more often, help with the costs of accommodation, such as payment of a rent deposit or the first month's rent, where help was not available from other sources. That was considered to be an important safety net support mechanism for particularly vulnerable groups, including those families considered to be intentionally homeless, those needing emergency accommodation or older children who, while needing accommodation, do not need the more intensive support provided by foster care or institutions.
      Under the new clause, we therefore aim to clarify the position and to confirm that local authorities have the power, which was thought to exist before the Lambeth judgment, to provide accommodation under section 17 of the 1989 Act. The new clause will do so by amending section 17(6) to make it clear that local authorities can provide assistance in kind, accommodation or, in exceptional circumstances, cash. As a consequence of amending section 17, section 22 of the 1989 Act, which deals with the general duties of local authorities to look after children, also requires amendment.
      Subsection (1)(b) of section 22 defines a looked-after child as one who is provided with accommodation by a local authority. Should the new clause be accepted, section 17 will contain a power specifically for the provision of accommodation. It will be used to provide
      50
      accommodation for children with their families who, while needing accommodation, do not need to be taken into care. It will also be used to provide accommodation for older children when their needs assessment has shown that they need accommodation, but not to be taken into care. The new clause ensures that section 22 does not apply to children accommodated under section 17, either with their families or alone, and they will therefore not become looked-after children.
      Section 24 of the 1989 Act, which addresses the after care of former looked-after children, is also amended because it mirrors the wording of section 17. The new clause makes specific reference to the provision of accommodation for that group and serves to make the local authority's powers entirely clear. The local authority will have the power to provide accommodation, although not necessarily a duty to do so. That power provides a safety net for all care leavers who have been looked after at the age of 16 or 17—both those who qualify for the support introduced by the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 and those who do not. Amendment No. 238, which will be debated shortly, will enable the new clause to come into force as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. So new clause 7 enables us to remove the uncertainty caused by recent court cases and to ensure that local authorities are clear that they have the ability to provide accommodation in the cases that I have outlined.
      New clause 15 makes provision in respect of care plans and the review of cases of looked-after children. Care plans are written evidence that the local authority has considered what must be done to ensure that a child's period in care properly addresses the needs of that child. After the assessment, care plans are put together and agreed with a range of agencies and services—most often education and health services—setting out how the needs of the child should be met.
      Clause 113 sets out the requirement that a court may not make a care order until a care plan has been prepared by the local authority and considered by the court. We have developed that in the new clause and the amendments on care plans, which are contained in the next group of amendments, to establish a robust system that includes the process for reviewing care plans and how recourse to court may be sought if the care plan is not properly implemented. The provisions apply both to children who are subject to care orders and to those who are accommodated by the local authority. In both cases, the care plan has to be written and reviewed at appropriate intervals, and modified where necessary. We need to be sure that, once prepared, care plans are implemented so that they are worth the paper they are printed on. The mechanisms to review the care plan therefore need to be suitably robust.
      Subsection (1) of new clause 15 amends section 26 of the 1989 Act. It enables the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring local authorities to keep care plans for all children under review, whether they be section 31A care plans required in court proceedings, or care plans agreed in the case of children voluntarily looked after under section 20 of the 1989 Act. In addition, the regulations will require the appointment of a person to be a reviewing officer. Subsection (2) of new clause 15 enables regulations to be made setting out who should be appointed and the way in which the person will carry out their role. We have in mind a person who has the seniority required to have sufficient status to ensure that they can

      51
      effect the implementation of the care plan in the interests of the child. In our view, that person needs to have professional expertise in children's services, and to be independent of the case and its management.
      Reviewing officers will be required to chair the review meetings and assure themselves of the implementation of the care plan by speaking to the child before the review takes place. The intention is to ensure that quality control is built into the system. Through their activity, reviewing officers will monitor the performance of the authority in each case. However, despite the best efforts and influencing skills of the reviewing officer, the local authority might fail to carry out key parts of the care plan in some cases. The amendment is being introduced because of concern that sometimes care plans are not implemented. We therefore need to ensure that there is a remedy when there is still a failure. Subsection (2)(c) of new clause 15 will enable the reviewing officer to refer a case to CAFCASS when the situation demands it. It allows the Lord Chancellor to make regulations to extend the functions of CAFCASS officers in respect of family proceedings.
      5.15 pm
      When a child has no family or carer to act on their behalf, or is unable to challenge the local authority's handling of the care plan, CAFCASS will be able to take proceedings on behalf of the child. CAFCASS will be able to use existing remedies under the Children Act—for example, it can apply for the discharge of the care order or for contact between the child and another person. Under the Human Rights Act 1998, it can seek to injunct the local authotity from taking a particular step—for example, removing the child from an established placement. It can also seek a declaration that the local authority's plans are contrary to the child's human rights, which would require those plans to be rethought.
      The amendments respond effectively to the issues raised in the case known as Re S & Re W, on which judgment was recently given in the House of Lords. The judgment identified that, currently, a young child in respect of whom a care plan has been made, but with no parent or guardian to act for them, has no effective means of bringing before the court any breach of their convention rights as a result of a local authority's inaction in implementing the care plan. By putting care plans on a statutory footing, establishing a review process that allows for that to happen and providing for the reviewing officer to refer cases to CAFCASS, we are ensuring that this gap in the law is properly filled and that children's needs will be met as effectively as possible through the systems provided under the Children Act.
      Sandra Gidley: First, I welcome the increased protection for 16 and 17-year-olds. Frequently, there is a gap in provision when someone hits that age, and it is unclear where that provision will come from. I welcome the extension to other areas. I have a small number of questions, however, about the group of amendments in relation to care plans.
      I welcome the Minister's statement. She said that the Government needed to be sure that the care plans were worth the paper on which they were printed. She will
      52
      recall that, on the first day on Report, we examined the issue of whether the funding would be available. I am still slightly concerned about whether a lack of funding would be accepted as a good enough reason for not fulfilling the care plan. Will the Minister confirm whether any provision in the Bill would, in effect, prevent a local authority or an education authority from cutting a care plan according to the cloth? Will that role be fulfilled by CAFCASS? Does it have the powers to say, "This must be done. Therefore, it must be funded"? How will that work out in practice?
      Mr. Dawson: We have been agreeing like billy-oh already this afternoon, so let us try to make further progress with regard to new clause 12 and amendments Nos. 132 and 133.
      I tabled new clause 12 a while ago in response to huge concerns expressed to the all-party group on children and young people in care about possible loopholes in the Children Act 1989 and the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000. A great deal of concern has been expressed about young people who in other circumstances might be accommodated or looked after by local authorities. Instead of being taken into the care system, with all the implications that that has for the services provided under the 2000 Act, children of up to 21 or even 24 are denied that opportunity. Only their most basic needs for accommodation and food are met under section 17 of the 1989 Act, but they are not looked after by the local authority. They are encouraged to go into bedand-breakfast accommodation rather than into foster or residential care. Essentially, they are offered a low-quality, low-cost half solution to their tremendous needs. Concern has been expressed that the Government's good intentions for younrpeople in care or leaving care, as expressed in the 2000 Act, which amends the fundamentally important 1989 Act, could be thwarted by the action of adults using—and, frankly, abusing—section 17 for people for whom it should not be used. That would deny such people their rights.
      Much concern has been expressed about people in that position, but particular reference has been made to unaccompanied asylum-seeking young people being placed in such circumstances.
      Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: I think I heard the hon. Gentleman say that keeping a child in care was a low-cost scenario.
      Mr. Dawson indicated dissent.
      Mr. Djanogly: That might not be the case, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that compared with the alternatives such as adoption, which has an immediate cost, the long-term costs of keeping a child in care are dramatically higher.
      Mr. Dawson: I may not have expressed myself very well, but the hon. Gentleman has entirely missed my point. I was talking not about adoption but about the needs of teenagers. For example, because of circumstances such as family breakdown, one could argue that some 15 and 16-year-olds should be looked after by the care system. Instead, they run the risk of being fobbed off with a low-cost, poor-quality alternative. I was not talking about adoption for those young people.

      53
      As I said, reference has been made, in particular, to the young people who come to these shores as unaccompanied asylum seekers. The children who arrive in this country without adult support and in distressing circumstances often do not have the basic requisites of life. A few months ago, I met a couple of young people who arrived in this country without shoes; such young people require the most thorough assessment of their needs so that their best interests can be promoted.
      Children are children are children wherever they come from. It is highly inappropriate that section 17 should be used to place young people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation or poor-quality accommodation without their receiving the thorough assessment and support that they need in circumstances that many adults—let alone young people—would find difficult to face. I support the Government's proposal significantly to strengthen section 17, and I hope that we can move on and ensure that young people on their own who are offered accommodation under that section can have access to the excellent support that the Government introduced in the Children (Leaving Care) Act.
      Similarly, I support the Government's proposal to place care plans on a statutory footing and the measures concerning the intervention of an independent person in the review process. That is the most important juncture at which one can intervene in the care system to affect the lives of children and young people, all of whom are entitled to a statutory review of their circumstances on at least a six-monthly basis.
      Tremendous work has been done by advocacy organisations such as Voice for the Child in Care and the National Youth Advocacy Service, and by children's rights officers and their association. They have been able to deal with the circumstances of many children and young people in care. Organisations such as National Voice and the Care Leavers Association have been able to respond to children and young people who contact them, but if there can be statutory intervention with an independent element when care plans are being made or reviewed, which is a crucial point in the process, that will be of fundamental importance.
      Amendments Nos. 132 and 133 refer to the need to provide independent advocacy to support children in making representations and complaints, which is another important juncture at which young people should be supported by independent organisations. The 1989 Act contains a provision for independent visitors. That is another example of how excellent intentions have not, with one or two exceptions, been fulfilled. It is tremendously important that young people in care have access to independent support.
      Mr. Brazier: The hon. Gentleman is making an extremely important point. Will he clarify whether he is suggesting that independent visitors could provide the independent advocacy proposed in the new clause? Many Conservative Members would welcome that.
      Mr. Dawson: Yes, indeed. We need to build on the Children Act to ensure that children have more access to independent visitors. It is not enough to say that we will try to ensure such access. Independent visitors often need the backing of advocacy organisations, good examples of which I have mentioned, and we need to strengthen the
      54
      access of children and young people in care to independent advocacy, particularly when complaints and representations are made. I do not want to digress too much, but I point out that the Select Committee on Home Affairs is currently investigating the alleged mistreatment of people who have worked in the residential care system in years past and been subject to allegations. One of the main concerns relates to adults who make complaints many years on about their treatment in care.
      If we are to ensure that young people's complaints and concerns about their treatment in care are represented properly and in a timely fashion, we should ensure that they have good access to independent advocacy and support in making representations and complaints.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Bellingham: The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) made a thoughtful and constructive contribution. I agree with the Minister that the Government should take note of the so-called Lambeth judgment. The need for clarity and certainty was obvious.
      I seek further clarification on one or two issues. The Minister spoke about the provision that would be made in relation to section 17 of the Children Act 1989, which deals with accommodation. Presumably, such provision would not relate to local authority homes, but would deal with help for children in private accommodation, whether in bed-and-breakfast establishments, with foster parents or elsewhere.
      I take on board the Minister's point about assistance in kind or cash. In what circumstances would that additional assistance be made available? I would have thought it was important for direct help to be available as a matter of course and that it should not be difficult to apply for. The Minister also mentioned rent and expenses. Will she further clarify that point? Furthermore, the provision deals with a power for local authorities, but should not it introduce a duty? The new clauses give extra power and commitment to CAFCASS, but will it receive any extra funding? In the light of the Government new clauses and our short debate on the previous group of amendments, there appears to be a need to ensure that CAFCASS has some additional funding to enable it to take care of those additional matters.
      On new clause 15 and care orders, I should like clarification on one specific point. Clause 113(2)(5), which refers to section 31(3A) of the Children Act 1989, deals with interim care orders. Do care plans always arise from care orders? I am not clear about that; will the Minister give a few more details? Otherwise, I support the Minister. She is right to introduce the new clauses, which are a very constructive response to the House of Lords judgment.
      Mr. Llwyd: I, too, support the amendments, bearing in mind the decisions in A v. London borough of Lambeth and W v. London borough of Lambeth, which were different. There was a clear need to plug the gap and I am pleased that the Government have moved quickly to do so.
      The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) tabled new clause 12, to which I was pleased to sign up. The proposal appears to be yet another triumph for him, as the purport of Government new clause 7 is the same as that of his new clause, although it is

      55
      extended and more broadly drafted. I congratulate him once more on the assiduity with which he has pursued the Bill and the interests that underlie it.
      I agree with the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), who mentioned the issue of obligations as opposed to powers, that the Minister was careful to say that the new clause was intended to re-empower local government. She used the word "empower" several times. I would have preferred the word "obliged", but we will not go into the semantics now. In fact, this is about more than semantics. We had lengthy discussions about this in Committee, but there is no time to do the same today. I was mindful of the fact that the Minister was careful to use the word "empower" each time.
      On amendments Nos. 132 and 133, I fully support what has been said by the hon. Members for Lancaster and Wyre and for North-West Norfolk about the need for independent advocacy. These are very helpful amendments, and I hope that, even if they are not accepted, the spirit of them will be, and that we shall see greater recognition of the importance of arm's-length, independent advocacy for youngsters in need. With those few words, I am pleased to support new clause 7.
      Tim Loughton: I shall make just a few comments on the new clauses tabled by the Government, but first, I want to refer to the well-considered, well-put comments from the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). He certainly need not cover his modesty, as the Minister exhorted earlier. The principles behind what he is saying are absolutely right, and his amendments would make useful, practical additions to the process. The suggestion of independent visitors—particularly unpaid outsiders—providing an advocacy service has some interesting merits, and the Minister could consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestions in more detail. I would certainly like to speak to the noble Lords in the upper House when the Bill moves on for their scrutiny, to see whether they might be able to fashion these principles into amendments to improve the Bill, if the Minister is not minded to accept them. We do not know whether that is the case; she may well allow the hon. Gentleman to make another hit for which he could claim responsibility. He has certainly raised some interesting points.
      We welcome much of what the Minister has outlined regarding new clauses 7 and 15. She has responded to some of the fruitful debates that we had in Committee by putting the care plans into a statutory process and making sure that that process is constantly reviewed. Obviously, there is uncertainty at the moment following the case of W v. London borough of Lambeth, and the Minister has had to be mindful of that. It is good that care plans should be given a statutory basis, providing written evidence that a local authority has considered the needs of the children involved, and that they should be reviewed.
      Care plans are organic things. A local authority cannot simply draw up a care plan for a child at a particular time, lock it in a drawer and forget about it. Children going through the adoption process, including damaged children with special educational needs, behavioural difficulties and all sorts of other things that particularly affect adopted children, will react differently to new scenarios. What may be appropriate at the time of the adoption may turn
      56
      out not to be appropriate some months or years later. It is not good enough for a local authority to say, "We drew up a care plan." It must be able to say that it has drawn up a care plan and made sure that it continued to be the appropriate care plan, with the appropriate mix of care and support services that the child needed after all the legal adoption processes have been completed. This is an organic process.
      We also welcome the appointment of the new reviewing officers, and I look forward to seeing exactly how they will carry out their role. My understanding is that although they will be independent of the child's case and its management, they will not be independent of the local authority. Indeed, they will be appointed by it. I would like the Minister to tell us how they will maintain their independence, and to assure us that there will be no problem over vested interests from the authority that has appointed them.
      I think that I read in the Minister's explanation in an earlier note that certain local authorities already operate the independent reviewing officer system. Although it has no basis in this legislation, it might be interesting to know where it operates and with what success. The principle certainly seems right, so if it has worked it would be appropriate to take a more uniform approach across local authorities which are obviously dealing with the same problem.
      The Minister also said that the reviewing officer would have the power to refer a case to CAFCASS if that were merited. The point was raised in Committee, particularly by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Liwyd), that CAFCASS has had problems and that there has been a haemorrhaging of its officers. One would need to be reassured again that, if a case is serious enough to merit referral to CAFCASS, the service will be in a position properly to deal with it, and that there will be sufficient officer-resource time to ensure that a suitable response is made and that suitable remedies are found.
      In explanations that the Minister has given in correspondence on care plans, she has talked in terms of the need to protect children's human rights, which will be also a function of the reviewing officer. Of course that must be right, but such terms are very broad. One presumes that she is referring to something like article 8 of the convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, which states:
      "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."
      Those are fine but lofty ideals, and one would hope that legislation is predicated rather closer to home on more basic deficiencies in the care plan, such as the fact that it is not very good, has not been reviewed regularly and is clearly inappropriate. We need more domestic and earthy definitions instead of relying on a vaguer definition concerning breaches of the child's human rights, which are always difficult to pin down and become a case for the lawyers.
      I do not want to be churlish; the new clauses reflect the Minister's work in response to concerns raised in Committee. Some serious, practical and new mechanisms are to be implemented. Subject to the relatively minor concerns that I have raised, we welcome the changes. At the same time, we ask the Minister to look charitably on the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre on the advocacy service.
      Jacqui Smith: New clause 12, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) suggested, would have the effect of introducing an entitlement to after-care for a young person who is provided with accommodation under section 7 of the Children Act 1989, where that young person is not accompanied by an adult. My hon. Friend's speech rightly emphasised the importance of assessments for young people aged 16 and 17. I agree that proper assessment of young people is key.
      5.45 pm
      All children in need who present to local authorities should receive a proper needs assessment along the lines set out in "The Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families". That guidance, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows, was jointly issued to local authorities in March 2000 by the Department of Health, the Home Office and the Department for Education and Employment under section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. It is therefore statutory guidance, and local authorities must follow it unless there are exceptional circumstances that justify a variation.
      The guidance specifically mentions the special needs that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children may have and which the framework is structured to address. Local authorities have been reminded from time to time that the framework applies to those children as to all others, most recently in the practice guidance produced by British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering in consultation with the Department of Health and published last November as "Food, Shelter and Half a Chance", to which I contributed the foreword. That assessment, in the context of the Children Act 1989 itself, determines whether a young person needs the full range of support provided in the looked-after system or whether they need the less intensive help offered under section 17.
      The guidance emphasises the importance of taking a child-centred approach throughout the process. Section 20(6) of the Children Act also obliges the local authority first to ascertain the child's wishes regarding the provision of accommodation and then to give due consideration to those wishes. It is not helpful to blur the line between the two forms of help available through the looked-after system and section 17, which is what the amendment would do.
      However, I am as concerned as my hon. Friend that children seeking help without the support of an adult carer should receive first a proper needs assessment and then appropriate assistance from local authorities. I know that he and other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), have taken a close interest in the welfare of unaccompanied asylum seekers in particular. I welcomed the opportunity to meet my hon. Friends the other day to discuss that issue. As I said then, I shall continue to remind local authorities about their obligations to those young people under the Children Act.
      I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre has read, if not contributed to, the recent Save the Children report, "Cold Comfort—Young Separated Refugees in England", which, among other things, highlights the fact that practice varies from authority to authority. The report found good practice as well as less good, which is why the Department of Health and the Home Office are jointly sponsoring a project on unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. That will give
      58
      us much better information on current practice that we shall use to help to improve and standardise the care offered to the young people in the cases that he outlined.
      I am not unsympathetic to the call to achieve the standard of care necessary to ensure that young people in those circumstances receive the proper assessment and the care that is necessary, but I disagree with my hon. Friend on whether conflating the needs dealt with by sections 17 and 20 is a satisfactory way to proceed. On the basis of those points, I hope that he feels able to withdraw his amendment.
      My hon. Friend raised issues relating to amendments Nos. 132 and 133 and the use of independent advocacy in social services complaints procedures. Clause 112, which the amendments relate to, already amends sections 24 and 26 of the Children Act, which makes provision in respect of the Act's complaints procedure to respond to views expressed through the "Listening to People" consultation exercise.
      On several occasions in Committee, we went through the improvements that that clause will make to the Children Act in correcting the anomaly in the complaints procedures for grievances involving children and ensuring that complaints about the discharge of local authority functions, including care supervision and child protection, are dealt with under the child-focused Children Act complaints procedure rather than the adult complaints procedure established under the 1970 Act. Clause 112 will enable regulations to be made to impose time limits and to introduce an informal resolution stage. All those provisions offer the potential to improve the complaints procedure in relation to children and young people.
      Amendments Nos. 132 and 133 would make specific provision in respect of independent advocacy. As I said in Committee, the Government are very sympathetic to the issues that they raise. That is why we are engaging in consultation with providers, commissioners and users of advocacy services about the matters that we will need to deal with to make the provision of independent advocacy far more widely available—for example, funding, standards and training. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre that children and young people can be especially vulnerable when they want to raise problems or concerns and that they need support at such times. However, it is important to introduce the changes when we have done the work that is necessary to be sure about what we mean by independent advocacy services and about how best to provide them.
      Mr. Dawson: My hon. Friend has drawn a clear distinction between sections 17 and 20 of the Children Act 1989 and has acknowledged that practice differs around the country. Is not the point at which young people refer themselves to a local authority, which then decides what sort of service to offer them, the crucial point at which they need some independent advocacy?
      Jacqui Smith: Given what I said about being sympathetic to the principle of independent advocacy, I agree with my hon. Friend that that may well be the time at which someone would need support and advocacy. My argument concerns whether my hon. Friend's amendments—at this time, in relation to this Bill, and in this precise form—are premature and insufficiently flexible to deliver what we need to deliver throughout the

      59
      whole system. I do not wish to be overly critical of the amendments, but during the debate interesting points were raised about what is actually meant by independent advocacy and about the range of people who can provide that service. For example, the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) wondered whether independent visitors would be included.
      Using the term "independent advocacy" in primary legislation might be too restrictive, given that we have not yet determined precisely what it means or the range of people who might be involved in it. For example, we would not necessarily want to limit advocacy to a legally or professionally qualified person. Officials in the Department have carried out extensive consultation, including, importantly, with young people's organisations, and feedback from those groups has told us repeatedly that flexibility is important and that young people want the choice of who provides advocacy. It could be a relative or a friend from the local community. Peer advocacy and mentoring is popular among many young people. More work is needed to define what sort of service would best meet young people's needs and to clarify the roles of the different professionals involved in complaints procedures. At the moment, a range of people can be involved, including independent persons, complaints officers, independent reviewing officers, independent visitors and "listening to children" officers. We must be careful that those roles are not confused, especially during the early stage of the procedure when we want complaints or concerns to be resolved informally, because confusion is all too prevalent for many young people.
      The Government's determination to get all these issues right is shown by the work that has already started to consult advocacy providers, commissioners of services, and children and young people's organisations. A consultation is under way to consider the funding of advocacy services, definitions of the different professionals who provide advocacy and the introduction of national standards and training for advocates. Those are all key issues. Until that consultation is completed, we will not be in a position to define what we want local authorities to deliver and how we want them to deliver it. Before that is done, we will not be sure that the amendments would provide what is needed.
      We need to promote the use of national advocacy standards. We are consulting on the standards that have been developed by the Department, the National Youth Advocacy Service and the advocacy consortium. That will help councils and children's organisations to arrive at a definition of independent advocacy and to set clear models of practice.
      Mr. Bellingham: Has the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), liaised with the Law Society, which could certainly help in laying down guidelines or even in providing training and assistance?
      Jacqui Smith: I do not close my doors to anybody who might be able to help us to develop our work on advocacy. Lawyers may often have an important role to play in the system of advocacy for young people, but perhaps not
      60
      always as advocates. That is why we need to listen to what young people say is most effective for them. We have carried out several regional roadshows, which we are using to consult with advocacy organisations, young people's organisations and councils about how best further to strengthen advocacy for looked-after children. The consultation closes in July and we intend to publish the standards over the summer. Our work on advocacy services also links into the quality protects programme, through which we have made considerable progress in involving children in decision making. However, the provision and quality of advocacy services is still inconsistent, and that remains a development area for many councils.
      Although we recognise the importance of the issues raised by the amendments, they are not necessarily the right way forward, especially in terms of timing. Work is already under way, but there is still more to be done before we can consider making the provision of independent advocacy services a statutory requirement. On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
      I want to deal with a few points that hon. Members made about the new clauses. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) asked about the nature of care plans and whether they always related to court orders. I can tell him that the provisions on care plans come from section 31 of the Children Act 1989 where they relate to court orders and from section 20 of the Act where children are voluntarily accommodated. The new clause ensures that the Bill and reviews of care plans cover both those forms of care plan.
      Hon. Members asked for more guidance about how the system will work in practice. Production of a care plan would be necessary in respect of a care order before the court considered what order, if any, to make. The court would consider the care plan and would be under a duty to do so before making that decision. Subsequently, the role of the reviewing officer would be to review the extent to which the care plan was being implemented. We believe that strengthening the independent reviewing function is important to ensure accountability and the achievement of the important milestones in the care plan.
      The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) asked about the position on independent reviewing officers. In guidance, we shall make it clear that the local authority can employ reviewing officers, or that other organisations with expertise or other local authorities can provide them. That will enable local authorities that have invested time and training in staff and already have independent reviewing structures up and running to maintain their arrangements. However, that does not prevent other organisations from offering their expertise when appropriate. I envisage several organisations offering such expertise. I am keen to avoid over-prescription, which will dislocate good practice and mean a move backwards.
      When a local authority builds on existing arrangements, the guidance will clearly set out that the reviewing officers' independence must be established. They must be independent of the child's case, but not necessarily of the local authority.
      Angela Watkinson: In the light of the serious historic overspending of so many social services departments in local authorities, is the Minister confident that they can implement the care plans?
      Jacqui Smith: I was about to deal with that point. First, let me finish the points on the guidance. The independent reviewing officer must be independent of the case management, the line management of the social workers who are conducting the assessment and perhaps social services departments. We have a precedent in the registration and inspection units being accountable to the chief executive. Under the new arrangements, that could be a part of the council's scrutiny function.
      6 pm
      Tim Loughton: In the letter that the Minister sent us on 10 May, she said that the reviewing officer would be appointed by the local authority either from its staff or under an arrangement with another local authority or body. She also said that some local authorities already do that. I asked for some examples of the way in which that works, especially with regard to independence. Although the independent reviewing officers have to be independent of the case, they may work for the same local authority and he shy of criticising their employers' care plans.
      Jacqui Smith: I am sorry that I have not been able to provide specific examples of the way in which the arrangements are working. Perhaps I can write to the hon. Gentleman. I was outlining the nature of the regulations and guidance if the new clause is accepted. He makes a fair point when he says that we must ensure the independence of the reviewing officer. It is not impossible to set up a structure in a local authority whereby employees can maintain their independence. It is vital that reviewing officers are independent of the case management and perhaps the social services department in the authority. We will make that clear in the regulations.
      The hon. Members for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) and for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) asked about resources. Dare I say it, the Government have recognised the historic—pre-1997—underfunding of social services departments through considerable real-terms increases. Future increases may be even larger; they may reach 6 per cent. in real terms in the next three years. I am confident that although we need to do more to ensure that the money is spent as wisely as possible, the Government are ensuring the necessary resources to safeguard children through the care plans and procedures that the Bill establishes.
      The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk asked specific questions about the use of section 17 of the 1989 Act. To be honest, it depends on the circumstances of the case. It may be used to obtain accommodation from private sources or registered social landlords. It could take any relevant form that would help children to be brought up in their own families and avoid the need to come into care. As I suggested earlier, its use will differ.
      Some hon. Members have suggested that we should place a duty on local authorities to provide accommodation. Although I am pleased that the new clause makes it clear that local authorities have the power to provide accommodation, I do not believe that it is appropriate to impose a duty on them. We do not intend to supersede the responsibilities of housing departments, provide a method of jumping housing queues or place the provision of accommodation above all the other services that may be provided for children in need and their families.
      62
      I believe that we have struck the right balance in ensuring that local authorities are clear about their powers under section 17. I hope that we have reassured local authorities and, more important, ensured that vulnerable families have access to the safety net provision of section 17. That and our changes to the provisions on care planning mean that we shall ensure better planning for our children, better independent review processes and more opportunity for considering the rare cases when care plans are not implemented in the way that we all support. I hope that hon. Members will support the new clause.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 15

      REVIEW OF CASES OF LOOKED AFTER CHILDREN
      (1) In section 26 of the 1989 Act (review of cases of looked after children, etc.), in subsection (2) (regulations as to reviews)—

      (a) in paragraph (e), "to consider" is omitted and after "their care" there is inserted—

      (i) to keep the section 31 A plan for the child under review and, if they are of the opinion that some change is required, to revise the plan, or make a new plan, accordingly,

      (ii) to consider",

      (b) in paragraph (f), "to consider" is omitted and after the second mention of "the authority" there is inserted—

      "(i) if there is no plan for the future care of the child, to prepare one,

      (ii) if there is such a plan for the child, to keep it under review and, if they are of the opinion that some change is required, to revise the plan or make a new plan, accordingly,

      (iii) to consider".

      (c) after paragraph (j) there is inserted—

      "(k) for the authority to appoint a person in respect of each case to carry out in the prescribed manner the functions mentioned in subsection (2A) and any prescribed function".
      (2) After that subsection there is inserted—
      "(2A) The functions referred to in subsection (2)(k) are—

      (a) participating in the review of the case in question,

      (b) monitoring the performance of the authority's functions in respect of the review,

      (c) referring the case to an officer of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, if the person appointed under subsection (2)(k) considers it appropriate to do so.

      (2B) A person appointed under subsection (2)(k) must be a person of a prescribed description.
      (2C) In relation to children whose cases are referred to officers under subsection (2A)(c), the Lord Chancellor may by regulations

      (a) extend any functions of the officers in respect of family proceedings (within the meaning of section 12 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000) to other proceedings,

      (b) require any functions of the officers to be performed in the manner prescribed by the regulations"'.[Jacqui Smith.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 6

      MEANING OF "HARM" IN THE 1989 ACT
      'In section 31 of the 1989 Act (care and supervision orders), at the end of the definition of "harm" in subsection (9) there is inserted "including, for example, impairment suffered from seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another".'.[Jacqui Smith.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Clause 107

      PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY OF UNMARRIED FATHER
      Amendment made: No. 93, in page 55, line 38, after "18(1)", insert—
      , and sections 18(2)(b) and 20(1)(a),'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

    Clause 111

      SPECIAL GUARDIANSHIP
      Amendments made: No. 94, in page 58, line 12, at end insert—
      '(d) a local authority foster parent with whom the child has lived for a period of at least one year immediately preceding the application.'.
      No. 293, in page 58, line 45, at end insert—
      '( ) This section is subject to section 28(3B) and (3C) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.'.
      No. 95, in page 59, line 3, after first "made", insert—
      (a)'.
      No. 96, in page 59, line 4, at end insert—
      "and
      (b) any section 8 order in force with respect to the child should be varied or discharged.'.
      No. 97, in page 59, line 14, leave out "later order made" and insert—
      'other order in force with respect to the child'.
      No. 294, in page 59, line 39, at end insert—
      '( ) This section is subject to section 28(3D) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.'.
      No. 98, in page 60, line 2, at end insert—
      '(ca) any individual not falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (c) who has, or immediately before the making of the special guardianship order had, parental responsibility for the child;'.
      No. 278, in page 60? leave out lines 11 and 12 and insert—
      '(3) The following must obtain the leave of the court before making an application under subsection (1)—

      (a) the child;

      (b) any parent or guardian of his;

      (c) any step-parent of his who has acquired, and has not lost, parental responsibility for him by virtue of section 4A;

      (d) any individual falling within subsection (1)(ca) who immediately before the making of the special guardianship order had, but no longer has, parental responsibility for him.'.

      No. 279, in page 60, line 17, leave out—
      'parent or guardian of the child'
      and insert—
      person falling within subsection (3)(b), (c) or (d)'.
      No. 231, in page 60, line 18, leave out "of' and insert "in".
      No. 101, in page 60, leave out lines 20 to 22.
      No. 102, in page 61, line 5, leave out—
      'A local authority may, and in prescribed cases must,'.
      No. 103, in page 61, line 9, at end insert—
      (c) any other person who falls within a prescribed description,'.
      No. 104, in page 61, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert—
      'a local authority may carry out an assessment of that person's needs for special guardianship support services (but, if the Secretary of State so provides in regulations, they must do so if he is a person of a prescribed description, or if his case falls within a prescribed description, or if both he and his case fall within prescribed descriptions).
      ( ) A local authority may, at the request of any other person, carry out an assessment of that person's needs for special guardianship support services.'.
      No. 105, in page 62, leave out lines 20 to 22 and insert—
      any person to whom they may provide special guardianship support services'.[Jacqui Smith.]

    Clause 113

      CARE PLANS
      Jacqui Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 259, in page 64, line 2, leave out from "a" to end of line 3 and insert "section 31 A plan"".
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 260 to 263.
      Jacqui Smith: This group of amendments is consequential on new clause 15, which we have just debated. They are minor amendments that are required to adjust the existing legislation because of the introduction of the new clause.
      As I have explained, clause 113 inserts new section 31A into the Children Act 1989. It sets out the requirement that a court may not make a care order until a care plan has been prepared by the local authority and considered by the court. A care plan prepared under that provision is to be known as a section 31A plan.
      We have developed that requirement through new clause 15, and this group of amendments is designed to establish a robust system that includes the process for reviewing care plans, and set down how recourse to court may be sought where the care plan is not being properly implemented. The requirement will apply both to children who are subject to care orders and to those who are accommodated by the local authority.
      Mr. Brazier: Can the Minister clarify how the amendments will affect, if at all, the frequent complaint from family division judges that the court makes a ruling on a care plan and then, because there is no requirement to come back to court, there is no way of determining whether the local authority has completely ignored that ruling?
      Jacqui Smith: These amendments, together with new clause 15, set in place a system to ensure that that does not happen. In summary, the court would consider the care plan

      65
      and the order that it was due to make. Ongoing scrutiny would then be undertaken not by the court but by the independent reviewing officer to ensure that the care plan was being implemented in the way that had been agreed.
      Of course, we hope that that scrutiny and independent review would ensure that the care plan was implemented as it should be. In extreme cases, the independent reviewing officer could take the view that that was not happening and that, for example, a child's human rights might necessitate returning to the court for consideration of the fact that the care plan was not being implemented. At that point, the independent reviewing officer could refer the case to the CAFCASS officer, who could then, so to speak, exercise that child's rights.
      The case to which I referred earlier raised the concern that sometimes a child does not have a guardian or anyone else who can take up their case. At present there would then be no one who could enforce that child's rights in relation to the care plan. The system that we are putting in place ensures that in the very few cases in which the reviewing function has not worked and the care plan is not being implemented, there is a route back to court to ensure that that child's rights are protected.
      Mr. Brazier: I am grateful to the Minister for her clear explanation, but I would like to ask her one further question. Let us assume that the system has failed, the mechanism that she has described cranks into place, it becomes clear to the independent reviewing officer that the court's wishes have been ignored, and the reviewing officer then takes action. The crucial question then is: what sanction is there? The problem at the moment is that there is no sanction against the local authority. The Minister has put the mechanism in place, but how does the sanction work?
      6.15 pm
      Jacqui Smith: It would be a pretty considerable sanction for a local authority to know that its care plan was being referred back to the court for review and a possible decision about the order. That would be a more significant sanction than currently exists.
      Amendment No. 262 will remove from subsection (2) of new section 3 A of the Children Act, as inserted by clause 113, the reference to a care order made on the application being in force. Where a care order is in force, the requirements for the review of care plans set out in new clause 15 will apply.
      Amendment No. 263 will insert into new section 31A a new subsection to define a "section 31A plan", which is a care plan prepared for a child in respect of whom a care order is pending.
      Taken together with new clause 15, this group of amendments is an important part of the framework that will ensure that local authorities address the needs of children in a systematic and robust way. The elements of assessment and care planning, implementation and review will all be vital if we are to get the corporate parent to act in a proper and flexible way to meet the needs of children.
      The aim of new clause 15 and the amendments is to ensure that children, whether they are accommodated by the local authority or are subject to a court order, have a care plan, that the care plan is reviewed at regular intervals, that children have a say in the process, and that the review is overseen by an independent person, who has
      66
      the responsibility of ensuring that the care plan is being properly implemented. These measures will also require action to be taken where none is being taken, and ensure that the case is referred to CAFCASS to take to court where the child has no one else to act on their behalf and it appears that a local authority's action or inaction is breaching the child's human rights.
      These are important steps, which will promote the welfare of children in care, and I commend them to the House.
      Mr. Robert Walter: I am neither a smart lawyer nor a dim lawyer, just a simple Back Bencher. As a member of the Special Standing Committee, I have followed the Bill through all its proceedings and I feel that we should be looking to make good law that is understandable to those who have to implement it. Before the Bill leaves this place and goes to the House of Lords, where there are some smart lawyers, I would like the Minister to explain, if she can, why it is an improvement on the current wording for amendment No. 260 to insert "(a care plan)" after the word "plan", which seems terribly clumsy, when the following amendment will delete the words
      "(in this Act referred to as a 'care plan')",
      which I would have thought were crystal clear.
      Surely if we are going to mess about with the wording to make it clearer and more understandable, which I hope is the Government's intention, the wording in line 8 should be "prepare a care plan". We know what a care plan is because we have talked about it, defined it and everything else.
      Alternatively, we should leave the wording as it is and the Government should remove their amendments Nos. 260 and 261. It seems unhelpful to the process of better understanding what we are about that we should mess around with the existing wording in proposed new section 31A, on care orders and care plans. The provision had begun to make some sense to me, but if the amendments are accepted it may not make as much sense to those outside this place.
      Tim Loughton: We should never let my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) do himself down by describing himself as a mere Back Bencher; his contribution to the Bill throughout all its stages has been considerable.
      I have little to say about this group of amendments because the subject was largely covered when we discussed the previous group, and new clause 15 in particular. I can only agree with the Minister that in theory, the system that will lbe put in place is a good one in terms of the regular and ongoing review of care plans. Enabling children to have a say in those plans is an issue that Conservative Members, at least, raised on many occasions in the Special Standing Committee. Children are at the heart of that process, and they have every right to a say in it. In considering the previous group of amendments we debated whether the review should be overseen by an independent person. We also raised various questions concerning the integrity of independence, the reference to CAFCASS, and the fact that action will be taken at the end of the process.

      67
      There is no point in delaying the House further, as we have no objection to the amendments. They are largely consequential on earlier new clauses that the Minister moved, and to which the House agreed.
      Jacqui Smith: As I may not have responded as fully as possible to the question that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) asked about the sanction, I shall do so now. At the point at which a case is referred to CAFCASS, it can use existing remedies under the Children Act 1989. For example, it can apply for discharge of the care order, or for contact between the child and another person. Under human rights legislation, it can seek to injunct the local authority from taking a particular step, such as removing the child from an established placement. It can also seek a declaration that the local authority's plans are contrary to the child's human rights. That would require those plans to be rethought, and the child might also claim damages in respect of the impact of a local authority's action or inaction. Those are considerable sanctions.
      The answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) is that there are two different types of plan. Clause 113 relates to a plan in which a care order is pending, whereas a plan under proposed new section 31A relates to the looking after of a child by the local authority, subject to a care order. After that clarification, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to support our amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 260, in page 64, line 8, after "plan" insert "("a care plan")".
      No. 261, in page 64, line 9, leave out from "child" to end of line.
      No. 262, in page 64, line 10, leave out from "pending" to "the" in line 11.
      No. 263, in page 64, line 20, at end insert—
      '(6) A plan prepared, or treated as prepared, under this section is referred to in this Act as a "section 31A plan"'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

    New Clause 16

      AMENDMENT OF ADOPTION (SCOTLAND) ACT 1978: CONTRAVENTION OF SECTIONS 29 TO 35 OF THIS ACT
      'After section 29 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 there is inserted—
      "29A Contravention of sections 29 to 35 of Adoption and Children Act 2002
      (1) A person who contravenes any of the enactments specified in subsection (2) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.
      (2) Those enactments are—

      (a) section 29(1), (2) and (3) (removal of child placed or who may be placed for adoption),

      (b) sections 31(2)(b), 32(2) and 34(2) (return of child by prospective adopters),

      (c) section 33(1) (removal of child in contravention of placement order),

      (d) section 35(1) (removal of child in non-agency case), and

      (e) section 35(5) (return of child to parent or guardian),

      of the Adoption and Children Act 2002." '—[Jacqui Smith.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Clause 101

      EFFECT OF CERTAIN SCOTTISH ORDERS AND PROVISIONS
      Amendment made: No. 271, in page 53, line 28, after "order" insert—
      'or an order under section 25 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 (interim adoption orders)'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

    Clause 102

      EFFECT OF CERTAIN NORTHERN IRISH ORDERS AND PROVISIONS
      Amendments made: No. 252, in page 54, line 8, after "order" insert—
      'or an order under Article 26 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (interim orders)'.
      No. 253, in page 54, line 9, at end insert—
      '( ) An order made under Article 17 or 18 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (freeing orders), or the variation or revocation of such an order under Article 20 or 2Iof that Order, have effect in England and Wales as they have in Northern Ireland'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

    Clause 104

      ORDERS MADE IN THE CHANNEL ISLANDS OR THE ISLE OF MAN
      Amendment made: No. 247, in page 54, line 30, leave out from "provide" to "any" in line 38 and insert—

      '(a) for a reference in any provision of this Act to an order of a court to include an order of a court in the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands which appears to the Secretary of State to correspond in its effect to the order in question,

      (b) for a reference in any provision of this Act to an adoption agency to include a person who appears to the Secretary of State to exercise functions under the law of the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands which correspond to those of an adoption agency and for any reference in any provision of this Act to a child placed for adoption by an adoption agency to be read accordingly,

      (c) for a reference in any provision of this Act to an enactment (including an enactment contained in this Act) to include a provision of the law of the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands which appears to the Secretary of State to correspond in its effect to the enactment,

      (d) for any reference in any provision of this Act to the United Kingdom to include the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands.

      ( ) Regulations may modify any provision of this Act, as it applies to any order made, or other thing done, under the law of the Isle of Man or'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

    Clause 126

      AMENDMENTS, TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS, SAVINGS AND REPEALS
      Jacqui Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 280, in page 71, line 14, after "transitional" insert "and transitory".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 295 to 297, 274 to 276, 264, 265, 284, 285, 269, 289, 300, 248, 257,249, 258, 229, 238 and 242.
      Jacqui Smith: We move on to a significant group of amendments, which includes several minor and consequential amendments. Many of them are technical, and some are consequential on amendments that have already been debated. However, this group does include some important provisions in respect of early implementation of certain key areas of the Bill. It is the amendments associated with early implementation on which I would like to concentrate.
      On amendments Nos. 280 and 284 to 289, in Special Standing Committee, hon. Members debated the Government's plans for implementing the important provisions in the Bill. It is clear that we must await the conclusion of Parliament's deliberations on those provisions, and Royal Assent, before firm commitments about implementation can be made. However, I was able to give the Committee some idea of our intentions for implementing the provisions, and I am pleased to return to the matter today.
      As I made clear in Committee, we expect to bring the Bill's main provisions into force in 2004, but we believe that there is a case for taking earlier action on some of them. In Committee, I proposed to introduce on Report any amendments that may be needed to bring the provisions into force before 2004. The amendments before us deliver on that commitment by enabling the Bill's priority changes to the adoption service to be implemented in advance of the Bill as a whole.
      Amendment No. 280 amends clause 126(2), which provides for schedule 4 to have effect. It changes the title of schedule 4 from "Transitional provisions and savings" to "Transitional and transitory provisions and savings". As hon. Members will doubtless be aware, it is necessary to reflect the provisions in schedule 4—which amend the Adoption Act 1976 and the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978—to allow for early implementation. The provision will be in place for a short time, until the Bill as a whole is fully implemented.
      In Committee, I announced the Government's intention to introduce improved adoption support for new adoptive families from April 2003. Better adoption services will be a key means of ensuring the stability of adoptive placements, and of encouraging more families to come forward to adopt. To underpin the arrangements for improved adoption support for adoptive families and prospective adoptive families, which we will put in place from April 2003, amendment No. 286 therefore inserts a new paragraph 2A into schedule 4. In other words, we are inserting into the 1976 legislation the provisions that are necessary to put in place early implementation of the key provisions, which I outlined in Committee, before we begin implementing the Bill's other provisions. They enable regulations to be made setting out the arrangements that local authorities must make for the provision of adoption support services to prescribed persons as part of the adoption service that they currently maintain under section 1(1) of the Adoption Act 1976.
      70
      6.30 pm
      It is our intention to use those powers to place an explicit duty on local authorities to make arrangements to provide adoption support services to adoptive families and prospective adoptive families. From April 2003, adoption support services will be made available to adopted children, children who are to be adopted, adoptive parents, prospective adoptive parents, adoptive siblings and prospective adoptive siblings, regardless of the local authority area in which they live. As we set out in our adoption White Paper, that is important to ensure the success of adoptive placements and to encourage more people to come forward.
      Sub-paragraph (2) of new paragraph 2A provides that the regulations may also require a local authority to carry out an assessment, on request, of the needs of a prescribed person for adoption support services. We will use those powers to require local authorities to assess the needs, on request, of adoptive families and prospective adoptive families for adoption support services as part of this early implementation package. Following such an assessment of needs, regulations will require the local authority to decide whether to provide adoption support services to an individual.
      In many cases, when a local authority goes on to provide adoption support services to an adoptive family following an assessment, it will be appropriate for it to draw up a plan to co-ordinate the provision of those services. Regulations will therefore be used to make it clear when a plan is required. It is also our intention to make regulations under new paragraph 2A setting out requirements for the process of assessing needs and for the provision of adoption support services following an assessment. Those regulations will be similar to those which will be made under subsections (6) and (7) of clause 4 on full implementation of the Bill.
      We are also keen to make early progress on the independent review mechanism, which will be a key means of improving prospective adopters' confidence in the system of adopter assessment and approval and of encouraging more people to come forward to adopt. New paragraph 2B of schedule 4, as inserted by amendment No. 286, amplifies the general regulation-making power in section 9 of the Adoption Act 1976. The new provision is modelled on clause 12 of the Bill and will enable regulations to be made providing for the operation of the independent review mechanism in advance of implementation of the Bill as a whole. As I have made clear, it is intended that the determinations that the independent review mechanism will review during the initial period will be determinations made by adoption agencies about the suitability of prospective adopters.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: The Minister mentioned new paragraph 2A in amendment No. 286. One of the difficulties with which prospective adopters and siblings often have to deal is that of movement from one local authority to another. The local authorities do not always act in a joined-up manner when dealing with cases in which some of the people involved live in one local authority and some in another. What regulations can the Minister introduce to ensure that local authorities act together in such cases?
      Jacqui Smith: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concerns, and he may be aware that we had considerable

      71
      discussions in the Special Standing Committee about the process that will be necessary to ensure that the requirement on local authorities to provide adoption support services does not leave a gap between them. The Government have undertaken to work with local government to introduce the necessary regulations to ensure that no gap exists. There will be a clear point at which responsibility for the provision of support to prospective adopters from one local authority ends and at which it begins for another local authority.
      We considered whether it was possible to provide an easy cut-off point. For example, the local authority in whose area the child lived might be responsible for adoption support up to the point at which the adoption happened and the local authority in whose area the child went to live would be responsible after that. I am not sure that it is possible to make such a clear distinction. For example, a child might be receiving an intensive package of support—perhaps because of a disability or special educational needs—and it might be necessary for the original local authority to continue to provide that package after adoption. We are aware of the issues and we will ensure that they are covered in the regulations. Given the Government's intention to ensure that adoption support provides support for families and children and adds stability to placements, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that people do not fall into the gaps in provision of support. I recognise that that sometimes happens now.
      Regulations will be used to require adoption agencies to offer prospective adopters an independent review of their case where the agency has indicated that it is minded to turn down their application to adopt. It is intended that an independent body will convene a review panel to re-examine the evidence and make a fresh recommendation to the adoption agency. The agency will then be required to consider both its original determination and the determination of the review panel before making its final decision.
      I will now turn to inter-country adoption. We believe that there are strong reasons for giving early effect to the restrictions on bringing children into the United Kingdom. We ordered an urgent review of the law in that area in January 2001 and believe that it would not be right to wait until 2004 to bring the new measures into force. Amendment No. 287 therefore inserts a new paragraph 7A into schedule 4 to the Bill. This paragraph inserts a new section 56A into the Adoption Act 1976, which reflects clause 81 of the Bill, which we discussed earlier today. This will enable the more extensive restrictions on bringing children into the United Kingdom included in clause 81 to be brought into force before the Bill is fully implemented.
      As hon. Members will remember from a few hours ago, under new section 56A, it will be a criminal offence for a British resident to bring a child into the UK for the purposes of adoption unless they comply with prescribed requirements. It is intended that the requirements prescribed in the regulations will, as under the current system, make it a requirement that prospective adopters apply to a local authority or a voluntary adoption agency to be assessed and approved under procedures similar to those followed in domestic adoptions, and then to have a certificate of eligibility issued by the Secretary of State.
      72
      Like clause 81, new section 56A also extends the restrictions to include British residents bringing into the UK a child whom they have adopted outside the British Isles within the preceding six months.
      Mr. Walter: The Minister will recall that in the Special Standing Committee we had much discussion on this provision with regard to the differing domestic legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Can she assure the House that the regulations will apply equally to all parts of the United Kingdom?
      Jacqui Smith: This issue was the subject of some of the amendments that we considered on Thursday. In the Special Standing Committee, we also discussed the fact that Scotland is undertaking a adoption law review and will want to introduce legislation on that subject. The need for the safeguards to be common throughout the country, and for orders made in one part of the UK to be recognised in other parts, will be covered in the necessary secondary legislation.
      I was talking about inter-country adoption. The early implementation of the provisions involved is intended to catch individuals who, to avoid committing an offence in the context of the six-months limit, take a short leave of absence to live outside the British Isles and adopt according to the procedures of the country in which they are living.
      Like the other provisions relating to inter-country adoption, new section 56A will increase the penalties for those found guilty of breaching the restrictions on bringing a child into the country, or causing a child to be brought in. We discussed that issue earlier.
      We believe that the new restrictions applying to electronic advertising are important, and should not be delayed until 2004. Amendment No. 287 inserts into schedule 4 new paragraphs 7B and 7C, which tighten restrictions on advertising in the current legal frameworks for adoption in England, Wales and Scotland. New paragraph 7B makes it clear that the restrictions on advertising in section 58 of the 1976 Act also apply to advertisements on the internet; and it provides an increased penalty on conviction of an offence under that section. The maximum penalty will be three months in prison or a fine of £5,000, or both. New paragraph 7C amends section 52 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 to make equivalent provision for Scotland.
      Mr. Bellingham: The Minister mentioned electronic advertising. Obviously we were all concerned about the infamous Kilshaw case, in which people used the internet to obtain information from the United States. The whole sorry saga caused those interested in the subject of adoption considerable grief. What measures can be taken to prevent such people from gaining access to information from abroad? Can these restrictions do it, or are they concerned only with electronic advertising in the British Isles?
      Jacqui Smith: As we have established, there are limitations on the extent to which it is possible to restrict information on the internet that is provided by an internet service provider in this country but comes directly from overseas. The Bill, however, makes significant advances in terms of restriction of advertising through the internet.

      73
      When that is not possible, work can be done through international co-operation and the development of codes of conduct. That should help us to ensure that cases such as that cited by the hon. Gentleman do not occur again.
      Amendment No. 322 is a relatively new addition. It adds a new paragraph 45A to schedule 3, thereby allowing the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 to be amended to enable the making of regulations in respect of the registration in the adopted children register in Northern Ireland of convention and overseas adoptions. Article 53 of the order was amended by the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act (Northern Ireland) 2001. The intention was to enable the registrar-general in Northern Ireland to register convention or overseas adoptions if the prescribed requirements were met.
      6.45 pm
      Article 53(3B) provides for applications for the registration of such adoptions to be made in the prescribed manner by a prescribed person, and to give the prescribed particulars. Article 53(3D) provides for the prescription of requirements that convention or overseas adoptions must meet in order to be registered.
      In article 2(2) of the 1987 order, "prescribed", for the purposes of article 53(3B) and (3D) means, in this context, "prescribed by adoption rules". However, the issues relating to registration that I have just described need to be prescribed in regulations by the department of finance and personnel, which makes regulations for the registrar-general. Amendment No. 322 therefore makes the necessary amendment to article 2(2) of the 1987 order to provide that regulations under article 53(3B) and 53(3D)—
      Tim Loughton: I am trying to be helpful. We are discussing a group of 28 amendments, and according to my reckoning the Minister has dealt with three of them, doing terribly well. She is now referring to amendment No. 322, which I cannot see in the group that we are discussing. Which amendment are we actually dealing with now? It is all very confusing.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is right. I do not think the amendment is in this group.
      Jacqui Smith: I am sure that hon. Members were enjoying it, but I apologise if I was premature. I was so interested that I thought hon. Members would be as well. I thought this was a good opportunity to discuss the amendment.
      I hope that this will not be a big disappointment, but I think that I have concentrated on the key amendments dealing with early implementation. I did not intend to discuss in detail the other amendments, which are largely technical and consequential. If pushed, I shall of course be willing to talk about them at length.
      Tim Loughton: I am glad that someone noticed that we seemed to have strayed slightly, but I am still confused. I cannot find amendment No. 322 anywhere.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. The amendment was debated on 20 March.
      Tim Loughton: Of course. I am so sorry. How remiss of me, and of the Minister, not to remember that. Let us
      74
      return to the mere 28 detailed amendments that we have in hand—but perhaps you did not notice either, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that amendment No. 322 was being discussed.
      May we return to amendment No. 280, which I think appeared at the beginning of the Minister's tour d'horizon? There is a certain irony in a group of amendments described as minor drafting and transitional measures, given that amendment No. 280 would replace the words "transitional" with the word "transitory". [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I thought that it was quite amusing, anyway.
      Jacqui Smith: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman, who is usually so accurate. If he looks carefully, he will realise that the amendment would add the word "transitory" rather than substituting it for the word "transitional".
      Tim Loughton: I will take the Minister's word for it. In fact, I see that she is right: the amendment would insert the words "and transitory". It is a double whammy. There was a certain irony, all the same.
      Mr. Bellingham: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Tim Loughton: Indeed. Why not?
      Mr. Bellingham: Can my hon. Friend tell me the difference, as defined by the dictionary, between "transitional" and "transitory"? Does he know what the technical difference is?
      Tim Loughton: No, and I do not particularly care at this stage, although it was helpful of my hon. Friend to raise that important point.
      Perhaps we can proceed to a slightly more substantial amendment, amendment No. 286. The Minister spoke of early implementation of many of the proposals forming the basis of the Bill, with which we agree. We certainly agree with the Minister that many of these things should have happened yesterday, rather than happening at some stage in the future. Her letter of 10 May gave some of the details of early implementation of matters relating to adoption support services in particular, and also to the independent reviewer. I gather that she proposes to do that by adding a new paragraph in schedule 4 and amending the Adoption Act 1976 with insertions.
      The Minister wants early implementation of the independent review of determinations, as covered in amendment No. 286. This part of the Bill refers back to clause 12, on which the guillotine fell in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) was orating on the legal technicalities of the clause when we were cut off without the opportunity of debating some of the substantial amendments to clause 12 that we had tabled. I am also mindful of the fact that neither have we debated clause 12 on Report.
      This is very unsatisfactory. The Minister has acknowledged by her desire to bring forward its implementation that this is an important part of the Bill, yet it has not been debated by the House. It has not been debated in Committee or in this truncated Report stage. The Minister is presuming to implement legislation about which there has been not a word of debate in the House. I hope that the upper House will have something to say

      75
      about that. The hon. Lady may well be right, in the final account, to bring forward the implementation of these terms, but we wanted to take issue with and raise concerns about certain aspects of the provisions, and we have not had the opportunity to do so. It is a bad day when that happens.
      The Minister talked about publishing the regulations. This has been a constant bugbear of ours. We are debating—although, in some cases, we have not had the opportunity to do soclauses that rely heavily on regulations that have yet to be drawn up and published. If the implementation timetable is brought forward even further, that means even less time for regulations to be drawn up, consulted on, published and amended if the various practitioners in the field who have to work by them see flaws. We have not had the opportunity to see such flaws because we have not had the opportunity to debate the clauses and we have not had sight of the regulations.
      We heard some pertinent questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), who, although he did not serve on the Committee, has taken a close interest in the Bill and tabled amendments in Committee. He referred to the territorial gaps when a local authority may maintain a responsibility for special educational provision for children who are adopted and then placed with an adoptive family out of its area. These are big questions and big problems. The Minister acknowledged that, but we do not know the full answer because we have not seen the regulations.
      Similarly, the Minister intends to bring forward some of the regulations on inter-country adoptions and restrictions on bringing children into the United Kingdom. As we heard this evening, when we had an opportunity to debate the relevant provisions, given the Kilshaw example and others of that ilk, there is a great deal of support for such measures. We have reservations because we believe that the restrictions will impact adversely on people bringing children into the country perfectly legitimately from some of the other countries mentioned earlier. Problems may occur because the system has been held up for so long. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) mentioned the problems of the provisions applying equally to all parts of the United Kingdom.
      The Minister mentioned the new regulations on electronic advertising. From memory, debate on that part of the Bill was also curtailed in Committee, and we did not vote on it. We need to know exactly how the Minister is intending to marshal the internet. We see in many other pieces of legislation that it is all very well to set down good intentions that can be applied in the United Kingdom, but the internet is international—it is no respecter of boundaries, and we have no authority outside the boundaries of the United Kingdom. It needs rather more than a few regulations saying what is good or bad in the UK, because people are influenced by internet pages beamed into this country, which are outside our territorial remit.
      Mr. Bellingham: My hon. Friend is right. We were on the cusp of debating these important points in Committee, but were cut short. UK citizens who place an advertisement on the internet through a UK-based internet service provider in this country will be committing an
      76
      offence, but if they get someone else to do it for them abroad, they will not be. There are all sorts of anomalies in this area, and it is a pity that we could not have debated them in Committee. When the Minister replies to my hon. Friend, she should clarify some of these points.
      Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend is right. We are all agreed on the principle and desirability of some of the restrictions that the Government want to impose, but that is worthless unless the practical applications have been thought through.
      I am slightly at a loss; the Minister has spoken to three amendments out of a group of 28. Indeed, she spoke at length to one that is not even in the group, interesting though that was. I should appreciate responses to some of my points. For all I know, there may be similar questions on the amendments to which she has not spoken but for which there is still a little time if she cares to elaborate further.
      Jonathan Shaw: I welcome the bringing forward of support services. The universal determination of right hon. and hon. Members to see the number of children placed for adoption increase was one of the pleasures of serving on the Committee stage of this Bill. We want to meet the target of a 40 per cent. increase, but what happens when those children are placed for adoption? This is not just about targets, throughput and speed—quality support is essential.
      It is essential that local communities have confidence in adoption agencies providing post-adoption support. The dynamics change when a child is placed for adoption. One can only make a best assessment. As we have said a number of times in Committee and on Report, we are not dealing with pure equations. This is a dynamic process. Social workers, the panel and the courts are all involved in the process of adoption and in trying to make a vital decision for a child's future well-being and happiness in their adoptive placement. We know that things change—we do not know what will happen or how a child will react when he or she is placed with prospective adopters.
      The test for adoption agencies is their willingness to respond to the crises, doubts and concerns experienced by the adoptive family and, of course, the child, as has been mentioned time and again. For placements to be successful, that is crucial.
      7 pm
      Mr. Hinchliffe: In my constituency, I am dealing with the case of a young man aged 19 who is severely disabled. He was adopted by his adoptive mother two or three years ago, at which time he was eligible for adoption allowances. His mother had to give up work due to the severity of his disability. Her income has been reduced, yet it appears that there are no longer any support mechanisms for him because he is now an adult. Has my hon. Friend come across similar situations, and does he consider that the measure could assist people in those circumstances?
      Jonathan Shaw: My hon. Friend has a wealth of experience in such matters. Indeed, many of the Committee members had swapped corduroys for sharp suits when they entered this place—although my hon. Friend still has the beard; I think that he even has the sandals somewhere in his wardrobe.

      77
      My hon. Friend makes an important point: there are many variables. When we place older children with disabilities and a multitude of behaviour problems, we know that those problems do not end when they come of age. If we are to reach the targets, prospective adopters must feel confident that when they call the social services department or the adoption agency they will not be given the run around once their child becomes an adult. They need to be sure that the response will not be, "I am sorry but you no longer fit into the right bracket and we cannot help you." If that is the word on the street among prospective adopters, we will not hit our targets. All those factors are interdependent.
      The point applies not only to severely disabled children or to those with extreme behaviour problems but also to children who are placed out of area. It is not satisfactory for a particular service to wash its hands of the child and say, "Sorry, you're no longer in our area so we cannot help you". There must be confidence in the system and I am glad that the measure will ensure that proper arrangements are in place.
      Local authorities and adoption agencies have long realised their deficiencies when children from one part of the country are placed in another area. The adoptive parents are expected to trail halfway around the UK to get access to services.
      Mr. Brazier: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. There is also a wider financial point. It is anomalous that an authority can take a great deal of trouble and spend many thousands of pounds assessing a couple and including them on its list, yet there is no transfer of funding if the couple then adopt a child from another area. One authority does all the work, but another receives the budget relief.
      Jonathan Shaw: My understanding is that there is support through the interplacement fee. If one agency prepares a couple for adoption and a child from another area is placed with them, there is an interplacement fee. My hon. Friend the Minister may correct me when she makes her remarks, but that was certainly my experience.
      Problems arise when local authorities that have invested time and effort are reluctant to allow, or to encourage, prospective adopters to seek children from another part of the country. However, the national register and the consortium arrangements for authorities should stop those restrictive practices, although only time will tell whether they can be completely eradicated.
      Mr. Brazier: I think that the hon. Gentleman was present when the Special Standing Committee heard testimony from voluntary organisations that they often make an enormous loss on those transfer fees, especially with severely disabled clients. It is much more expensive to scrutinise adoptive parents for such children.
      Jonathan Shaw: The hon. Gentleman refers to a point that I touched on earlier and which was also highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe): it is difficult to place children with severe disabilities or behaviour problems. The BAAF publication "Be My Parent" lists more than 400 children every month and we heard from the BAAF that there is not even one inquiry about half of the boys aged more
      78
      than five. That is not because they are disabled or have behaviour problems. For understandable reasons, people prefer to adopt babies, but they are in short supply.
      The hon. Gentleman referred to the costs. Prospective adopters for some children are a rarity, but let us hope that we can make some economies of scale in our drive for such adopters—not least as a result of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend. His proposals would widen the pool, so if there are more prospective adopters there will be economies of scale and the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) will be reduced.
      Mr. Dawson: My hon. Friend goes to the heart of the Bill when he refers to the fact that adoptive parents will need a huge amount of support if they are to take older young people out of the care system, especially those who have suffered the most distressing experiences of neglect and abuse and whose needs have not been met for many years. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill will provide a framework? We have a long way to go in respect of professional development, good practice and regulation so that we can build on its essential elements.
      Jonathan Shaw: My hon. Friend is right: making the step change that we all want in adoptive placements will put heavy demands on local authorities—such as education and social services—that they will not have previously experienced.
      Mr. Hinchliffe: Support services are a key aspect of the measure. In the past, I have been concerned that local authorities took the attitude that once an individual was adopted that was the end of the matter. Does my hon. Friend think that we can achieve a sea change in attitudes and a recognition that the local authority has a continuing role, especially as regards the placement of children with special needs? Does he think that we can bring about a revolution in that respect? I remain concerned that we may need regularly to remind local authorities of their responsibilities towards adopted youngsters.
      Jonathan Shaw: I hope that we can achieve that sea change—or revolution; there must certainly be a dramatic change if we are to hit the Government's 40 per cent. target.
      I would be reluctant to start prejudging local authorities because, in the main, all local authorities and adoption agencies think that this is highly desirable legislation, which rings true in terms of the type of child care policies that we want to develop, but it is important that the support services are responsive to a changing dynamic—post-adoption placements. If we get that right, people will have confidence in adoption services and more of our vulnerable children will be placed for adoption.
      Jacqui Smith: The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) raised several issues in relation to this group of amendments. Indeed, despite being warned, he pressed me to go into a bit more detail on some of these amendments. I hope that he does not regret that.
      I shall first deal with some of the specific points that the hon. Gentleman made. On the distinction between the words "transitional" and "transitory", the use of the word "transitory" is necessary because, as I explained, we need

      79
      to insert provisions in the Adoption Act 1976 to bring forward the implementation of the provisions on adoption support, independent review and electronic advertising, which I have outlined. Of course the 1976 Act will be repealed under some of the amendments in this group when the Bill is enacted. To that extent, those amendments are transitory: they allow us to carry out the early implementation of those provisions, but for a limited time only, as that is all that is necessary in this case.
      The hon. Gentleman also returned to his oft-stated concern about the lack of detail about the regulations. There is a bit of a conflict between our approaches. We want to ensure that the primary legislation includes the principles necessary to improve the adoption system, while making it clear that, because of precisely the sorts of issue that were raised on numerous occasions in the Special Standing Committee, we need to work with the stakeholders to develop, for example, the framework for adoption support, as well as the detail of the regulations. We have been working on that framework, and I hope that we will soon be able to put it out to consultation.
      It is obvious to an extent that we could not do all that and produce a final version of the regulations before determining the principles and before the consultations and discussions had taken place. It is a function of the Government's consultative and inclusive approach to developing the Bill that we will develop the regulations in close consultation with the stakeholders when we have got through the first stage of agreeing the principles embedded in the legislation.
      The hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham and for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) referred to internet advertising. Perhaps it would be helpful if I were to clarify the legal position. First, as I suggested earlier, if a United Kingdom internet service provider hosts such an advert from the United States, the United Kingdom ISP would be caught by the restriction. The ISP would have to remove the advert, if they were aware of it; otherwise they would commit an offence. However, if the United Kingdom ISP were just acting as a conduit, it would not be caught. Clause 115(3)(b) deals with ISPs that simply act as a channel, and the same approach has been taken in the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill.
      7.15 pm
      If the advert came from the European Union, however, the EU e-commerce directive would apply and the rules of the country of origin should apply to internet advertising. Although we may not be able to prosecute, we could certainly take up the issue with the relevant country to ensure that controls are in place.
      Mr. Walter: The Minister is probably too young to remember the Marine, &c., Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967, which covered similar concerns that the Government had about advertising coming into the United Kingdom from outside our frontiers, promoting products available in the United Kingdom and influencing consumer decisions in the marketplace. That legislation was singularly ineffective: such radio stations continued to broadcast for some 30 years after its implementation.
      Will the Minister tell us whether an advert for a child or an adoption facility could be placed on the internet and someone could take up that advertisement and totally
      80
      comply with the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 and the Bill, so that the adoption itself was legal although the advertisement that started the process was illegal?
      Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right—I was not even at nursery school when that Act was considered. He makes an important point about whether an illegal advert would necessarily lead to an illegal adoption, but I suggest to him that of course hon. Members are right to be concerned about the extent of our legal powers to control advertising on the internet, but advertising—albeit unsavoury—is but the first part of a process that could lead to an illegal adoption. Important safeguards have been included and strengthened in the legislation: for example, international adverts might be significant in relation to inter-country adoption, and we have put in place the necessary safeguards to ensure that children are protected and that adoptions cannot take place on the basis of dodgy procedures.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) rightly emphasised the importance of adoption support. We have had discussions about such support in considering the Bill. All hon. Members recognise the fact, which my hon. Friend ably identified during his contribution, that adoption support services are important not only because they support individual families, prospective adopters and children, but because if people know that they can gain access to those services it can have a positive effect on their willingness to come forward to undertake adoption. For both those reasons, not only is the overall framework that we are developing important, but so is the fact that we are bringing forward that provision earlier.
      As I suggested, I shall skip through some of the other Government amendments. Amendments Nos. 295 to 297 alter schedule 3 and make minor and consequential changes to the Marriage Act 1949 to determine and clarify who can consent to the marriage of a child under 18. As amended, the paragraphs also take account of adoption placements and special guardianship orders.
      Amendment No. 274 corrects a reference in paragraph 23 to schedule 3 which should refer to clause 86, not clause 83. Amendment No. 275 also amends schedule 3 to ensure that orders made under clause 25 are recognised in Scotland and Northern Ireland under section 25 of the Family Law Act 1986. Amendment No. 276 provides that a court in England and Wales cannot make an order under clause 25, including orders varying or revoking a clause 25 order, unless the child is habitually resident or present in England or Wales.
      Amendments Nos. 264 and 268 are consequential on the amendments to care plans. Amendment No. 269 amends paragraph 97 of schedule 3, and paragraph 97 amends section 14(2) of the Care Standards Act 2000. We have concluded that the Bill does not go far enough to deal with adoption offences, all of which can be serious, so we have decided that the offences in the Bill and the regulations made under it, as well as the offences in regulations made under section 1(3) of the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999, should be relevant for determining whether to cancel the registration of an establishment or agency under part II of the 2000 Act, and that is what the amendment delivers.
      Amendment No. 277 is a technical amendment to paragraph 4 of schedule 4. It ensures that when the Adoption Act 1976 is repealed, an adoption agency in

      81
      England or Wales that is at that time under a duty to provide a progress report to former parents, continues to have that duty. Amendment No. 300 is consequential on amendments to clause 84, which deals with overseas adoptions.
      Amendments Nos. 248 and 249 define "enactment", thereby ensuring clarity of that term in clause 131. Amendments Nos. 257 and 258, together with amendments Nos. 254 and 255, which were discussed on Thursday and earlier today, ensure that references to the word "prescribed" are consistent. The overall approach taken to the use of that term is that in the majority of cases it is obvious from the context whether it means in regulations, rules or an order. However, where that is not the case, the provision informs us of what "prescribed" means. Amendments Nos. 228 and 229 are consequential on amendments Nos. 191 and 192, which were also taken on Thursday. They deal with the relationship between placement orders and orders made under section 8 of the 1989 Act.
      Amendments Nos. 238 and 242 alter clause 135, which relates to commencement. Amendment No. 238 amends subsection (1) to enable clause 124 and new clause 7 to come into force when the Bill receives Royal Assent. Clause 124 amends section 93 of the Local Government Act 2000, enabling grants to be paid to support local authorities, for example to pilot new ways of working in the innovative commissioning of children's services and consortium arrangements. We want to be able to make grants to local authorities for use in the current financial year, which is why we want the provision to commence from the day on which the Bill receives Royal Assent.
      New clause 7 amends section 17 of the 1989 Act, which deals with the provision of accommodation by local authorities for children in need. Given what we said about the importance of the new clause to clearing up the lack of clarity that surrounds the responsibilities of local authorities, it is also vital that that commences when the Bill receives Royal Assent.
      The group of amendments is large and technical, but it does include important provisions to ensure that the Bill works properly. They provide clarity and ensure that the provisions can be commenced and implemented appropriately. On that basis, I hope that hon. Members accept them.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I may have inadvertently misled the House about amendment No. 322. The amendment, which was starred on Thursday 16 May and therefore could not be selected that day, falls within the ambit of the group led by amendment No. 270, which relates to Northern Ireland, Scotland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. That group was debated on Thursday 16 May not on 20 March, as I said earlier. Amendment No. 322 will be put formally this evening.

    Schedule 3

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 295, in page 82, leave out lines 15 to 43 and insert—
      '2 In subsection (1) for "person or persons specified in subsection (1A) of this section" there is substituted "appropriate persons".
      82
      3 For subsection (1A) there is substituted—
      "(1A) The appropriate persons are—

      (a) if none of paragraphs (b) to (h) apply, each of the following—

      (i) any parent of the child who has parental responsibility for him; and

      (ii) any guardian of the child;

      (b) where a special guardianship order is in force with respect to a child, each of the child's special guardians, unless any of paragraphs (c) to (g) applies;

      (c) where a care order has effect with respect to the child, the local authority designated in the order, and each parent, guardian or special guardian (insofar as their parental responsibility has not been restricted under section 33(3) of the Children Act 1989), unless paragraph (e) applies;

      (d) where a residence order has effect with respect to the child, the persons with whom the child lives, or is to live, as a result of the order, unless paragraph (e) applies;

      (e) where an adoption agency is authorised to place the child for adoption under section 18 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, that agency or, where a care order has effect with respect to the child, the local authority designated in the order;

      (f) where a placement order is in force with respect to the child, the appropriate local authority;

      (g) where a child has been placed for adoption with prospective adopters, the prospective adopters (insofar as their parental responsibility has not been restricted under section 24(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002), in addition to those persons specified in paragraph (e) or (f);

      (h) where none of paragraphs (b) to (g) apply but a residence order was in force with respect to the child immediately before he reached the age of sixteen, the persons with whom he lived, or was to live, as a result of the order.".'.

      No. 296, in page 83, line 6, leave out "by an adoption agency".
      No. 297, in page 83, line 11, leave out from "adoption" to end of line 12.
      No. 35, in page 84, line 8, leave out "or" and insert—
      'sections 1 or 2(4) of the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 or'.
      No. 36, in page 84, line 14, at end insert—
      '( ) in the entry relating to the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999—

      (i) in the first column, for "Section" there is substituted "Sections 1 and",

      (ii) in the second column, for "Article 9(a) to (c) of there is substituted "regulations made under section 1 giving effect to" and at the end there is inserted "and functions under Article 9(a) to (c) of the Convention"'.

      No. 313, in page 85, line 12, at end insert—
      '20A In section I I (restriction on arranging adoptions and placing of children)—
      (a) in subsection (2)—

      (i) for paragraph (a) there is substituted—

      "(a) a registered adoption society (within the meaning of section 2(2) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002)"; and

      (ii) for "section 1" there is substituted "section 3(1)", and

      (b) after subsection (2) there is inserted—
      "(2A) In relation to the provision of any particular service by an adoption society, the reference in subsection (2)(a) to a registered adoption society does not include a voluntary organisation unless it

      83
      is registered under Part 2 of the Care Standards Act 2000 in respect of that service or a service which, in England, corresponds to that service."
      20B In section 16 (parental agreement to adoption order)—
      (a) in subsection (1)—

      (i) in paragraph (a), sub-paragraph (ii) is omitted, and

      (ii) after paragraph (a) there is inserted—

      "(aa) each parent or guardian of the child has consented under section 19 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (advance consent to adoption), has not withdrawn the consent and does not oppose the making of the adoption order;
      (ab) subsection (3A) applies and no parent or guardian of the child opposes the making of the adoption order", and
      (b) after subsection (3) there is inserted—
      "(3A) This subsection applies where—

      (a) the child has been placed for adoption by an adoption agency (within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002) with the prospective adopters in whose favour the adoption order is proposed to be made: and

      (b) the child was placed for adoption—

      (i) under section 18 of that Act (placing children with parental consent) with the consent of each parent or guardian and the consent of the mother was given when the child was at least six weeks old; or

      (ii) under an order made under section 20 of that Act (placement orders) and the child was at least six weeks old when that order was made.

      (3B) A parent or guardian may not oppose the making of an adoption order under subsection (1)(aa) or (ab) without the leave of the court.
      (3C) The court shall not give leave under subsection (3B) unless satisfied that there has been a change of circumstances since the consent of the parent or guardian was given or, as the case may be, the order under section 20 of that Act was made.
      (3D) The withdrawal of—
      (a) any consent to the placement of a child for adoption—

      (i) under section 18; or

      (ii) under an order made under section 20,

      of the Adoption and Children Act 2002; or
      (b) any consent given under section 19 of that Act,
      is ineffective if it is given after an application for an adoption order is made.".'
      No. 274, in page 85, line 28, leave out "83" and insert "86(2)".
      No. 314, in page 85, line 32, at end insert—
      '24A Section 52 (restriction on advertisements) is omitted.
      24B In section 53 (effect of determination and orders made England and Wales and overseas in adoption proceedings), in subsection (2), the words "England and Wales or" are omitted.
      24C After section 53 there is inserted—
      "53A Effect of certain orders made in England and Wales
      (1) An adoption order (within the meaning of section 44(1) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002) has effect in Scotland as it has in England and Wales but as if any reference to the parental responsibility for the child were to the parental responsibilities and parental rights in relation to the child.
      (2) An order made under section 20 of that Act (placement orders), and the variation or revocation of such an order under section 22 or 23 of that Act, have effect in Scotland as they have in England and Wales but as if any reference to the parental responsibility for the child were to the parental responsibilities and parental rights in relation to the child.
      84
      53B Effect of placing for adoption etc. under Adoption and Children Act 2002
      (1) If—

      (a) a child is placed for adoption under section 18 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (placing children with parental consent); or

      (b) an adoption agency is authorised to place a child for adoption under that section,

      sections 24 (parental responsibility) and 27(2) to (4) (further consequences of placement) of that Act have effect in Scotland as they have in England and Wales but with the modifications specified in subsection (2).
      (2) Those modifications are—

      (a) in section 24, any reference to the parental responsibility for the child is to be read as a reference to the parental responsibilities and parental rights in relation to the child; and

      (b) in section 27(2), the reference to the court is to be read as a reference to the authorised court.

      53C Further consequences of placement and placement orders
      (1) Subsection (2) applies where—

      (a) a child is placed for adoption under section 18 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (placing children with parental consent); or

      (b) an adoption agency is authorised to place the child for adoption under that section.

      (2) No order under subsection (1) of section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (court orders relating to parental responsibilities etc.) of a kind referred to in subsection (2)(c) (residence orders) of that section may be made in respect of the child.
      (3) On the making of an order under section 20 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (a "placement order") in respect of a child, any order under subsection (1) of section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 of a kind referred to in subsection (2)(c) to (f) (residence orders, contact orders, specific issue orders and interdicts in relation to parental responsibilities) of that section in respect of the child ceases to have effect.
      (4) Where a placement order is in force

      (a) no such order as is referred to in subsection (3) of this section; and

      (b) no order under section 55 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (child assessment orders),

      may be made in respect of the child.".'
      No. 307, in page 85, line 35, at end insert—
      '25B In section 60 (orders, rules and regulations), after subsection (3) there is inserted—
      "(3A) An order under section 65(2) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the Scottish Parliament.".'.
      No. 315, in page 85, line 35, at end insert—
      '25A In selection 59 (rules of procedure)—
      (a) in subsection (2)—

      (i) for the words from "in relation to" to "adoption",
      where it secondly occurs, there is substituted "(except where an order has been made freeing the
      child for adoption)"; and

      (ii) for the words from "every" to "Act" there is substituted "any person mentioned in subsection (2A)"; and

      (b) after subsection (2) there is inserted—
      "(2A) The persons referred to in subsection (2) are—

      (a) every person who can be found and whose agreement or consent to the making of the order is required to be given or dispensed with under this Act or, if no such person can be found, any relative prescribed by the rules who can be found;

      85

      (b) every person who has consented to the making of the order under section 19 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (and has not withdrawn the consent) unless he has given a notice under subsection (4)(a) of that section which has effect;

      (c) every person who, if leave were given under section 16(3B), would be entitled to oppose the making of the order.".'.

      No. 316, in page 86, leave out lines 4 to 7.
      No. 317, in page 86, line 7, at end insert—
      , and
      ( ) in the definition of "order freeing a child for adoption", paragraph (a) and the word "and" immediately following that paragraph are omitted.'
      No. 64, in page 86, line 16, leave out from "proceedings)" to end of line 18 and insert—

      '(a) in subsection (1), "(other than proceedings under the Adoption Act 1976)" is omitted,

      (b) in subsection (2)—

      (i) for "the Adoption Act 1976" there is substituted "the Adoption and Children Act 2002",

      (ii) the words following "(a) and (b)" are omitted.'.

      No. 40, in page 86, leave out lines 26 to 29.
      No. 275, in page 88, line 39, at end insert—
      (ab) an order made under section 25 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (contact), other than an order varying or revoking such an order'.
      No. 276, in page 88, line 43, at end insert—
      '(2B) A court in England and Wales shall not have jurisdiction to make an order under section 25 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 unless the condition in section 3 of this Act is satisfied'.
      No. 322, in page 89, line 15, at end insert—
      The Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987/2203 (N.I. 22))
      45A In Article 2(2) (interpretation), in the definition of "prescribed" for "Articles 54" there is substituted "Articles 53(3B) and (3D), 54".'—[Jacqui Smith.]
      Jacqui Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 106, in page 89, line 23, at end insert—
      '( ) after subsection (5) there is inserted—
      "(5A) A local authority foster parent is entitled to apply for a residence order with respect to a child if the child has lived with him for a period of at least one year immediately preceding the application.",'.
      The amendment removes an inconsistency between the Children Act 1989 and the adoption provisions as they relate to local authority foster carers. Under clause 41(4), a local authority foster carer may apply as of right for an adoption order for a child in their care, provided that the child has had his or her home with the foster carer for 12 months. The carers do not need the leave of the court or the permission of the local authority to apply to adopt. However, under clause 109, which relates to section 9 of the 1989 Act, if a child has lived with a local authority foster carer for one year, the carer may apply for a residence order, but needs the leave of the court to make the application. Stakeholders have drawn our attention to that inconsistency. We do not believe that it is right that there should be a leave requirement for residence order applications by foster carers after one year when there is not one for adoption orders, which have greater lifelong implications.
      86
      The amendment removes that minor inconsistency by making specific provision in section 10 of the 1989 Act in respect of residence orders. It makes it clear that the foster carer may apply as of right if a child has been with them for one year, up to the time when the application is made. I hope that the House will support that minor correction.
      Tim Loughton: That is fine.
      Amendment agreed to.
      7.30 pm
      Amendments made: No. 107, in page 91, line 4, leave out from beginning to "or".
      No. 264, in page 91, line 17, leave out "care" and insert "section 31A".
      No. 265, in page 91, line 17, leave out "31A(1)" and insert "31A(6)".
      No. 284, in page 94, line 29, leave out "14" and insert "13".
      No. 285, in page 95, line 3, at end insert—
      Section 14 (restriction on bringing children into the United Kingdom for adoption) is omitted'.
      No. 269, in page 95, line 21, leave out from "1999" to the end of line 23 and insert—
      '(e) an offence under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 or regulations made under it." '
      No. 266, in page 96, line 11, at end insert—
      In section 12(5) of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (meaning of "family proceedings" in relation to CAFCASS), paragraph (b) (supervision orders under the 1989 Act) and the preceding "and" are omitted'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

    Schedule 4

      TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS
      Amendments made: No. 286, in page 96, line 40, at end insert—
      'THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND COURT SERVICES ACT 2000 (c.43)
      2A (1) The facilities to be provided by local authorities as part of the service maintained under section 1(1) of the Adoption Act 1976 include such arrangements as the authorities may be required by regulations to make for the provision of adoption support services to prescribed persons.
      (2) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1) may require a local authority—

      (a) at the request of a prescribed person, to carry out an assessment of his needs for adoption support services,

      (b) if, as a result of the assessment, the authority decide that he has such needs, to decide whether to provide any such services to him,

      (c) if the authority decide to provide any such services to a person, and the circumstances fall within a description prescribed by the regulations, to prepare a plan in accordance with which the services are to be provided to him and keep the plan under review.

      (3) Subsections (6) and (7) (except paragraph (a)) of section 4 of this Act apply to regulations under sub-paragraph (1) as they apply to regulations made by virtue of that section.
      (4) Section 57(1) of the Adoption Act 1976 (prohibited payments) does not apply to any payment made in accordance with regulations under sub-paragraph (1).

      87
      2B (1) After section 9 of the Adoption Act 1976 there is inserted—
      "9A Independent review of determinations
      (1) Regulations under section 9 may establish a procedure under which any person in respect of whom a qualifying determination has been made by an adoption agency may apply to a panel constituted by the Secretary of State for a review of that determination.
      (2) The regulations must make provision as to the description of determinations which are qualifying determinations for the purposes of subsection (1).
      (3) The regulations may include provision as to

      (a) the duties and powers of a panel (including the power to recover the costs of a review from the adoption agency by which the determination reviewed was made),

      (b) the administration and procedures of a panel,

      (c) the appointment of members of a panel (including the number, or any limit on the number, of members who may be appointed and any conditions for appointment),

      (d) the payment of expenses of members of a panel,

      (e) the duties of adoption agencies in connection with reviews conducted under the regulations,

      (f) the monitoring of any such reviews.

      (4) The Secretary of State may make an arrangement with an organisation under which functions in relation to the panel are performed by the organisation on his behalf.
      (5) If the Secretary of State makes such an arrangement with an organisation, the organisation is to perform its functions under the arrangement in accordance with any general or special directions given by the Secretary of State.
      (6) The arrangement may include provision for payments to be made to the organisation by the Secretary of State.
      (7) Where the functions of the Secretary of State are exercisable by the National Assembly for Wales, subsections (4) and (6) also apply as if references to an organisation included references to the Secretary of State.
      (8) In this section, "organisation" includes a public body and a private or voluntary organisation".
      (2) In the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999, in Schedule 1, in the entry for the Adoption Act 1976, after "9" there is inserted "9A".'
      No. 277, in page 97, line 12, leave out "20 and" and insert "19 to".
      Independent review mechanism
      No. 287, in page 97, line 41, at end insert—
      7A (1) For section 56A of the Adoption Act 1976 there is substituted—
      "56A Restriction on bringing children into the United Kingdom
      (1) This section applies where a person who is habitually resident in the British Islands (the "British resident")—

      (a) brings, or causes another to bring, a child who is habitually resident outside the British Islands into the United Kingdom for the purpose of adoption by the British resident, or

      (b) at any time brings, or causes another to bring, into the United Kingdom a child adopted by the British resident under an external adoption effected within the period of six months ending with that time.

      The references to adoption, or to a child adopted, by the British resident include a reference to adoption, or to a child adopted, by the British resident and another person.
      (2) But this section does not apply if—

      (a) the adopters or (as the case may be) prospective adopters are natural parents, natural relatives or guardians of the child (or one of them is),

      (b) the British resident is a step-parent of the child,

      88

      (c) the child is intended to be adopted under a Convention adoption order.

      (3) An external adoption means an adoption, other than a Convention adoption, of a child effected under the law of any country or territory outside the British Islands, whether or not the adoption is—

      (a) an adoption within the meaning of Part IV of this Act, or

      (b) a full adoption (within the meaning of section 39(3A)).

      (4) Regulations may require a person intending to bring, or to cause another to bring, a child into the United Kingdom in circumstances where this section applies—

      (a) to apply to an adoption agency (including an adoption agency within the meaning of section 1 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 or Article 3 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987) in the prescribed manner for an assessment of his suitability to adopt the child, and

      (b) to give the agency any information it may require for the purpose of the assessment.

      (5) Regulations may require prescribed conditions to be met in respect of a child brought into the United Kingdom in circumstances where this section applies.
      (6) In relation to a child brought into the United Kingdom for adoption in circumstances where this section applies, regulations may, in respect of a case where any requirements imposed by the regulations are not complied with, modify the reference to 13 weeks in section 13(1).
      (7) If a person brings, or causes another to bring, a child into the United Kingdom at any time in circumstances where this section applies, he is guilty of an offence if—

      he has not complied with any requirement imposed by virtue of subsection (4), or

      any condition required to be met by virtue of subsection (5) is not met,

      before that time, or before any later time which may be prescribed.
      (8) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

      (a) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both,

      (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months, or a fine, or both.

      (9) In this section, "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations and "regulations" means regulations made by the Secretary of State, after consultation with the National Assembly for Wales".
      7B (1) In section 58 of the Adoption Act 1976 (restrictions on advertisements)—
      (a) after subsection (1) there is inserted—
      "(1A) Publishing an advertisement includes doing so by electronic means (for example, by means of the internet).",
      (b) in subsection (2), for the words following "conviction" there is substituted "to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both".
      7C In section 52 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 (restriction on advertisements)—
      (a) after subsection (1) there is inserted—
      "(1A) Publishing an advertisement includes doing so by electronic means (for example, by means of the internet).",
      (b) in subsection (2), for the words following "conviction" there is substituted "to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both".'
      No. 318, in page 98, line 20, at end insert—
      Advertising—[Jacqui Smith.]

    Schedule 5

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 319, in page 99, line 17, at end insert—
      'Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 Section 16(1)(a)(ii).
      (c.28).
      Section 52.
      In section 53(2), the words "England and Wales or".
      In section 65(1), in the definition of "order freeing a child for adoption", paragraph (a) and the word "and" immediately following that paragraph.'
      No. 65, in page 99, line 18, column 2, at beginning insert—
      In section 71(1) the words "(other than proceedings under the Adoption Act 1976)".
      In section 71(2) the words following "(a) and (b)".'.
      No. 41, in page 99, line 20, column 2, at beginning insert—
      'In section 1(8), the words following "section 50"'.
      No. 267, in page 99, line 40, column 2, at end insert—
      'In section 26(2)(e) and (f), the words "to consider"'.
      42, in page 100, line 18, column 2, at end insert "Section 7(3).'
      288, in page 100, line 18 column 2, at end insert "Section 14".
      268, in page 100, line 29, column 2, at beginning insert—
      Section 12(5)(b) and the preceding "and"'.
      289, in page 100, line 30, at end insert—
      This Act. In Schedule 4, paragraphs 2A, 2B, 7A, 7B, and 7C.'
      No. 300, in page 100, line 30, at end insert—
      "This Act. Section 84(3A).'.
      —[Jacqui Smith.]

    Clause 127

      ORDERS, RULES AND REGULATIONS
      Amendment made: No. 234, in page 71, line 32, at end insert—
      '( ) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 61(2) made by the Scottish Ministers is to be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the Scottish Parliament.
      ( ) The power of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to make regulations under section 61(2) is to be exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)); and any such regulations are to be subject to negative resolution within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 as if they were statutory instruments within the meaning of that Act.'.[.1acqui Smith.]

    Clause 128

      RULES OF PROCEDURE
      Amendment made: No. 226, in page 72, line 32, leave out from "19" to end of line 33 and insert—
      '(and has not withdrawn the consent) unless he has given a notice under subsection (4)(a) of that section which has effect'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

    Clause 129

      SUPPLEMENTARY AND CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISION
      Amendments made: No. 91, in page 73, line 3, at end insert—
      'or of Her Majesty to make an Order in Council by virtue of section 116'.
      No. 92, in page 73, line 10, at end insert—
      'In relation to an Order in Council, "enactment" in this subsection includes an enactment comprised in, or in an instrument made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

    Clause 130

      OFFENCES BY BODIES CORPORATE AND UNINCORPORATED BODIES
      Amendments made: No. 235, in page 73, line 26, at end insert—
      '( ) Proceedings for an offence alleged to have been committed under this Act by an unincorporated body are to be brought in the name of that body (and not in that of any of its members) and, for the purposes of any such proceedings in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, any rules of court relating to the service of documents have effect as if that body were a corporation.
      ( ) A fine imposed on an unincorporated body on its conviction of an offence under this Act is to be paid out of the funds of that body.
      ( ) If an unincorporated body is charged with an offence under this Act—

      (a) in England and Wales, section 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 and Schedule 3 to the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (procedure on charge of an offence against a corporation);

      (b) in Northern Ireland, section 18 of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945 and Schedule 4 to the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (procedure on charge of an offence against a corporation),

      have effect in like manner as in the case of a corporation so charged.'.
      No. 236, in page 73, line 27, after "body" insert "(other than a partnership)".
      No. 237, in page 73, line 31, at end insert—
      ( ) Where an offence under this Act committed by a partnership is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, a partner, he as well as the partnership is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.'.[Jacqui Smith.]

    Clause 131

      GENERAL INTERPRETATION, ETC.
      Amendments made: No. 248, in page 74, line 12, at end insert—
      enactment' includes an enactment comprised in subordinate legislation".
      No. 257, in page 74, leave out lines 24 and 25.
      No. 272, in page 74, leave out lines 35 and 36.
      No. 47, in page 74, line 48, at end insert—
      '( ) Any power conferred by this Act to prescribe a fee by Order in Council or regulations includes power to prescribe—

      (a) a fee not exceeding a prescribed amount,

      (b) a fee calculated in accordance with the Order or, as the case may be, regulations,

      (c) a fee determined by the person to whom it is payable, being a fee of a reasonable amount.'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

      Jacqui Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 227, in page 74, line 49, leave out subsection (2).
      This amendment covers the definition of where a child has his home or is placed and responds to a point raised in Committee by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), which I undertook at the time to consider.
      Clause 131 sets out the correct interpretation of various terms used in the Bill. Currently, subsection (2) provides that, in determining where a child has his home or is to be placed, any temporary absence by the child at school, hospital or elsewhere is to be disregarded. The hon. Member for North Dorset was keen to ensure that the courts could also discount temporary absences by the adoptive applicants in determining where a child has his home or is placed. We have looked at this matter, and we agree that it is important to provide the flexibility sought by the hon. Gentleman, to ensure that temporary absences by other parties, such as the adoptive applicants, could be excepted where appropriate.
      The advice that we have received is that the most flexible way of doing that would be to remove subsection (2) entirely, which would leave the question of where a child had his home and with whom as an issue of fact to be determined by the court in each case. Advice to me suggests that the current subsection (2), which dates from the Adoption Act 1976, is unnecessary and might indeed have a restrictive effect on references to a place where a child has his home that are not covered by the exceptions listed. That would also be a risk with any amendment that attempted to exclude temporary absences by the adopters on the same basis.
      The case law on "had his home" has it that this is a matter of fact to be determined in each case. It presumes regular occupation with some degree of permanency, but does not require continuous presence. It allows the court to take account of, and disregard when appropriate, any temporary absence for whatever reason by the child or any other party, but also enables the court to consider, rightly, the impact of any very lengthy absence. Government amendment No. 227 therefore seeks to deliver the same objective as the amendments tabled by the hon. Gentleman in Committee, but in a more effective manner.
      On that basis, I hope that the House will feel able to support the amendment.
      Mr. Walter: I thank the Minister for acknowledging that Back Benchers can table amendments in Committee that have substance, and that the Government can take them away and bring them back for consideration before the House.
      Amendment agreed to.
      92
      It being four hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [16 May], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour.
      Amendment proposed: No. 158, in 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.
      (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'.—[Mr. Hinchliffe.]
      Amendment proposed to the proposed amendment: (a), Line 3, leave out—
      whether of different sexes or the same sex'
      and insert "of different sexes".—[Mr. Lansley.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 301.

      Division No. 246]

      [7.36 pm

      AYES

      Amess, David

      Connarty, Michael

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Conway, Derek

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Cran, James

      Bacon, Richard

      Cummings, John

      Baldry, Tony

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Barker, Gregory

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Bell, Stuart

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Bellingham, Henry

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Benton, Joe

      Drew, David

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

      Blunt, Crispin

      Evans, Nigel

      Boswell, Tim

      Fallon, Michael

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Flight, Howard

      Brady, Graham

      Flook, Adrian

      Brazier, Julian

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Breed, Colin

      Francois, Mark

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Gale, Roger

      Burnett, John

      Garnier, Edward

      Burnside, David

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Butt, Alistair

      Goodman, Paul

      Butterfill, John

      Grayling, Chris

      Cameron, David

      Grieve, Dominic

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Cash, William

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Chope, Christopher

      Hammond, Philip

      Clappison, James

      Hawkins, Nick

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hayes, John

      Heald, Oliver

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Collins, Tim

      Hermon, Lady

      Colman, Tony

      Hoban, Mark

      93

      Hood, Jimmy

      Randall, John

      Horam, John

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Robathan, Andrew

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Roy, Frank

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Ruffley, David

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Kelly, Ruth

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Selous, Andrew

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Sheridan, Jim

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Simmonds, Mark

      Lansley, Andrew

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Leigh, Edward

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Spink, Bob

      Lidington, David

      Spring, Richard

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Loughton, Tim

      Steen, Anthony

      Luff, Peter

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Swire, Hugo

      McFall, John

      Syms, Robert

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Taylor, Ian (Esher& Walton)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

      McWilliam, John

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Malins, Humfrey

      Tredinnick, David

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Trend, Michael

      Martlew, Eric

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Mates, Michael

      Tynan, Bill

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Tyrie, Andrew

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Viggers, Peter

      Mercer, Patrick

      Walter, Robert

      Moss, Malcolm

      Waterson, Nigel

      Mudie, George

      Watkinson, Angela

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Watts, David

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Webb, Steve

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Whittingdale, John

      Olner, Bill

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Page, Richard

      Willetts, David

      Paice, James

      Wilshire, David

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Paterson, Owen

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Pearson, Ian

      Wray, James

      Picking, Anne

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Pickles, Eric

      Pound, Stephen

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Prisk, Mark

      Mr. Desmond Swayne and

      Pugh, Dr John

      Mr. Charles Hendry.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bennett, Andrew

      Ainger, Nick

      Berry, Roger

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Best, Harold

      Allan, Richard

      Betts, Clive

      Allen, Graham

      Blackman, Liz

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Borrow, David

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Austin, John

      Bailey, Adrian

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Baird, Vera

      Browne, Desmond

      Banks, Tony

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Barrett, John

      Bryant, Chris

      Battle, John

      Burden, Richard

      Beard, Nigel

      Burgon, Colin

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Cairns, David

      94

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Heath, David

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Heyes, David

      Casale, Roger

      Hill, Keith

      Caton, Martin

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cawsey, Ian

      Holmes, Paul

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hope, Phil

      Chaytor, David

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Chidgey, David

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Clelland, David

      Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cohen, Harry

      Illsley, Eric

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Cooper, Yvette

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Corston, Jean

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cotter, Brian

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cousins, Jim

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Cox, Tom

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Cranston, Ross

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Crausby, David

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      David, Wayne

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Kidney, David

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Dawson, Hilton

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Dismore, Andrew

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Dobbin, Jim

      Lamb, Norman

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Lammy, David

      Doran, Frank

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Doughty, Sue

      Laws, David

      Dowd, Jim

      Laxton, Bob

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Lepper, David

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Levitt, Tom

      Edwards, Huw

      Linton, Martin

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Lloyd, Tony

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Love, Andrew

      Flynn, Paul

      Lucas, Ian

      Follett, Barbara

      Luke, Iain

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Foulkes, George

      McCafferty, Chris

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Gapes, Mike

      McDonnell, John

      Gardiner, Barry

      MacDougall, John

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Gerrard, Neil

      McIsaac, Shona

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McNulty, Tony

      Gidley, Sandra

      MacShane, Denis

      Gilroy, Linda

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Godsiff, Roger

      McWalter, Tony

      Goggins, Paul

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Grogan, John

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Mann, John

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Marris, Rob

      Hancock, Mike

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hanson, David

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Merron, Gillian

      Harvey, Nick

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Healey, John

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      95

      Miliband, David

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Miller, Andrew

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mole, Chris

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

      Moran, Margaret

      Soley, Clive

      Morris, Rt hop Estelle

      Southworth, Helen

      Mountford, Kali

      Squire, Rachel

      Mullin, Chris

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Norris, Dan

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Oaten, Mark

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Stringer, Graham

      O'Hara, Edward

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Organ, Diana

      Stunell, Andrew

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Owen, Albert

      Tami, Mark

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Perham, Linda

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Pike, Peter

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Plaskitt, James

      Timms, Stephen

      Pond, Chris

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pope, Greg

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Trickett, Jon

      Price, Adam

      Truswell, Paul

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Purchase, Ken

      Tyler, Paul

      Purnell, James

      Vaz, Keith

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      vis, Dr Rudi

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Rammell, Bill

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Rapson, Syd

      Wareing, Robert N

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Watson, Tom

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      White, Brian

      Rendel, David

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Rooney, Terry

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Ross, Ernie

      Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

      Ruane, Chris

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Williams, Phil

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Winnick, David

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Ryan, Joan

      Wood, Mike

      Sanders, Adrian

      Woodward, Shaun

      Sawford, Phil

      Woolas, Phil

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Worthington, Tony

      Sheemnan, Barry

      Wray, James

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Simon, Siôn

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Singh, Marsha

      Skinner, Dennis

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Kevin Brennan and

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Jonathan Shaw.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment No. 158 agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 273, in page 74, line 51, at end insert—
      (2A) In this Act, "Scottish adoption agency" means—

      (a) a local authority, or

      (b) a voluntary organisation providing a registered adoption service;

      but in relation to the provision of any particular service, references to a Scottish adoption agency do not include a voluntary organisation unless it is registered in respect of that service or a service which, in Scotland, corresponds to that service.
      96
      Expressions used in this subsection have the same meaning as in the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001 (asp 4) and "registered" means registered under Part 1 of that Act.—[Jacqui Smith.]

    Clause 132

      DEVOLUTION: WALES
      Amendments made: No. 281, in page 75, line 2, leave out "reference" and insert—
      'references to the Adoption Act 1976 and'.
      No. 282, in page 75, line 3, leave out from "1999" to second "as" and insert—
      are to be treated as referring to those Acts'.
      No. 283, in page 75, line 6, leave out "that reference" and insert "those references".—[Jacqui Smith.]

    Schedule 6

      GLOSSARY
      Amendments made: No. 249, in page 102, line 4, at end insert—
      enactment … section 131'.
      No. 258, in page 102, leave out line 21.
      No. 228, in page 102, line 21, at end insert—
      prohibited steps order … section 8(1) of the 1989 Act'.
      No. 229, in page 102, line 32, at end insert—
      'specific issue order … section 8(1) of the 1989 Ace.—[Jacqui Smith.]

    Clause 135

      COMMENCEMENT
      Amendments made: No. 238, in page 75, line 16, after "except" insert—
      section 124, [Accommodation of children in need etc]'.
      No. 239, in page 75, line 20, at end insert—
      '( ) Before making an order under subsection (1) bringing sections 114 and 115 into force, the Secretary of State must also consult the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety'.
      No. 240, in page 75, line 20, at end insert—
      '( ) Before making an order under subsection (1) bringing sections 116 to 120, section [Use of an organisation as agency for payments] and section [Territorial application] into force, the Secretary of State must also consult the Scottish Ministers'.
      No. 241, in page 75, line 21, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
      (3) The following are to come into force on such day as the Scottish Ministers may by order appoint—

      section 40(5) to (9), so far as relating to Scotland,

      sections 121, 122 and Amendment of Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978: contravention of sections 29 to 35 of this Act],

      (c) paragraphs 20 to 26 and 74 to 76 of Schedule 3,

      (d) paragraphs 7C, 12A and 15 of Schedule 4,

      (e) the entries in Schedule 5, so far as relating to the provisions mentioned in paragraphs (c) and (d),

      (f) section 126, so far as relating to the provisions mentioned in the preceding paragraphs'.

      No. 242, in page 75, line 27, after "63" insert—
      paragraphs 13, 57, 58, 100, 101 and 102 of Schedule 3 and paragraphs 2A and 2B of Schedule 4'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

    Clause 136

      EXTENT
      Amendments made: No. 243, in page 75, line 35, leave out "40(5) to (9)".
      No. 244, in page 75, line 35, after "61(2) to (5)" insert—
      '63(2)(a) and (b) and (2A)'.
      No. 245, in page 75, line 37, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
      '( ) The following extend also to Scotland—

      (a) sections 40(5) to (9),

      (b) sections 116 to 120, section [Use of an organisation as agency for payments] and section [Territorial application],

      (c) section [Proceedings in Great Britain],

      (d) section 126, so far as relating to provisions extending to Scotland.'.

      No. 246, in page 75, line 39, leave out "paragraph 15 extends" and insert—
      paragraphs 12A and 15 extend'.—[Jacqui Smith.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber please do so quickly and quietly, so that we can get on with Third Reading?
      Order for Third Reading read.
      7.49 pm
      Jacqui Smith: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      We have had more than two days of valuable and constructive debate on the Report stage of the Bill, conducted in the positive spirit that has characterised the Bill's passage up to this point. Since the Bill was introduced last October, we have had wide-ranging debates on its principles and on the detailed provisions.
      The Bill was referred to a Special Standing Committee, which gave Members the opportunity to hear from key stakeholders in the adoption community and acknowledged experts in the field. That consultative approach was a very positive experience, and it provides an example for the future. Following the evidence sessions, the Bill was considered in detail by the Special Standing Committee. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friends, particularly those who brought their considerable expertise to the Committee. May I say what a pleasure it was to be surrounded by so many ex-social workers? Other hon. Members brought to the proceedings important experience of constituency casework and even personal experience of adoption. It was invaluable to take part in such an informed debate, and the Bill has undoubtedly benefited from it.
      Throughout the process we have had as our focus the aim of ensuring that all children have the best start in life. Adoption can have an important role in providing a new start for many children, and can make the difference between a child having a loving, stable and permanent family or being left in the care of the local authority.
      The Bill overhauls the outdated Adoption Act 1976 and modernises the whole existing legal framework for domestic and inter-country adoption. It is over a quarter
      98
      of a century since the legislative framework was last reviewed, and I hope that the Bill will set out a new framework that will last well into this century.
      The Bill tackles the issues that have troubled the adoption service for many years. The fundamental change that it makes, which is welcomed on both sides of the House and by stakeholders, is that it puts the needs of the child at the centre of the adoption process. It also recognises that adoption, while bringing great joy and satisfaction to many people, is a tough job. It will help to ensure that the support that adopters and children need is available by providing for the first time a duty on local authorities to put in place a range of adoption support services.
      The Bill will help to cut harmful delays through the introduction of the Adoption and Children Act register and through timetabling of court proceedings. Importantly, as we have heard today, the Bill strengthens the safeguards around adoption, inter-country and domestic, and introduces a new special guardianship order to provide permanent families for children for whom adoption is not appropriate.
      In Committee, genuine concerns were raised and suggestions were made about areas in which the Bill could be improved. We listened to those, and as a result we have been able to make changes as the Bill has made its way through the House. On access to information, concerns were expressed about the access for adopted persons to information that would enable them to obtain a copy of their original birth certificate. In light of those comments I tabled amendments to ensure that information from adoption agencies, which is required to access birth records, will be provided. With the amendments made on Report, the Bill will now put in place a system for disclosure of information about adoption that is both comprehensive and fair.
      Considering the sensitivity about adoption, it is not surprising that there was concern about consent. It was felt that the provision stating that consent had to be given freely did not reflect the fact that, although birth parents may know that adoption is best for the child, coming to this decision means struggling against their own feelings. Although we have not had time to debate that, we have listened to those concerns and amended the Bill to reflect that.
      Today we made amendments to enable social services to provide accommodation or the means to secure it. I am pleased that the Bill establishes local authority powers in this area beyond doubt. We have ensured that the care planning process, which is so important for children, is placed on a statutory basis with proper independent review.
      The impact of domestic violence on the child has not been fully considered when courts consider granting contact orders under the Children Act 1989. In response, we tabled an amendment on Report to extend the definition of "harm" in the Act to make it clear that it includes any harm that a child may suffer or is at risk of suffering as a result of witnessing the ill-treatment of another. As hon. Members will have noted on Thursday, that was due to the work of several of my hon. Friends, but also to a willingness to respond on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton). She should be congratulated not only on that, but on her efforts throughout the Bill's progress.

      99
      While the Bill was in Committee, the Scottish Executive signalled that they wished to be able to participate in the Adoption and Children Act register. On Report, we tabled the necessary amendments to enable that to happen. The inclusion of Scotland in the register will benefit children and adopters throughout England, Scotland and Wales, and will provide an extensive infrastructure for finding families for children who need them.
      Jonathan Shaw: I fully concur with my hon. Friend's comments about the Parliamentary Secretary. Will she join me in paying tribute also to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran), who campaigned for those amendments to the Bill? The response from the Parliamentary Secretary was testimony to my hon. Friend's battle and to her work to bring together all manner of stakeholders to achieve that welcome change in the law.
      Jacqui Smith: Certainly I commend, as the Parliamentary Secretary did on Thursday, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) and others for their work and their approach to this important issue. I also pay tribute to other hon. Members, on the Standing Committee and in the House, who have not always made my life easy but have worked very hard to ensure that the concerns of stakeholders are expressed and reflected in the Bill.
      The free votes on amendments concerning unmarried couples showed that there was significant support for a change to current legislation. The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), and supported by the House, help us in our aim to give more vulnerable children the chance of the permanent, secure and stable family life that adoption can provide. As I promised on Thursday, in the other place we will table the necessary amendments to the rest of the Bill to deal with any legal and technical implications of that change. The Bill now moves on for consideration by the other place. I am confident that it goes there in an improved state thanks to the work that we have done here.
      The Government are determined to press on with our programme to restructure and improve adoption services. Unlike the 1976 Act, it will certainly not be more than 10 years before this Bill is implemented. Once it has gone through its remaining stages and received Royal Assent, we intend to bring its main provisions into force in 2004. However, as we have discussed today, it is important that some measures are introduced before that. The new framework for adoption support services and financial support will be brought into effect in 2003, as will the independent review mechanism in respect of adopter assessment.
      The restrictions on bringing children into the UK should be brought into force as soon as possible, and they will be implemented in advance of the rest of the Bill. We therefore intend to bring these provisions into force in advance of the rest of the Bill. As part of the package of safeguards to be put in place for children, we intend in 2002 to amend section 58 of the 1976 Act to make it clear that the restrictions on advertising of adoption services cover electronic advertising.
      Ensuring that the Bill is passed is, of course, only the first step. Once it receives Royal Assent, the real work to make changes on the ground will begin. We intend to
      100
      continue the consultative approach that we have taken throughout progress on the Bill. We will hold full public consultations on each set of regulations and consult widely on the detail of the rules to be made under the Bill.
      In conclusion, I am pleased with how far we have come with the Bill, whose aim is to ensure that all children have the best start in life. I hope that the Bill that we now have as a result of our efforts provides the very best start that we can give and makes our contribution to that crucial change.
      8 pm
      Tim Loughton: At last we have reached the relative calm of Third Reading. I am glad that we have sufficient time for all hon. Members who served on the Committee to contribute. I urge the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) to feel free to intervene on me; he will get a positive response.
      It seems only yesterday that we started the Committee stage. The ability to hear witnesses was a good innovation, as the Minister said. More than 30 expert witnesses gave us their views, but the problem was that we did not have much time between listening to them and starting the Standing Committee procedure proper. There were 24 Standing Committee sittings, ending on 17 January, and there was an abortive start to the Report stage—all two hours of it—on 20 March.
      Today and last Thursday we have seen a mê?eacute;?of 319 amendments—320 if one includes amendment No. 322, which crept back in for a repeat performance—and 16 new clauses. Many of those proposals have had to be agreed to when a guillotine has come down, as you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker; you and your colleagues in the Chair have often sounded like up-market bingo callers as the knife comes down. All that came on top of the 270 amendments and 17 new clauses that were debated—again, the time was curtailed—in Committee.
      We have covered everything from adoption support services to the implications of the sperm of Members of the House of Lords for adoption law, and from CAFCASS to terminology in respect of British colonies, or rather British overseas territories, as they should now be called. We have certainly had an extensive debate before waving this Bill off to the upper House, although I suspect that a welcoming party may greet its return to this House.
      We have had an extensive debate, but I fear that it has been curtailed on too many occasions. I do not think that there was any need for a programme motion on the Bill, which had cross-party support. It was radical in terms of updating the 1976 legislation with the introduction of some very positive measures, many of which we agreed with. In Committee, the programme motion meant that 43 clauses were completely untouched by debate, seven clauses were unfinished and two whole schedules were not debated—measures that amounted to a third of the Bill.
      As I said, much of that provision has not been debated on Report, either, which is a shame. On Thursday we failed to finish discussing 62 amendments on the operation of placement orders, eight amendments and new clause 5 on arrangements for adoption at birth, 11 amendments on contact, 17 amendments on special guardianship orders, 25 amendments and three new clauses on unmarried couples, on which many other hon. Members wanted to speak, and so on. Today we have

      101
      made slightly better progress, largely because the issues were less contentious. Even so, we have had to get through 63 amendments and four new clauses.
      So much has been left unscrutinised. I am sure that interested parties outside the House will wonder why everything had to be crammed into Committee in two months only for us then to twiddle our thumbs for the subsequent four months and then cram 319 amendments and 17 new clauses into only two days and two hours—but alas, that is the way Parliament works.
      I wish the Bill well in the upper House. It will continue to enjoy the Opposition's support, as it has done throughout its passage. As the Minister said, we have achieved an awful lot. The number of Government amendments tabled on Report shows that the Government have been willing to make many changes. To give them credit, they have responded to many of the concerns that we expressed in Committee, including those relating to the three-year limitation, which we discussed earlier, and to CAFCASS support services, and also the latest spectacular hit by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) in relation to the addresses of adopted children.
      All those contributions were positive and I am grateful to the Minister for graciously attributing some of those proposals—if not all of them—to us. We had some very good debate and good Back-Bench engagement on both sides of the House, which is welcome. At least, that has been the case when Labour Members have not been trying to outdo each other on the subject of how many years they served as social workers before coming to this place; we have been up against exceedingly competitive Government Back Benchers. None the less, it has all been done in good humour, greatly enhanced by the Minister's flow charts—although I regret to say that those have failed to make a reappearance on Report.
      The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the fragrant hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton)—alas, she is not present for the finish of our proceedings—made very welcome offers to write to us, as she has done at length on many occasions in response to matters raised in Committee. The recent letters that we have received from both Ministers on speeding up adoption support services and on independent review mechanisms show that the Government have listened, which is to be welcomed.
      We have also enjoyed the great expertise of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), even if he has yet to honour his offer of a bottle of wine in the contest for the best pronunciation of his constituency. Of course, this is his last opportunity not to welsh on that deal.
      I also pay tribute to my colleagues. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), speaking in his debut performance in Committee, made serious contributions made from a legal perspective, drawing on his background. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset has great experience in this field and scored more hits than other Opposition Members put together in getting his amendments accepted. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) brought his own characteristic and idiosyncratic—but most entertaining and informed—contribution to the debate. I pay particular tribute to the speaking Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier),
      102
      who is more of an expert on adoption than most of us. We have all greatly benefited from his expertise and experience, and from his knowledge of many cases, reflecting just about every clause, all of which seem to have happened in his constituency; it all happens in Canterbury.
      It is also fitting that we should pay tribute to the enormous amount of work done by the Minister's officials at the Department of Health, and to Tom Goldsmith, the Clerk to this Bill, who has given enormous help on the technical and tricky matters with which it deals. Of course, it would also be churlish of me not to say that the Liberals have also made the occasional appearance.
      I have learned a lot about the subject of the Bill during the past few months. All of us have had experiences of constituents affected by adoption, and many of us have been greatly touched by them. We are also grateful for all the input from pressure groups, including the Adoption Forum and Liv O'Hanlon, the National Organisation for Counselling Adoptees and Parents and Pam Hodgkins, who campaigned so hard on the retrospective nature of the legislation, the Children's Society and Julia Feast, the women's refuges, and the Catholic Children's Society and Jim Richards. All of them are mentioned in Hansard.
      We have achieved an awful lot in the Bill, of which all of us can be proud. That is why we are very happy to support it, even if it came slightly late in the day. We should also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who promoted her own private Member's Bill on adoption and kick-started the Government process that resulted at last in the introduction of the Bill before us.
      The Bill is much more than parts of part 1 chapter 3, especially clause 47, and the question of who should be allowed to adopt. Most of us, on whatever side of argument, would agree that it is a great pity that the media have focused only on that aspect of the Bill, which has dominated all the headlines as if it were the only issue at stake in a Bill with 137 clauses and six schedules. I am sure that that subject will be revisited in another place, but I hope that the media and the world outside will take a more balanced view of the Bill and everything else that it contains.
      There is wide agreement that clause 1(2) lies at the heart of the Bill. It states:
      "The paramount consideration of the court or adoption agency must be the child's welfare, throughout his life."
      We have all have kept that very much at heart while we have been dealing with all the clauses and amendments, and quite rightly so. Principal to our consideration was the axiom that a father and a mother are best for a child, even if we have a debate about their marital status, and even if that situation is not always achievable.
      The overriding consideration must be how we can help the 58,000 children who are looked after in care at the moment. That figure has risen alarmingly recently—by some 17 per cent. over the last few years. We must also consider the increasing complexity and complications involved, and the severe learning and behavioural requirements of some of those children. Only about 200 of the children adopted are babies.
      There is currently an enormous amount of delay and bureaucracy in the system, and there are many shortcomings in the support available for damaged

      103
      children, for vulnerable families and their relatives, and for the willing adopters, of whom we need many more. We need to speed up the process, and to increase the number of volunteers from 3,000 to at least 5,000, perhaps 8,000, in the next few years.
      We also need to ensure that adoptions work first time, and are good quality placements that will give the best prospects for a second chance to those damaged children. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford is right: this is not just about targets. It is about quality placements for individuals, every one of whom has a real life experience and a real life problem that needs to be addressed. They are not just numbers.
      The Minister was right to say that the real work of the Bill will begin when it becomes law. This is not just a question of banning something or making something illegal, as are many other pieces of legislation. This is about starting an enormous process to set up new structures, and to ensure that those structures work so that the Bill can achieve what we all agree that it should achieve.
      We have made great progress in certain areas. On clause 1, we may have arguments about welfare considerations being put above political correctness, but we all agree that we need to avoid delay. The adoption support services are an enormous benefit of the Bill, because the key to a good adoption is to provide support, understanding and information before, during and after adoption, continuing until the child reaches adulthood. That involves dealing with education, behavioural problems, housing and general health.
      The principle of the Bill is absolutely right, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, because the principle will be worthless unless local authorities—which will have responsibility for many of these services—are properly resourced. I argue with the Government over the resourcing levels of social services, because there is still an enormous £n gap in social services departments' funding throughout the country, and the biggest increase in that shortfall has been in children's services. That is where social services are the most stretched, and where there is the biggest shortage of skilled professional children's workers.
      We have expressed the fear before that local authorities often have to retrench to their statutory responsibilities simply because they do not have the resources and the manpower to go round. That is why we were so keen that so many of the provisions in the Bill should be a requirement rather than an optional extra that local authorities could opt out of even if they did not want to, because many of them are really stretched.
      We have achieved a lot with regard to greater clarity in the legal process relating to placement and adoption orders. It is essential that all parties know what to expect of the system, what their rights and responsibilities are, and how they can reverse the process if they have a change of heart. The better independent review panel is also to be welcomed, although we still have concerns about how it will operate.
      We shall not go back over the discussions about disclosure of information, but it was enormously welcome when, after the Christmas break, the Government had a change of heart on this issue. We had all found it a
      104
      complete mystery that they had sought to retreat from the provision in the Adoption Act 1976 concerning providing information to birth parents and to children trying to find their birth parents. We still think that these measures should be retrospective, particularly to give an older generation of women what will probably be their last chance to find the children whom they gave away for adoption, often under enormous pressure, back in the 1940s and 1950s in an adoption climate very different from the one that exists now. I know that the Minister addressed the amendments that we, and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), tabled the other day, but this is still a serious problem.
      We have improved the provisions for disclosure of information on many other fronts, particularly the disclosure of information before an adoption is effected. The Government responded to our concerns, not so much in the Bill but with regard to regulations, which will provide that as much information as possible should be made available to prospective adoptive parents before they make the decision to adopt, so that the right decision can be made.
      There have been improvements to the provisions for the adopted children register, and the adoption contact register has been put on a statutory footing. There are still problems with inter-country adoptions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury mentioned earlier. That is a matter that will go on exercising our minds. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) and to the fact that there is a response in the Bill to issues of domestic violence, which we all wanted. There is still a long way to go on that, but this is a useful first step.
      It is right to improve the provisions on offences relating to people running adoption services without being properly authorised, or bringing children into the country without the right to do so, in very unpleasant circumstances. The innovation of special guardianship orders is another positive aspect of the Bill which we did not get to debate at length, but which, by and large, has widespread support.
      In conclusion, we have achieved an awful lot. It is increasingly important that this legislation should go through swiftly and be put into effect properly and practically. A short time ago, the horrific case of Victoria Climbie, and the case of John Smith in my constituency a couple of years ago, brought home to us just how many gaps there are in child support services, and how there are still too many vulnerable people out there whom the system has failed. Such horrendous failures must not be allowed to happen again.
      There is much good in the Bill. It is good that the Government have listened in many cases. It would be even better if they listened a little more to the questions that will arise in the upper House. I shall finish, as the Minister did, by saying that the Bill is intended to reach, and to a great degree succeeds in reaching, the target of giving all children, particularly those who have had a damaged beginning in difficult circumstances, the best start in life.
      8.17pm
      Ms Meg Munn: I particularly welcome the Bill, and it has been a pleasure to be involved with it during my first year in Parliament. Sometimes it is hard to believe that, only 18 months ago,

      105
      I was in the position of making exactly the kind of decisions dealt with in the Bill. They were some of the most important and difficult decisions that I made during my social work career.
      I have always been a strong advocate for adoption. It is not the answer for all children, but it is a positive option for very many. I was in social work for a long time—I shall spare the House the details of the length of time, because this is not a game about who has been in social work the longest—and I also know that many children experience problems, particularly in their teenage years. It is important for us not only to provide support for those children and their families, but to do so in a way that does not stigmatise. The Bill does a lot to put in place adoption services that will be there for children and their families and will take away the stigma and the concern that so many families experience that asking for help may mean admitting failure or the risk of a child feeling insecure, or that they might again end up in care.
      Some of those services are particularly important at this stage, because many of the children looking for placements today have enormous psychological and emotional difficulties, and if support can be provided to them and their families, there is a much better chance that they will find appropriate adoptive placements.
      It was a particular pleasure in Committee to hear Members of all parties arguing for more resources for social services—of which I have of course been a supporter for many years. Unlike some Opposition Members, however, I would say that the Government have done a great deal for social services. The extra money that has been put in over the past few years has been extremely welcome.
      It is a great pity that, on Report, some Opposition Members used throw-away lines about "politically correct" social workers, as if that were the norm. I hope that I and my fellow ex-social worker colleagues on the Labour Benches have demonstrated that we, too, can be conservative—albeit with a small C—and pragmatic, but that above all we have the interests of children at heart. In bringing adoption into line with the Children Act 1989 and making the needs of the child paramount, the Bill is extremely welcome.
      Like everything else, social work practice moves on, and our understanding of adoption will increase. I hope that the Bill will provide a positive basis for the development of adoption practice which will benefit all those involved in the adoption triangle. More importantly, I hope that the publicity that has surrounded this Bill—I share the concerns of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) about the fact that only certain aspects have been publicised—will encourage more people to come forward as adopters.
      It is right to say that there are very few babies available, but many older children need homes. I for one will never forget the teenager who argued on television last year that she should be given the chance to become part of a family. After all, real families are for life, not just for the duration of childhood. I sincerely hope that all children who need to be adopted will have that opportunity. I believe that this Bill should help that process.
      8.21 pm
      Sandra Gidley: This has been a long haul. There is much good about this Bill, but we seem to have been a long time getting to this stage. For some of us, the process
      106
      started way before last year's election, when evidence gathering on the previous adoption Bill was destined to continue for many more sittings than just three, had the election not intervened. The Bill presented at the beginning of this Session was much improved on the one on which we had worked. I am pleased to say that the Bill now going to the House of Lords is an even greater improvement.
      The spirit of co-operation and obvious dedication and commitment of most Members who served on the Committee has been heartening. By commitment, I do not mean commitment to a political party or a political ideology, but commitment to the Bill and to trying to get it right for the children who need such services.
      I particularly appreciate the fact that the Bill has benefited from the Special Standing Committee process. What struck me powerfully during the evidence-gathering sittings was the huge consensus among a wide variety of agencies. It has been refreshing in some ways not to have had to balance the arguments of a wide range of vested interests. For the most part, people have spoken with one voice. That is simply because they are thinking of the child first. Hopefully, that feeling is shared among Members of all parties.
      The Bill was also a welcome departure from what I understood to be the accepted practice of not selecting Members to scrutinise a Bill if they knew anything about the subject. As I said in Committee, Gyles Brandreth described in his diaries how he said to the Whips that he wanted to serve on a Bill concerning entertainment because he knew a lot about the subject, so they put him on a transport Bill. I have therefore been delighted that, to help us on our way, there have been several social workers—politically correct or otherwise—who have been able on occasions to say, "Get real; life's not like that," and to tell things how they are. They often couched that sentiment in different terms. I sincerely hope that we have got this Bill right, because if we have not, we will probably have to wait another 25 years for an opportunity to do so.
      One problem, which has been highlighted, is that in some ways we have before us only the bones of the legislation. The flesh is yet to come, in regulations. That has presented some difficulties, as we have had to take a lot on trust, which is not always easy for an Opposition party. The fact that the regulations have not been available for scrutiny is a matter of regret. I therefore hope that, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has said, we shall have time to study the regulations and comment on them, and will not end up with rushed legislation.
      I also want to comment on the timetabling. I am generally in favour of timetabling, but the Government must admit that they got it wrong with this Bill. Much of interest was not discussed fully in Committee owing to lack of time. In addition, we did not get the chance to get round to many issues of great interest that were timetabled for Report on Thursday. That was partly because proceedings on Report were dominated by one issue. That is regrettable, because it diluted the Bill's wider message. Hopefully, we will learn lessons and not chop and change things at the last minute just because they look as though they will fit in more conveniently as a result. I am pleased that on the whole the Government have listened and adapted to our concerns. There has been a lot of consultation and information from various Ministers,

      107
      for which I thank them. It has been helpful to know that concerns have been taken on board and are being addressed.
      It remains for me to wish the Government well with this Bill, for which there is support on both sides of the House. We hope that we will be consulted further, but the most important thing is that support is provided. Some of us have been banging on about this subject for some time. The fact remains that three years' funding was announced and allocated to adoption services in December 2000, but by the time that the Bill reaches the statute book, that funding will have disappeared. It would be good to have some commitment here and now that that funding will continue. Again, we must take such issues on trust.
      None the less, at this stage, I hope that I am not being foolish and that I am proved right in trusting that the Government will provide the money. Money has gone into social services but has been aimed very much at services for older people, at the expense of children's services. That should not be allowed to continue. I wish the Bill well.
      8.28 pm
      Ms Dari Taylor: I feel very privileged to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. My first comments are most definitely that the Bill has been brilliantly piloted through the House by the Minister, and that it is long, long overdue.
      The Bill has many qualities, foremost among which is that it places the child's needs at the centre of all processes. Importantly, in so doing, it places centre stage the needs of often very vulnerable children. This is indeed a very important Bill. For me, the interpretation of such needs ultimately means the achievement—hopefully after a short time—of placing all children in loving, stable homes. That is the aim of the Bill. I say that knowing that there are thousands of children longing and hoping to hear that they will be placed with an adoptive family and become a member of it. The fact that there are thousands of such children explains the urgency behind the Bill.
      Alongside the needs of the child, an important characteristic of the Bill is its provision on care plans, which are to be followed and adopted by local authorities or voluntary agencies. Such plans will not only encapsulate a time frame but allow young people to comment on and direct the way in which the plan should be established. When that plan is not put in place within the time frame, a robust review by an independent body is available. For me, that is crucial.
      I worked in care as a young woman, and I was overwhelmed by the number of children who seemed lost to the care system until they were 16, when, frankly, they were turned out with little support—if any. I hope and believe that the independent scrutiny will be robust and tough and that it will ensure that the best for the child is always achieved. Throughout our consideration, we have said again and again that the needs of the child are at the forefront. Those needs have been carefully determined and outlined, and we must achieve them.
      One of the most important areas of the Bill—the debate about who wants to adopt and those who it is felt should have that privilege—hit the headlines in a way that most of us felt it should not have. It is a privilege to bring up
      108
      a child and a privilege to be given the opportunity to bring up another person's child. Inevitably, there was a lot of tension around that issue, and perhaps it was always going to be the most difficult question for many people involved in considering the Bill.
      For me, the introduction of new clause 13 helped to resolve that issue. It ably, knowledgeably and compassionately defined how we, as a group of people in this Chamber, should think about others who are, or who want to be, in the process of adopting a child. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who introduced the new clause in a way that defined the real situation in which we all live in today's society. It extends legal rights to couples who seriously want to be involved in the adoption process—not one person, but all persons who want to bring up a child.
      My hon. Friend acknowledged in the House a point that I have made time and again, as a Christian and a happily married female who has had the privilege of adopting: marriage and heterosexuality can offer the most loving and permanent home. I believe that mine has done so, but I make no prejudiced statement. I also believe that if social services and other bodies conclude, following a thorough investigation, that equally long-term non-marriage relationships between heterosexuals or homosexuals can also offer a permanent and loving home, those people should not be excluded from the right to enjoy the privilege of bringing up an adopted child.
      Mr. Andrew Stunell: I am following the hon. Lady's argument and, as a parent of adopted children, I concur with her views. Does she agree that what has to be evaluated is not one kind of partnership against another, but all those partnerships against living in a children's home? The choice is easy to make.
      Ms Taylor: I could not agree with the hon. Gentleman more. I have seen children waiting at the door on a Saturday when visitors are coming, hoping and praying that mum, an auntie or someone will visit, and I could not prise them from that door. That is what makes me say that the hon. Gentleman is so right. Children want someone who thinks that they are special—No. 1 in their lives.
      I am conscious that time is against me and that lots of Members want to speak, but let me say that there is much in the Bill that I want to praise—independent scrutiny, counselling support, a 40 per cent. increase in adoptions and inter-country adoptions involving the best for the child. All those are important qualities.
      With two colleagues in the House, I have had the joy of being co-chair of the all-party adoption group. It has been a privilege to work with the many voluntary organisations that are part of the group. They have given us excellent advice and their considerable experience has been invaluable. It is worth recording all that Liv O'Hanlon and many others have given, including a perspective that is so important. They, like us, want one thing: an effective Bill that ensures a stable, loving family home for the thousands of children who long to be part of a family.
      Owing to my personal experience, my enthusiasm and my emotional sense, my commitment to the Bill is absolute. I have had the privilege of adopting a beautiful daughter. As I have told the House once before, social

      109
      services turned us down—we were too old and not good enough. That nearly destroyed my life, so I am very pleased that we have provided for independent scrutiny. Without my daughter, my husband and I would not have had the family that we desperately wanted.
      I support the Bill completely and I am delighted with its content. I congratulate Members on both sides of the House on their involvement, especially my hon. Friend the Minister, who has ably piloted the Bill to Third Reading.
      8.36 pm
      Mr. Llwyd: I recall saying on Second Reading that the Bill had the potential to be a landmark Bill, and I still believe that. I value the excellent Special Standing Committee procedure, which I found very interesting. We spoke with knowledgeable people, so we did not have to rely on the green ink brigade and a huge number of letters—some, although not all, of which were perhaps uninformed.
      Clause 1 says that the interests of children are paramount throughout their lives, and that is absolutely right. Members have said that the timetable provisions bring the Bill into line with the Children Act 1989; I remember being in practice when it was introduced. The Children Act revolutionised child law and I hope that the Bill does the same through the ambitious target of increasing adoptions by 40 per cent.
      We have, of course, widened the pool of potential adopters, and much has been said about that over the past few days, but it is important that there is no ban on potential adopters. If people are fit to adopt, so be it. The only ban should be on those who are unfit to adopt. I echo the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor): it is indeed a privilege to bring up children and whether they are our own, adopted or someone else's does not matter. Adoption is a great privilege, and with that privilege come serious obligations.
      I am extremely pleased with the way in which the Bill has been amended. When Ministers say in Standing Committee, "We'll get back to you," or, "We'll write to you," one sometimes has to take it with a pinch of salt. Refreshingly, the Minister and her colleague sent those letters, and I pay tribute to her for that. Changes have been made and further serious consideration has been given to the arguments put. More than that, one cannot really expect.
      I welcome the provision of special guardianship orders as a helpful tool in the armoury. Care plans and the independent review are also most welcome.
      I add my voice to that of hon. Members who congratulated the hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) on her crusade concerning contact by people who have been involved in domestic violence. She has worked very hard and the fruits of her labours were obvious in the amendments that came forth last week.
      On inter-country adoption problems remain, but the Bill is a good, positive step forward. The appeal procedure for those who have been turned down for whatever reason is right and proper.
      I must, however, sound a note of caution as regards CAFCASS. We know that CAFCASS will play an all-important—indeed pivotal—role. I would go as far as to say that it must succeed if the Bill is to succeed. Over
      110
      the past few months, I have spoken to many practitioners, including senior judges, who are worried that the additional work load on CAFCASS will create problems if it is not followed by additional resources. We all know what the old children's guardians ad litem are there for. I know, as a practitioner, that the quality, independence and experience of guardians is extremely important. I have no reason to say that such people will not be as good in future as they have always been, but I urge the Government to ensure that the resources are there to enable sufficient numbers of them to do the job so that they do not have to rush to produce reports without doing the work properly—otherwise we will fail those whom we seek to serve.
      I shall now draw my remarks to a conclusion.
      Kevin Brennan: Before the hon. Gentleman does so, I pay tribute to him, as a fellow Welsh Member, for his contribution to the Bill—something that we do not often do across the Floor of the House. Will the hon. Gentleman now defend the honour of our nation by announcing who has won the prize that he promised in Committee for the best pronunciation of the name of his constituency? Can he confirm that he has a reputation for being knowledgeable not only about adoption, but about wine, and that whoever has won can expect a significantly expensive and very good vintage bottle of wine?
      Mr. Llwyd: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's antennae have been working overtime, but he was in the frame for the bottle of wine, and he has been sufficiently gushing this evening to qualify for it. I shall ensure that he has it before the end of the week—inevitably without the cork, but we shall not go into that now.
      Mr. Justice Wall, a very experienced family judge in the High Court, recently said:
      "I find it disappointing that one constantly hears rhetoric that children are at the top of various agendas but when it comes to the nitty-gritty of a judge saying to Cafcass 'I want this child represented and/or an urgent report', one"—
      is told that it has not got the resources. That is a warning sign that we should consider. CAFCASS is vital in the process. I am sure that it will be possible to provide the necessary wherewithal for it to do its work, and I am sorry to end on a sour note, but I urge the Government to ensure that it has all the resources ready at its disposal. CAFCASS had a rather inglorious birth, but I am sure that the genuine people who work for it will unite with one voice to say, "Give us what we need to do the work."
      With those few caveats, I am very pleased with the way in which the Bill has been amended. It will prove to be a landmark Bill, and I am pleased to have played a small part in the deliberations.
      8.43 pm
      Mr. Dawson: It is a pleasure to take part in this stage of our consideration of a very good Bill. I join all hon. Members in speaking warmly of the good and positive relationships across the Floor of the House. I welcome the positive contributions that Members have made, from whatever background they come, and the care with which they have addressed the crucial issues.

      111
      I, too, pay tribute to the voluntary and statutory organisations that helped us during the Special Standing Committee stage and continue to do so. I strongly support the Bill and the Government's aim of increasing the number of adoptions from care by 40 per cent. It is a good, if relatively modest, aim, with which the Bill will greatly assist.
      I want to consider the way in which hon. Members have dealt with the measure. I am disturbed that people's enthusiasm for adoption can lead them to denigrate residential and foster care—that has happened in the past hour or so—yet residential and foster care are important elements of the care system that can lead to good outcomes for children. I am worried that some of the first-class people who work in residential and foster care and in social work will read some of the contributions that seemed to place adoption on a pedestal. It is a good option for children, but it is no panacea and it is not the only choice; extended care in the child's family is another important option.
      As the Bill progresses, further discussions will be held behind the scenes. I hope and trust that they will refer to the contribution that family group conferencing can make to decisions about where children and young people live. Families often have tremendous resources, which they can bring to bear on problems if they have the opportunity to do so.
      I want to comment on children and young people in care. Again, it is important that, in our enthusiasm to stress our anxiety about those who have been grossly neglected or abused, we do not overlook young people's potential, quality, resilience, courage, strength and intelligence. Every third Wednesday, the all-party group on children and young people in care meets; children and young people from care or those who have left care usually outnumber parliamentarians. I recommend attending a meeting to hon. Members who have shown an interest in the care system during the Bill's passage. Those young people know more about the care system than we will ever know, whatever our social work backgrounds. They have great qualities. After listening and talking to them, hon. Members are more confident and optimistic about children and young people in care.
      We usually emphasise the negative side of care. That changes on meeting some of the young people who have been to university and are studying for PhDs, and the young person who, after being corporately parented by his local authority, became a member of that local authority at 21, two weeks ago. That is something to conjure with.
      This is a good Bill. It addresses the fundamental aim of increasing options for care by improving the support available to those involved in adoption; by ensuring the availability of information about children who need to be adopted; and by clearing away work which is important in itself but which gets in the way of a lot of the adoption work of family placement teams. Step-parents being able to acquire parental responsibility for their step-children much more easily will be a boon to many teams, which will be freed to do their work by the establishment of the new status of special guardianship.
      Above all, it has been a good Bill because of the way in which Ministers—the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch
      112
      (Jacqui Smith), and the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton)—and their team of civil servants have responded so positively to the issues of concern. We have seen that today, too, in the way in which they have responded over issues relating to section 17, to advocacy for children and young people and to the role and status of parents in legal proceedings.
      There is still a way to go. I regret that a process that has been largely positive has not given us enough time to debate important issues about parental responsibility, consent, placement orders and contact. The Bill brings adoption together with the Children Act. I regard the Children Act as great, balanced, profound legislation that goes to the heart of important issues affecting children. More work needs to be done on bringing the Bill in line with that Act. I am concerned that, in getting rid of issues such as freeing children for adoption, we may have created a category of children subject to placement orders who are not looked after, who are not accommodated or who are not on care orders. There is more work to be done on that.
      I am disappointed that in the course of this Bill we did not deal with the vexed question of private fostering, which remains for another day. I am confident that the Government will get to grips with it. The biggest issue of all in making sure that the Bill works follows on from what the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) said—the number, status, pay and standing of the social work profession within CAFCASS, local authorities and voluntary organisations. We must get that right.
      We have a very long way to go, but this is a good Bill. It sets us on a good track and I wish it well.
      8.53 pm
      Jonathan Shaw: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). In fact, it is tremendous to follow my hon. Friend, who made a fundamentally tremendous speech about children in care, about whom he speaks so passionately. Perhaps he should get a prize, another bottle of wine from the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), for the number times he mentions "tremendous" and "fundamental".
      The Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), stands tall because she has delivered this Bill. We have had White Papers and various attempts by Governments of both parties to deliver an improvement on the Adoption Act 1976. She can be proud.
      My hon. Friend mentioned the fact that she was surrounded by social workers during the Bill's consideration—a fact that may not always have curried favour. Perhaps she should be an honorary social worker. The brown corduroys are in the post, but we do not expect her to grow a beard or to drive a 2CV.
      The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) invited me to intervene on his closing statement, but I did not do so because it was a fine speech that encapsulated his response throughout our deliberations—apart from last Thursday, when he let himself down. In talking about political correctness, he demonstrated the right-wing version of it to which I referred in Committee. That apart, he has made a good

      113
      contribution, and has introduced proposals that my hon. Friend the Minister accepted. Such consensus has been the Bill's hallmark, and it has made for a better measure. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton).
      Such was the atmosphere created by the presence of so many former social workers in Committee that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) felt the need to share some of his pain with us. According to Hansard, which I was able to consult during our proceedings, he said that he had suffered as a statistician, and I responded that we had all done so.
      Mr. Brazier: That was very cruel.
      Jonathan Shaw: Indeed. I was in the Corridor with the hon. Gentleman—we are both Members for Kent constituencies—discussing certain parts of the Bill. I was quite annoyed, but I got even angrier when he kindly told me to calm down. He has also made a contribution, and no one can deny the genuineness of his belief in adoption as a means to provide a better future for children. He has consistently spoken on that issue, and although we hold differing views on several matters, I take my hat off to him: he has shown commitment throughout. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.] The same can also be said of other hon. Members.
      This has not been a unique experience, however. After my former job as a social worker, I, like other hon. Members, arrived in this place hoping to bring about change. I have been privileged to play a part not only in the Adoption and Children Bill, but in the Care Standards Bill and the Children (Leaving Care) Bill. All three Bills sought to bring about change for some of the most vulnerable children in our communities by making their lives better. Given my background, to have been involved at the coal face of such legislation has been an immense privilege.
      The Bill will provide greater opportunity for children and young people to be adopted. My hon. Friend the Minister deserves praise, but we should also acknowledge the many agencies outside the House that have helped us all. I pay particular tribute to Felicity Collier and Deborah Cullen, of British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, who campaigned and lobbied hard for the Bill before it came before the House. The Bill is testament to their hard work, but most of all to the children who want adoptive placements. That is what our proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee have been about, and the consensus that we have found bodes well for the future of adoption.
      8.59 pm
      Liz Blackman: I regarded myself as a junior member of the Special Standing Committee—I have no background in social work, social services or adoption—but I learned a great deal from my colleagues who are former social workers. I should point out that most of them are not politically correct, but they are very knowledgable. I also learned a great deal from my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), and from the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), thanks to the evidence that he brought before the Committee.
      The whole process was fine and outstanding. I know that we had two bites of the cherry initially, with two Second Readings and two lots of evidence, but that was
      114
      valuable because it helped to refine what is now a fine piece of legislation. We were given first-rate evidence by all the groups and individuals who appeared before us. I have sat on other Committees that have taken evidence, but the quality was not as outstanding, crisp and meaningful. That was a great privilege.
      As I have said before, I did not have a background in adoption practice, but a couple came to see me because they could not obtain information on a child whom they were considering adopting. They were blocked at every step of the way by the local authority. In the end, out of sheer frustration and upset, they backed off. I have pressed to put rigorous provision in the Bill that will make local authorities provide detailed information to prospective adoptive parents. The children can be difficult, and parents need to know as much about them as possible to know whether they can give them a stable, loving home. Throughout the process, my point was listened to and the Minister has said that it will be addressed in regulations. Indeed, all the hon. Members involved have beavered away and chivvied the Minister, and she has been so receptive that we have made progress. I praise her for that.
      One of the groups that gave evidence to the Special Standing Committee was the Nottingham Catholic Children's Society. I live in Nottingham, so I took up the society's invitation to visit. Staff took me through the practical measures that they take in the lead up to an adoption and described the post-adoption support they provide. They are responsible for some very fine practice. As several other hon. Members have said, we must ensure that the legislation is put into practice on the ground. We must implement it with the best possible practice, network it and ensure that it happens. The finest piece of paper in the world does not mean much to children who want to be adopted if the procedures are not working.
      The Bill is excellent and it was a privilege to serve on the Committee. We must get this right for all those children who are in care and who want to be adopted.
      9.2 pm
      Mr. Bellingham: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman). Like her, I learned much from the progress of the Bill. I declare an interest, because I am the father of an adopted child. I declared that in Committee, and I declare it now, because that is the right thing to do. Having been through the experience of adopting, I know quite a lot about it, but I have learned much more from Labour Members and their experience of social work. It was a fulfilling Committee on which to serve.
      The Bill is long overdue and I hope that it will be implemented as soon as possible. The Minister touched on that subject earlier on Report, but I hope that final implementation will be brought forward even further.
      As the Minister pointed out, the Bill's overriding priority must be the interests of children. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) mentioned permanency, security and stability, which are critical. It is crucial that the interests of the child are put first. A moving article in today's Evening Standard tells the story of a man called Paul

      115
      James, who pursued a council for its failure to have him adopted. The council had to give him his notes, which stretched back over many years. Paul James is quoted as saying:
      "I wanted to know why I was a loner, why everyone else seemed to have a loving family and I didn't."
      Anyone who gets the chance should read that article, because it sums up what the Bill is about. It is about the lives of people such as Paul James. It is also very much in the country's interests, because children brought up in a secure and stable family are much more likely to fulfil their own potential and then go on to contribute more to the country.
      I thought that Thursday's debate was all too short. As an adopter myself, I feel that adopters make a lifelong commitment to the children they adopt. Indeed, they probably make even more of a commitment to someone else's child than they would to their own. That is why I felt it was equally important for the person concerned to make a lifelong commitment to the partner with whom they are adopting a child. Obviously the debate will go on and on—it will continue in another place—but of course I accept the result of Thursday's votes, and indeed the results of any votes tonight.
      I understand the concern felt by many Members about inter-country adoption. In Committee, I tabled an amendment to allow private social workers to compile projects such as private home studies under licence to local authorities. There are many private social workers out there, most of whom are former public sector social workers. We must try to harness that resource. Unfortunately my amendment was not accepted, despite being supported by Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats, but I hope that it will be resurrected in another place and given serious consideration.
      Local authorities are already stretched, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham pointed out, many are retrenching towards statutory responsibilities. The one thing they do not want to take on now is inter-country adoption. I have spoken to a number of social workers, who made their point very clearly. Many of them cannot join voluntary agencies, but a sensible solution might be to contract them to local authorities and introduce a licensing system.
      I hope that the other place will also return to another amendment tabled in Committee, which would enable adopted children to inherit titles. There was a certain amount of sneering from Labour Members in Committee, but the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department did not sneer, because it was important. Adopted children are allowed to inherit everything else. They are on a par with other children, with the exception of inheriting titles. It would surely be appropriate for the amendment to be considered again in another place. As I said in Committee, 15 peers and 15 baronets have adopted children. It seems absurd that those children can inherit a home or, for instance, a picture, but cannot inherit a title—especially at a time when the Government are so keen to remove all hereditary peers from the other place.
      It is a pity that the Bill has been subject to so much timetabling. As the last three days have shown, there is great interest in it, and we have engaged in a series of constructive, worthwhile debates during that time; but in
      116
      Committee the axe descended on swathes of it, and those debates fell by the wayside. That does not reflect well on the House. While I agree with all who have described the Committee stage as excellent and fulfilling for all who participated, the curtailment of so much debate was extremely frustrating. I am sure that, in their heart of hearts, Labour Members agree. When a Bill is not particularly controversial and has attracted all-party agreement, why timetable it? In fact, we might even have made quicker progress in Committee if the Bill had not been timetabled. We would have had less of an artificial framework in which to pursue the debate, which would have meant quicker progress in some areas. We could have focused the debate on areas that we have not been allowed to debate at all.
      I join my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham in the tribute that he paid to Tom Goldsmith, who was quite superb. The Opposition team went to him with a number of amendments. Some of mine were certainly not as expertly drafted as they might have been. I went to see Tom Goldsmith, who provided a great deal of patient help, assistance and understanding.
      I also pay tribute to the Minister's civil servants. I appreciated the letters that both Ministers sent us—I raised a number of quite technical, legal points in Committee, but both Ministers always replied; they were extremely conscientious. I also thank the Minister of State, Department of Health for the lengthy letter that she sent on 10 May—it was about 10 pages long. That sums up the attitude of the civil servants who worked on the Bill. They worked tirelessly, they were extremely professional and they served all members of the Committee equally. Finally, I wish the Bill well as it goes to another place.
      9.11 pm
      Kevin Brennan: I should like to add my praise to everyone associated with the Bill. I should feel a fraud if I accepted the bottle of wine offered by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nam Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). As a fellow countryman, I disqualified myself from the competition. If it does come my way, I will pass it on to one of my colleagues from the other side of Offa's dyke. I feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) would be wrong to accept it, as she was born in Ynyshir in the Rhondda and is a fluent Welsh speaker.
      This is the first Bill with which I have been associated and taken through its stages. I was honoured to be associated with the Special Standing Committee procedure, which was very welcome. Now that I am serving on the Committee stages of two other Bills, I know that, as I suspected, it is not common practice for us to legislate on the basis of evidence. It is a process that we should use more often.
      I have sometimes felt like an impostor. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman), I am not a social worker, and it has occasionally been lonely admitting to that on the Labour Benches. However, I have been tremendously impressed by contributions from all right hon. and hon. Members, particularly from those who have an enormous amount of experience, commitment and passion. As a relatively new Member, I suspect that however long I remain in the House, I will not very often see the kind of expertise or quality of evidence and debate that have been apparent during the proceedings on this Bill.

      117
      There have been one or two lighter moments in our proceedings. One or two hon. Friends have suggested that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) looks a bit like Mr. Burns from "The Simpsons". That is an unfair comparison, because I know that, unlike Mr. Burns, the hon. Gentleman is a very nice man. One of our more interesting debates came about when he moved his amendment to allow adopted children to inherit titles. It was extremely brave of him to come out as a republican on that occasion and threaten the line and the hereditary principle of the monarchy. I compliment him on his bravery.
      Jonathan Shaw: Particularly in this jubilee year.
      Kevin Brennan: Indeed.
      I very much enjoyed all the contributions of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk, particularly his most recent one. He showed tremendous courage in talking about the hereditary principle, peers and the guillotine in the same speech. I compliment him on being a true radical.
      I also thank the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), for piloting the Bill so well, with the able assistance of the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton). My hon. Friend the Minister for State has shown great sticking power, as well as tolerance of Labour and Opposition Members. The Bill has been improved due to her receptive attitude to suggestions.
      I am disappointed that the question of access to information for birth relatives remains unresolved. If a free vote had been allowed on that matter—as it was on another matter last week—perhaps the result would have been different. That is not meant as a criticism—hon. Members are entitled to their views. I am sorry that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) pressed the matter to a Division. He was perfectly entitled to do so, but I had hoped that we should not need to establish a view in this place before the Bill went to another place. However, that has been done and I am sure that the matter will be further discussed in another place. Indeed, I hope that we can find ways to discuss it further.
      I welcome the Minister's announcement last week of a national focal point for intermediary services. I hope that organisations such as the National Organisation for Counselling Adoptees and Parents will be considered for that role, and that the funding that my hon. Friend pledged last week will be sufficient to make the role meaningful so that there will be genuine help to solve the problem.
      I read the Committee reports for the legislation introduced in the 1970s, especially the sections on access to information. Access was granted retrospectively so that people could find out about their origins. Some of the attitudes towards access to information at that time are still reflected 25 years later, so I hope that further progress can be made on that point elsewhere. None the less, the Bill is excellent and I wish it well during the remainder of its passage through Parliament.
      9.17 pm
      Mr. Andrew Turner: I feel like an intruder among Members who have seen the Bill through all its stages in this place, so my contribution will be modest—as were
      118
      my contributions at earlier points in the progress of the measure. As hon. Members have already observed, it is unusual for us to legislate on the basis of expertise and evidence, and I note that both are available on the Labour and the Opposition Benches.
      Third Reading is the time to congratulate those who have successfully taken the Bill through the House, and I congratulate Members who served on the Committee on taking evidence as they did and on bringing the Bill to Report in such good shape. It has, of course, been improved on Report.
      I am especially grateful that care plans will be put on a statutory basis and that there will be an opportunity to review their implementation. I am glad that there will be seamless local authority support for adoption. I represent an authority where no one, as a matter of policy, is adopted within the authority of their origin, so I know it is especially important that the Government produce—as I am sure that they will—regulations to make that transition seamless. I thank them for that.
      The interests of the child are paramount and I perfectly understand why the interests of children going through the adoption process are so important to Members on both sides of the House. However, I hope that in another place the interests of those who are equally affected by the adoption process will be given a little more thought.
      This is a good Bill and I and my hon. Friends welcome it. I congratulate the Minister of State on bringing it to Report.
      9.19 pm
      Mr. Brazier: I am delighted to have served on the Bill, which the Opposition have welcomed throughout. There is no time to reiterate at length the Bill's merits, on which we have dwelled during most of the last two and bit days on Report, but I should like to congratulate Ministers, especially the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), on announcing so many concessions today, many of which, as she generously said, had their origins on this side of the House. She has engaged in lively discussion in Committee and throughout the consideration of the Bill.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on carrying the burden single-handedly, often at the same time as serving on a Committee that was considering another Bill. He has brought considerable energy and intelligence to a very difficult and complicated subject.
      I congratulate three Conservative Back-Bench Members: my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), who has just made such an interesting speech, bringing out, once again, the very strong commitment that he has to the issue because of his personal position; my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), who was with us earlier this evening and is the former chairman of a social services committee; and my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), who has also been so energetic.
      The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd)—I never thought I had a chance of winning that bottle of wine—brought real expertise to the Committee. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will take on board the very strong plea that he has made, based on his experience as a family lawyer, about CAFCASS, without which much of the Bill cannot succeed.

      119
      I congratulate a number of Labour Members on making lively contributions throughout the consideration of the Bill. In most cases, their contributions have been based on tremendous personal experience of social services. In particular, I should mention the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), with whom I have been debating this subject, on and off, for almost five years now.
      Although he mentioned some anecdotes, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) did not comment, in pulling my leg on a variety of subjects, on my visit to the barber, when I had to suggest that he was perhaps short of materials for the makeover that I was seeking. Perhaps he was thinking of glass houses and all that. He has also made a great contribution. He has mentioned my being a statistician, for my sins. A couple of days ago a single table crossed my path that brought home to me, just like that, what the Bill is all about. It was a horrifying table showing the number of moves among the 25,000 children who left care in 2000. Just over a fifth of them had been moved five or more times in the previous 12 months. Some 16,000 of them had been moved more than 10 times in that time. What sorts of lives do those children have? That is why adoption is so vital.
      A girl from care visited me for a day's work experience, organised through one of the campaigning groups with which the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre is involved. Very sadly, at the end of the day, she said, "Yes, I would have loved to have a family of my own, but my mum objected to it." I asked when she had last seen her mother, and the answer was when she was aged five. That is what this is all about.
      The national register has been put on a statutory basis, and independent review is important. The targets for delay, which had already been announced, will now be backed up by changes in court procedure, but please think, "CAFCASS, CAFCASS, CAFCASS"—we have got to get it right. There is some extra money, but we shall see whether it is enough. Adoption support services have been changed. All those are achievements.
      I should like to spend the last two or three minutes of my speech focusing, without sounding sour, on two points that have not been considered so far, both of which are very important, and I hope that they will be considered in another place. The first relates to contact.
      Several hon. Members made the point that we are introducing new safeguards on contact. However, the group led by amendment No. 182 could cause problems. That amendment states:
      "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."
      There is a serious danger that the amendments on birth families, which were tabled at the last moment and not debated, will restore the contact that in many cases it is so important to cease. There is not time for me to dwell on the many harrowing examples of that, although I mentioned a case in my constituency in which fresh contact with birth parents destroyed the adoptive relationship. I hope that those amendments are considered in another place.
      120
      My second concern relates to placement orders. Many of us welcome the move from freeing orders to placement orders. Although time prevents me from going into the matter in depth, some of the better informed pressure groups—I refer in particular to Sue James of the Adoption Forum and her briefing—are worried that placement orders are in danger of becoming freeing orders by another name. I see the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre nodding. The problem is that the orders do not necessarily involve placements. Although the amendments legislate for placements, the orders are not tied to them. That is why we hope that the amendments that were not reached here will be tabled in another place so that we can at least bring the matter back to court if the situation is drifting.
      I do not want to end on those two sour notes, however. I know that another place will have a chance to consider the amendments that we did not debate. I end, therefore, where I started. The Bill is excellent. I am proud to have served on the Committee and I very much enjoyed working with the Committee on it. We commend the Bill to the House.
      9.26 pm
      Jacqui Smith: This debate has been conducted with the same good temper and in the same constructive way that all the Bill's stages have been considered.
      In my introduction, I spelled out the important ways in which the Bill has changed. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) referred to those changes. I must emphasise the attempt that we have made to listen to the experts who have been involved in the process, many of whom were mentioned by hon*. Members. We have also tabled amendments to ensure that we not only have a consultative process, but act on it.
      However, making changes as we go along brings considerable pressure to bear on the officials responsible for supporting Ministers. I certainly want to add my voice to the comments made by several hon. Members who thanked my officials for their work. They have put in long hours and sterling work, for which they deserve our congratulations, whether they are in the Lord Chancellor's Department or the Department of Health. I also want to commend the way in which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham led the Opposition, ably assisted by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier).
      My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) once again used her experience of social work to inform her contribution. I share her view that we should not be quick to criticise social workers because they improve children's lives every day across the country. We should recognise that crucial work.
      The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) rightly emphasised the need for support and resources. I assure her that the Government will continue to invest in social services to an even greater extent than we have done since 1997.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) brought her considerable experience to the debate, both personal and as a result of her work with the all-party group on adoption. It is worth while putting on the record our support for the work done by all the stakeholder groups involved and by the excellent all-party group, before which I appeared at least twice, and it was a stimulating experience.

      121
      The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) referred once again to his legal expertise, which has been useful during consideration of the Bill. He emphasised the need to do all that we can to widen the pool of adopters and the important role of CAFCASS. Had it not been for the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), there would have been a bitter turn to this evening's events, with allegations being made of a Welsh stitch-up when it came to the bottle of wine. I am still not completely sure that everything is above board, but at least my hon. Friend has agreed to give away his bottle of wine.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) emphasised the key target to increase by 40 per cent. the adoption of children from care. As he has done throughout the process, he stressed the need to listen to the voice of young people in care as the real experts about the system. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) for his kind words. Now that the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), is back in her place, I reiterate my thanks for her ministerial role, her support and her hard work as we have taken this Bill through the House.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) should not talk down her role. We have had many experts on this Bill, but there have also been many people who did not start as experts but rapidly became experts, and she falls into that category. She rightly re-emphasised the importance of provision of information to prospective adopters when such improvements have been possible to the legislation.
      The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) once again emphasised the need to ensure effective implementation, and reminded us, as did other hon. Members, about the significant position in the Bill of the paramountcy of the child, which is at its heart. As I suggested earlier, that has received support on both sides of the House.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West should probably have won a prize for the best jokes—never mind his pronunciation of Meirionnydd Nant Conwy—during the passage of the Bill. He was also able to be extremely serious, as he showed this evening, when once again he campaigned and pressed hard on the issue of access to information.
      The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) should not be sorry about coming late to the Bill, as, although I have not necessarily agreed with him, he made an interesting contribution today and last Thursday.
      The hon. Member for Canterbury spelled out why children need the stability provided by adoption. He raised some concerns about contact, which will undoubtedly be discussed further in another place. I want him to recognise, however, that the special nature of contact in adoption is the reason why we have put forward these provisions.
      Last August, when I launched the Government's national adoption standards, I was privileged to meet several adopters and their adopted children. During the event, I was able to watch the children and their adoptive parents. They laughed together, they argued and there were tears, but there were also hugs. That is what being
      122
      in a family is about. Adoption can offer that opportunity to more children. The Bill will ensure that it does so, and I commend it to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
      Dr. Evan Harris: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are about to decide on the draft Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002, but what advice can you give to those Members who, although they support the substance of the regulations, are very concerned about the lack of scrutiny that the House has been able to give to the Government's proposals? The one and a half hour debate in Standing Committee descended into what might be described as organised chaos with a welter of points of order. Neither the Conservative party's Front-Bench spokesman nor myself, as the Liberal Democrats' Front-Bench spokesman, were able to speak and to ask questions of the Government, because there was so little time and because of the confusion surrounding the regulations. We are now being asked to approve these important regulations even though they have not received adequate scrutiny. Do you have any advice for hon. Members?
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I understand that the Committee considered the regulations and reported in accordance with Standing Orders. I do not therefore think that there is anything that I can do to assist the hon. Gentleman. Standing Order No. 118(6) requires me to put the Question now, and that is what I must do.

      DELEGATED LEGISLATION
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

      NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
      That the draft Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 26th March, be approved.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
      The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 126.

      Division No. 247]

      [9.36 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Ainger, Nick

      Blizzard, Bob

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Borrow, David

      Allen, Graham

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Browne, Desmond

      Austin, John

      Bryant, Chris

      Bailey, Adrian

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Banks, Tony

      Burden, Richard

      Battle, John

      Burgon, Colin

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cairns, David

      Beard, Nigel

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Berry, Roger

      Casale, Roger

      Best, Harold

      Caton, Martin

      Betts, Clive

      Cawsey, Ian

      Blackman, Liz

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      123

      Chaytor, David

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clapham, Michael

      Hope, Phil

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Clelland, David

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Coleman, Iain

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Colman, Tony

      Hurst, Alan

      Connarty, Michael

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Illsley, Eric

      Corston, Jean

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Cox, Tom

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Cranston, Ross

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Crausby, David

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cruddas, Jon

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      >Cummings, John

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Joyce, Eric

      Dalyell, Tam

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      David, Wayne

      Khabra, Piara S

      Davidson, Ian

      Kidney, David

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Laxton, Bob

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Lepper, David

      Dismore, Andrew

      Leslie, Christopher

      Dobbin, Jim

      Levitt, Tom

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Linton, Martin

      Doran, Frank

      Lloyd, Tony

      Dowd, Jim

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Drew, David

      Love, Andrew

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Lucas, Ian

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Luke, Iain

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Lyons, John

      Efford, Clive

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      McCabe, Stephen

      Farrelly, Paul

      McCafferty, Chris

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      McDonagh, Stabhain

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      McDonnell, John

      Flint, Caroline

      MacDougall, John

      Flynn, Paul

      McFall, John

      Follett, Barbara

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      McIsaac, Shona

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      McKechin, Ann

      Foulkes, George

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      McNamara, Kevin

      Gapes, Mike

      McNulty, Tony

      Gardiner, Barry

      MacShane, Denis

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Gerrard, Neil

      McWalter, Tony

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McWilliam, John

      Gilroy, Linda

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Godsiff, Roger

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Goggins, Paul

      Mallaber, Judy

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mann, John

      Grogan, John

      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, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hendrick, Mark

      Merron, Gillian

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Heyes, David

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Hill, Keith

      Miliband, David

      124

      Miller, Andrew

      Skinner, Dennis

      Moffatt, Laura

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mole, Chris

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Moran, Margaret

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Mountford, Kali

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Mullin, Chris

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Southworth, Helen

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Spellar, Rt Hon John

      Norris, Dan

      Squire, Rachel

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      O'Hara, Edward

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Olner, Bill

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Organ, Diana

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Owen, Albert

      Stringer, Graham

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Pearson, Ian

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Perham, Linda

      Tami, Mark

      Picking, Anne

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pike, Peter

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Plaskitt, James

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Pond, Chris

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pope, Greg

      Touhig, Don

      Pound, Stephen

      Trickett, Jon

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Truswell, Paul

      Price, Adam

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Purchase, Ken

      Tynan, Bill

      Purnell, James

      Vaz, Keith

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Rammell, Bill

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Rapson, Syd

      Wareing, Robert N

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Watson, Tom

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Watts, David

      White, Brian

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Rooney, Terry

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Ross, Ernie

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Roy, Frank

      Ruane, Chris

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Winnick, David

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Ryan, Joan

      Wood, Mike

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Woodward, Shaun

      Sawford, Phil

      Woolas, Phil

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wray, James

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Simon, Siôn

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Mr. Ivor Caplin and

      Singh, Marsha

      Mr. Fraser Kemp.

      NOES

      Amess, David

      Cameron, David

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Cash, William

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Chope, Christopher

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Clappison, James

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Bacon, Richard

      Collins, Tim

      Barker, Gregory

      Conway, Derek

      Bellingham, Henry

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Cran, James

      Blunt, Crispin

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Boswell, Tim

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      Brady, Graham

      Evans, Nigel

      Burnside, David

      Fabricant, Michael

      Burt, Alistair

      Fallon, Michael

      Butterfill, John

      Flight, Howard

      125

      Flook, Adrian

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Francois, Mark

      Ottaway, Richard

      Gale, Roger

      Page, Richard

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Paice, James

      Goodman, Paul

      Paterson, Owen

      Grayling, Chris

      Pickles, Eric

      Grieve, Dominic

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Prisk, Mark

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Hammond, Philip

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hawkins, Nick

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Hayes, John

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Heald, Oliver

      Ruffley, David

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Sanders, Adrian

      Hendry, Charles

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hermon, Lady

      Selous, Andrew

      Hoban, Mark

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Horam, John

      Simmonds, Mark

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Spink, Bob

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Spring, Richard

      Key, Robert

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Steen, Anthony

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Syms, Robert

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

      Leigh, Edward

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Letwin, Oliver

      Tredinnick, David

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Trend, Michael

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Lidington, David

      Viggers, Peter

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Walter, Robert

      Loughton, Tim

      Watkinson, Angela

      Luff, Peter

      Whittingdale, John

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Wiggin, Bill

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Wilshire, David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Yeo, Tim

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Mercer, Patrick

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Moss, Malcolm

      Mr. Desmond Swayne and

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Mr. Julian Brazier.

      Question accordingly agreed to.

  Chocolate Production
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
  9.48 pm
  Mr. Chris Pond: When some colleagues heard that I planned to raise the issue of chocolate slavery in the House, they thought that I wanted to share my concerns about addiction to chocolate. As a nation, we are to some extent all slaves to chocolate. Each of us in Britain consumes 7 kg of chocolate every year, and we spend a cool £4 billion annually on the product. It takes about 6,000 cocoa beans to make up our individual annual consumption of chocolate.
  My purpose in calling for this debate is to persuade us to pause between mouthfuls to think where those beans come from and at what cost, for consumers are not the only slaves to chocolate. In many countries of west Africa, as we now know, thousands of children and young people work as forced labour on the cocoa plantations.
  The scandal was dragged into our consciousness last year when a vessel, the Etireno, was found to have 40 children and young people aboard, most of them aged under 15, who were being trafficked to work in Gabon. Shocking though that was, it was not an isolated incident. UNICEF tells us that between 10,000 and 15,000 children a year are trafficked into Côte D'Ivoire alone, the largest of the cocoa producing countries of west Africa.
  We are told that a fit young man can be bought for the equivalent of £20 or less. He might then be forced to work for 80 to 100 hours a week, never be paid, rarely be fed and frequently be beaten. Anti-Slavery International, with which I have had the privilege to work over the years, has done much to keep the issue in the forefront of public attention. It relates the story of a child it names as "ID", who is now 15 years old but who was trafficked at the age of 13 to work on a coffee and yam plantation in Côte D'Ivoire:
  "Our day began at 5 am. Carrying heavy tools on our head, we had to walk six kilometres through mud and stones in bare feet to reach the fields. By the time we reached them, we were soaked through and exhausted. Once we arrived, the overseer showed us an area we each had to plant before the day's end. We were afraid of what he would do to us if we could not finish the work. This threat and the threat of being denied food if we could not finish in time forced us to work quickly …If we were ill and couldn't work, we were afraid that we would be tortured to death. One day I witnessed two of my colleagues being tortured for trying to escape. They became seriously ill and died".
  Outrage that fellow humans can be subjected to such exploitation is a natural response, but outrage is not enough. Outrage alone will not help the people living in the poor countries of west Africa, many of whom depend for their very existence on the cocoa industry. In Côte D'Ivoire, which is responsible for almost half the world's cocoa production, more than 7 million people are estimated to be dependent on the cocoa industry. Their conditions are made worse by the fact that the world price of cocoa is unstable and has been falling sharply. Today, it is little different from the level at which it stood 30 years ago.
  We have a responsibility to tackle exploitation, and, in particular, to make sure that the International Labour Organisation convention 182 on the worst forms of child labour is enforced. I am pleased that the UK Government

  127
  have been taking a lead by supporting the work of the ILO and non-governmental organisations such as Save the Children and Anti-Slavery International in a number of west African countries. But we also have a responsibility to do that in such a way that we work with those nations in a joint effort to protect and build a fair trade in their products, allowing them to eliminate child slavery without also eliminating the industries on which their economies depend.
  That is why I also pay tribute to the Minister's predecessor at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for bringing together almost exactly a year ago the largest cocoa producers, representatives of the Governments of Ghana and Côte D'Ivoire, the cocoa and chocolate industries, and non-governmental organisations to address the question of exploitative labour practices in west African cocoa production. The meeting resulted in the creation of a taskforce and a commitment to undertake research into the extent of exploitative labour practices in west African cocoa production. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an indication tonight of the results of that research, or of when those results can be expected. I am sure that the House would also welcome a progress report on the work of the taskforce. Industry leaders have told me that they believe that the UK Government have an important role to play in promoting a continuing dialogue leading to action on this matter.
  The chocolate industry has also reacted constructively to the adverse publicity surrounding revelations of chocolate slavery, and I am grateful to the industry association, the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance, and to Cadbury Schweppes itself, for providing me with briefings on their attempts to improve cocoa working practices. It should be made clear that the industry comprises not only the makers of chocolate bars—themselves leading world brand names—but the major food manufacturers, which purchase cocoa for the production of biscuits, cakes, breakfast cereals and a range of other foodstuffs that find their way into our shopping trolleys.
  The problem for the industry is that much of the cocoa is purchased on world markets, without any means of tracing its original source. The cocoa produced by the hundreds of thousands of smallholdings in countries such as Côte D'Ivoire is combined with that supplied from elsewhere. As a result, it is impossible for us to be sure that the products of slavery are not lurking in our kitchen cupboards and fridges.
  I should emphasise that the exploitation is not confined to countries such as Côte D'Ivoire and Ghana, whose Governments have joined others in actively working to tackle the problem. This is a problem that taints all products using cocoa, other than fair trade and most organic products.
  The industry's response has been constructive, as I have said. In September, it established a protocol for growing and processing cocoa beans in a manner that complies with ILO convention 182. The protocol sets out an action plan and defines a series of steps to eliminate the worst forms of child labour by 2005. It also establishes an advisory group and a joint foundation to act as a clearing house on best practice. The protocol provides for a series of independent surveys of child labour practices in west Africa. The industry is also seeking to help and encourage
  128
  farmers in the producer countries to form themselves into co-operatives so as to increase their bargaining power on the sale of their products.
  I welcome those initiatives, and I know that hon. Members will welcome them. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House tonight that his Department is in regular contact with industry representatives to ensure that the protocol is being implemented effectively and vigorously. I hope that he will tell me that the Government are backing the fair trade movement as one way of ensuring that producers receive a fair price for their product. Does he support a demand for chocolate products to carry a "slavery free" label, so that consumers who wish to exercise their purchasing power to reject exploitation and reward corporate responsibility can do so?
  There may be good reasons for not calling for immediate direct action by consumers. Perhaps we should wait to see whether the industry, working with Governments and NGOs, can meet its own target of 2005 for the elimination of illegal labour practices. However, the economy of Côte d'Ivoire is fragile enough, and many people depend on cocoa to earn a legitimate, albeit meagre, living.
  The patience on our part must be dependent on making genuine progress; our patience must be strictly conditional if it is not simply to become an excuse for once again turning a blind eye to practices that had no place in the 18th century, let alone the 21st, and in the process turning our backs on people who need and deserve our protection.
  The industry can only ensure that its products are slave-free in one of two ways. Either it must source its raw materials directly from individual producers whom it knows are not using exploitative labour practices, or it must work with Governments and NGOs to ensure that those practices are eliminated throughout cocoa production.
  To do that we shall have to tackle the evil of child slavery at its root—and that root is poverty and debt. I applaud the work that this Government are doing to raise the standards of life for the poorest people in the poorest countries. This country has taken the lead in tackling the burden of debt that helps to trap people in a vicious spiral of poverty and indebtedness. I hope that the Minister can tell us what progress is being made in tackling the debt burden of countries such as Côte d'Ivoire and Ghana.
  The extent of modern-day slavery in the production of cocoa and chocolate is not yet known, but that it exists is not in doubt. The production of chocolate may not be the only, or even the main, industry using child and adult slaves. Other products that we use in our everyday lives, such as coffee and cotton, also account for a significant number of the 8 million children who the ILO believes are the victims of extreme exploitation. However, chocolate, as a luxury product with brand names that we can all identify, presents us with the starkest contrast between the comforts enjoyed by those of us in the richer countries and the hardship and exploitation in the poorest countries of the world on which that comfort depends.
  9.58 pm
  Mr. Tony Colman: I asked the permission of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), of yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker and of the Minister to participate in this debate.

  129
  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on slavery in chocolate production—an area in which I have been interested since it was first raised with me in 1997 by a constituent, Professor Kevin Bales, who was then and still is the professor of sociology at the University of Surrey Roehampton, which was formerly known as the Roehampton institute. He went on to write the seminal book on current-day slavery, "Disposable People", which was nominated for the Pulitzer prize in 2000. He is director of the United States NGO, Free the Slaves, and a trustee of Anti-Slavery International. He was very keen that I should be able to speak in this debate in support of the protocol, which he has had a hand in negotiating, to ensure that slavery in cocoa production ceases.
  Professor Bales e-mailed me today to say
  "the Protocol…is a very good thing. It is the first time that an industry has taken social, moral, and economic responsibility for their entire product chain. The Anti-Slavery movement has been seeking such an agreement for something like 160 years (since the cotton and sugar industries were so heavily dependent on slave labour)."
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
  Mr. Colman: The e-mail continues:
  "It is truly an historic agreement … The Protocol sets out three key steps, and a series of agreed dates for their achievement … The industry funds, but has no control over, fully independent research into the precise extent and location of abusive child and slave labour in the Ivory Coast. This research is now ended, the data are being analysed, and results will be available at the end of the month."
  The Minister may have early information, however.
  The second step is that
  "an independent foundation will be established to fund the NGOs or other bodies that will do the liberation and rehabilitation work necessary to remove children and adults from abusive situations. Agreements have been reached on the shape of this foundation and its establishment is moving ahead on schedule. The industry will fund it."
  Thirdly, an
  "independent system of inspection and verification will be established, again with industry financial support, but completely independent of them, to randomly inspect farms to root out any abusive practices."
  As my hon. Friend said, the
  "protocol is not restricted to the Ivory Coast, but all areas around the world where cocoa is grown. So far, the cocoa industry has been delivering on their side of the agreement on time and in full. It is possibly the best and biggest public-private initiative on human rights ever. It is a model for other industries … this is sorely needed since similar conditions obtain in coffee, sugar, cotton, and several other commodities."
  Professor Bales believes that the way forward is exactly what is happening—a true partnership of industry, human rights organisations, other NGOs and Governments to bring all our different expertise to bear in working out lasting and, I hope, permanent solutions. As my hon. Friend said, this situation is a stain on chocolate eating in this country and I am pleased to understand from my involvement with Professor Bales over the past five years that it is coming to an end.
  I was privileged to be on the Inter-Parliamentary Union visit to Côte d'Ivoire last September and on the International Development Committee visit to Ghana
  130
  in March. On each occasion, the matter was discussed extensively with parliamentarians, NGOs and cocoa farmers.
  When the Select Committee visited Ghana, we became aware of a report on child trafficking in that country produced by Tengey and Oguaah on behalf of the Danish International Development Agency, published in February 2002. The conference took place in March while we were there. Interestingly, the work being done by trafficked children includes fishing, selling, home helps, truck pushing and farming, but the latter accounts for only 3 per cent. of the total work carried out by those children.
  I hope that the report truly reflects the results of the research—it is a stain on humankind that such trafficking ever happened—and that child trafficking has now ceased in Côte d'Ivoire and Ghana in the field of cocoa production.
  10.3 pm
  Ms Claire Ward: First, I draw the House's attention to a declaration in the Register of Members' Interests and inform Members that I am the chair of the all-party group on the chocolate and confectionary industry. That may seem to many people to be a strange and perhaps indulgent group to be involved with, but I assure the House that the group was established not to allow Members purely to debate the interesting and tasty products that we have in this country, but to consider the range of issues that affect the chocolate and confectionary industry. This issue is one of the most important at present.
  Indeed, not long ago the group held a meeting in which it was interesting to hear industry representatives who had come to talk about their work on developing the protocol, as well as representatives of Anti-Slavery International, who explained their work on highlighting issues in Côte d'Ivoire and other west African countries. What was important about that meeting was not only the interest showed by Members, but the fact that we had in our midst the great-grandson of Lord Wilberforce. It is strange that centuries later we are here discussing slavery despite Lord Wilberforce's ancestor having put so much time, effort and dedication into abolishing it.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) on securing the debate, which is important not only for the industry in the United Kingdom in terms of the economy and the jobs that rest on its work, but for the livelihoods of producers and workers on cocoa farms, especially those who are exploited. In the past 18 months, the industry has worked across the world with non-governmental organisations and the Government to develop the protocol. That is a significant step forward both in recognising some of the problems that affect the industry and in seeking ways in which they can be dealt with.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham mentioned the development of the protocol and the introduction of independent surveys of child labour practices in west Africa. I hope that the results of those surveys will lead to objective and positive steps forward in the work that is being done on the protocol.
  Ms Oona King: Although it is obviously fantastic that the industry has recognised the problem, it goes far beyond what the industry can do.

  131
  Given the volatility of cocoa prices in particular and commodity prices in general, we need to consider how to eliminate the double standards that plague our trading systems around the world.
  Ms Ward: My hon. Friend is right to identify that one of the industry's problems is the fluctuating cost of cocoa, which naturally increases the pressures on cocoa farms. That is a matter that the whole industry needs to consider. Its work with NGOs and the Government to secure the protocol and to agree what else it can do to encourage co-operatives and to provide additional assistance in cocoa production is a positive step that we should welcome.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham talked about direct action. I hope that consumers do not take direct action at this point, because that would not be helpful. It is important to recognise the work that has taken place so far.
  I thank my hon. Friend for providing this opportunity to debate an important subject that has brought many hon. Members into the Chamber. All sorts of frivolous comments may be made about the fact that we have such an all-party group and that we are discussing chocolate and cocoa production. Most importantly, however, we are discussing the rights of human beings in this world and the action that we can take to support those who are involved in the industry to ensure that we abolish slavery for good. We should promote what is in my view, as a significant consumer of its product, an important industry and deal with this important issue which it faces.
  10.9 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): It is unusual for an Adjournment debate late at night to be so well attended. Perhaps the spirit of Sir William, later Lord Wilberforce, who made many of the same points about slavery 170 to 200 years ago, can be felt through the ages. It is good that so many Labour Members have attended the debate, and it is interesting that the Opposition Benches are empty. I hope that the great William—part Whig, part Tory—will look down from wherever it is that hon. Members go, and see that at least one party in our country is committed to the principles by which he made Britain great.
  Hon. Members made several different points, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend and fellow London marathon runner, the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), for choosing the debate. I agree with the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Putney (Mr. Colman) and for Watford (Ms Ward), and I commend their temperate comments, and the fact that they did not urge action that could damage the people whom we are trying to help. It would satisfy all of us who enjoy our chocolate to know that we can eat it without the taint of the accusation that it was made using slavery, child labour, or forced or abducted labour.
  I used to work in Switzerland, and am partial to the chocolates of Lindt, Nestlé and Suchard. Those of us who are familiar with Belgium know the great chocolates of Neuhaus and Côte d'Or. Since I was three years old and ate my first Crunchie bar, I have had a weakness for that
  132
  unique British product. It would be good to know that all the chocolates that we enjoy eating were made in fair conditions.
  My hon. Friends have referred to fair trade, to which the Government are committed. A few years ago I took my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development to Tesco in my constituency at Christmas, and we filled our shopping basket with fair trade goods to try to set a modest example of, "Do as I do, not as I say." In my office, my hon. Friends are served with fairly traded tea and coffee.
  However, I insist on sensitivity. In the United States the steel lobby insists that its protectionism operates in the interests of fair trade. The powerful agriculture lobby that got Congress to pass measures that will further deny the agricultural products of Africa and Latin America access to the American market claims that it is acting in the interests of fair trade. We must be careful to ensure that one person's fair trade is not another's excuse for protectionism. Hon. Members who have taken part in the debate do not intend that.
  We must place our discussion in the context of the wider Government policy, to which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is committed, of opening up trade in the richer markets in Europe to the agricultural products of the developing world. That is at the core of what the Prime Minister has been preaching—if I may use that verb—around the world. I heard the Prime Minister convey that message in Latin America last year and I heard him again in Madrid at the European, Latin American and Caribbean summit. He will take the message to Johannesburg and the world summit on sustainable development.
  Ms King: Did some people not believe that the industry had not moved quickly enough on fair trade chocolate? We are pleased about the current movement because we are now considering people's dignity and rights as human beings, not their right to a job in, for example, the American steel industry.
  Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend is right. Her commitment and passion on this subject are well recognised by the House and the wider public. As hon. Members have said, the cocoa industry and chocolate producers in our country and the United States have risen to the challenge put to them by public opinion and by organisations such as Anti-Slavery International. In that sense, they may be ahead of international commodity production and manufacturing organisations in other nations. Again, the leadership from the United Kingdom and from American senators, American NGOs and American companies shows that although on some issues we have much to criticise about aspects of what the United States does, in this regard, the United States and the United Kingdom are ahead of the game compared with many other players in Europe and elsewhere.
  Mr. Stephen Pound: I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but I wonder whether he could share some information about what specific action Her Majesty's Government are taking on the implementation of the protocol.
  Mr. MacShane: I am coming to that very point.

  133
  The issue hit the headlines last year when there were reports of a ship off Benin, the Etireno, having a full cargo of slaves and being refused entry at different west African ports. Britain responded to the plight of the Etireno and sent HMS Glasgow to the bight of Benin to help to find out exactly what was going on.
  We know that that particular incident has been somewhat exaggerated. The children on board were in a terrible condition, but there were not 200 of them, and there was little evidence of a link between the Etireno and the cocoa industry. However, the publicity and the action of diverting a Royal Navy vessel to the area helped to draw attention to the problems of child trafficking and child labour in west Africa.
  Shortly after the Etireno incident, my predecessor at the Foreign Office, who is now the Minister for Industry and Energy, called a meeting of representatives of the cocoa trade, the Governments of Côte d'Ivoire and of Ghana, the chocolate industry here, and leading NGOs to discuss the issue. A follow-up workshop was held last summer, at which a taskforce was set up.
  In parallel, there was a push in the United States by Senators Harkin and Engel to commit the cocoa industry to a global protocol. That protocol seeks to ensure active efforts by the industry to ensure that International Labour Organisation convention 182 on the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour is applied.
  The United States chocolate industry signed up to the protocol on 19 September 2001. CAOBISCO, the association of the chocolate, biscuit and confectionery industries of the European Union, the European Cocoa Association and the International Cocoa Organisation, currently based in London but to relocate to Abidjan, all formally endorsed the global protocol. It has the support of the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers Associations, and of the ILO. It has been welcomed by the NGOs campaigning in the sector. Anti-Slavery International says:
  "Anti-Slavery welcomes the commitments made, particularly the acceptance of industry responsibility to protect all workers not just children".
  Indeed, responding to the complaint that the protocol was focused exclusively on child labour and failed to address the possible problem of forced labour by adults, key industry and non-governmental actors agreed a joint statement extending their co-operation to include identifying and eliminating forced labour in line with ILO convention 29. That reinforces the role of the ILO and its vital tripartite negotiations on these grave social issues globally.
  As for the points raised by hon. Members, the first step in implementing the protocol was the establishment of an advisory group—the broad consultative group—which was established on 1 December last year. Industry-financed surveys are in progress on the ground, because it is vital that we establish the facts. The attention that the media rightly draw to the problem is to be welcomed, but a headline report—even a very professional broadcasting report—does not obviate the need for proper investigation of the facts.
  Three surveys are being conducted, under the auspices of the United States Agency for International Development, the International Institute for Tropical
  134
  Agriculture and the International Labour Organisation. The surveys—of farms and farmers, of communities, and of small-scale producers and workers on the farms—should provide the most authoritative assessment so far of the scale of the problem of exploitative labour in cocoa production. We expect the results to emerge shortly—before the end of the summer, we hope. The taskforce does not belong to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but we expect members of it to reconvene to examine the outcome of the surveys, and to take their conclusions to a major conference review—planned by the Côte d'Ivoire—on the findings. Indeed, the ILO is fully involved in shaping a response to the survey.
  As we know, the global protocol has set the ambitious target of establishing by July 2005 an industry-wide scheme to certify that cocoa beans and their derivative products have been grown and processed without using any of the worst forms of child labour. There is a long way to go before that is achieved, but I believe that the chocolate industry's response to international concern about the use of child labour in cocoa production provides a good example of what we now call corporate social responsibility.
  None of us should be in any doubt about the difficulties involved in ensuring that there is absolutely no abuse of child labour in cocoa production. About 70 per cent. of the world's cocoa comes from west Africa. The four largest producers are Côte d'Ivoire, which produces 40 per cent., Ghana, which produces 15 per cent., Nigeria, which produces 7 per cent., and Cameroon, which produces 4 per cent. Cocoa is grown in some of the least accessible forest areas of west Africa. It is a very small-scale industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham noted, there are well over 500,000 producers in Côte d'Ivoire alone.
  Cocoa grows naturally in west Africa, so minimal inputs are needed. At harvest time, middlemen—many of whom are Lebanese—drive to the forest areas in trucks and purchase the cocoa from the producers. The cocoa beans are then dried in Abidjan before being sold on. Most are sold to large cocoa bean traders and pressers—such as Cargill, Barry Callebaut and Arch Daniels Midland—before being sold on again to the chocolate companies whose names we all know. So there is quite a long chain: from small farm production to the sale in shops of chocolate bars and boxes of chocolates. In this respect, cocoa differs from the tea or coffee industry, in which it is more common for multinational companies to own the farms directly.
  Local ownership of cocoa farms has many advantages. For example, it gives local producers greater discretion to take their own decisions in the light of their own interests. However, the long chain between producer and consumer makes it more difficult to monitor production, and to ensure that there is no use of exploitative labour. Tomorrow, Cadbury's European works council will meet in Birmingham. Although some chocolate producers in Britain have trade union organisations, the chance of creating such organisations on the small farms of the Côte d'Ivoire is, alas, virtually nil. We must seek the means to address that problem.
  There is one point of principle that the House should be aware of. Whatever the level of child labour in cocoa production—I hope that the surveys that I mentioned will

  135
  soon provide better information on that—there is no doubt that child trafficking in its broadest sense is a considerable problem in west Africa. Typically, children are lured from, or sold from, very poor countries—notably Mali and Burkina Faso—to other west African countries to work in domestic service, as beggars, or in other areas of the economy.
  Britain has had a leading role in establishing the legal framework to prevent abusive child labour. We played a major part in ensuring agreement in 1999 on ILO convention 182 on the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour. That convention, on which the cocoa industry's global protocol is based, outlaws in particular all slavery, sale and trafficking, debt bondage, serfdom and forced or compulsory labour of children.
  We have worked hard, and diplomats from the Foreign Office are asking Governments to work hard, to ensure that the convention is ratified. Senegal, Ghana, Mali and Niger ratified in 2000. I am pleased to report that the Gambia, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde and Benin ratified in 2001 and Cameroon ratified earlier this month. The Côte d'Ivoire Government tell us that ratification has completed its parliamentary procedures, and that deposit of their instrument of ratification is imminent.
  Work on child labour is an important element of the Department for International Development's partnership framework with the ILO. The Department is also supporting the anti-slavery international project to develop the capacity of local NGOs to end the trafficking and abuse of child domestic workers in Benin, Burkina Faso, Gabon, Ghana, Niger and Togo.
  As hon. Members have pointed out, it is the economic framework within which the abuses take place on which we need to concentrate much of the Foreign Office's policy. In some cases, labour by young family members on a farm is not necessarily bad. However, the root cause of child labour and child trafficking is poverty, and that is what we must tackle. That is why I am proud that the Government are leaders in the poverty reduction instrument known as the HIPC—heavily indebted poor countries—initiative.
  136
  Burkina Faso has gone through the HIPC process and reached completion point, thus receiving irrevocable debt reduction, and Ghana, Cameroon and Mali have reached decision point, so are receiving some interim relief on their debt servicing.
  We must also try to develop fair trade systems for poor countries. At the moment, the combined subsidies for agriculture in the EU, North America and Japan amount to more than the combined GDP of sub-Saharan Africa. We give about $50 billion a year in aid worldwide, but we provide $360 billion dollars in subsidies to our farmers, thus crowding out the produce of the poorest of the world. We need to keep fighting to ensure that the terms of trade are fair, and that there is, for example, no tariff or subsidy escalation.
  The combined pressure of my hon. Friends, NGOs, concerned individuals in the industry and, above all, consumers has achieved a great deal. The taskforce set up by the Foreign Office last year has helped to bring together producer countries, the industry and NGOs. The industry has been spurred into action and, to its credit, has accepted and started to shoulder its responsibility. Much has to be done. It is no use simply having meetings in London if on the ground local managers and representatives are not responding to the wishes and desires of the industry leaders in the taskforce.
  Consumers can continue to play a role in demonstrating their preference for products that have been produced fairly. The fact that they are prepared to pay a little more sends an important message, but ultimately the goal must be to ensure that all production is fair. I am glad that my hon. Friends stressed the point that boycotts would only damage the most vulnerable growers, increasing the problem of poverty, and so increasing the likelihood of abuse of children.
  There is no immediate or easy solution to the problem of exploitative labour practices in cocoa production, but I believe that a good start has been made to tackling it. That is a small but vital part of what the Foreign Office does on behalf of the people of Britain. I end, as I began, by thinking that William Wilberforce would heartily approve of the action we are taking, and I thank hon. Members for the contributions that they have made to the debate.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  US Farm Subsidies
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has made to the US Government concerning proposals to increase subsidies to US farmers; and if she will make a statement. [56622]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 15 May 2002]: I have taken several opportunities, most recently during my visit to Washington in April this year, to express my concern at the increase in subsidies for which the new US Farm Bill provides. I have made clear that the Bill runs counter to our shared goal of reducing worldwide subsidies in the World Trade Organisation.

  Fishery Limits
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she is taking to ensure the continuation of the six and 12 mile fishing limits after 31 December. [55485]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 10 May 2002]: A decision on the six and 12 mile limits is part of the forthcoming CFP review. Previous discussions in the Council of Ministers have revealed a very strong consensus among member states in favour of renewing the present provisions; the Commission is also known to support them. My Department will be making every effort to get the limits made permanent.

  Waste
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of household waste in the last 12 months, comprised plastic bags. [55484]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 10 May 2002]: My Department has no data on the proportion by volume of plastic bags within household waste. "Waste Strategy 2000" (Part 2, p191) shows estimates of around 6 per cent. dense plastic and 5 per cent. film plastic by weight in household waste. A further national survey to update these figures is planned by the Environment Agency.

  The Municipal Waste Management Survey shows that recycling of household waste plastics increased to 13,000 tonnes in 1999–2000, compared to 8,000 tonnes for the previous year.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many letters from hon. Members are awaiting a response from her Department; and how many responses are due to 2W
  letters dated more than (a) two weeks, (b) one month, (c) two months, (d) three months and (e) more than three months ago. [42963]

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her most recent estimate is of how many letters have yet to be sent a substantive response by her Department that were received(a) under four weeks ago, (b) between four to six weeks ago, (c) between six weeks and two months ago and (d) over two months ago; and if she will make a statement. [51474]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answers 13 March and 22 April 2002]: The total number of letters from hon. and right hon. Members awaiting a response as at 15 May 2002 stood at 2,125. Of these, 1,699 responses are due to letters dated more than two calendar weeks, 1,295 to letters dated more than one calendar month, 886 to letters dated more than two calendar months and 612 to letters dated more than three calendar months.

  On average, DEFRA receives around 1,160 letters from hon. and right hon. Members each month. The Department's service target is 15 working days from date of receipt. Performance was severely affected last year by the impact of foot and mouth disease, and by IT and other convergence issues following the creation of DEFRA. However, the median response time for all letters is now 15 working days, with 53 per cent. of letters meeting the target. Measures are in place to secure further improvements in the weeks ahead.

  Scrapie
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what practical difficulties have been encountered by her Department's officials in administering boluses to Shetland sheep during testing for scrapie; and if she will make a statement. [56040]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 13 May 2002]: A total of 1,315 Shetland sheep have been electronically tagged using a ruminal bolus as part of the genotype testing programme under the National Scrapie Plan. Occasional difficulties have arisen in administering these boluses, and five casualties have arisen in three separate flocks of Shetland sheep. Full compensation is paid to the flock owner for any casualty arising as a result of this procedure.

  Timber
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the Department for International Development regarding the procurement of sustainable timber for Government premises; and if she will make a statement. [56043]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 13 May 2002]: My Department works closely with the Department for International Development on all matters of common interest to do with forest management and illegal logging including the Government's efforts to purchase its timber and timber products from sustainable sources. Officials from both Departments are members of the Whitehall Forestry Group that addresses international issues and of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Timber

  3W
  Procurement that is monitoring implementation of the timber procurement policy. These same officials are part of the steering group that has commissioned research into the Government's timber purchasing activities and will help supervise the action to be taken following publication of the consultant's report later this summer.

  Sustainable Technologies
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what consultation has been undertaken, and with whom, over the content of Statutory Instrument 843 on TSEs. [56039]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 13 May 2002]: My Department consulted more than 700 key stakeholders on draft proposals for the TSE (England) Regulations 2002, representing renderers, slaughterhouses, farmers, knackers, hunt kennels, veterinary, consumer and medical interests and enforcement authorities. That is, the people who are actually affected or need to know. The consultation package was distributed in February 2002. It was posted on the Department's website and a copy placed in the Library of the House. It included a Regulatory Impact Assessment. Parallel legislation is being introduced in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, with additional and broadly equivalent consultation there.

  These Regulations implement current Community legislation on TSEs as set out in Council Regulation (EC) No. 999/2001. My Department twice consulted on the Community measures, giving fair warning of likely new arrangements. First, in January 1999 and again in November 2000. Community measures in relation to animal feeding were implemented under the Processed Animal Protein (England) Regulations 2001, introduced last August; there was a separate consultation exercise specifically for this legislation.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her Department had made of the viability of non-ozone depleting drop-in refrigerants. [48075]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: I am aware that in certain applications there are drop-in replacements for CFCs and HCFCs. One example is in mobile air-conditioning where HFC-134a is a drop-in replacement for CFC-12, although it should be noted that HFC-134a is also a powerful greenhouse gas with a 100-year Global Warming Potential 1,300 times the warming potential of Carbon Dioxide. There are, however, many other applications where a drop-in replacement is not feasible and the only alternative would either involve costly technical alternations to the refrigeration equipment or replacement of the equipment.

  Rio Earth Summit
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department(a) has taken and (b) plans to take to strengthen the implementation of (i) the Rio Declaration, (ii) Agenda 21 and (iii) other commitments made at (a) Rio in 1992 and (b) the United Nations General Assembly Special Section in 1997. [44350]
  4W
  Mr. Meacher
  On question(a), the UK's sustainable development strategy, "A Better Quality of Life" (1999), sets out the many steps that DEFRA and its predecessors have taken to implement the various Rio agreements and the outcome of the United Nations General Assembly Special Session in 1997. The Department has led the world on the elaboration of sustainable development indicators to assess progress. The Government's first annual review of progress towards sustainable development, "Achieving a Better Quality of Life", was published in January 2001. This is available at www.sustainable-development.gov.uk. We have ratified the conventions on Biodiversity, Climate Change and Desertification, which were products of the Rio process, and we have made particular efforts in the promotion of Local Agenda 21.

  Our future plans, (b), include the publication of a DEFRA sustainable development strategy and implementation of the recently published fuel poverty strategy and waste strategy. We are also implementing the outcomes on fisheries quotas from the December 2001 Fisheries Council, and the recommendations of the Independent Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food. DEFRA's formation itself underlines the Government's commitment to delivering a more sustainable development focused agenda on food, farming and rural communities. "Working for the Essentials of Life", published in March, sets out DEFRA's plans for the future.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her Department's priorities are for the Rio+10 Summit in Johannesburg towards the objectives of(a) poverty eradication and (b) sustainable production and consumption for the UK; and what the priorities of the European Group are. [44426]

  Mr. Meacher
  Poverty eradication through sustainable development will be a top priority for the UK at the summit. We are keen to ensure that WSSD outcomes should assist progress towards achieving the millennium development goals (MDGs). Actions on poverty and effective management of natural resources are often mutually reinforcing.

  De-coupling economic growth from environmental degradation will be central to achieving sustainable production and consumption patterns in both the north and the south, though developed countries have to take the lead. Resource productivity is a concept which underpins actions in particular sectors, such as switching from heavily polluting fossil fuels to cleaner fossil fuels and other low carbon fuel sources, changing demand patterns in favour of environmentally sustainable products and production processes by, for example, raising consumer awareness and promoting certification initiatives and supporting innovation to develop more sustainable technologies.

  The priorities of the European Union are currently under discussion and will develop as the agenda becomes more firm.

  Pollution Inspectorate
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 8 March 2002,Official Report, column 641W,

  5W
  on the Pollution Inspectorate, what the qualifications are to which she refers; which consultants were commissioned in 2000, what the process was through which any contract was awarded, the month in which this took place, and the terms of reference of this work; if she will place in the Library a copy of their report, and other documentation relating to this work; if she will describe the process by which the contract for carrying out a trial methodology was undertaken; which local authorities, process operators and trade associations were involved in the trial; to whom it is planned to issue the trial report for comments; and how these comments will be utilised. [44427]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have placed in the Library a copy of the 1995 guidance note on inspection frequency, which advised on circumstances where the specified normal inspection rate of twice a year might warrant increase or decrease.

  The consultants, Risk and Policy Analysts, were commissioned in June 2000 as a result of competitive tendering. The terms of reference for the study and the trials it reproduced as Annexe 5 to their October 2000 report which is available on the DEFRA website.

  The report was sent to the Department on 26 March and I expect to decide the next steps shortly. As I said in my reply of 25 March 2002, Official Report, column 720W, the report has been placed on the DEFRA website as part of a three-month consultation exercise.

  The trials methodology, including the method of selecting the processes involved and the industry sectors represented, is described in the report. I am grateful to all participants for their contribution to the trials. The list of participating operators could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The local authorities involved in the trials were City of York council, Fylde borough council, Wandsworth borough council, Rochdale metropolitan borough council, mid-Devon district council, Exeter city council, south Tyneside metropolitan borough council, Shrewsbury and Atcham borough council, Mansfield district council, Anglesey county council, Guildford borough council, Rochford district council, and Great Yarmouth port health authority. The two trade associations which submitted comments to the consultants were UK Steel and the Environmental Industries Association.

  Bonfires
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her Department's policy with regard to bonfires, with specific reference to(a) the impact upon climate change and (b) nuisance to neighbours; what discussions she has had recently with (i) the Local Government Association and (ii) individual local authorities on the subject of bonfires; and what recent research her Department has undertaken into the impact of bonfires. [57108]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: Government policy regard to bonfires is:

  (a) The Government does not consider bonfires to be a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions.

  (b) Garden bonfires are a traditional way of disposing of household and garden rubbish but they can be a nuisance to neighbours and cause air pollution.

  6W
  Local authorities have powers under section 79 of the Environment Protection Act 1990 to stop people creating smoke that amounts to a statutory nuisance. Where an Environmental Health Officer considers a bonfire to be causing a statutory nuisance then he or she must issue an abatement notice against the person responsible or in certain circumstances, the owner or occupier of the property. This notice can require that the activity causing the nuisance stops completely or may restrict it to between certain hours, or can require that remedial action be taken.

  (b) (i) My Department has not had recent discussions with the Local Government Association or individual Local Authorities on this particular issue;

  (b) (ii) National Environmental Technology Centre (NETCEN), on behalf of DEFRA, carry out, and publish the results from, regular monitoring of elevated particulate concentrations at a variety of sites around the UK, particularly on and around the traditional bonfire night celebrations. They work closely with local authorities to assist in the collection of relevant data. The latest research undertaken by this Department is given at www.aeat.co.uk/netcen/airqual.

  Market Towns
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 3 April 2002,Official Report, column 1030W, on the New Deal for Market Towns, which Department the £37 million announced for market towns over three years is coming from; and what her Department's involvement is with the regional development agencies in administering this project. [56126]

  Alun Michael
  The £37 million for the Market Towns Initiative is provided by DEFRA, with £5 million going to the Countryside Agency and £32 million going (via DTI) to the regional development agencies. It is for the agencies to manage the programme. While not having day to day involvement DEFRA takes a close interest in progress and I have discussed implementation with RDA chairs and with the Countryside Agency.

  Refrigerators
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 13 March 2002,Official Report, column 1149W, on refrigerators, when she will announce the further financial assistance to local authorities to meet the additional costs resulting from the implementation of EC regulation 2037/2000 in the financial year 2002–03; and if she will make a statement. [56498]

  Mr. Meacher
  A Government announcement on local authority funding will be made shortly.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the external organisations set up by her as part of the Government's strategy to combat climate change, indicating(a) their remits and (b) their sources of funding. [50446]
  7W
  Mr. Meacher
  I refer the hon. Member to my earlier reply given on 22 April 2002,Official Report, columns 12–13W.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place in the Library scientific advice received from the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment on Field Crop Trials and Other Research for T-25 and Other Genetically Modified Maize. [53814]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: I have arranged for the following documents containing advice for the Secretary of State from ACRE on field crop trials and other research for T25 and other GM maize to be placed in the Library:
  Advice on research trials for national listing of T25 GM maize (dated April 1995, March 1996, April 1996, March 1997, and May 1997);
  Advice on T25 in National List trials adjacent to an organic farm in Devon (Guy Watson Judicial Review, dated June 1998);
  Advice on the effect of GM Bt maize on Monarch butterflies (dated June 1999, September 2000 and January 2002);
  Advice on the significance of new research on the effect of Bt toxin on lacewings (July 1998);
  Advice on an article concerning gene flow from GM maize to native maize (landraces) in Mexico (dated March 2002).
  This information is also available on the public register at the DEFRA office in Ashdown House, London.

  End of Life Vehicles Directive
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) discussions he has had with and (b) representations he has received from Rover Cars about their responsibilities under the End of Life Vehicles Directive for the recycling of motor vehicles built prior to 2001 by Leyland, British Leyland, BLMC and other associated companies. [56408]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department has had a number of meetings with MG Rover, and with other vehicle manufacturers, about the potential impact of the End of Life Vehicles (ELV) Directive.

  MG Rover addressed the issue of historic vehicle parc liabilities in both a reply to the DTI's consultation document and in evidence given to the Trade and Industry Committee inquiry into the ELV Directive. In these documents, MG Rover asked that legislation should not place it at a competitive disadvantage as a result of a legacy parc of brands owned or produced by its predecessors, and suggested that any financial contributions made by vehicle manufacturers should be based on current market share rather than on the number of a company's vehicles being scrapped. MG Rover has had the opportunity to expand upon these points at a number of subsequent meetings.

  Fluorocarbon
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received regarding the role of the fluorocarbon industry in setting international standards regulating the use of ozone-damaging substances. [56042]
  8W
  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 13 May 2002]: We are aware of some international standards concerning tire-fighting equipment that uses ozone depleting substances but no representations about the involvement of the fluorocarbon industry in the setting of these standards have been received by DTI or DEFRA since June 2001. Use of ozone depleting substances is controlled by the Montreal Protocol and the EC Regulation 2037/2000 on substances which deplete the ozone layer, which are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. DEFRA and DTI received representations from various stakeholders, including from the fluorocarbon and other industries, during the negotiation of the EC Regulation.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Staff
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what arrangements are in place for monitoring pay and positions by ethnicity, gender and disability on the parliamentary estate; and if he will make a statement. [56494]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: The House of Commons Commission is committed to fairness in its employment policies. On its behalf, officials monitor all recruitment exercises by ethnicity, gender, and disability status at both application and appointment stages. In addition, there is regular monitoring of staff across all pay bands, broken down by ethnicity and gender for each department.

  In 1999 and 2001, the Board of Management reviewed the findings of two consultancy studies of all aspects of performance appraisal for senior posts and for two mid-range pay bands. These reviews focused on the fairness and effectiveness of the system in general and in particular on equality aspects.

  There has been a recent programme of further training for reporting officers involved in conducting performance appraisals, with the aim of promoting consistency across the House at all levels in the application of the House's performance review markings and performance pay decisions. Officials are currently reviewing the pay system for the main pay bands, in consultation with the trade unions. The review will include an exercise in equality proofing as carried out in the Civil Service.

DEFENCE

  Optional Protocol
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he plans to remove the Government's Declaration to the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict; and if he will make a statement. [38771]

  Mr. Ingram
  The declaration made on signing the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict was designed to clarify the United Kingdom's understanding of the requirements of the Optional
  9W
  Protocol. It made clear our determination to accord special consideration to members of the armed forces under the age of 18, but also our understanding that the Protocol would not exclude members of our armed forces aged under 18 from taking a direct part in hostilities in certain narrowly defined circumstances (thereby maintaining operational effectiveness). The declaration defined these circumstances as being
  "where there is a genuine military need to deploy a unit or ship or unit to an area in which hostilities are taking place; and by reason of the nature and urgency of the situation:
  it is not practicable to withdraw such persons (ie those under 18) before deployment, or
  to do so would undermine the operational effectiveness of their ship or unit, and thereby put at risk the successful completion of the military mission and/or the safety of other personnel."
  There are no plans to withdraw the declaration.

  New guidelines are being finalised as part of the process leading to the United Kingdom's ratification of the Optional Protocol. These guidelines are designed to ensure adherence to the Optional Protocol while reflecting the practical position set out in the United Kingdom's declaration, thus maintaining operational effectiveness. Officials in both the Ministry of Defence and Foreign and Commonwealth Office continue to work actively towards ratification, and we hope to ratify soon. As part of the ratification process, an Explanatory Memorandum will be laid before Parliament to explain the significance of the Optional Protocol.

  Gulf War
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many UK military personnel he estimates were exposed to dangerous and harmful gases resulting from destroyed Iraqi chemical factories in the Gulf War; and what changes there have been in this number in the last three years. [54580]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence is not aware of any United Kingdom military personnel having being exposed to dangerous and harmful gases resulting from destroyed Iraqi chemical factories during the Gulf conflict. However, on 10 March 1991, US forces demolished Iraqi rockets containing chemical warfare agents near the Khamisiyah Ammunition Depot, Iraq. The MOD's initial assessment of the implications for UK personnel of the demolitions was published in December 1999 in a paper entitled: "Review of Events Concerning 32 Field Hospital and the Release of Nerve Agent Arising from US Demolition of Iraqi Munitions at the Khamisiyah Depot in March 1991". The paper is available in the Library of the House and on the internet at http://www.mod.uk/issues/gulfwar/info/khamisiyah.htm. The paper's main conclusion was that up to 9,000 UK troops might theoretically have been exposed to nerve agent following the demolitions but that the level of exposure would have no detectable effect on human health.

  On 25 April 2002, the US released a technical report about the Khamisiyah demolitions based on a revised theoretical model of the plume of nerve agent which may have been released by the demolitions. On 3 May 2002, the US Secretary of Veterans Affairs announced that the death rate for US personnel who were near Khamisiyah is similar to that for other US Gulf veterans. The US report
  10W
  is currently being analysed by MOD officials and the implications for UK personnel will be made public when available but at this stage there is no evidence to link the Khamisiyah demolitions with the range of symptoms of ill health being experienced by some Gulf veterans.

  C17
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the original target flying hours were for the leased Cl7s; what the actual flying hours have been; and if he will make a statement; [55205]

  (2) how many flying hours have been bought under the leasing arrangements for the Cl7s; when he expects these bought hours to have been flown at the current rate of flying hours; and if he will make a statement. [55206]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 15 May 2002,Official Report, column 640W.

  Afghanistan
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what undertakings were received by Her Majesty's Government from the Afghan Interim Authority on the international human rights standards applicable to captives transferred from United Kingdom authorities to the Afghan Interim Authority. [56278]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Afghan Interim Authority have given us assurances that they will abide by their international obligations in handling detainees who are released by the British forces from detention and taken into custody by the Interim Administration.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidance he has given to military personnel on the applicability of the provisions of the European convention on human rights to persons captured in Afghanistan by UK forces. [56275]

  Mr. Hoon
  All military personnel are issued with guidance which ensures that their actions are fully in compliance with our international obligations, including where appropriate the ECHR.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Tomahawk missiles have been fired in Operation Veritas. [57532]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 743W, to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams).

  Disclosure of Interests
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what rules apply to the disclosure of interests on the part of those serving on public bodies which are responsible to his Department. [56450]

  Dr. Moonie
  All advisory and executive non-departmental public bodies are required to adopt a board members' code based on guidance produced by the Cabinet Office, and they should have registers of interests. The definition of interests is ultimately for individual Departments since they are best placed to decide what might be thought to influence members of their bodies.
  11W
  The following table lists the non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Ministry of Defence and indicates whether they have a current Code of Practice.

  Code of Practice

  Executive NDPBs

  Fleet Air Arm Museum

  Yes

  National Army Museum

  Under review

  Oil and Pipelines Agency

  Yes

  RAF Museum

  Yes

  Royal Marines Museum

  Yes

  Royal Navy Museum

  Yes

  RN Submarine Museum

  Yes

  Advisory NDPBs

  Advisory Committee on Conscientious Objectors

  Yes

  Armed Forces Pay Review Body

  Yes

  Advisory Group on Medical Countermeasures

  Under development

  Animal Welfare Advisory Committee

  Under development

  Central Advisory Committee on War Pension

  Dartmoor Steering Group

  Yea

  Defence Nuclear Safety Committee

  Under development

  Defence Scientific Advisory Council

  Yes

  Independent Board of Visitors to the Military Corrective Training Centre

  Under development

  National Employers Liaison Committee

  Yes

  Nuclear Research Advisory Council

  Under development

  Review Board for Government Contracts

  Yes

  Royal Military College of Science Advisory Council

  Under development

  War Pensions Committees (13 bodies)

  Yes

  I will arrange for copies of all current Codes of Practice for NDPBs sponsored by the MOD to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Sick Leave
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many days of sick leave were taken in his Department last year; how many related to employees suffering(a) stress and (b) other mental health problems; and what the cost was to his Department. [56484]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]: The latest published data are in the Cabinet Office annual report "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the civil service" for the year 2000 which shows the average number of working days lost per staff year among non-industrial staff. The figure for Ministry of Defence is 8.8 days. MOD's own records show that during 2000 4.1 per cent. of days lost were due to mental disorders (stress-related) and 6.6 per cent. were due to mental disorders (non-stress related). The overall cost of sick absence was some £22 million. These figures exclude MOD Trading Funds. MOD is committed to improving the health and well being of its civilian staff and has programmes in hand to reduce the number of working days lost through sick absence and work-related injury and illness.

  Gurkhas
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Gurkhas have accompanied postings; what plans he has to expand the Gurkha units; and what recent discussions he has had with the Prime Minister of Nepal about Gurkha pensions. [57028]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: There are currently 906 Gurkha personnel in accompanied service postings.
  12W
  There is a requirement to recruit 230 Gurkhas per year to maintain present force levels. While there are no plans to increase Gurkha strength, we continue to look at ways to best deploy this manpower.

  The issue of Gurkha pensions was, however, raised briefly by the Nepalese Prime Minister at the end of a meeting I attended with the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for International Development on Monday 13 May.

  Naval Vessels
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if HMS Sheffield will be returned to operational service in 2004; and if she will continue as an operational warship until the end of the decade. [56699]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 12 March 2002, Official Report, column 874W, to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). On current plans HMS Sheffield will return to service in September 2004 and will continue in operational service until towards the end of this decade.

  EU-NATO Relations
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made towards arrangement of EU access to NATO assets and capabilities; and when the arrangements will be finalised. [57791]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 4 March 2002,Official Report, column 30W.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to assimilate NATO planning structures with the EU. [57790]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 9 January 2002,Official Report, column 827W.

  Cadets
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many schools have had cadet forces in each year since 1997. [57807]

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

  European Security and Defence Policy
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the European Security and Defence Policy procedures testing top level co-ordination and the decision-making procedures of the ESDP bodies will be exercised. [57793]

  Mr. Hoon
  The EU's first Crisis Management Exercise, under ESDP "CME 02", will run from 22 to 28 May 2002, and is designed to test the EU's structures and decision-making procedures for crisis management. CME 02 is a paper exercise only, involving no forces, and uses a generic scenario. CME 02 should provide valuable lessons for the continuing development of the EU's operational capability.
  13W
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role the NATO Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe plays within the European Security and Defence Policy. [57792]

  Mr. Hoon
  In view of his responsibilities for the European Pillar of NATO, DISACEUR may be invited to meetings of the EU Military Committee, and has been identified as a primary candidate for "operation commander" of EU-led operations. He would also co-ordinate responses to EU requests to NATO for planning support. All these arrangements are subject to finalising agreement on modalities for EU-NATO co-operation.

  Iran
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of Iran's missile development programme; and if he will make a statement. [57535]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the Ministry of Defence's "Supplementary Memorandum to the House of Commons Defence Committee: The Ballistic Missile Threat" of 18 March 2002 which was published by the committee on I May 2002.

  Missile Defence
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representation he has received concerning the future use of(a) Menwith Hill and (b) Fylingdales base for the purpose of anti-missile systems; and if he will make a statement. [57534]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence regularly receives representations and inquiries from right hon. and hon. Members and members of the public about the present and potential future use of RAF Fylingdales and RAF Menwith Hill, and other issues related to missile defence.

  Defence Council
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what conclusions were reached at the EU Defence Ministers' meeting on Monday 13 May; and if he will make a statement. [57533]

  Mr. Hoon
  EU Defence Ministers focused primarily on the European Capabilities Action Plan (ECAP) and the Capability Development Mechanism. Ministers concluded that significant progress had been made in these areas, demonstrated by the successful establishment of the ECAP process. Ministers also noted the need to maintain the momentum within the capability improvement process and quickly resolve the remaining issues concerning the Capabilities Development Mechanism. The full conclusions from the General Affairs Council have been placed in the Library of the House.

  European Peacekeeping Force
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will identify the units designated by each participant in the European Peacekeeping Force, with total of possible commitments by each country. [57880]
  14W
  Mr. Hoon
  There is no European Peacekeeping Force. EU member states have declared elements of national forces available to conduct Petersberg Tasks. A summary of member states' offers (the Compendium des Contributions Nationales) has been placed in the Library of the House.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Africa
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the assistance being given to(a) Malawi, (b) Mozambique, (c) Zimbabwe and (d) other African countries affected by the current drought. [56422]

  Clare Short
  The drought has affected several southern African countries. In Malawi my Department has provided £5.1 million in food relief delivered through local non-governmental organisations and £1.12 million has been provided for the purchase of seeds and fertilisers for a winter crop. In Mozambique, together with other donors, we have assisted the Government with agricultural inputs for poor farmers affected by drought. In Zimbabwe we have provided £7.5 million through the UN and through NGOs, largely to feed children and their mothers. We are in contact with national and UN teams assessing the food situation in the region and will consider what further help is required once full details become available.

  Work-related Illness
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many employees of her Department retired through work-related ill-health in the last year for which records are available; and what the cost was to the Department. [56095]

  Clare Short
  Records are not maintained by my Department which enable ill health retirements to be separately identified as work related. However, for the year 2001–02, we had three members of staff who retired with a medical retirement certificate issued by the civil service pension scheme medical adviser. Benefits provided on medical retirement are as set out in the rules of the principal civil service pension scheme and laid before Parliament, and provide for an immediate payment of an enhanced pension and lump sum. Ill health retirement expenditure is met centrally from the Civil Superannuation Vote. For the year ending March 2002, provisional expenditure met from the Vote was £310 million in respect of all civil service cases for which an ill health pension has been awarded. These cases number approximately 67,000 and include those who have formerly been ill health retired but who have now reached and exceeded the normal retirement age.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many claims for work-related illness were settled by her Department in the last year for which records are available; and what the cost was in compensation. [56094]

  Clare Short
  We have had no claims for work-related illness in 2001.
  15W
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many days of sick leave were taken by employees in her Department in the last year for which records are available; what proportion of those were due to work-related illness or injury; and what the cost was to the Department. [56096]

  Clare Short
  In 2000, my Department recorded a total of 8,399 days sick absence. The other information requested is not held and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Palestine
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 17 April,Official Report, column 995W, on European Commission assistance to Palestinians, what assessment she has made of the cost of damage as a result of military action during the last 12 months to each of the projects listed. [56122]

  Clare Short
  The European Commission (EC) began assessing damage and destruction to EU-funded development projects since the beginning of the Intifada in March 2002. A detailed list was produced, and a copy has been placed in the House of Commons Library. The EC is keen to update this initial assessment. This has not been possible since the Israeli re-occupation of the west bank, due to restricted access and the levels of violence.

  Tanzania
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her written answer of 9 May 2002,Official Report, column 285W, on Tanzania, what assessment she has made of the humanitarian consequences of her decision to withhold aid from Tanzania; and when she expects aid to resume. [57005]

  Clare Short
  In October 2001 DFID provided £35 million budget support to Tanzania. Our decision to delay disbursement of the next tranche of £10 million budget support has not affected the £35 million budget support already disbursed, or any of the complementary technical assistance programmes and projects that are currently addressing poverty reduction with Government, private sector and civil society partners.

  A decision on resuming disbursement of this tranche will be made following the Government of Tanzania's response to the review of the country's civil aviation requirements by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), once the ICAO report has been issued.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 11 March 2002,Official Report, column 685W, on Tanzania, what reports she has received from the (a) IMF and (b) World Bank, with regards to their assessment of the impact on development of Tanzania of the purchase of an air traffic control system; and if she will place copies in the Library. [57787]

  Clare Short
  Neither I nor my Department have received copies of reports from the IMF or the World bank regarding their assessment of the impact on development of Tanzania of the purchase of an air traffic control system. The World bank is still examining value 16W
  for money issues arising from the purchase, and they and the Government of Tanzania are awaiting the impending report from the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

  East Africa
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how her Department is responding to the recent floods in East Africa. [56969]

  Clare Short
  In Kenya, the country worst hit by the recent heavy rains in east Africa, mudslides have killed at least 53 people, and up to 150,000 people have been temporarily displaced by floods. Information from the Kenyan National Disaster Operations Centre suggests that, while the impact in some areas is serious, Government agencies and civil society organisations are coping and are delivering appropriate assistance to those affected. DFID staff are closely monitoring the situation in Kenya and elsewhere in the region.

  World Trade Organisation
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which developing countries are members of the World Trade Organisation; and what progress has been made in streamlining the least-developed countries' accession process to the WTO. [56665]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: As of 1 January 2002 there were 111 developing country members of which 301 are least-developed in the WTO. These are listed below with their respective accession dates.

  Albania—8 September 2000

  Angola1—23 November 1996

  Antigua and Barbuda—1 January 1995

  Argentina—1 January 1995

  Bangladesh1—1 January 1995

  Barbados—1 January 1995

  Belize—1 January 1995

  Benin1—22 February 1996

  Bolivia—12 September 1995

  Botswana—31 May 1995

  Brazil—1 January 1995

  Bulgaria—1 December 1996

  Burkina Faso—3 June 1995

  Burundi1—23 July 1995

  Cameroon—13 December 1995

  Central African Republic1—31 May 1995

  Chad1—19 October 1996

  Chile—1 January 1995

  China—11 December 2001

  Colombia—30 April 1995

  Congo1—27 March 1997

  Costa Rica—1 January 1995

  Côte d'Ivoire—1 January 1995

  Croatia—30 November 2000

  Cuba—20 April 1995

  Czech Republic—1 January 1995

  Democratic Republic of the Congo1—1 January 1997

  Djibouti1—31 May 1995

  Dominica—1 January 1995

  Dominican Republic—9 March 1995

  17W

  Ecuador—21 January 1996

  Egypt—30 June 1995

  El Salvador—7 May 1995

  Estonia—13 November 1999

  Fiji—14 January 1999

  Gabon—1 January 1995

  The Gambia1—23 October 1996

  Georgia—14 June 2000

  Ghana—1 January 1995

  Grenada—22 February 1996

  Guatemala—21 July 1995

  Guinea Bissau1—31 may 1995

  Guinea1—25 October 1995

  Guyana—1 January 1995

  Haiti1—30 January 1996

  Honduras—1 January 1995

  Hungary—1 January 1995

  India—1 January 1995

  Indonesia—1 January 1995

  Jamaica—9 March 1995

  Jordan—11 April 2000

  Kenya—1 January 1995

  Korea, Republic of—1 January 1995

  Kuwait—1 January 1995

  Kyrgyz Republic—20 December 1998

  Latvia—10 February 1999

  Lesotho1—31 May 1995

  Lithuania—31 May 2001

  Macao, China—1 January I995

  Madagascar1—17 November 1995

  Malawi1—31 May 1995

  Malaysia—1 January 1995

  Maldives1—31 May 1995

  Mali1—31 May 1995

  Mauritania1—31 May 1995

  Mauritius—1 January 1995

  Mexico—1 January 1995

  Moldova—26 July 2001

  Mongolia—29 January 1997

  Morocco—1 January 1995

  Mozambique1—26 August 1995

  Myanmar1—1 January 1995

  Namibia—1 January 1995

  Nicaragua—3 September 1995

  Niger1—13 December 1996

  Nigeria—1 January 1995

  Oman—9 November 2000

  Pakistan—1 January 1995

  Panama—6 September 1997

  Papua New Guinea—9 June 1996

  Paraguay—1 January 1995

  Peru—1 January 1995

  Philippines—1 January 1995

  Poland—I July 1995

  Qatar—13 January 1996

  Romania—1 January 1995

  Rwanda1—22 May 1996

  Saint Kitts and Nevis—21 February 1996

  Saint Lucia—1 January 1995

  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines—I January 1995

  18W

  Senegal1—1 January 1995

  Sierra Leone1—23 July 1995

  Slovak Republic—1 January 1995

  Slovenia—30 July 1995

  Solomon Islands1—26 July 1996

  South Africa—1 January 1995

  Sri Lanka—1 January 1995

  Suriname—1 January 1995

  Swaziland—1 January 1995

  Switzerland—1 July 1995

  Tanzania1—1 January 1995

  Thailand—1 January 1995

  Togo1—31 May 1995

  Trinidad and Tobago—1 March 1995

  Tunisia—29 March 1995

  Turkey—26 March 1995

  Uganda1—1 January 1995

  Uruguay—I January 1995

  Venezuela—1 January 1995

  Zambia1—1 January 1995

  Zimbabwe—5 March 1995.

  There are major difficulties faced by least-developed countries (LDCs) when attempting to accede to the WTO. The WTO Secretariat, UNCTAD and several donor countries are working to address the issue, but since the inception of the WTO no LDCs have acceded to the organisation. This was recognised in the WTO ministerial declaration at Doha in November 2001 which stated:
  "Accession of LDCs remains a priority for the Membership. We agree to work to facilitate and accelerate negotiations with acceding LDCs. We instruct the Secretariat to reflect the priority we attach to LDCs' accessions in the annual plans for technical assistance."
  The WTO is working to help LDC accession candidates by streamlining the existing process in a number of ways. The aim is to have as few working party meetings as possible, to have clear agendas and work plans on exit, and to move as soon as possible towards the first version of the working party's draft report. However, the WTO would also like to see more action from WTO members, and is encouraging them to be more flexible and realistic in their market access negotiations with LDCs.

  DFID is at the forefront of work on WTO accession, and since 1999 we have been providing assistance (£400,000) to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) to support developing and least developed countries accede to the WTO on terms consistent with their respective development needs.

  Technical Assistance
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the outcome of the enhanced integrated framework pilot scheme to improve the efficiency of trade-related technical assistance to developing countries was; and if this will be extended to a wider initiative. [56663]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: Three countries (Cambodia, Madagascar and Mauritania) were selected for the pilot phase of the Integrated Framework (IF) on the basis of demonstrating a clear choice and commitment to the mainstreaming of trade into their development plans, through the Poverty Reduction

  19W
  Strategy Paper (PRSP) process. This process helped the three countries to identify and prioritise trade-related technical assistance (TRTA) requirements from infrastructure to human resources within a coherent policy framework. Donors are now in the process of responding to these needs and the final review of the outcome of the pilot phase will be issued in October.

  At the fourth WTO Ministerial Conference held in Doha in November 2001, the IF was endorsed as a model for LDCs trade development. In this context, eleven countries, Lesotho, Malawi, Senegal, Burundi, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Mali, Nepal and Yemen were selected for the next phase of the enhanced IF, and work has already begun. In all 45 countries have been identified.

  We remain convinced that the Integrated Framework is the best approach for mainstreaming trade into national development plans and strategies for poverty reduction, as well as being an effective mechanism for supporting donor coordinated delivery of TRTA.

  Afghanistan
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is being done to prevent violence against Pashtuns in Afghanistan. [56967]

  Clare Short
  The Afghan Interim Administration (AIA) has established an independent commission to investigate reports of ethnically motivated violence. Following a visit to northern Afghanistan in February 2002, the commission made a number of recommendations for improving security in the area, which are currently being considered by the AIA. These include the creation of a collaborative mechanism for addressing complaints, made up of representatives of all ethnic groups in the north, including Pashtuns.

  The UK is working with the Afghan Interim Administration, other donors and international agencies to strengthen the ability of the Afghan authorities to enforce the rule of law. An Afghan-led, internationally supported security sector reform programme is crucial to ensuring the capacity of the Afghan state both to deter further human rights abuses and to bring those responsible for human rights abuses to justice.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the rights of women in Afghanistan; and if she will make a statement. [56966]

  Clare Short
  Important progress has been made in restoring women's rights in Afghanistan. We welcome the involvement of women in the Afghan Interim Administration (AIA) and the Special Commission for the Convening of the Loya Jirga. Women have begun to return to work and girls are going back to school. But it is a slow process and more needs to be done. The UK is working closely with the AIA and the rest of the international community, to ensuring women's full and effective participation in civil, cultural, economic, political and social life throughout Afghanistan.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the extent of violence against Pashtuns in Afghanistan. [56968]
  20W
  Clare Short
  There have been a number of recent reports of abuses against Pashtuns, particularly in northern Afghanistan. These abuses include beatings, extortion, looting and sexual violence. Pashtuns are believed to have been targeted because of associations between their ethnic group and the Taliban regime.

  In February 2002, the Afghan Interim Administration (AIA) authorised a high-level independent commission to investigate reports of ethnically motivated violence in Afghanistan. A three person team from the commission visited northern Afghanistan to meet with local people and commanders to investigate reports of abuses against Pashtuns. Based on their findings, the commission made a series of recommendations which the AIA are now considering. Human Rights Watch has also investigated reports of abuses against Pashtuns. Their report—which can be found on their website (http//www.hrw.org)—is the result of interviews and discussions with local people in Balkh, Faryab, Samangan and Baghlan provinces, representatives of the AIA and humanitarian workers.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many internally displaced people there are in Afghanistan; and what assistance is being provided to them. [56965]

  Clare Short
  In January 2002, the United Nations estimated that there were approximately 1.2 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Afghanistan. Since then, approximately 160,000 IDPs have returned to their homes with assistance from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Organisation for Migration (IOM). A further 400,000 IDPs are estimated to have returned home spontaneously, without international assistance.

  IDPs, as victims of conflict and the ongoing effects of the drought, are among the most vulnerable people in Afghanistan, and are targeted by UN agencies, the Red Cross Movement and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) for the urgent provision of humanitarian assistance. It is a priority in 2002 for the Afghan Interim Administration and the international community to ensure reintegration of uprooted Afghans who wish to return home. Programmes coordinated by UNHCR and IOM are under way to physically transport returnees back to their places of origin, build the capacity of communities to absorb returning families, and integrate short-term programmes with longer-term strategies to ensure sustainable reintegration of returnees. Since September 2001. my Department has contributed £3 million to UNHCR and £3.6 million to IOM for their programmes in the region.

WALES

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent by his Department on paying pensions to retired employees of his Department in 2001–02; if he will estimate the corresponding amounts to be spent in(a) five years' time, (b) 10 years' time, (c) 20 years' time and (d) 30 years' time; if he will estimate in each case the proportion of such liabilities which will arise from (i) unfunded pension schemes and (ii) pre-funded pension schemes; and in the case of

  21W
  pre-funded schemes, if he will estimate the value of the corresponding pre-funded funds in each of these years. [57365]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The permanent civil servants in my Department are all secondees; pension liabilities remain with their home Departments.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Literacy and Numeracy
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent representations she has received in relation to the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. [57722]

  Mr. Timms
  Over the last 12 months, the Secretary of State has been asked 22 Parliamentary Questions and received at lease 400 items of written correspondence, including correspondence via email, related to the National Literacy and Numeracy strategies. The Secretary of State also received a total of 206 responses in response to consultation in the Autumn term 2001 about the national targets at Key Stage 2 in English and mathematics for 2004.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which recent studies of literacy and numeracy standards among primary school children her Department has analysed; and what assessment she has made of these studies. [57721]

  Mr. Timms
  The following reports have been published by Ofsted (about literacy and numeracy in primary schools) in the last 12 months:The National Numeracy Strategy in Special Schools: An evaluation of the first year (14 June 2001)
  Teaching of Phonics: A paper by HMI (29 October 2001)
  Teaching literacy and mathematics in reception classes: A survey by HMI (29 October 2001)
  The National Literacy Strategy: the third year (4 December 2001)
  The National Numeracy Strategy: the second year (4 December 2001)
  Teaching of Calculation in Primary Schools: A report by HMI (15 April 2002)
  Teaching Assistants in Primary Schools: An evaluation of the quality and Impact of their work (16 April 2002).
  The University of Toronto which is independently evaluating the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies produced the following report last year:
  Watching and Learning 2, OISE/UT Evaluation of the Implementation of the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies, Second Annual Report, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto (September 2001).

  The Department has considered carefully the findings of these studies which have generally been supportive of the strategies and also helped to improve them.

  Work-related Illness
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many claims for work-related injury or illness were settled on behalf of(a) teachers in primary and secondary schools and (b) other school staff in the last year for which figures are available; and what the total cost in compensation was. [56057]
  22W
  Mr. Timms
  Claims for work-related injury or illness are matters between individuals and their employers. Teachers and other staff in schools are employed by either the Local Education Authority or the School Governing Body, and consequently such matters are dealt with at a local level. No data are held centrally by the Department about either the number of claims or the cost of compensation payments.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) teachers in primary and secondary schools and (b) other staff in those schools retired through work-related injury or ill health in the last year for which records are available; and what the total cost to the Department was. [56058]

  Mr. Timms
  Entitlement to ill health retirement under the Teachers' Pensions Scheme (TPS) is determined by the severity of a teacher's medical condition. Where the medical evidence demonstrates that the teacher is permanently unfit to teach, irrespective of the cause of the medical condition, retirement benefits become due. Information is not held on whether the medical condition giving rise to ill health retirement is attributable, in whole or in part, to a work-related injury or illness.

  Non-teaching staff in schools are subject to the Local Government Pension Scheme, which is the responsibility of the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

  Consequently, no data are held by my Department about the number of teachers, or other staff in schools, who retired through work-related injury or ill health.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many claims for work-related illness were settled by her Department in the last year for which records are available; and what the cost in compensation was. [56054]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  During the period April 2001 to March 2002 three cases for work-related illness reached final settlement at a cost of £20,318 including solicitors' fees. During the same period the Department received £3,280 back from a previous case where a claimant lost an appeal.

  Teachers (Lancashire)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many teachers have been in service in primary schools in Lancashire in each year since 1997; [57283]

  (2) how many teachers have been in service in secondary schools in Lancashire in each year since 1997. [57284]

  Mr. Timms
  The full-time equivalent1 numbers of regular teachers in service in maintained nursery/primary and secondary schools in Lancashire in January of each year since 1997 are as follows:

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Nursery/primary schools

  Former Lancashire

  5480

  5460

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  4410

  4390

  4490

  Blackburn with Darwen

  —

  —

  630

  630

  670

  Blackpool

  —

  —

  520

  510

  550

  All Lancashire

  5480

  5460

  5560

  5530

  5710

  23W

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Secondary schools

  Former Lancashire

  5240

  5310

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  4390

  4520

  4570

  Blackburn with Darwen

  —

  —

  570

  570

  490

  Blackpool

  —

  —

  400

  430

  470

  All Lancashire

  5240

  5310

  5360

  5520

  5530

  Data for January 2002 are not yet available at local education authority level. Information on teachers in service in January 2002 by local education authority will be published in the Teachers in England statistical volume in December 2002.
  1 Part-time teachers have been converted to an estimate of their full-time equivalence and added to full-time numbers.

  Further Education Colleges
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the changes in real terms in core funding for further education colleges in each year since 1997. [52570]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information is as follows:

  Funding for participation(£)

  Real terms index

  1997–981

  3,070

  98

  1998–991

  3,120

  97

  1999–20001

  3,360

  101

  2000–012

  3,380

  100

  2001–023

  3,500

  101

  1 Actual

  1 Provisional

  3 Planned

  This table shows the estimated participation funding allocated to the LSC in real terms for each full-time equivalent (FTE) student in FE. It includes additional funds derived from employer contributions and other funds made available for widening participation, to support the introduction of Qualifying for Success and for increased provision of basic skills courses. Compared to the Departmental Annual Report 2001 this now gives a complete picture of funding for participation for colleges. It does not represent total funding for further education as it excludes targeted funds such as capital, standards fund and Teachers Pay Initiative (TPI).

  If targeted funds were included then the estimated total funding for each FTE student in FE in real terms increased by 12 per cent. over the same period.

  Exams
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average number of exams sat by a pupil in(a) 1991–92 and (b) 2001–02 was. [54889]

  Title of document

  Date issued

  Brief description

  Quantity issued

  Number of pages

  Reference number

  Planning for Learning

  1 October 2001

  Booklet designed to supplement the curriculum guidance for the foundation stage

  16,352

  21

  QCA/01/799

  Requirements of Nursery Education Grant 2002ߝ03

  30 April 2002

  Guidance to local education authorities and providers on eligibility for and administration of the Nursery Education Grant.

  28,000

  52

  DIES/0358/2002

  24W
  Margaret Hodge
  The information requested for England for 1991–92 is as follows:A 15-year-old pupil sat an average of 8.0 GCSEs in 1991–92.
  A 17-year-old student sat an average of 3.0 GCE A A/AS examinations in 1991–92.
  The figures for 2001–02 are not yet available. The latest figures available are for 2000–01, and these are as follows:
  A 15-year-old pupil sat an average of 8.2 GCSEs in 2000–01.
  A 17-year-old student sat an average of 3.1 GCE A A/AS examinations in 2000–01.
  For GCSE and GCE A/AS exams, schools enter pupils for the appropriate subjects; the number of exam papers will vary according to subject and Awarding Body.

  Vouchers
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much her Department had spent on vouchers for three-year-olds by 31 March. [55085]

  Margaret Hodge
  The nursery education voucher scheme applied to four-year-olds only and it was replaced in September 1997.

  Maladministration
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many findings there have been of maladministration by ombudsmen with responsibility for agencies under the remit of her Department since 1997. [56317]

  Estelle Morris
  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 partly 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. This information is also available on the parliamentary ombudsman's website at www.ombudsman.org.uk/publications.

  Pre-schools (Documents)
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what documents have been sent to pre-schools by her Department since 1 July 2001; and how many pages were contained in each document. [55076]

  Margaret Hodge
  Details of those documents sent directly to pre-schools by my Department since 1 July 2001 are set out in the table.
  25W

  Title of document

  Date issued

  Brief description

  Quantity issued

  Number of pages

  Reference number

  National Standards for Under Eights Day Care—Sessional Care1

  14 July 2001

  National standards for providers of day care for children under 8. Regulations under the Children Act require providers to meet the 14 standards

  45,000

  25

  DfES/0490/2001

  National Standards for Under Eights Day Care—Full Day Care1

  14 July 2001

  National standards for providers of day care for children under 8. Regulations under the Children Act require providers to meet the 14 standards

  30,000

  25

  DfES/0488/2001

  1 Pre-schools would have received either sessional care or full day care depending on the number of hours they were operating.

  Special Educational Needs
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children per 1,000 in Nottinghamshire are issued with a statement of special educational needs; and what the figure is per 1,000 children in England. [55414]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Pupils with statements of special educational needs1—January 2001

  Number

  Nottinghamshire LEA2

  Total pupils

  123,770

  Pupils with statements of SEN3

  1,340

  Number of pupils per 1,000 with a statement of SEN

  10.8

  England

  Total pupils

  7,733,640

  Pupils with statements of SEN3

  244,269

  Number of pupils per 1,000 with a statement of SEN

  31.6

  1 Includes maintained primary and secondary schools and maintained and non-maintained special schools.

  2 Pupils attending schools within Nottinghamshire LEA.

  3 Estimates have been made at national level for January 2001 because the data for SEN are known to be incomplete. Figures given for Nottinghamshire LEA are as reported by schools in the Nottinghamshire LEA area.

  Nursery Education
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children were benefiting from nursery vouchers in 1997. [54887]

  Margaret Hodge
  In April 1997, 576,176 four-year-olds received a free, part-time, early education voucher as a result of the Nursery Voucher scheme. However, this did not necessarily guarantee a place.

  Since September 1998, local education authorities have had a statutory duty to secure a free, part-time, early education place for all four-year-olds.

  Furthermore we have increased the number of free, part-time, early education places for three-year-olds from 34 per cent. in January 1997 to 66 per cent. in March 2002. So in 2001–02, 924,742 number of three and four-year-olds received a part-time, early education place.

  Warrington Collegiate Institute
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions she has had with the Cheshire Learning and Skills Council on how its new funding formula will affect students with special needs at Warrington Collegiate Institute; and if she will make a statement. [56678]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: None. Funding of further education (FE) provision is the responsibility of the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). Funding for learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities in mainstream FE provision consists of two elements: funding for the basic costs of the course, as for other students; and additional learning support tailored to meet the costs of activities to meet the individual's needs.

  The LSC is introducing limited changes to its funding for basic course costs for 2002–03 which include greater emphasis on rewarding retention and achievement. While broadly cost neutral the changes are designed to reward those institutions that raise participation and achievement rates. I believe it is right that funding for retention and achievement for students with special needs in mainstream FE colleges should be on the same basis as for other students. The LSC have safety netting arrangements in place to help those institutions that may see a drop in income solely due to funding methodology changes.

  Additional learning support funding arrangements for the 2002–03 academic year remain unchanged from earlier years. However, the LSC is currently consulting on its proposals to revise the present methodology for funding additional learner needs in post-16 education and training. These new arrangements are intended to ensure a coherent approach, based on common principles, to the funding of special needs regardless of age, mode of study or type of programme.

  Veterinary Science
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) applicants, (b) accepted students and (c) graduates there were in veterinary science in each of the last 10 years. [54990]

  Margaret Hodge
  The available information is shown in the table.
  27W

  Students on undergraduate veterinary science courses

  Year of entry

  Applicants1

  Accepted applicants1

  Academic year in which course was completed

  Graduates

  1991

  3n/a

  430

  1991–92

  370

  1992

  3n/a

  470

  1992–93

  380

  1993

  3n/a

  470

  1993–94

  4400

  1994

  1,350

  510

  1994–95

  470

  1995

  1,520

  540

  1995–96

  460

  1996

  1,530

  570

  1996–97

  520

  1997

  1,730

  530

  1997–98

  490

  1998

  1,790

  620

  1998–99

  530

  1999

  1,800

  630

  1999–2000

  560

  2000

  1,760

  660

  2000–01

  580

  2001

  1.610

  700

  2001–02

  5n/a

  1 Covers home and overseas students applying to full-time and sandwich first degree and undergraduate courses only.

  2 Covers home and overseas students on all full-time and part-time undergraduate courses in HE institutions in the UK.

  3 Not available. In these years, applicant numbers by subject were not published.

  4 Because of a change in data sources between 1993–94 and 1994–95, this has been estimated.

  5 Not available. Figures for 2001–02 will be available in January 2003.

  Note:

  Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the mandate of the committee on the second general system for the recognition of professional education and training 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. [56763]

  Margaret Hodge
  The committee on the second general system for the recognition of professional education and training assists the European Commission to consider requests made by member states to revise information relating to Annexes C and D of Directive 92/51/EEC. There has been just one meeting of the committee in the last five years—in November 2001. Travel expenses were met from Commission resources. The subsistence cost incurred by this Department was £114. Amendments to Annex C of Directive 92/51/EEC currently under consideration of the committee are:Germany—change of title from "occupational therapist" to "occupational therapist/ergotherapist"
  Italy—delete the profession of "chiropodist"
  Austria—insert the profession of "bookkeeper"
  UK—insert the profession of "listed veterinary nurse".
  In the interests of improving information to the public and transparency, the Committee agreed at its meeting in November 2001 to amend its Rules of Procedure to conform to the new comitology decision. 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
  28W
  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 (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.

  School Reception Classes
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many primary schools in England and Wales have reception classes for children aged under four years; and what percentage this is of the total number of primary schools. [48218]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 9 April 2002]: Information is not collected on the age of pupils within classes, however we do collect information on the number of pupils by age by school.

  There are 18,069 maintained primary schools in England. Within these 11,844 (65.5 per cent.) have one or more reception classes.

  For information on Welsh primary schools I refer the hon. Member to the National Assembly for Wales.

  Class Sizes
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average class sizes were for each age group in each of the past five years. [54894]

  Margaret Hodge
  Information on the average class sizes by age group is not collected, however tables showing this information by year group have been placed in the Library.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much has been spent by her Department on research funding for universities for each year since 1997. [53678]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department for Education and Skills (DfES) funds the Higher Education Funding Council for England, which then allocates research funding to higher education institutions in England. The following table outlines the allocations made by HEFCE using research criteria per year since 1997. The table includes DfES spending via the Joint Infrastructure Fund (JIF) and the Science Research Investment Fund (SRIF). Over and above this, the Government and the Welcome Trust have made available £750 million via the JIF and £900 million via the SRIF for capital investment in higher education research infrastructure in science and technology. Furthermore Research Council funding for research and development will rise from £1,279 million in 1997–98 to £1,793 million in 2002–03 of which a significant proportion goes to higher education institutions as research grants.
  29W

  Research funding for higher education in England

  £ million

  Outturn

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Plans 2002–03

  Recurrent and special research grants

  720.2

  841.0

  871.7

  884.1

  905.7

  940.0

  Research capital spend

  8.0

  35.9

  44.2

  39.9

  81.9

  264.8

  Note:

  This table covers recurrent research and special research grants (academic years) and research capital infrastructure investment (financial years). Figures for recurrent and special research grants for 1998–99 onwards include London extra costs, and funds for the supervision and tuition of postgraduate students. Figures for research capital include HEFCE funding for the following schemes: Joint Research Equipment Initiative, Joint Infrastructure Fund. Science Research Investment Fund and the Research Laboratories Scheme.

  Source:

  HEFCE Analytical Services Group. Data prepared 26 April 2002.

  Higher Education (Cornwall)
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the postcodes are of low participation neighbourhoods in Cornwall that have been identified by HEFC(E) for their performance indicator purposes. [55807]

  Margaret Hodge
  This is a matter for the Higher Education Funding Council for England. I have therefore asked the chief executive of the Funding Council to reply to your question and to place a copy of his reply in the Commons Library.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Sanctions
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent research he has commissioned into the effects of benefit sanctions. [55498]

  Mr. Darling
  It is a fundamental principle that rights are matched with corresponding responsibilities. Where appropriate sanctions are applied where people choose not to meet their responsibilities.

  We have undertaken a range of research into benefit sanctions and have published the results. An important finding has been that those jobseekers subject to longer term sanctions generally increase their efforts to find work, often with success. For some, this is the first time they will have made a serious attempt to find work.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the rate at which current CSA cases will be transferred to the new assessment formula. [55500]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, to this House on 20 March 2002,Official Report, columns 315–16.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what representations he has received following his statement on the reform of the CSA; and if he will make a statement. [55505]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Since my right hon. Friend informed the House that the new scheme would not be introduced in April, the Department has received 15 letters from Members of Parliament and 4 from members of the public on this matter. Organisations representing Lone Parent 30W
  Families have supported our priority to ensure the new scheme is introduced effectively, and not to repeat the mistakes of 1993.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his target is for reducing the number of incapacity benefit claimants.[55501]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We have no targets for reducing the number of people who claim Incapacity Benefit. We are committed to giving all people of working age the help and support they need to find jobs where they are able to do so, and providing security for those who are unable to work.

  Jobcentre Plus will give these opportunities but there is no question of forcing disabled people into work against their will.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when Jobcentre Plus will be extended to cover the whole country. [55502]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  In addition to the 56 integrated Jobcentre Plus pathfinder offices which are already open, we intend to introduce around 225 more integrated offices by April next year including a number of offices in my hon. Friend's constituency.

  The work to extend integrated offices to the whole of Great Britain will continue progressively over the next four years. Alongside the programme for the full integration of services and refurbishment of offices, a series of service delivery improvements will be extended to the entire Jobcentre Plus network in advance of the completion of roll-out.

  New Deal
  Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment his Department has made of the effect the new deal has had on long-term unemployment in the North-East. [55503]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Since 1997 in the North-East, long-term unemployment has been cut by over 70 per cent.

  The new deals have played an important part in this success. In the North-East, the new deal for Young People and new deal 25 plus have, between them, helped over 34,000 long-term unemployed people off benefits and into work.

  31W
  In addition, Action Teams for Jobs and Employment Zones have, between them, helped over 6,000 people from the most deprived areas in the North-East into work.

  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent representations he has received from employers regarding the New Deal. [55523]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Employers have a central role to play in achieving our goal of creating and sustaining employment opportunities for all. DWP Ministers meet with a wide range of employers and their representative organisations and have a planned programme of meetings for the year ahead.

  The National Employment Panel (formerly known as the New Deal Task Force) was formed in 1997 to ensure that employers, and other key customers, have a strong and permanent voice within the Department. The panel is an employer-led body that provides independent advice on the design, delivery and performance of the New Deals and our other welfare to work initiatives, reporting directly to Ministers. The National Employment Panel Employer Coalitions ensure that employers can contribute to services at the regional and local level.

  Annuities
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will revise the annuity rule on pensions held by over-75-year-olds; and if he will make a statement. [55504]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Government have no plans to revise the rule that pension funds must be annuitised by the time the owner reaches 75. We believe that it is a sensible compromise that guarantees pensioners an income for life and allows them some flexibility on the use of their pension fund.

  We are currently considering the responses to the Modernising Annuities consultation paper, which sets out our proposals to help all pension savers achieve better value and make suitable choices when they reach retirement.

  Drug Treatment
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures he is taking to help those recovering from drug treatment to find work. [55506]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We are committed to helping unemployed people who have decided to kick their drug habit move into work. Getting ex-drug users back into work is good for them and good for society.

  That is why we have introduced progress2work, a £40 million initiative to give unemployed people who are recovering from their drug problem the extra help they need to get into work. 27 progress2work pathfinders are already up and running around the country.

  My hon. Friend's constituency will be covered by the second phase of the initiative which will begin in the autumn.

  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures he is taking to help those recovering from drug treatment to find work. [55513]
  32W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We are committed to helping unemployed people who have decided to kick their drug habit move into work.

  Our policies and programmes are helping people with drug problems to overcome them and lead healthy and productive lives, a key aim of the Government's anti-drugs strategy.

  Drug mis-users already have early access to programmes like the new deal and Work Based Learning for Adults. We have also introduced progress2work, a £40 million initiative to give unemployed people who are recovering from their drug problem the extra help they need to get into work. Progress2work will provide additional specialist help so recovering drug users can make the best use of our welfare to work initiatives. It will also equip Jobcentre Plus staff with the skills and knowledge they need to identify and help drug mis-users, and will bring more local and national co-ordination to provision in this field.

  Progress2work is already up and running in 27 pathfinder areas and will be rolled out nationally from next year.

  Pension Service
  David Cairns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to ensure that the Pension Service can provide a local service to older and housebound pensioners. [55507]

  Mr. McCartney
  A key aim of the Pension Service is to provide an excellent customer service by making use of the advances in new technology. This will be done through our contact centres. Customers can access us easily through a simple range of telephone numbers, and can get their claims and queries dealt with quickly by trained experts who understand state pensions and the needs of their customers.

  We fully recognise that not everyone can access the service using the telephone, post or internet—and for those customers there will be a community-based local service.

  The local service is being introduced on a phased basis from 1 April 2002 and will be in place nationwide by October 2002. It will be made up of two key elements. A direct local service, providing support directly to customers which will include a targeted visiting service both in the home and at third party locations, and a 'drop in' surgery service for outreach and take up activities, and partnership services provided with partners such as local authorities and voluntary sector organisations.

  In the meantime, customers should continue to deal with their local social security office until the national service is in place.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what improvements in service he expects there to be from the new Pension Service. [55511]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Pension Service, formally launched on 1 April 2002, will provide a modern, efficient and customer focused service, dedicated to combating poverty and encouraging saving for both today's and future pensioners.
  33W
  It will comprise centralised pension centres working with an improved local service nationwide which will operate in the community working with local partners to provide face to face contact for pensioners.

  A key aim of The Pension Service is to provide an excellent customer service by making use of the advances in new technology. This will be done through our contact centres. Customers can access us easily through a simple range of telephone numbers, and can get their claims and queries dealt with quickly by trained experts who understand state pensions and the needs of their customers.

  We fully recognise that not everyone can access the service using the telephone, post or internet—and for those customers there will be a community based local service.

  The local service is being introduced on a phased basis from 1 April 2002 and will be in place nationwide by October 2002. It will be made up of two key elements. A direct local service, providing support directly to customers which will include a targeted visiting service both in the home and at third party locations, and a 'drop in' surgery service for outreach and take up activities; and partnership services provided with partners such as local authorities and voluntary sector organisations.

  The new Pension Service sees a key shift in emphasis from processes to people: their needs, what they want and the way they want it delivered. This improved service will be rolled out over the next few years. In the interim, our customers will continue to deal with their existing social security offices until they are contacted in writing about the new arrangements.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement about the assistance ethnic minority pensioners will receive with their claims through the Pension Service. [55520]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Pension Service will provide a service tailored to the needs of all its customers, including those from ethnic minority backgrounds and people with disabilities.

  As part of our commitment to ensure that we provide the best possible service we have facilities which enable customers to access the Language Line—a telephone interpreting service covering over 150 languages. We also produce leaflets in a wide range of languages. Our services are also available in Welsh.

  The pension centres and local service will also offer a full service to customers with disabilities. For those people with impaired hearing we can offer Typetalk, BT TextDirect and the services of sign language interpreter if required. Many of our written communications are available on request in Braille, audio cassette, e-mail and large print.

  The local service will establish close links with organisations representing different groups to ensure we meet the needs of the community.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners are in receipt of minimum income guarantee in(a) England and (b) the north-west. [55509]
  34W
  Mr. McCartney
  Over 2 million pensioners benefit from the minimum income guarantee (MIG). These pensioners are on average £20 a week better off. In the north-west Government office region, nearly 250,000 pensioners were in receipt of the MIG, 3,200 of these live in the Burnley constituency.

  To help meet our aim of tackling pensioner poverty, we have introduced a new Pension Service. It will provide a modern, efficient and customer focused service for both today's and future pensioners.

  It will comprise centralised pension centres working with an improved local service nationwide which will operate in the community working with local partners to provide face to face contact for pensioners.

  This improved service will be rolled out over the next few years. In the interim, our customers will continue to deal with their existing social security offices until they are contacted in writing about the new arrangements.

  Our pension centre in Burnley has been up and running since February 2002 and has created some 300 new job opportunities in the region.

  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent assessment he has made of how many eligible pensioners failed to apply for minimum income guarantee in the year to 31 March. [55510]

  Mr. McCartney
  Over two million pensioners benefit from the MIG and are on average £20 per week better off.

  The latest figures for the number of pensioners who may be entitled to but are not claiming the minimum income guarantee are available in the Library1. Estimates for pensioners are subject to greater uncertainty than other published take up estimates; research is under way to improve the precision of take up estimates.

  Around 1,900 pensioners in the north-west Leicestershire constituency are receiving the minimum income guarantee, and around 16,940 winter fuel payments were made last winter.
  1 Income Related Benefits—Estimates of Take Up 1999–2000.

  Labour Market
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on recent trends in the labour market. [55512]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  There are problems in the world economy, but the UK is withstanding these better than other major countries.

  Employment is at a record level of 28.42 million, growing by 172,000 over the last year and by more than 1.5 million since 1997.

  Claimant unemployment is under 953,000, its lowest level since 1975, down by more than 24,000 over the last year and by more than half a million since 1997. For the first time in half a century we have the lowest International Labour Organisation (ILO) unemployment rate of any of the major industrialised countries.

  Building on the foundation of a strong and stable economy, the Department's policies have played an important part in this success. For example, the New Deals have helped well over 600,000 people off benefits

  35W
  and into work, and Action Teams for Jobs and Employment Zones have, between them, helped over 52,000 people from the country's most deprived areas into jobs.

  Means-tested Pensions
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what change has taken place in the number of means-tested pensions since 1997. [55514]

  Mr. McCartney
  For the purposes of this question 'means tested pensions' has been taken to refer to income support and minimum income guarantee. In November 1997 the number of claims to income support was around 1.7 million. In November 2001, the number of claims to income support paid through the minimum income guarantee was around 1.74 million. This benefited over 2 million people.

  In the Leominster constituency, around 2,100 pensioners are receiving the minimum income guarantee, and around 21,080 winter fuel payments were made last winter.
  Source: Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiries, November 1977 and 2001.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on his assessment of trends in the value of funded pensions. [55515]

  Mr. McCartney
  Figures showing a rise in pension fund assets of £111 billion from 1997 to 2000 were released by the Office for National Statistics on 16 May 2002. They also show that pension fund assets stood at £776 billion in 2000, the latest year for which figures are available.

  This shows that the value of pension fund assets remain strong. This is supported by figures given in the answer to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Havant, showing increases in contributions to pension funds of £27 billion from 1997 to 2001.

  These figures emphasise that the basic structure of pensions in this country is right. We will continue to build on the changes we've already made, such as the introduction of state second pension, stakeholder pensions and pension Credit which are tackling pensioner poverty and widening pension saving.

  And proposals we will make later this year following three wide-ranging reviews of the pension system will make it easier for people to save more for their retirement.

  Resettled Offenders
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to help resettled offenders to find work. [55516]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  As part of our strategy to combat social exclusion, we are committed to helping resettled offenders overcome the barriers they face in getting work. Ex-offenders who are in work are half as likely to re-offend as those without a job.

  We offer ex-offenders a wide range of help to move into work, including early access to employment programmes such as New Deal and work based learning
  36W
  for adults. Last October we introduced Freshstart, a £3 million initiative to improve the links between prisons and jobcentres and ease the transition from custody into work. In addition, we are also looking to draw resettled offenders who have recovered from drug misuse into our progress2work initiative. Progress2work pathfinders are already up and running in 27 areas and will be rolled out nationally next year.

  This autumn we will be piloting further support for ex-offenders, giving them the specialist help they need to make best use of our welfare to work initiatives such as the New Deals.

  Long-term Unemployed
  Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to help the long-term unemployed into employment in areas of deprivation. [55517]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Our welfare to work initiatives are helping people into work in all parts of the country. The New Deals have already helped well over 600,000 people into jobs.

  We introduced Employment Zones to help long-term unemployed people in deprived areas get and keep work. Up to March 2002, the 15 zones had helped over 22,200 people move into work. We are in the process of extending the contracts of existing Employment Zones up to March 2004.

  Action Teams for Jobs are also helping tackle joblessness in the most employment deprived areas in the country. Up to April 2002, over 30.000 people had moved into work through action teams. The team in my hon. Friend's constituency started work in mid-October 2001 and covers the five most employment-deprived wards in Halton. To the end of April this year, the team had already engaged 392 people and helped 126 of them into work.

  We are building on action teams' success. In the Budget, the Chancellor announced the introduction of a new Transport Projects Fund worth £5 million a year. Action teams can bid for additional money from this fund to support innovative transport projects that will benefit their local community.

  Older People (Discrimination)
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to reduce discrimination against older people. [55518]

  Mr. McCartney
  We are committed to reducing discrimination against older people. The Department is responsible for promoting the business case for non-ageist employment practises to all employers and individuals across Great Britain. Through our Age Positive campaign, we are working to challenge ageist employment practices leading up to the implementation of age legislation covering employment, vocational training and guidance in 2006.

  Evaluation of the impact of our Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment indicates that since it was launched in 1999, the number of companies using age criteria in recruitment has halved from 27 per cent. to

  37W
  13 per cent., and the number of companies with policies against employing older people has also halved from 14 per cent. to 7 per cent.

  One of our Public Service Agreement targets is to increase the employment rate of people aged 50 and over, reducing the difference between that rate and the overall employment rate. By tackling discrimination and offering a range of back to work help, including New Deal 50-plus, the employment rate for people aged 50 to state pension age has increased each year for the last four years, faster than the overall rate.

  Pension Entitlements
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on his information campaigns to promote take-up of pension entitlements by the over-60s. [55519]

  Mr. McCartney
  As part of the Government's commitment to combating poverty and providing security and independence for people aged 60 or over, new measures have been introduced to automatically identify pensioners who might be entitled to Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) and encourage them to claim. These measures build on the successful Take Up campaign which ran from May to November 2000, and contacted 2.4 million potential MIG customers. It generated approximately 1 million responses. Further mail shots in March 2001 coincided with the increase in capital limits from £8,000 to £12,000.

  From April 2002, all customers contacting the RP Teleclaims Centre are offered information on MIG and asked if they would like someone to call them back to provide them with more information and pursue a claim. Those customers who do not wish to claim MIG via the RP Telecentre are sent a MIG information leaflet with their RP claim pack.

  From April 2002, all customers who have claimed RP since November 2000 (the end of the last MIG take-up campaign) who have been identified as having a potential entitlement to MIG are being issued with a mailshot letter and leaflet to encourage them to claim. Around 100,000 pensioners will receive a mailshot over the April-June period.

  Further (Key Life Event) MIG triggers have been introduced. Departmental data matching techniques are now being used to identify other new and existing pensioners with potential entitlement to MIG. These triggers identify customers who have a match with one or more predetermined 'key life events', which may indicate a potential entitlement to MIG, for example, when customers aged 60 and over receive a new award of one or more benefits, such as attendance allowance, industrial injuries benefit or housing benefit. A mailshot comprising a letter explaining the possible entitlement and inviting customers to claim along with a MIG1L leaflet is sent to all customers identified in this way.

  In order to ensure take up of winter fuel payments, an information campaign ran throughout 2001, including advertisements in national and local press, a leaflet and poster made available in a variety of venues, including social security offices, post offices, supermarkets and doctors surgeries, a dedicated winter fuel payment helpline and information on the internet.
  38W
  Through all of the above measures we intend to ensure that as many potentially eligible people over the age of 60 as possible do not miss out on the additional source of income MIG can provide them with.

  Child Benefit
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to adjust the receipt of child benefit in accordance with new requirements. [55522]

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the practicalities of imposing conditions for the receipt of child benefit. [55524]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Government are considering a number of measures to combat truancy. We are therefore looking at ways of ensuring parents meet their responsibilities in bringing up their children.

  Pensioner Income
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on pensioner income. [55525]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Government want all pensioners to have a decent and secure income in retirement and to share fairly in the rising prosperity of the country. The Government's first priority has been to help the poorest pensioners.

  The Government introduced the minimum income guarantee and are committed to raising this in line with earnings throughout this Parliament, ensuring that pensioners share in rising prosperity. The Government have introduced winter fuel payments for older people. The winter fuel payment was doubled to £200 a year in winter 2000–01 for qualifying households and will continue to be paid at £200 for the lifetime of this Parliament. The Government have also introduced free TV licences for the over-75s, worth £104. Both the WFP and TV licences are non-means tested and tax-free.

  The Government have made above-inflation increases in the basic state pension in both 2001 and 2002. In April 2002 the basic state pension rose by £3 for single pensioners and £4.80 for couples. In April 2003, it will rise by at least £100 a year for single pensioners and £160 for couples, and in subsequent years by either 2.5 per cent. or by inflation, whichever is highest.

  Around 1.8 million of the poorest pensioner households are now over £1,000 a year better off in real terms as a result of the Government's tax and benefit reforms.

  In the constituency of Altrincham and Sale, West, around 2,400 pensioners are receiving the minimum income guarantee. There were also around 19,000 winter fuel payments made last winter and there are 7,500 pensioner households who could benefit from a free TV licence.

  From 2003 the pension credit will ensure that it pays to have saved, with those entitled standing to gain an average of around £400 a year.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures he is taking to prevent fraudulent claims of unemployment benefits. [55526]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Our strategy for combating benefit fraud focuses on getting it right, keeping it right and putting it right: making correct benefit payments in the first place; ensuring payments are adjusted as circumstances change and detecting when payments go wrong and taking prompt action to correct them with appropriate penalties to prevent a recurrence.

  As part of getting it right, front-line staff have been made more aware of the risk of fraud and encouraged to take responsibility for ensuring that claims are correct at the gateway.

  Jobcentre Plus will provide a more comprehensive and integrated service for all benefit claimants. One-to-one interviews will create a personal environment where the full and accurate details of a claim can be established and customers can be reminded of their responsibility to notify us of changes to their circumstances.

  From last month, new powers in the Fraud Act 2001 became available for putting it right, by making it easier to catch fraudsters and give greater punishments to those who persistently abuse the system. Benefit fraud investigators can now require organisations like banks, insurance companies and utility companies to provide information about customers where fraud is suspected. Under the "two strikes" provisions, a person convicted of one or more benefit offences in two separate sets of proceedings within a three-year period may be disqualified from receiving benefit.

  We know that our strategy is working. By March last year we had reduced fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance by 18 per cent—nearly double our first milestone of a 10 per cent. reduction, a year ahead of schedule.

  Work-related Illnesses
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many claims for work-related illness were settled by his Department in the last year for which records are available; and what the cost was in compensation;. [56090]

  (2) how many employees of his Department retired through work-related ill-health in the last year for which records are available; and what the cost was to the Department;. [56091]

  (3) how many days of sick leave were taken by employees in his Department in the last year for which records are available; what proportion of those were due to work-related illness or injury; and what the cost was to the Department. [56092]

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many days of sick leave were taken in his Department last year; how many related to employees suffering(a) stress and (b) other mental health problems; and what the cost was to his Department. [56487]
  40W
  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is not held and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Such information as is available can be found in "Cabinet Office—Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service—calendar year 2000", which is available in the Library.

  Mesothelioma
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what advice he has received from the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council on the question of dual diagnosis in mesothelioma cases. [56093]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  From March 2002, the Department's Chief Medical Adviser has advised Medical Services doctors that the diagnosis and assessment of mesothelioma should, in the majority of cases, be based solely on the documentary evidence of the sufferer's consultant. This change in procedure was not referred formally to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council for advice. However, the council has given its full support to the change.

  Retirement Income
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will set out the basis for the estimate in the Pensions Green Paper of the proportions of retirement income coming from state and from private sources; and what his latest estimate is of those proportions. [57511]

  Mr. McCartney
  The 1998 Green Paper contained estimates of the proportions of retirement income coming from the state and private sources for the year 1998 and also projections of the same proportions for the future years, 2025 and 2050.

  The estimates of the proportions for 1998 were made by using data from the Government Actuary's Department (GAD) and DWP data on state spending on pensioners and Office for National Statistics (ONS) estimates of the size of private pensions in payment.

  The projections of the proportions for future years were made using GAD projected expenditure for national insurance benefits, i.e. the basic state pension and state second pension, and DWP projections of income-related benefits. The projections for income from private sources were based on figures from ONS for current pensions in payment. These were updated by PENSIM estimates of the growth in private pensions in payment until 2025 and then by estimates of GDP growth thereafter. PENSIM estimates are based on data from three different surveys conducted in 1988. These were the Social Change and Economic Life Initiative, the Retirement Survey and the Family Expenditure Survey.

  Since the 1998 projections were made, private pension income has increased and we remain committed to promoting saving for retirement. The introduction of secure, value for money stakeholder pensions last year and other measures we are taking mean that we are on track to achieve this.

  We do not have more recent projections for future years because, as highlighted in the Performance and Innovation Report on modeling in Government Adding it Up (2000)

  41W
  there are numerous problems with PENSIM. Therefore, the Department is currently developing an entirely new dynamic micro-simulation model, Pensim2.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the retirement incomes of women who are married compared to the retirement incomes of women who are cohabiting; and if he will make a statement on the equal treatment implications of the research. [55326]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 10 May 2002]: There are a number of studies that seek to compare pensioners' incomes. These include the Pensioners' Income Series (1999–2000) which is produced by the Department for Work and Pensions and the Cabinet Office's Individual Income (1996–97 to 1999–2000). Both draw on data from the Family Resources Survey.

  Tables 4.2 to 4.4. of the latter contain data on weekly individual income by marital status and family type for all women. The sample size is not sufficient to enable comparison of the incomes of married women who are in a pensioner couple with the incomes of cohabiting women in a pensioner couple.

  Beyond this, we have not commissioned any specific research to compare the incomes of women that are married against those that are cohabiting.

  Jobcentres
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to improve the physical environment of jobcentres. [55496]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The first 56 Jobcentre Plus pathfinder offices, which are already open, embody an entirely new physical environment. They are predominantly open plan, with substantially improved facilities and technology, providing a much more accessible and personalised service for customers.

  We intend to extend this environment progressively to cover the whole of Great Britain over the next four years, starting with a further 225 offices in 2002–03.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to increase the level of personal advice available to unemployed people at jobcentres. [55521]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Jobcentres now form part of the newly established Jobcentre Plus agency. Jobcentre Plus was launched as a national organisation on 1 April, replacing the Employment Service and the working age functions of the Benefits Agency, and providing services to around five million people. Jobcentre Plus aims to deliver further improvements in customer service throughout its entire network of jobcentres and social security offices.

  56 Jobcentre Plus pathfinder offices are already providing the integrated and work-focused service which we will, over time, offer right across the country. We plan to open around 225 more integrated offices by April 2003. As part of this upgrade to the service, everyone of working age who is making a new or repeat claim for
  42W
  benefit in these offices will participate in a work-focused interview with a personal adviser and be offered their continuing support.

  Social Fund (Funerals)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how much has been spent on contributions towards funeral costs from the social fund in each of the past five years; what was the average payment; and how much it would cost to reimburse clergymen for the fees in addition to other current costs; [44090]

  (2) how many grants towards funeral expenses have been paid from the social fund in each of the past five years; and how many have subsequently been reclaimed. [44096]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The numbers of social fund funeral payments awarded, annual expenditure and the average payments for the last five years are in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's Annual Reports on the Social Fund 1996–97 to 2000–01. Copies of the reports are in the Library.

  Information on the number of awards recovered is not held, but the amounts recovered each year are also in the reports.

  Funeral payments cover the cost of specified items, which include the fees levied by the burial authorities and crematoria, where payable. In addition, £600 is available for the person arranging the funeral to select any extra items or services they consider appropriate. Not everyone uses or has to pay for the services of a minister of religion. However, any fee or donation in respect of such services may be met from within this additional £600. We have no estimate of how much it would cost to reimburse clergymen for their fees.

  Pensions Increments
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) for what reason increments to the basic state pension were up-rated by a lower percentage than the rest of the basic pension in April 2001; and for what reason the increments will be up-rated by the same percentage as the rest of the basic state pension in April 2002; [44088]

  (2) if the commitment to raise the state pension by at least 2.5 per cent. even when inflation is lower than this covers (a) basic pension increments, (b) the graduated pension and (c) SERPS. [44094]

  Mr. McCartney
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is required each year by section 150 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to review the level of benefits in light of movements in RPI. As part of this consideration the Government had announced that the basic state pension will rise in the future by at least 2.5 per cent. or the rate of increase in the RPI if that is greater.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the number and expected cost to his Department of special advisers in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [43282]
  43W
  Mr. McCartney
  At 13 March, there are three special advisers in the Department. On cost, I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to him on 20 March 2002,Official Report, column 325W.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what arrangements are in place to ensure that the receipt of linked benefits does not make jobseeker's allowance claimants better off out of work than in work. [43245]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We are taking a single approach to work and benefits to make work pay, make work possible and to support those who cannot work. This service will be delivered through Jobcentre Plus—a personal service with one goal: helping people of working age to live independent lives.

  People receiving working families tax credit or disabled person's tax credit with net income of around £11,740 a year or less are eligible for a tax credit national health service exemption certificate. This entitles them to free national health service prescriptions, dental treatment, wigs, fabric supports, sight tests, full value optical vouchers and help with the cost of travel to hospital for national health service treatment. For those with a child under one year old baby food is available at a reduced price.

  In addition, anybody in work who has a low income can claim help with the cost of national health service treatment provided they have savings of less than £8,000 (£12,000 if aged 60 or over; or £19,000 if they live permanently in a residential care or nursing home). Depending on their income people may be eligible for either a full (HC2) or partial (HC3) Department of Health exemption certificate. The HC2 certificate entitles the person to free NHS services; the HC3 certificate entitles the person to some help towards NHS charges.

  People receiving working families tax credit or disabled person's tax credit (where the amount of tax credit is paid in full or reduced by £70 or less) and who have a close relative, or partner, in prison can get help with the cost of travel to visit them. Help is also available in these circumstances for people who hold a Department of Health HC2 or HC3 certificate.

  Housing benefit and council tax benefit are available to people in work to help pay their rent and council tax. Part of their income is disregarded when assessing the amount of benefit payable to guarantee that a person is better off in work than out of work.

  Sure Start maternity grants are available if a person or their partner is in receipt of working families tax credit or disabled person's tax credit. And help with funeral payments is available through the social fund for the person who is responsible for the funeral if they are receiving working families tax credit, disabled person's tax credit, housing benefit, or council tax benefit.

  From April 2003 we will introduce two new tax credits. The child tax credit will offer a single, seamless system of support for families with children, while the working tax credit will help to improve the financial gains to work.
  44W
  The working tax credit will, for the first time, extend in-work support through tax credits to people without children.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the cost of benefit fraud in Wales has been in each year since 1997; [50633]

  (2) what the cost of benefit fraud has been in each year since 1997 in (a) Lancashire and (b) the North West. [50639]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Our most recent estimate is that £2 billion is lost annually through benefit fraud in Great Britain. This estimate cannot be broken down by country or region.

  We have set firm targets for reducing the amount of fraud and error in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance and we have already achieved a reduction of 18 per cent., nearly double our first milestone, a year ahead of schedule.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to review the removal of social fund applications and their processing from local benefits offices. [34426]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Procedures for the handling of Social Fund applications are being considered following the launch of our two new agencies, Jobcentre Plus and the Pension Service.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the Private Sector Resource Initiative for management of the estate by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative. [49660]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given to him on 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 697W.

  Sunset Clauses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which Bills introduced by his Department in the last five years have contained sunset clauses; and what plans he has for the future use of such clauses. [49614]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Since it came into being in June 2001, the Department for Work and Pensions has not introduced a Bill containing a sunset clause. The Department would include such provisions in future Bills in circumstances where this appeared appropriate.

  Benefits
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people were in receipt of means-tested benefits or tax credits, by region, as(a) a percentage of population and (b) a total number, in descending order according to percentage figures in 2000. [30610]
  45W
  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 30 January 2002]: The information on recipients of income-related benefits is in the table. Tax credits are the responsibility of the Inland Revenue.

  Recipients of income-related benefits by Government office region—May 2000

  Region

  Recipients (Thousand)

  Percentage of the regional population1

  England (north-east)

  400

  19

  Scotland

  740

  18

  England (north-west)

  940

  17

  England (London)

  940

  16

  Wales

  370

  16

  England (Yorkshire and Humberside)

  620

  15

  England (west midlands)

  630

  15

  England (east midlands)

  430

  13

  England (south-west)

  470

  12

  England (east)

  470

  11

  England (south east)

  620

  10

  1 Percentage of the regional population aged over 16.

  Notes:

  1. Key income related benefits are jobseeker's allowance, income support, minimum income guarantee, housing benefit and council tax benefit.

  2. The data refers to recipients of income-related benefits which may be a single person, a member of a couple or a member of a family.

  3. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10,000.

  Source:

  Client Group Analysis of DWP Information Centre 5 per cent. statistical samples—May 2000, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System annual 1 per cent. sample taken in May 2000. Population figures are provided by Office for National Statistics, Population Estimates Unit.

  Benefit Decisions
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many decisions on benefits taken by decision makers were reversed by(a) Ministers and (b) officials in (i) 1998, (ii) 1999, (iii) 2000 and (iv) 2001; and if he will make a statement. [55828]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 13 May 2002]: Ministers do not reverse or change decisions of decision makers. The number of decisions which have been revised by decision makers are shown in the table.

  Benefit

  2000

  Approximate caseload

  2001

  Approximate caseload

  IS

  14,424

  3,800,000

  17,157

  3,900,000

  JSA

  23,774

  1,100,000

  21,741

  1,000,000

  IB, MA and SDA

  27,536

  2,700,000

  26,214

  2,700,000

  LTB (RP, WB and BB)

  1,699

  11,300,000

  1,684

  11,300,000

  IIDB

  2,479

  280,000

  2,276

  n/a

  ICA

  828

  406,000

  1,264

  376,200

  AA

  11,282

  1,200,000

  9,718

  1,200,000

  DLA

  33,979

  2,160,000

  32,444

  2,200,000

  CHB

  3,363

  6,900,000

  4,492

  6,900,000

  Child Benefit
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what guidelines his Department issues on the timescale for switching over to the other parent, as the children's primary carer, as the new recipient of child benefit in cases of marital breakdown or spousal desertion. [53777]
  46W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The rules governing the transfer of child benefit from one person to another are statutory, and are contained in the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. Generally, child benefit cannot be transferred from one person to another in any circumstances until three weeks after the week in which a competing claim is received, for example following a marital breakdown or spousal desertion.

  However, where someone has been receiving child benefit on the basis that a child has been living with them, absences from one another are disregarded for up to eight weeks in any 16-week period. Following a separation therefore, both parties will continue to meet the "living with" condition for a short period, and in default of an agreement between them it falls to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his discretion to determine which of them is entitled for this period.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he last met the Low Pay Commission to discuss the minimum wage. [55208]

  Maria Eagle
  My right hon. Friend has not met the Low Pay Commission. The minimum wage is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Criminal Offences
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many criminal offences have been(a) created and (b) abolished by his Department since 1997. [55426]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Nine offences have been created since 1997 and four have been abolished.

  The offences created in the Social Security (Fraud) Act 1997 were modified by the Social Security Fraud Act 2001. The modification involved repeal and redraft of four of the offences.

  Benefit Tribunals (Doctors)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what guidance he has given concerning the independence of doctors serving on benefit tribunals since 2000. [55305]

  Maria Eagle
  It is not appropriate for my right hon. Friend to issue guidance to the panel members who are appointed by the Lord Chancellor to sit on appeal tribunals within the Appeals Service. The panel members, and the tribunal decisions they make, are independent of the Department for Work and Pensions. Guidance for panel members is a matter for the president of appeal tribunals.

  Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the number of non-resident parents who have had their driving licences removed by the courts since April 2001 as a result of the provisions introduced under the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act. [54514]
  47W
  Malcolm Wicks
  In the period from April 2001 to 18 March 2002, the agency made 58 applications to the court for committal/withdrawal of a driving licence.

  In 21 cases the non-resident parent is now paying. Two non-resident parents provided information to the agency that resulted in them being assessed to pay nothing. One non-resident parent has had his licence withdrawn and three non-resident parents have a suspended disqualification from driving order. In a further 22 cases the magistrates imposed a suspended committal sentence. The rest of the cases are still with the courts, with three non-resident parents the subject of tracing action by the agency.

  Carers
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the number of carers(a) entitled to and (b) being credited into the state second pension. [54517]

  Mr. McCartney
  We estimate that up to 2 million carers could benefit from the state second pension. However, as entitlement to state second pension is based on complete qualifying years, the first of which is 2002–03 tax-year, we have no figures currently for the number of people who are entitled in respect of that year.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answers of 24 April 2002 to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown),Official Report, columns 343–44W. on backdated winter fuel payments, what information the Government collect on people who are entitled to winter fuel payments but who do not receive the money automatically. [56448]

  Mr. McCartney
  Most people who are entitled to a winter fuel payment receive their payments automatically. However, others have to make a claim. From winter 2000–01, the claim details recorded are used to make further payments automatically, unless the individual's circumstances change. This procedure ensures that people do not have to provide their details more than once.

  Publicity aims to ensure that the people who need to claim are aware of the position. It is then up to the individual to choose whether or not to claim.

  Adult Disadvantage
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the answer of 21 March 2002,Official Report, column 528W, on the age positive campaign, what budget his Department has allocated for the age positive campaign in each of the next three years. [47590]

  Maria Eagle
  The current planned budget for 2002–03 and 2003–04 is £900,000 per annum. As with all departmental programmes, budgets for 2003–04, and the subsequent two years, will be reviewed as part of the Spending Review 2002 process, the settlement of which will be received in July 2002. In addition, in line with financial management regimes, all budgets are reviewed internally during the course of the financial year.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  BT Lines
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of BT's lines have been handed over to competitors as a result of local loop unbundling. [44779]

  Ms Hewitt
  Currently more than 300 local loops have been unbundled. Operators are able to place orders with BT for unbundled local loops on a 'business as usual' basis.

  Universal Bank
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress in establishing the Universal bank. [54023]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Department of Work and Pensions, together with the Inland Revenue and the Northern Ireland Social Security Agency, have agreed contractual terms with Post Office Ltd. for the provision of the Card Account and are working on implementation. A lot of detailed work is being carried out on implementing universal banking services and the plan remains to deliver in advance of the migration of benefit payment to ACT from 2003.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when and for what reasons the Universal bank has been renamed the New Direct bank; whether all benefit claimants will have access to the New Direct bank; when she expects the New Direct bank to be established; if she will list the(a) banks and (b) building societies that have agreed to deliver the New Direct bank services; and with which company a contract has been signed for the benefit payment card account. [54510]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government's plan for universal banking services continues to be based on two key elements: post office access to the banks own basic bank accounts (which have a variety of operating brand names); and a simple Card Account which will allow benefits claimants without bank accounts to access their benefits in cash at post offices using a Post Office account instead of an order book or giro. We have no plans to rebrand any of this as "the New Direct bank".

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she will take to find other sites for offshore wind farms should any of the present sites be rejected on grounds of possible interference with military radar. [55576]

  Mr. Wilson
  The sites in the first round of offshore windfarm developments were selected by developers who then made applications for site leases to the Crown Estate, as landlord of the seabed within territorial waters. Of the 18 projects there are no Ministry of Defence objections to 13. The Ministry of Defence are in dialogue with the remaining five developers and would hope to bring the matter to a successful conclusion.

  The Department is working closely with a wide range of organisations to develop a strategic framework for the next stage of windfarm development and hope to issue a

  49W
  consultation document in the autumn. Part of the programme of work will seek to identify potential areas of the sea for further windfarm developments, taking into account a range of factors, although ultimate site selection must be a commercial decision for the developer. Each windfarm development would be subject to the usual consenting process.

  We are also working actively with the Ministry of Defence on several collaborative projects which are designed to address the specific problem of wind turbines on radar, and siting issues more generally.

  High Active Liquor Storage
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the security implications of sensitive sites in nuclear installations, with special reference to high active liquor storage, being identified on non-secure websites. [55325]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 10 May 2002]: The Government's policy of openness stresses the importance of providing as much information as possible of legitimate public interest. It is balanced by non-disclosure of sensitive information. The protection of sensitive information in the civil nuclear industry is one aspect of required security arrangements at civil nuclear installations kept under continuing review by the Director of Civil Nuclear Security, the security regulator. I am satisfied that stringent security measures apply at all civil nuclear sites in respect of both the sites and the materials held within the sites.

  Ofgem
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she last met Ofgem to discuss the introduction of competition into electricity services connection. [56135]

  Mr. Wilson
  Callum McCarthy and I meet on a regular basis to discuss a range of issues. Competition in electricity connections is a matter for Ofgem. I understand that it is making progress on this issue.

  Export Licences
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will respond to export licence application number 32368 made on 7 March by Pultrex Limited of Colchester. [55716]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 13 May 2002]: Licences to export arms and other items whose export is controlled for strategic reasons are issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry acting through the Export Control Organisation (ECO).

  The company regrettably failed to provide complete end user documentation. This has now been obtained and a decision will be taken as quickly as possible consistent with the need to give full consideration to the issues involved.

  End of Life Vehicle Directive
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department took to make people aware of the implications of the End of Life Vehicle Directive. [56420]
  50W
  Mr. Wilson
  DTI published a consultation document on the end of life vehicles (ELV) directive in August last year, issuing 2,000 copies initially, and a further 500 copies during the three-month consultation period. This document was also made available on UK online and on the DTI website, where a summary of the replies received by the Department is now available. Further information on the implementation of the ELV directive will be made available in the same way, when decisions are taken.

  Small Businesses
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government are taking to help small businesses with increased insurance costs following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. [56181]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Government provides a range of assistance of small firms experiencing difficulties, for whatever reason:The SBS launched its Company Rescue Pilot scheme in September 2001, and has so far helped 37 businesses (as at 8 May 2002);
  The Business Link network provides advice and support for businesses suffering as a result of a recent crisis including advising on a range of disaster management issues;
  The National Business Debtline is in place to help Micro Businesses in England and Wales facing debt problems to obtain free, confidential and impartial advice. It handles an average of 1,500 queries a quarter; and
  The recently established Civil Contingencies Secretariat (CCS) will provide improved anticipation, preparation, prevention and resolution to improve the UK's resilience to disruptive challenges at every level in future.

  Miners' Compensation
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money has been paid in fees to solicitors representing miners in(a) Wales and (b) the United Kingdom who are suffering from respiratory disease and vibration white finger in the last three years. [56446]

  Mr. Wilson
  In the last three financial years the Department has made payments broken down as follows to solicitors representing miners in Wales and United Kingdom:

  £ million

  Wales

  United Kingdom

  Respiratory Disease

  April 1999 to March 2000

  0.4

  2.0

  April 2000 to March 2001

  3.4

  16.5

  April 2001 to March 2002

  9.1

  32.4

  VWF

  April 1999 to March 2000

  1.3

  6.6

  April 2000 to March 2001

  1.4

  11.1

  April 2001 to March 2002

  3.3

  28.2

  Respiratory Disability
  Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total value is of offers made by her claim handlers AON IRISC Claims Management, following the medical assessment procedure examination where COPD respiratory disability has been diagnosed; how many such offers were made in(a) England,

  51W
  (b) Wales and (c) Scotland; how many such offers were accepted and what was their total value in (a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland; what the total value is of such offers paid out by the Department (a) in England, (b) in Wales and (c) in Scotland on a full and final basis and how many cases are involved; what the value of the interim payments made in such cases is; and how many cases are involved in (a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland. [56410]

  Mr. Wilson
  An analysis of full and final offers and acceptances broken down by region is as follows:

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Total

  Offers made:

  Number

  7,080

  624

  3,321

  11,025

  Value (£ million)

  113.8

  10.0

  53.3

  177.1

  Offers accepted and paid:

  Number

  1,505

  129

  1,075

  2,709

  Value (£ million)

  20.2

  2.2

  22.9

  45.3

  In the time available it is not possible to distinguish offers accepted but not yet paid. Offers accepted would be slightly higher than in the table.

  The Department does make interim payments in the course of assessing a claim. However, when a full and final offer has been made no further interim payments are offered because we consider it is for the claimants' solicitors and our claims handlers to agree a final settlement. Although, in deserving cases, such as those with a short life expectancy, the Department has made such interim payments and will consider doing so on a case by case basis.

  P.W. Pains Wessex Defence
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many export licences have been granted to P.W. Pains Wessex Defence in the past two years; and for what products they were issued. [56571]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Such information is not normally released because of commercial confidentiality. However I have asked the company if they will waive this. I will write to the hon. Member in the light of its response, and will place a copy of that letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Dounreay Nuclear Plant
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will support the introduction of a community fund levy on new contracts awarded for the decommissioning and site restoration work at the Dounreay nuclear plant in Caithness; and if she will make a statement. [56585]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 15 May 2002]: The decommissioning of Dounreay is expected to generate large economic as well as environmental benefits for the local region, and I have asked UKAEA to maximise the potential for these benefits where it is cost effective to do so. I do not believe that an additional levy on new contracts is justified.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with the UKAEA regarding(a) disposal and (b) transport of nuclear waste from Dounreay. [56880]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: None.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) of 8 March, regarding US tariffs on imports of menswear from the United Kingdom. [56852]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have replied today.

  Selby Coalfield
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to undertake a study of the(a) economic and (b) geological prospects of the Selby coalfield. [56687]

  Mr. Wilson
  IMC Group Consulting Limited has been commissioned by the Department to undertake a review of the Selby Mine Complex. This will consider both the economic and geological prospects of the complex. The review is scheduled to be completed by mid June, and its findings will be published.

  Anglo-Italian Meetings
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions in the last six months members of her Department have met their Italian counterparts; and what subjects were discussed. [56884]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: DTI Ministers are regularly in touch with the Italian Government bilaterally and in EU and other multilateral fora on a range of issues. For example, my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Small Business visited Rome in November 2001 where he had meetings with, among others, his Italian opposite number. DTI Ministers meet their Italian counterparts at EU Internal Market, Consumer Affairs and Tourism Councils four times a year and at Industry and Energy Councils, Research Councils, Employment Councils and Telecomms Councils twice a year. Officials are frequently in touch with their Italian counterparts at all levels, on a wide range of subjects.

  Confectionery (Safety)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 19 April 2002,Official Report, column 1202W, whether her Department's research considered the incidence of domestic episodes not notified to doctors involving children placing in their mouths small parts from toys embedded in confectionery. [57269]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The research analysed non-fatal and fatal choking cases over a ten-year period (1986–1996) involving children under four years of age who were seen in an A&E department of a hospital participating in my Department's Home Accident Surveillance System. The research also analysed data
  53W
  from the Home Accident Death database. It would not be feasible to collect data about every single incident in the UK that does not result in a visit to a hospital A&E department.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 19 April 2002,Official Report, column 1202W, what evidence her Department has collated on the impact embedding a toy within chocolate products has on its odour; and if she will make a statement. [57310]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The manufacturer of the leading brand has provided the Department with research which confirms that the smell of the chocolate does not migrate to the toy because of the capsule contained within the egg.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 19 April 2002,Official Report, column 1203W, what action she intends to take in cases where manufacturers breach DTI safety labelling guidelines. [57309]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Day-to-day enforcement of safety legislation is undertaken by trading standards officers who have the appropriate powers to take action if the necessary labelling is not present.

  Energy Review
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received as part of the consultation process on the Government's Performance and Innovation Unit energy review, published on 14 February. [57325]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government launched the consultation on energy policy on 14 May, following the publication of the energy review earlier this year. No representations have been received since the launch of the consultation but as work proceeds we shall be posting any replies we receive (unless otherwise requested) and notes of key meetings on the DTI's and DEFRA's websites.

  Consignia
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her objectives will be when entering discussions with Consignia and the Post Office Ltd. to determine the future of support branches of the Post Office in rural communities. [55287]

  Mr. Alexander
  Advice from the Postal Services Commission will inform future discussion on support for the rural post office network. The Government are currently considering that advice on transitional financial assistance.

  Employment Regulations
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make an announcement on the Fixed Term Employees' (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002. [58082]

  Alan Johnson
  The Fixed Term Employees' (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 will not be coming into force on the 10 July 2002, as intended, since the Employment Bill (which contains the regulation-making power) has not yet received Royal 54W
  Assent. We intend to lay the regulations once the Bill has received Royal Assent and aim to bring them into force on 1 October. This will give businesses and employees ample time to prepare for these new regulations, in line with the Government's better regulation guidelines.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will estimate the annual additional employment costs of work-related regulations introduced since 1997. [55508]

  Alan Johnson
  Costs and benefits of employment legislation are estimated and published in regulatory impact assessments, which are available in the Libraries of the House. The annual costs to business of employment legislation implemented by the Department since 1997 are estimated to be approximately £5 billion per year. The vast majority of these costs arise through the provision of enhanced terms and conditions of employment.

  Websites
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the savings which will arise for each Government Department as a result of the website www.ukonline.gov.uk. [51514]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  Ukonline.gov.uk is an architecture on which multiple Government websites can be built and deployed quickly and cheaply without incurring separate hosting costs.

  When ukonline.gov.uk was refreshed in January 2002, it was built in a modular way so that its components can be offered to Departments and local authorities. To this end, the architecture that supports ukonline.gov.uk is now being offered to Departments and local authorities so that they can deploy their web presences more rapidly at reduced cost.

  Estimated cost savings are £5 for every £1 spent by each Department using the UK online infrastructure.

  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research has been carried out to assess the level of(a) awareness in the population analysed by socio-economic group, (b) usage by the population analysed by socio-economic group, (c) repeat usage by the population and (d) satisfaction of users with respect to the website www.ukonline.gov.uk; and what the findings were. [51559]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  (a) There is no specific piece of research that measures awareness of the website www.ukonline.gov.uk. However, the Office of the e-Envoy commissions an annual tracking study to measure the progress of the overall UK online campaign. These results showed that the overall awareness of UK online increased from 33 per cent. to 45 per cent. between January 2001 and February 2002. These results are also available by socio-economic group.

  (b) A new statistical analysis solution for ukonline.gov.uk was implemented in January 2002. This shows that usage of www.ukonline.gov.uk has risen from 14,000 unique users per week in January peaking at over 80,000 in April. Visits (a series of page views) have likewise increased from 50,000 in January peaking at over 170,000 in April. We do not have this data broken down by socio-economic group.

  55W

  (c) The statistical analysis does not cover session cookies, therefore repeat usage figures are not available. However, we closely monitor customer feedback via our customer management programme. A dedicated team has been set up to handle customer queries in real-time and to analyse the feedback from members of the public.

PRIME MINISTER

  Data Protection Act
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister 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. [53390]

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

  Gurkhas
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the Prime Minister of Nepal during his visit to the UK concerning(a) the future of the Gurkhas in the British Army, and (b) the case made by the Gurkha Army Ex-Serviceman's Organisation for pay and pension equality for Gurkhas who are serving or who have served in the British Army. [57809]

  The Prime Minister
  I met the Nepalese Prime Minister on Monday 13 May along with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for International Development and the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. The main focus of our discussions was internal issues in Nepal, and what the UK could do to help. The issue of Gurkha pensions was raised briefly by the Nepalese Prime Minister at the end of the meeting. The Brigade of Gurkhas remains an integral and much valued part of the British Army and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

  Policy Seminars
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) whether the No. 10 policy seminar on criminal justice addressed by the Director General of the Prison Service was an official function; and if he will make a statement; [57544]

  (2) what policy seminars attended by persons outside Government have been held at No. 10 Downing Street since Christmas; and by whom each was attended. [57545]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 15 May 2002,Official Report, columns 712–14W.

SCOTLAND

  Concessionary Fares
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to her answer of 13 December 2001,Official Report, column 990W, what the outcome of the
  56W
  discussions between the Government and the devolved Administrations was regarding the provision of half-price fares to older and disabled passengers on scheduled long-distance coach journeys across Britain. [56123]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Discussions are continuing between the Government and the devolved Administrations, as are discussions with the industry.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many press releases were issued by her Department(a) between 1 May and 31 December 1997 and (b) in each year from 1998 to 2001 inclusive. [40038]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. Since then, the following number of press releases have been issued:

  Press releases

  19991

  98

  2000

  317

  2001

  265

  1 1 July to 31 December

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the annual budget for communications activities, including press, public relations, marketing and internal communications, was for her Department for each financial year from 1997–98 to 2001–02. [39912]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. Since that date expenditure on communications activities has been as follows.

  Year

  £

  1999–20001

  70,939

  2000–01

  422,134

  2001–02

  336,579

  1 Part year

  This includes expenditure on electoral registration and voter publicity of £26,861 in 1999–2000, £270,494 in 2000–01; and £186,564 in 2001–02.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Criminal Offences
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many criminal offences have been(a) created and (b) abolished by his Department since 1997. [55423]

  Jane Kennedy
  A comprehensive and exhaustive list of new and abolished offences could be provided only at disproportionate cost. We can, however, provide the
  57W
  following information about the following Northern Ireland Office measures which have been enacted since 1 May 1997.
  Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998: two new offences (obstructing Ombudsman's staff and disclosure of information).
  Criminal Justice (NI) Order 1998: one new offence (breach of sex offender order).
  Criminal Justice (Children) (NI) Order 1998: three new offences (harbouring or concealing child, assisting escape of child, and obstructing inspection of attendance centres and juvenile centres).
  Criminal Evidence (NI) Order 1999: two new offences (making false statements and giving false evidence).

  Police Ombudsman
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many complaints have been made against the Police Ombudsman's Office by(a) members and (b) ex-members of the RUC/PSNI: how many legal actions are outstanding against her or her investigators; in how many cases she has carried out a successful prosecution; how many times she has had to pay out compensation and the amount paid out; and how many cases she has undertaken relating to matters for which the Director of Public Prosecutions or Attorney General has directed that there be no prosecution. [48854]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Police Ombudsman advises that since the opening of the Police Ombudsman's Office on 6 November 2000 until 3 May 2002:1(a) Eight serving members of the police force have made complaints against the Police Ombudsman's Office.
  1(b) No ex-members of the police force have made complaints against the Police Ombudsman's Office.
  There are currently 11 legal actions outstanding against the Police Ombudsman or her investigators:
  Industrial/Fair Employment—7
  Judicial Reviews—4
  The Police Ombudsman does not prosecute cases; the Director of Public Prosecutions is responsible for deciding on prosecutions.
  No orders for compensation have been made against the Police Ombudsman by the courts.
  To date the Ombudsman's Office has referred 93 case files to the Director of Public Prosecutions. In two cases where the Ombudsman's Office has recommended prosecutions the DPP has directed no prosecution, and 33 files are awaiting the DPP's direction.

  Prisons
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the(a) condition and (b) use of the premises of the former HMP Maze is. [56125]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Since its closure in 2000, parts of Maze prison, comprising three accommodation blocks and a number of ancillary premises, have been maintained in warm storage and are in very good condition.

  A small number of other buildings are still in use on the site, but these are mainly portable type accommodation and, while in good repair, are nearing the end of their lifespan. The condition of the remaining buildings on the site, including those on the adjacent Maze compound site, range from fair to derelict.
  58W
  The mechanical and electrical services are in fair condition but have reached the stage where a substantial capital investment would be required to upgrade these to meet current regulations.

  (b) The section of the Maze which is being maintained in warm storage will serve as emergency accommodation should the need arise. Other premises on the site are being used for control and restraint training and to accommodate the Prison Escort Group and its vehicle fleet. The firing range is also used occasionally for training.

  However, the Government have recently given a commitment to hand the site to the Northern Ireland Executive. The timescale has yet to be agreed but the Northern Ireland prison service is actively looking for alternative ways to accommodate the functions listed above.

  Sick Leave
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many days of sick leave were taken in his Department last year; how many related to employees suffering(a) stress and (b) other mental health problems; and what the cost was to his Department. [56476]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Cabinet Office publishes an annual report entitled "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service". The most recently published figures are for the calendar year 2000. For home civil servants (HCS) in the Northern Ireland Office the working days absence per staff year were as follows:

  Certified sick absence—7.5

  Self-certified—1.8

  Total—9.3

  Figures are not held in a comparable format for the Northern Ireland civil servants (NICS).

  The number of days relating to stress and other mental health problems and the cost could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The Northern Ireland Office is committed to the effective management of sick absence and our current service delivery agreement (SDA) sets out our proposal to reduce sickness absence rates over the planning period for HCS staff. It will seek similar reductions for the NICS group in the Department in conjunction with other Northern Ireland Departments.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Gibraltar
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which the Government would enter into agreements regarding Gibraltar, without the agreement of the Government of Gibraltar. [53952]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave in response to a question from the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Bob Walter) on 16 April 2002,Official Report, column 451.
  59W
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what assessment his Department has made of the growth potential for Gibraltar's airport; [57467]

  (2) what plans he has to increase the capacity of (a) passenger flights and (b) freight in and out of the airport in Gibraltar. [57466]

  Peter Hain
  The Government agrees that development of the airport would be of great economic and commercial benefit to the people of Gibraltar and the neighbouring regions of Spain, and agrees with the noble Lord Howe's comments in another place on 12 December 2001,Official Report, column 1393, that it is unfortunate that the implementation of the 1987 Airport agreement was blocked by the reluctance of the Gibraltar legislature to see it through.

  Apart from aviation safety and security, the operation of the civil airport terminal is a defined domestic matter for the Government of Gibraltar, but the airport has excess capacity, and could handle an increase in flights if the commercial demand arises. The agreement we are seeking with Spain under the Brussels Process would, if implemented, remove all the obstacles which currently prevent the full development of the airport.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will deposit in the Library the current draft proposals under discussion with Spain on the future of Gibraltar. [57886]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave in response to a question from the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Mark Francois) on 12 March 2002,Official Report, column 865W.

  Middle East
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of allegations of control by the Palestinian Authority of suicide bombers in Israel. [55431]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have seen the Israeli dossier alleging President Arafat's involvement in terrorism, but cannot verify its authenticity. The EU Commissioner for External Affairs, Chris Patten, has made it clear that he has seen no hard evidence corroborating its claims about the misuse of EU funds. The Palestinian Authority has denied its allegations.

  President Arafat must make all possible efforts to prevent terrorist attacks. Both sides have a responsibility to end the cycle of violence and engage in a political process which offers their people a peaceful way forward.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will discuss with the EU the allegations by the Israeli Government that sums contributed by the EU to the Palestinian authorities have been directed to funding members of Fatah and of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. [57031]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The allegations made by the Israeli Government about the misuse of European development funds relate to budgetary support provided by the European Commission (EC). The EU Commissioner for External Affairs, Chris Pattern, has made it clear that he has seen no hard evidence corroborating claims about the 60W
  misuse of EU funds. The EC attach strict conditionality to the direct budgetary assistance provided to the Palestinian Authority (PA). The conditions mainly reinforce the need for transparency on the PA's public finances, strengthening the prudent management of the budget, and encouraging progress on overall financial and administrative reform. We are satisfied that the EC, with the assistance of the IMF, is ensuring the conditions are met.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much money the EU has provided to the Palestinian authorities in each of the past three years; what measures are taken by the EU to ensure that the money is spent on the issues to which they are directed; and if he will make a statement. [57030]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Between 1994–2001 (figures most recently available), EC aid to the Palestinian Authority and to Palestinian refugees totalled euro 1.466 billion. The UK share of this is an estimated euro 245 million.

  The EC attach strict conditionality to the direct budgetary assistance provided to the Palestinian Authority (PA). The conditions mainly reinforce the need for transparency in the PA's public finances, prudent management of the budget and progress on overall financial and administrative reform. We are satisfied that the EC, with the assistance of the IMF, is ensuring the conditions are met.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the meetings held between(a) UK diplomatic staff in the middle east and (b) staff from his Department with representatives of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine since 1 September 2000; and if he will make a statement. [55995]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  British diplomats in Damascus, Beirut and Jerusalem meet DFLP representatives on an occasional basis, including at diplomatic receptions. They have had no contact with the DFLP this year.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the military objectives that Israeli armed forces have achieved by their siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. [56576]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Israel's stated military objective was to root out terrorists. But neither side can achieve lasting security through force. Actions by both Israel and the Palestinian Authority have contributed to the crisis. Israel must withdraw from Palestinian controlled areas and act in accordance with UN Security Council Resolutions including SCR 1402 and international humanitarian law. The Palestinian Authority must do everything in its power to stop the violence against Israelis.

  European Community
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what precedents and rules have been adopted by institutions of the European Community in coming to a decision as to whether actions are better achieved by national or Community action, with reference to Article 5 TEC. [56633]
  61W
  Peter Hain
  The treaty of Amsterdam annexed to the treaty establishing the European Community a Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality to define more precisely the criteria for applying them and to ensure their strict observance and consistent implementation by all institutions. Legislative proposals must be explicitly justified in terms of subsidiarity. The choice of legal instrument employed is also subject to the subsidiarity test.

  The Government welcome the opportunity, afforded by the Convention on the Future of Europe, to examine the question of subsidiarity and the delimitation of competencies between the Union and the member states. We support the Amsterdam Protocol., but will be seeking ways to embed this principle more robustly within the EU's system of institutions, and to consider mechanisms that will monitor—and enforcs—eubsidiarity and proportionality more effectively.

  General Affairs Council
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the outcome was of the General Affairs Council held in Brussels on 13 May; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [57003]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I represented the UK at the General Affairs Council (GAC) in Brussels on 11 May. Conclusions were agreed by consensus and no formal votes were taken.

  Preparation of the Johannesburg Summit on sustainable development
  The Council noted progress made in preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), which will take place in Johannesburg on 26 August to 4 September 2002. The Council instructed relevant Council bodies to prepare a substantive contribution on the EU's role in the WSSD process, to be approved at the GAC on 17 June and endorsed at the Seville European Council.

  Annual Policy Strategy 2003
  The Council endorsed the Commission's three main priorities for 2003: achieving enlargement successfully, continuing to ensure security for EU citizens, and developing a sustainable and inclusive economy. The Council agreed that the Commission's suggested budgetary allocations would be studied in the framework of the Preliminary Draft Budget examination for 2003. The Council recommended that future versions of the Annual Policy Strategy should be presented as early in the year as possible to improve the coherence of the budgetary process.

  Effectiveness of the Union's external action
  The Council noted work in hand and heard presentations on improving cross-pillar cooperation, strengthening the EU's role in international organisations, budgetary issues, development aid and the EU decision-making process. Commissioner Patten briefed Ministers on pilot studies aimed at improving the impact of EU external assistance and on the process of evolution of responsibilities to Commission delegations.

  Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with ACP countries
  The Council welcomed the Commission's proposal for a mandate to negotiate EPAs with the ACP countries, recalling that the ultimate purpose of the negotiations was poverty eradication and integration of ACPs into the world economy. It also addressed questions of ACP market access and WTO compatibility. The discussion will continue in the Permanent Representatives' Committee, with a view to adopting the mandate at the June GAC.
  62W
  Renewal of mandates and financing of EU Special Representatives (EUSRs)
  Recalling the essential role played by EUSRs, the Council agreed to extend the functions and funding for FYROM and Afghanistan EUSRs and asked the relevant bodies to study financial formulae to make this possible.

  Middle East
  The Council discussed the possibility of convening an international conference and welcomed the end of the Church of the Nativity crisis in Bethlehem. It thanked the Cypriot Government for its assistance and thanked member states for provisionally offering the 13 Palestinians involved temporary residence on humanitarian grounds.

  European Security and Defence Policy
  The Council welcomed the participation of Defence Ministers, meeting as the GAC for the first time, and noted progress towards establishing the Capability Development Mechanism (CDM). It also acknowledged recent advances made in European military capabilities and discussed possible means of resolving current shortfalls with a view to meeting the headline goal.

  Western Balkans
  The Council conducted its annual review of the stabilisation and association process for south-eastern Europe (SAP), endorsed the conclusions of the Commission's first annual report on SAP, and confirmed the SAP countries' status as potential candidates for EU membership. The Council called on the SAP countries to devote adequate attention and resources to implementation of EU recommendations, with particular reference to strengthening the rule of law and judicial systems and visa and entry policies. The Council invited the Commission to assess progress made at its next annual review in March 2003. The Council proposed to establish a new ministerial-level political forum, linking the EU with the SAP countries. It also highlighted the need for a greater EU public information effort to foster greater understanding of the SAP. Crisis management in the Balkans, including the future EU police mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina and a possible mission in Macedonia, was also discussed.

  Iran
  The Council noted that broad agreement had been reached on substance and objectives for developing EU relations with Iran. In addition to commercial matters, it was felt important that this include dialogue on terrorism, proliferation and regional stability. It instructed officials to pursue discussions with a view to a decision at the next GAC on a negotiating mandate for a Trade and Cooperation Agreement with Iran.

  Angola
  The Council welcomed recent encouraging developments in Angola, including the signing of an MOU by the Angolan Armed and Unita forces culminating in a ceasefire. The Council, while expressing support for positive initiatives undertaken by the Angolan Government, called on the authorities to allocate the necessary resources to; reintegrating Unita and Angola armed soldiers into the armed forces, police and civil society; demining; and reconstruction of social and civil infrastructure. It also requested that the Angolan Government do its utmost the assist humanitarian needs.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with other EU states bordering the Mediterranean on additional steps to take to control the illegal entry of asylum seekers into the EU. [56912]

  Peter Hain
  The Government take very seriously the need to control the illegal entry of asylum seekers into the EU. At the request of Italy, the General Affairs Council of 15 April discussed the issue of illegal immigration, and adopted conclusions which have been placed in the Library of the House. In particular, Foreign Ministers
  63W
  considered how to deal more effectively with problems arising from illegal immigration particularly at sea borders, including by using all the instruments available in the framework of the Union's external relations to encourage countries of origin and transit to take action. Foreign Ministers also called for rapid implementation of the comprehensive action plan to combat illegal immigration and trafficking of human beings adopted by the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 28 February.

  Pakistan
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 3 April 2002,Official Report, columns 649–50W, what response has been received from the Pakistan authorities. [57443]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have not received a substantive response to our requests for information from the Pakistani authorities. Senior officials at the British high commission are continuing to pursue this with their Pakistani counterparts.

  EU Unemployment
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress made since the European Council's meeting at Lisbon towards the target to halve unemployment among 18 to 24-year-olds by 2010 throughout the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [57258]

  Peter Hain
  The Lisbon European Council set the objective of halving the number of 18 to 24-year-olds not in further education and training by 2010. In March 2000 the figure was 18.7 per cent., in March 2002 it was 17.7 per cent.

  Law Enforcement Agencies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [57126]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: None.

  Anglo-Italian Meetings
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [56888]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: FCO Ministers are regularly in touch with the Italian Government bilaterally and in EU and other multilateral fora on a range of issues. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I meet our Italian counterparts at EU European Councils every six months and at General Affairs councils (GAC) on average once a month. We last met Prime (and Foreign) Minister Berlusconi at the Brussels GAC on Monday 13 May. In addition, the Prime Minister and I attended a bilateral summit on 15 February in Rome with Prime Minister Berlusconi and my Italian counterpart,
  64W
  Minister Antonione. Officials are frequently in touch with their Italian counterparts at all levels on a wide range of subjects.

  Overseas Hotels
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many overseas hotel rooms have been booked on behalf of other Government Departments in the last two years; what the total cost was; and how many were not occupied. [57832]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office book a large number of overseas hotel rooms on behalf of other Government Departments, who also make large numbers of overseas hotel bookings directly. In some cases the Foreign and Commonwealth Office meets the costs and then passes the charges onto the Department concerned. In other cases, other Government Departments meet their own costs directly. No central records are held of bookings made, costs or occupancy rates. The answer to this question can therefore be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Work-related Illness
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many employees of his Department retired through work-related ill health in the last year for which records are available; and what the cost to the Department was. [56073]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There were five ill-health retirements from the FCO in 2001. None of them were through work-related ill health.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many claims for work-related illness were settled by his Department in the last year for which records are available; and what the cost in compensation was. [56072]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In the period April 2001 to April 2002, six claims for work-related injuries were settled and £44,777.00 paid out in compensation by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office takes the issue of health and safety seriously; its commitment to ensuring the health and safety of its staff goes beyond simply complying with legislative requirements. We aim to embed our approach to managing health and safety in all we do. We continue to work towards targets for reducing the number of working days lost to work-related illness and injury set by the revitalising health and safety strategy of June 2000 and, in 2001, exceeded agreed targets for general sickness.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many days of sick leave were taken by employees in his Department in the last year for which records are available; what proportion of those were due to work-related illness or injury; and what the cost to the Department was. [56074]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  An average of 5.9 days of sickness absence was taken by members of staff in this Department in 2001. Information on the proportion that were due to work-related illness or injury and the cost to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office could be supplied only at disproportionate cost. The Foreign and Commonwealth
  65W
  Office is committed to reducing sickness absence, as set out in our service delivery agreement. We have recently streamlined procedures for recording and monitoring sickness absence and pursued more active case management.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise the matter of Professor Hans Koechler's report on the appeal proceedings at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands in the United Nations General Assembly. [57130]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  No.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 14 May 2002,Official Report, column 547W, on Lockerbie, whether the UN Secretary General sent (a) Professor Hans Koechler and (b) other representatives of the Internal Progress Organisation to observe the Scottish Court in the Netherlands. [57497]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  No. The United Nations Secretary General advised a number of non-governmental organisations of the opportunity to observe the appeal hearings. The International Progress Organisation took advantage of this opportunity. But its participation was neither requested nor funded by the United Nations. The United Nations did not ask Professor Koechler or any other members of the International Progress Organisation to report back.

  Bangladesh Murder
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Government of Bangladesh regarding the case of Surat Miah, a former constituent, beaten to death in Dhaka's international airport after refusing to pay a bribe; and if he will ask them(a) when and (b) why those arrested in connection with the murder were released. [57277]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Our High Commission in Dhaka have raised the case of Surat Miah with the Bangladeshi authorities many times, most recently on 23 April 2002. The four suspects arrested in connection with the murder were released on 23 October 2001. We understand they were acquitted because of a lack of evidence. As Surat Miah was not a British national we are unable to make consular representations to the Bangladesh Government. However, our High Commission have continued to make known the widespread concern in Britain over the case.

  Europe Day
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list Europe Day activities that were arranged by his Department; and what the objective was of each. [57911]

  Peter Hain
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office held an open day on 9 May to mark Europe Day.

  The Europe Day event was a part of the Government's EU information campaign, aiming to raise awareness of the work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, British membership of the EU, current and future
  66W
  countries of the EU, and to provide an opportunity for the public to view the Foreign arid Commonwealth Office's historic buildings.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to reply to the letter dated 13 March from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. [56677]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I replied on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 9 May. As I said in my letter, I apologise for the delay in responding, which is due to the very heavy volume of correspondence this subject generates.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Fraud
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the estimated level of losses to fraud and corruption was in(a) her Department's Vote 1 budget and (b) her Department's Vote 2 budget for (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01. [54699]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 8 May 2002]: The Crown Prosecution Service is funded by a single vote. There were no losses to fraud and corruption in 1999–2000. Losses in 2000–01 totalled £1,088.75.

  No other losses were recorded from the budgets of the Law Officers' departments.

  Ministerial Training
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General how much has been spent by her Department on training in leadership skills for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years. [52714]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: Nothing has been spent by my Department on training in leadership skills for Ministers.

  In relation to those departments for which the Attorney-General is responsible, the Treasury Solicitor's Department and Serious Fraud Office only have figures for the last three years. The figures are as follows:

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  £

  Year

  1999

  3,240

  2000

  1,175

  2001

  2,150

  Serious Fraud Office

  £

  Year

  1999–2000

  2,775

  2000–01

  24,975

  2001–02

  7,100

  67W
  Crown Prosecution Service

  Leadership training undertaken by the senior management team in the Crown Prosecution Service has been carried out in two areas. Training in a one-to-one coaching programme began in March 2000 and finished in September 2000, the cost of this initiative was £30,000. A Chief Crown Prosecutors Management and Leadership programme began in September 2001 and finished in February 2002, the cost of this programme was £211,000.

  While officials at HMCPS Inspectorate have received leadership training, this has not resulted in any cost to the Department.

  IT Contracts
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Solicitor-General what has been the total expenditure of his Department on IT systems and support in each year from May 1997 to date; how many IT contracts have been let in each of those years; of the other main contracting party in each of those contracts, how many have been(a) companies whose registered office is in (i) England and Wales, (ii) Scotland and (iii) Northern Ireland and (b) foreign companies; and what are the names of the companies falling within category (a). [33692]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 7 February 2002J: The total expenditure of the CPS on IT systems and support from May 1997 to date was:

  £million

  1997–98

  4.28

  1998–99

  9.83

  1999–2000

  7.36

  2000–01

  21.74

  2001–02

  21.82

  Records show that a total of 40 contracts were let during this period, as follows:

  Number of contracts

  1997–98

  9

  1998–99

  10

  1999–2000

  9

  2000–01

  6

  2001–02

  6

  The 34 businesses that are the main contracting parties in each of the contracts, all have their registered offices in England and Wales. None of the main contracting parties have their registered office in Scotland, Northern Ireland or foreign countries.

  The names of the companies that are within category (a) are:

  ACG Computer Consultants

  Action Computers Ltd.

  Admiral Computing Ltd.

  Anite Group Ltd.

  Bull Information Systems Ltd.

  68W

  Cable and Wireless

  CMG UK Ltd.

  Computacenter plc

  Computer People Ltd.

  Cornwell Affiliates plc

  CSI

  DBI Consulting Ltd.

  DCS Computers Ltd.

  Elan Computing Ltd.

  Equanet Ltd.

  Ericsson Mobile Communications (UK) Ltd.

  Ernst and Young Ltd.

  Global Crossing Communications Ltd.

  Hedra Ltd.

  Integris Ltd.

  Kermon Ltd. (Xansa)

  Kudos Partnership

  Logica UK Ltd.

  Lorien plc

  Macline Ltd.

  Network Designers Ltd.

  Oakley Computer Ltd.

  P and P Corporate Systems

  Parity Resources Ltd.

  Pentos Systems plc

  Sema Group Ltd.

  Simdell Ltd.

  Vantagepoint Hardware Services Ltd.

  Yale Data Management Consultants Ltd.

  The Serious Fraud Office's total expenditure on IT systems and support in each year from May 1997 to date was as follows:

  £

  1997–98

  807,000

  1998–99

  988,000

  1999–2000

  1,090,000

  2000–01

  1,920,000

  2001–02

  1,930,000

  The number of IT contracts let in each of those years was:

  IT contracts let

  1997

  —

  1998

  1

  1999

  —

  2000

  —

  2001

  1

  2002

  —

  These contracts were signed with companies registered in England and Wales. One of them was negotiated with IBM (UK) plc, the other was with Cedar Group plc.

  Although the Serious Fraud Office negotiated other contracts for IT services, these were small and the costs of researching the details of the companies involved would be disproportionate.Since May 1997 the Treasury Solicitor's Department's expenditure on IT systems including telecoms has been as follows.
  69W

  £

  IT Systems

  Telecoms

  Total

  1997–98

  475,531

  124,740

  600,271

  1998–99

  647,711

  147,707

  795,418

  1999–2000

  523,361

  140,600

  663,961

  2000–01

  1,052,515

  160,380

  1,212,895

  2001–02

  924,267

  130,829

  11,055,096

  1 Year to date.

  In addition the Department incurred the following paybill expenditure on staff to support and develop IT systems.

  £

  1997–98

  248,468

  1998–99

  326,400

  1999–2000

  449,200

  2000–01

  558,852

  2001–02

  1497,681

  1 Year to date.

  The Department has used framework contracts under the aegis of the Office of Government Commerce (OGC): GCat for the supply of IT goods; and S-CAT for the supply of IT services. The Department routinely sources hardware, software and IT services under these contracts and such purchases do not constitute separate contracts in their own right.

  Purchases of equipment, software and services have been made from a variety of suppliers under both framework contracts, the main ones being:

  Compaq Computer Ltd.

  Dell Computer Corporation Ltd.

  Specialist Computer Centres Ltd.

  Computacenter (UK) Ltd.

  PC World Business Direct

  Cedar Group plc

  Cathedral Consortium (HEDRA) Ltd.

  Elan Computing Ltd.

  Insight Consulting

  Methods Application Ltd.

  Parity Solutions Ltd.

  Yale Data Management Consultants Ltd.

  In addition to its use of the OGC framework contracts, the Treasury Solicitor's Department has let IT contracts to the following companies, all of whose registered offices are in England and Wales:

  1998—Sirsi Ltd.

  1999—Grant Thornton Ltd.

  2002—TSL Ltd.

  The Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers total expenditure on IT systems and support in each year from May 1997 to date was as follows:

  £

  1997–98

  92,625

  1998–99

  35,992

  1999–2000

  30,492

  2000–01

  37,576

  2001–02

  40,387

  70W
  The number of IT contracts let in each of those years was:

  Number of contracts

  1997

  —

  1998

  1

  1999

  —

  2000

  1

  2001

  —

  2001

  —

  These contracts were signed with companies registered in England and Wales. One of them was negotiated with 4Front Networks and the other with Selection Services.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Disclosure of Interests
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what rules apply to the disclosure of interests on the part of those serving on public bodies which are responsible to the Lord Chancellor's Department. [56454]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Executive and advisory non-departmental public bodies are required to adopt a board members' code, based on guidance produced by the Cabinet Office, and they should have registers of interests. The definition of interests is ultimately for individual Departments since they are best placed to decide what might be thought to influence members of each of their NDPBs.

  Information on the executive NDPBs sponsored by this Department is as follows:
  The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, which was set up last year, has a Code of Best Practice and a register of interests.
  The Information Commissioner makes a statement as set out in FRS 8 in her annual accounts confirming that she had no personal or business interests which conflict with her responsibilities. The Commissioner's accounts are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
  The Legal Services Commission has a Code of Best Practice for LSC members with rules of conduct to report conflicts of interest. The commission also maintains a register of members' financial, business and other interests which is available for public inspection through the commission's secretariat department and is published in its annual report.

  The Department's advisory NDPBs also have codes and registers.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  New Wembley Stadium
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many seats will be available to the general public in the proposed new Wembley stadium; who made the decision to change the number of seats available to the public; what her policy is on a reduction in seats available to the general public; and what impact a reduction in seats has on the Lottery agreement. [53785]
  71W
  Tessa Jowell
  The current Lottery Funding Agreement requires Wembley National Stadium Ltd. (WNSL) to make available 75,000 seats to the general public. Any change to that agreement to reflect the current project is a matter for Sport England, the FA and WNSL.

  I understand that following the publication of the English National Stadium Review's interim report on 19 December 2001 [HC 479], WNSL asked Sport England to consider the need to change the balance between general public and premium seats in order to support efforts to secure financing for the project. The request was supported by a revised business plan and by thorough market research carried out by WNSL. The Council of Sport England has considered the revised business plan presented by WNSL and following discussions with WNSL has agreed to reduce the number of general public seats which WNSL must make available to 71,200. This 71,200 figure compares with approximately 73,000 seats available to the general public at the current stadium.

  The change to the number of general public seats will be incorporated as an amendment to the Lottery Funding Agreement.

  Disclosure of Interests
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what rules apply to the disclosure of interests on the part of those serving on public bodies which are responsible to her Department. [56449]

  Dr. Howells
  All advisory and executive non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) are required to adopt a board members' code, based on guidance produced by the Cabinet Office, and they should have registers of interests. All DCMS NDPBs have such codes and registers.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what bilateral discussions she has had with(a) the Foreign Secretary and (b) the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry regarding raising the profile of the British film industry overseas; and if she will make a statement. [56607]

  Dr. Howells
  None, but officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Trade Partners UK and the British Council in posts overseas and at home have worked closely with DCMS officials and the Film Council, for example in the development of the British Film Office in Los Angeles.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the mandate of the Committee on the export of cultural goods 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. [56788]

  Dr. Howells
  The terms of reference of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art, which is an advisory non-departmental public body, are to advise the 72W
  Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the principles which should govern the control of export of works of art, antiques etc.; to consider all cases where refusal of an export licence for a work of art or antique is suggested on grounds of national importance; to advise in cases where a special Exchequer grant is needed towards the purchase of an object that would otherwise be exported; and to supervise the operation of the export control system generally.

  The committee has met on 11 occasions in the last 12 months. It has eight members, drawn from across the UK, who are appointed by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport provides the committee with an annual budget of £20,000–£23,000. The cost of departmental staff support is approximately £75,000 per annum. The committee's current business arises from its terms of reference and includes consideration of cases where the deferral of a decision upon granting an export licence for an object is suggested on grounds of national importance (39 cases in the last 12 months), related policy issues and the preparation of an annual report.

  The committee has adopted the Model Code of Practice for Advisory Non-Departmental Public Bodies, issued by the Cabinet Office, and its annual report is presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. According to Cabinet Office requirements, DCMS is currently undertaking a quinquennial review of the committee's operation.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much funding has been granted to Sport England from the National Lottery in each of the last three years, broken down by the sports which have received funding. [56599]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have arranged for the information requested to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Sport England
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funding has been granted by Sport England in each of the last three years to(a) local authorities for sports facilities and (b) independent sports clubs. [56598]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information requested is set out below:

  £ million

  Local authorities

  Sports clubs

  1999–2000

  26.99

  26.93

  2000–01

  44.82

  45.46

  2001–02

  37.57

  24.76

  Departmental Staff (Scotland)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many and what percentage of(a) Civil Service, (b) executive agencies and (c) non-departmental public body jobs under the

  73W
  remit of her Department are located in Scotland; and how many of each have been relocated to Scotland since May 1997. [56318]

  Dr. Howells
  There are no civil service or executive agency staff under the Department's remit in Scotland. There are currently 67 non-departmental public body jobs in Scotland; this is less than a per cent. of all jobs in non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Department. No staff have been relocated to Scotland since May 1997.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Deportation Powers
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from(a) police (i) forces and (ii) organisations, (b) organisations with a reporting line to his Department and (c) official body concerned with immigration about further powers which may be required in relation to deporting those who pose a security threat to the UK. [52550]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: I have received no recent representation on this matter.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter of 30 January 2002 from the hon. Member for West Chelmsford on behalf of Mr. Taylor of Chelmsford; and if he will make a statement on the reasons underlying the time taken. [55833]

  Asylum seekers supported by the National Asylum Support Service (pass) as at end December 2001

  Site for accommodation centre

  Region

  In receipt of accomodation only

  Supported in NASS accommodation

  Total

  Percent of NASS supported asylum seekers (percentage)

  Royal Air Force (RAF) Hemswell, Lincolnshire

  East Midlands

  500

  3,220

  3,720

  6

  RAF Newtonm, Nottinghamshire1

  East Midlands

  500

  3,220

  3,720

  6

  Air West Edinburgh, Edinburgh1

  Scotland

  240

  4,750

  4,990

  8

  Defence Storage and Distribution Centre Bicester, Oxfordshire

  South Central

  3,150

  800

  3,950

  6

  Sully Hospital, South Glamorgan

  Wales

  140

  700

  840

  1

  Qinetiq, Pershore, Worcestershire1

  West Midlands

  520

  6,930

  7,450

  11

  1 It was confirmed on 14 May 2002, Official Report, column 597W that planning notifications would be submitted in respect of these sites.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 May 2002,Official Report, column 898W, on asylum seekers, who the experts referred to were. [56539]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) on 15 May 2002,Official Report, column 705W.

  Asylum Accommodation Centres
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the legal status will be of public
  74W
  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]: A reply to the hon. Member was sent on 13 May 2002. The delay was caused by an error in the checking system. New procedures have now been put in place to ensure this situation does not re-occur.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter of 19 March 2002 from the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire on behalf of Miss Huta. [56013]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 13 May 2002]: I wrote to the right hon. Member on 17 May 2002. I am sorry he did not receive an earlier reply.

  Asylum Seekers
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have committed offences and received custodial sentences of more than two years in each of the last five years. [53739]

  Angela Eagle
  In 2000 there were 677 court recommendations for deportation. Of these 514 (76 per cent.) related to sentences of two years or more. The records do not show whether convicted foreign nationals who were also immigration offenders were asylum seekers or not. This information will be available in the future.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers being supported by NASS live within a 20 mile radius of each of the sites under consideration for the proposed asylum accommodation centres; and what proportion of the total of asylum seekers so supported this represents. [56574]

  Angela Eagle
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  The table shows the number of asylum seekers (including dependants) who were living in the same region as the proposed locations for the accommodation centres as at the end of December 2001.

  inquiries that his Department will arrange to examine the proposed asylum accommodation centres; and who will conduct those inquiries. [54034]

  Angela Eagle
  If a local authority were to object to a notification, the procedure for considering that objection would be a matter for My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Byers).

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has decided which sites should be taken forward to public inquiry as possible sites for asylum accommodation centres. [57114]
  75W
  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: I announced on 14 May 2002 the sites at which we will be submitting planning notifications, including one in the hon. Member's constituency. Once such a notification is submitted, it is a matter for the local planning authority. If a local authority were to object to such a notification, the procedure for considering that objection would be a matter for My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Byers).

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the sites that were considered as possible locations for asylum accommodation centres in preparing the short-list of sites, along with the reasons for the rejection of each site. [57333]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 13 May 2002]: As yet there has been no formal evaluation of the education provision for children at Harmondsworth. The provision has only needed to be in operation since towards the end of last year. The performance of the centre's operator, UKDS, is monitored closely by on-site Home Office officials. I am confident that the dedicated team of UKDS education staff at Harmondsworth provides an excellent and very professional service, which takes account of the academic and emotional needs of the children who stay at the centre.

  Asylum and Immigration
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with EU partners on ensuring that the asylum and immigration process ensures equivalent standards of reception and accommodation throughout the European Union. [55577]

  Angela Eagle
  The European Commission presented a proposal for a Council Directive laying down minimum standards in the reception of applicants for asylum in member states in May of last year. The Directive imposes equivalent standards for accommodation, access to health care, employment and education. Following detailed negotiations a general approach agreement was achieved at the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 24–25 April 2002. Political agreement is expected by June 2002. European Union member states are to adopt this and other minimum standards measures on Asylum Procedures, Refugee Qualification and a mechanism for establishing which member state is responsible for an asylum claim by 2004.

  National Asylum Support Service
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what performance indicators were set for the National Asylum Support Service in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02; and how NASS performed against such performance indicators in each year. [54102]

  Angela Eagle
  In 2000–01 the published performance indicator for the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) was to "process asylum support claims within agreed time scales (from date of receipt)—70 per cent. within two days and 100 per cent. within seven days". In 2001–02 the published performance indicator was to "reduce by 20 per cent. the average time taken to decide applications for support from destitute asylum seekers".
  76W
  In 2000–01, 15 per cent. of applications were decided in two days and 30 per cent. in seven days. Figures for actual performance in 2001–02 are not yet available.

  The performance of NASS in 2000–01 was unacceptable. In 2001 NASS reviewed and refined its procedures with the intention of speeding up response times and improving the quality of decision making.

  Yalcin Kaya
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to take a decision on the application for naturalisation as a British citizen of Yalcin Kaya (Home Office ref: K1020805). [56523]

  Angela Eagle
  A decision in Yalcin Kaya's case will be taken as soon as possible. Inquiries have to be made in all applications for British citizenship, to ensure that the statutory requirements specified in the British Nationality Act 1981 are met. The length of time taken to complete these inquiries can vary considerably and they are still under way in Mr. Kaya's case.

  Sick Leave
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many days of sick leave were taken in his Department last year; how many related to employees suffering(a) stress and (b) other mental health problems; and what the cost was to his Department. [56480]

  Angela Eagle
  Information on sickness absence can be found in the annual report "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service" published by the Cabinet Office. The most recently published figures are for the calendar year 2000 and show that the average number of lost working days per person in the Home Office was 11.2 days.

  Information on sickness absence and compensation payments for stress and other mental health problems is not collated centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Prisoner Numbers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women under the age of 20 years were serving a prison sentence in England and Wales as of 1 May. [55198]

  Beverley Hughes
  Provisional information shows that on 31 March 2002 (the latest available data) there were 5,355 males and 294 females under the age of 20 who had been sentenced to detention in a young offenders institution or were serving a detention and training order in a prison service establishment in England and Wales.

  Child Passports
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy to cancel the passport of a child in circumstances where one parent of an estranged couple refuses to transfer it to the parent with sole custody of that child; and if he will make a statement. [55700]
  77W
  Angela Eagle
  The resolution of such issues is a matter for the family courts. The United Kingdom Passport Service advises parents in such circumstances to seek legal advice with a view to obtaining a court order to transfer the passport.

  Sentencing (Manslaughter)
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the range of sentence lengths is and what was the average sentence for(a) women and (b) male prisoners convicted of manslaughter. [55279]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested, relating to persons sentenced for manslaughter in England and Wales in 2000, is contained in the table.

  Statistics for 2001 will be published in the autumn.

  Persons sentenced to immediate custody for manslaughter by gender and sentence length, England and Wales, 2000

  Length of sentence

  Males1

  Females1

  Total1

  Four months or under

  1

  —

  1

  Over four months up to six months

  —

  —

  —

  Over six months less than a year

  1

  —

  1

  Total under one year

  2

  —

  2

  One year

  3

  1

  4

  Over one year up to 18 months

  4

  1

  5

  Over 18 months up to two years

  7

  2

  9

  Over two years up to three years

  26

  7

  33

  Over three years less than four years

  7

  1

  8

  Total one year and under four years

  47

  12

  59

  Four years

  28

  5

  33

  Over four years up to five years

  30

  1

  31

  Over five years up to seven years

  48

  1

  49

  Over seven years up to 10 years

  21

  2

  23

  Over 10 years

  4

  —

  4

  Life

  16

  1

  17

  Total four years or over

  147

  10

  157

  Grand total

  196

  22

  218

  Average sentence length in months

  61.9

  46.3

  60.2

  1 Number of persons sentenced

  "Secure Borders, Safe Haven"
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent he has conformed to Criterion 6 of Cabinet Office guidelines on written consultations in relation to his consultation on the White Paper, "Secure Borders, Safe Haven"; and if he will make a statement. [55401]

  Angela Eagle
  Responses from organisations to the White Paper 'Secure Borders, Safe Haven' have been placed in the Library. We are acknowledging all responses and welcome the many constructive arid detailed comments received. The Government are setting out clearly their decisions on those areas which require legislative change through the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill which is currently before Parliament. Comments on issues which do not require legislative change are being considered as part of policy development in those areas.

  Exclusion Orders
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons individuals are subject to exclusion orders. [55483]

  Angela Eagle
  The Secretary of State can personally direct that a person is excluded from the United Kingdom if it is deemed that their presence here is not conducive to the public good. This will usually be on the grounds of national security, public order or foreign relations with another country, although there is no restriction on that power.

  Linguistic Tests
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what linguistic tests are made of those claiming asylum to verify their country of origin; and if he will make a statement. [55443]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) on 30 October 2001,Official Report, column 617W.

  Yarl's Wood
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether(a) he, (b) a Minister and (c) an official from his Department will attend the select committee inquiry of the Bedfordshire county council into the Yarl's Wood fire; and if he will make a statement. [55983]

  Angela Eagle
  I can confirm that a senior Home Office official will attend the Bedfordshire county council inquiry.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department's inquiry into the incident at Yarl's Wood will convene; what its terms of reference will be; whether it will be held in public; and if he will make a statement. [55978]

  Angela Eagle
  The inquiry being conducted by Stephen Moore into the events at Yarl's Wood convened in February 2002 and is ongoing. The terms of reference for the inquiry are to inquire into the events at Yarl's Wood removal centre on the night of 14–15 February 2002 and their causes and to make recommendations designed to minimise the risk of recurrence on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate custodial estate in relation to contracts and agreements with service providers, the operation of removal centres, building design and construction, and any other matters considered relevant.

  The inquiry will take full account of the inquiries being undertaken by Bedfordshire police, Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service and Group 4, and will be conducted in a way which does not impede any criminal investigation. In addition, the inquiry will have available expert advice from Her Majesty's Prison Service on matters to do with the above matters.

  Although not a public inquiry, observations and concerns may be expressed direct to Stephen Moore. The findings of the inquiry will, however, be published.

  Experience Corps
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the consents he has given to the Experience Corps under the terms of Paragraph 17 of the Financial Agreement. [56337]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: The number of consents given under Paragraph 17 in the Financial Agreement will be covered in the Experience Corps Company's annual report, which it is obliged to produce and publish no later than 30 September of each financial year.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many new volunteers were recruited by the Experience Corps in the year to 31 March. [56339]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: The Experience Corps Company is obliged to produce and publish an annual report, which includes audited accounts, no later than 30 September of each financial year.

  The report will give a description of the past year's activities assessed against the objectives and targets in Annexe 2 of the Financial Agreement and the annual business plan along with any other supporting material to substantiate the assessment.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the Experience Corp's annual business plan for 2001–02. [56341]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: The Experience Corps business plan for 2001–02 will be discussed and commented against in its annual report.

  The Experience Corps Company is obliged to produce and publish an annual report, which includes audited accounts, no later than 30 September of each financial year.

  A copy of the report will be placed in the Library on publication.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many full-time equivalent animators were recruited by the Experience Corps by 31 March. [56338]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: The Experience Corps Company is obliged to produce and publish an annual report, which includes audited accounts, no later than 30 September of each financial year.

  The report will give a description of the past year's activities assessed against the objectives and targets in Annexe 2 of the Financial Agreement and the annual business plan along with any other supporting material to substantiate the assessment.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to publish the statement of actual expenditure incurred by the Experience Corps. [56340]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: Any statement of expenditure, whether for a company or charity, only becomes a matter of public record once it has been audited.
  80W
  The Experience Corps Company is obliged to produce and publish an annual report, which includes audited accounts, no later than 30 September of each financial year.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department agreed with the Experience Corps its annual business plan for 2002–03; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [56342]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: The annual business plan for 2002–03 was agreed with the Home Office in March 2002.

  The Experience Corps business plan for 2002–03 will be discussed and commented against in its annual report. The Experience Corps Company is obliged to produce and publish an annual report, which includes audited accounts, no later than 30 September of each financial year.

  A copy of the report will be placed in the Library on publication.

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence he collates as to the incidence of Hepatitis C and treatment programmes for that condition within the prison population. [56334]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: Among health care data regularly submitted by Prison Service establishments to the Prison Health Policy Unit are the number of new cases of Hepatitis C diagnosed each month and the number of prisoners known to be suffering from Hepatitis C at the end of each month. The Prison Health Policy Unit has recently entered into a new contract with the Prison Health Laboratory Service for a communicable disease data collection and monitoring service.

  Information about the number of prisoners receiving treatment for hepatitis C is not collated centrally. However, unless their time in custody is so short as to make it impractical, prisoners who are diagnosed with Hepatitis C are referred to national health service specialists for further assessment and treatment, as clinically appropriate.

  Women Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women with young children were serving a prison sentence in England and Wales and had their child with them on 1 May. [56297]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Prison Service provides accommodation for babies to remain with their mothers in four prisons: Askham Grange, Holloway, New Hall and Styal. There are 68 places in total and occupancy figures are collected each Monday. On 29 April 2002, 60 of these places were in use.

  Departmental Staff (Scotland)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [56301]
  81W
  Angela Eagle
  Home Office staff figures in each region and nation of the United Kingdom are published in "Civil Services Statistics" year on year and placed in the Library.

  As at 14 May 2002 the numbers and percentage of Home Office staff in Scotland are set out in the table:

  Area

  Staff in Scotland

  All

  Proportion1

  (a) Core Home Office

  144

  18,542

  0.77

  (b) Executive Agencies2

  281

  3,138

  8.9

  (c) NDPBs3

  46

  243

  18.9

  1 Percentage

  2 United Kingdom Passport and Criminal Agency

  3 Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority; Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel

  Maladministration
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many findings there have been of maladministration by ombudsmen with responsibility for agencies under the remit of his Department since 1997. [56302]

  Angela Eagle
  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 Ombudsmen's Annual Report for the period 1997–98 to 2000–01 inclusive can be viewed in the Library, or on the Parliamentary Ombudsman's website at www.ombudsman.org.uk/publications.

  Rural Awareness
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department will have rural proofing embedded in policy-making procedures as set out in the Countryside Agency's report, "Rural Proofing in 2001–02". [54431]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government has made a firm commitment to rural proof all relevant policies and for performance to be monitored independently by the Countryside Agency. This innovative approach—described as "courageous" by the Agency's Chairman Ewen Cameron, when his first report was published on 11 April this year—applies across Government and to agencies and other Government bodies.

  The first report concludes that a great deal has been achieved since this approach was proposed in the Rural White Paper in November 2000, but that much more needs to be done to make rural proofing fully effective. The report sets out details of the checklist devised by the Countryside Agency as an appendix.

  Following the decision to implement the strong rural agenda set out in the White Paper, a number of other changes have taken place. In June 2001, the new Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) came into being. For the first time, there is a Minister of State for Rural Affairs and a Director General within DEFRA backed by a team with a clear focus on rural social and economic issues and on implementation
  82W
  of the Rural White Paper. A Cabinet Sub-Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for DEFRA (Mr. Meacher) has a specific focus on rural affairs. My right hon. Friend has met Ministerial colleagues across Government to discuss the challenges of delivering services in rural areas.

  The Rural Services Standard, as set out in the Rural White Paper (Our Countryside: the future (Cm4909)) sets targets for the individual services delivered by Government. It is monitored for DEFRA by the Countryside Agency, and its content is currently being reviewed.

  The Home Office reports regularly on the targets in the Rural White Paper for which it is responsible. It is currently reviewing and updating its policymakers checklist to include guidance to all staff on best practice and on cross-cutting issues to address in formulating policy on rural matters. Discussions are being held with the Countryside Agency on how they can assist the Department to develop training to support the guidance.

  Racial Equality
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 8 May 2002,Official Report, column 229W, what proportion of consultees on the CRE's draft code of practice on the duty to promote racial equality responded to the consultation broken down by the major categories of consultee; and which public and voluntary sector organisations (a) were invited to and (b) participated in the CRE's promotional and consultative conferences. [56182]

  Angela Eagle
  The following table sets out the breakdown of the responses (by major category) as a proportion of the total consulted:

  Major categories

  Number of response

  Proportion of total consulted

  Central Government

  15

  0.03

  Local government

  218

  0.48

  Health

  55

  0.12

  Police/criminal justice

  24

  0.05

  Schools

  403

  0.89

  Further/higher education

  70

  0.15

  Non-departmental public bodies

  27

  0.06

  Voluntary sector

  18

  0.04

  Trade unions

  8

  0.01

  Other

  23

  0.05

  Unclassified

  113

  0.25

  With regard to the number of public and voluntary sector organisations invited to, and participating in, conferences, the exact figures are not available as the individual conference organisers retain delegate lists.

  However, I understand the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) has worked in partnership with a range of event organisers to put on over 20 conferences since December 2001, some of which were national and some of which were regional. A number of the conferences targeted all public sector organisations while others were sectoral in focus, for example health sector, criminal justice sector, education sector, local government, and police. Attendance at the conferences has varied from 50 to 200 delegates. The highest levels of participation were by representatives from the local government, health, police, criminal justice and education sectors.
  83W
  With regard to the voluntary sector, the CRE has commissioned the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) and the Council for Ethnic Minority Voluntary Organisations (CEMVO) to run 26 half-day seminars on issues for the voluntary sector. The seminars target both mainstream voluntary sector organisations and ethnic minority voluntary organisations. I understand the seminars will run until June 2002.

  Dangerous Driving
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been given custodial sentences for dangerous driving in the last year for which figures are available; and what the average length of sentence given was. [56268]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information for 2000 (latest available) is given in the table.

  Number of persons given custodial sentences1 for the offence of dangerous driving2 by type of court, England and Wales, 2000

  Type of court

  Total immediate custody

  Average custodial sentence length (months)

  Magistrates court3

  675

  4.5

  Crown court

  1,063

  9.7

  All courts

  1,738

  7.7

  1 Includes unsuspended imprisonment, secure training orders, detention in a young offender institution, detention and training orders (from April 2000) and at the Crown court secs 90–92 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (PCC(S)A00) (sec 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 was repealed on 23 August 2000 and its provisions were transferred to secs 90–92 of PCC(S)A00).

  2 An offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 sec 2 as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991 sec 2. Only persons for which the principal offence falls into this category are counted.

  3 Staffordshire police force were only able to submit sample data for persons proceeded against and convicted in the magistrates courts for the year 2000. These data are robust enough to be included in the table.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will investigate administrative arrangements put into place by the Criminal Records Bureau in respect of its pilot schemes affecting Stoke on Trent, including variations on date of commencement; what guidance was issued; and what compensation is available to those whose business is affected by delays in processing. [53331]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: Organisations which took part in the Criminal Record Bureau's (CRB) pilot phase did so on a voluntary basis. These included Stoke city council which along with others received written briefing and an informal presentation at CRB headquarters in Liverpool.

  The organisations taking part in the pilot phase were supplied with application forms to be completed whenever a police check under the (then) current arrangements was required. Police forces agreed to use these to undertake checks and then to pass them to CRB. The forms were produced especially for the pilot phase and it was made clear in all briefing that they could not be used after commencement of the live Disclosure Service.
  84W
  The pilot phase continued until the commencement of the Disclosure Service on 11 March 2002. This was an extension to the original timescale of 1 March 2002. Any person who agreed to take part in the pilot by completing a Disclosure application form supplied for that purpose would not have been able to submit it after the pilot phase had ended, but were able to continue to submit them to be received by 10 March 2002.

  CRB will consider any claims for compensation for loss of earnings caused by any delays as a result of proven errors by the CRB.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer from the Foreign Secretary of 15 January 2002,Official Report, column 129W, what progress has been made in the investigation initiated by his Department in conjunction with UK officials in Harare into the treatment of Mr. Gerald Mutekiwe. [31702]

  Angle Eagle
  I wrote to the right hon. Memeber on 18 February 2002. I apologise for the delay in responding.

  Work-related Illness
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many days of sick leave were taken by employees in his Department in the last year for which records are available; what proportion of those were due to work-related illness or injury; and what the cost to the Department was. [56062]

  Angela Eagle
  Information on sickness absence can be found in the annual report "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service" published by the Cabinet Office. The most recently published figures are for the calendar year 2000 and reports that the average number of lost working days per person in the Home Office was 11.2 days.

  Information on sickness absence and compensation payments for work-related illness or injury is not collated centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  The Department has introduced new guidelines, policies and procedures with a view to meeting its target to reducing sickness absence, published in its service delivery agreements for April 2001 to March 2004.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many claims for work-related injury or illness were settled on behalf of the(a) police force, (b) fire service and (c) prison service in the last year for which figures are available; and what the total cost in compensation was. [56063]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information in respect of the police service and fire service is not collected centrally. For the prison service, 255 staff compensation claims for work-related injury or illness were resolved in 2000–01 at a total cost of £2,257,666.

  Better Quality Services Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which of the services of his
  85W
  Department have not been reviewed under the Better Quality Services initiative; and when they will be reviewed. [49471]

  Angela Eagle
  The Better Quality Services (BQS) programme was launched in 1998 and adopted by the Cabinet Office in the Modernising Government White Paper of 1999 as a means of delivering continuous improvements in the quality and effectiveness of Government activities and services. It required all Government Departments to review every activity and service over a five-year period starting in October 1999.

  The scheme covered all activities in Departments, agencies and executive non-departmental public bodies, and is similar in remit to the Best Value programme in local government. Reviews of the departmental activities and services under the scheme started in April 2000 and have covered the following areas: Information Technology Systems, National Probation Service Estates, and the Prison Service (Security Group. Prison Shops, Prison Industry and Farms Group, Sentencing Management Group and six prisons).

  Within the Department's service delivery agreement, we have a target to review 60 per cent. of its business by March 2003 and to review 100 per cent. by March 2004. We will use BQs and other management tools to conduct the reviews.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is being taken to address discontent within the Prison Service in(a) Boston and Skegness and (b) the rest of England and Wales. [56200]

  Beverley Hughes
  I have not been informed of discontent among the Prison Service in Boston and Skegness. If the hon. Member can be more specific about any complaint, I will be pleased to answer him as fully as possible.

  Airguns
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conclusions the Government have reached with regard to the report from the Firearms Consultative Committee which it received earlier this year with particular reference to airguns. [56105]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Government welcome the Firearms Consultative Committee's advice on how the misuse of air weapons might be dealt with, and in particular their proposals for a programme of education on the safe and responsible handling of these weapons. We will be considering their recommendations in conjunction with any other approaches which may be helpful in tackling this problem, including possible use of antisocial behaviour orders to prevent use of airguns by unsuitable persons.

  HMP Albany
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 8 May 2002,Official Report, column 239W, when the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight was notified of proposals for additional places of prison accommodation at HMP Albany. [56242]
  86W
  Beverley Hughes
  The Director General of the Prison Service wrote to the hon. Member about these proposals on 14 May 2002. (His letter explains the need for additional places at Albany and gives details of the accommodation to be provided.)

  Police Complaints Authority
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further appointments he has made to the Police Complaints Authority. [58072]

  Mr. Denham
  I have recently appointed Mrs. Wendy Towers to the position of second deputy chair of the Police Complaints Authority (PCA). Her appointment took effect on 1 May 2002.

  Wendy Towers has served as a member of the PCA since 2000, with responsibility for both supervision and misconduct aspects of the PCA's work. She was previously a full-time member of the Parole Board for six years, and prior to that worked in the private sector as a human resources consultant and personnel director.

  Passports
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time taken was between(a) approval of visa applications and (b) the subsequent issue of a decision and the return of passports to applicants by the ICD in (i) April 2001 and (ii) April 2002; and if he will make a statement. [57123]

  Angela Eagle
  Once an application has been granted, it is normally despatched by first class recorded delivery. Depending on Post Office delivery it should normally take one to two days after despatch to be received. The other requested information is not centrally recorded.

TREASURY

  EU Nationals (Employment)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of EU nationals (excluding UK passport holders) who are permanently employed in the UK. [57302]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Peter Duncan, dated 20 May 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the number of EU nationals who are permanently employed in the UK.
  In the three month period ending February 2002, there were an estimated 441,000 non-UK EU Nationals, with both a place of residence and a place of work in the UK, who were either self-employed or employed in permanent jobs.
  This estimate is from the Labour Force Survey and is not seasonally adjusted.

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list for each of the last five years the total
  87W
  amount of money spent by Ministers in his Department on food, alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks for official entertainment purposes; [47211]

  (2) how much was spent by departmental special advisers on food, alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks for entertainment purposes in each of the last five years. [46837]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answers 10 April 2002]: The information is not held in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Gold Sales
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much gold has been sold by the Bank of England since he directed the bank to sell gold; on what dates it was sold: and what price was secured for each transaction. [57032]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government has sold 395 tonnes of gold as part of the restructuring of the United Kingdom's foreign currency reserves announced in May 1999. The gold sales programme was completed following the last auction in March 2002.

  The date of, the amount of gold sold and the allotment price at each of the 17 gold auctions is set out in the table.

  Date

  Amount sold (Ounces)

  Allotment price ($/Ounce)

  6 July 1999

  804,000

  261.20

  21 September 1999

  804,000

  255.75

  29 November 1999

  804,000

  293.50

  25 January 2000

  804,400

  289.50

  21 March 2000

  804,400

  285.25

  23 May 2000

  803,600

  275.25

  12 July 2000

  804,000

  279.75

  19 September 2000

  803,600

  270.60

  7 November 2000

  803,600

  264.30

  23 January 2001

  803,600

  268.00

  14 March 2001

  803,600

  266.00

  15 May 2001

  644,400

  268.00

  11 July 2001

  643,600

  267.25

  12 September 2001

  644,400

  280.00

  27 November 2001

  644,400

  273.50

  16 January 2002

  643,600

  283.50

  5 March 2002

  644,400

  296.50

  Total/average price

  12,707,600

  274.95

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the key operating divisions of HM Customs and Excise are; and how many full-time equivalent staff are engaged in each. [57542]

  Mr. Boateng
  The key operating divisions of HM Customs and Excise are their three businesses:

  Business Services and Taxes
  Full-time equivalent staff in post—10,979 on 1 May 2002

  Law Enforcement
  Full-time equivalent staff in post—7,531 on 1 May 2002

  Support Services
  Full-time equivalent staff in post—3,776 on I May 2002.
  88W
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the responsibilities(a) added to and (b) removed from HM Customs and Excise since 1997. [57541]

  Mr. Boateng
  (a) Responsibilities added:
  Money Laundering Regulations—responsibility as regulators for Money Service Businesses (MSBs).
  Climate Change Levy—administration 1 April 2001.
  Aggregates Levy—administration 1 April 2002.

  (b) Responsibilities removed:

  None.

  Work-related Illness
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claims for work-related illness were settled by his Department in the last year for which records are available; and what the cost was in compensation. [56087]

  Ruth Kelly
  No claims were made for work-related illness in 2001. The Treasury has a legal obligation to provide a safe working environment for all employees and is committed to minimising the number of working days lost generally due to work-related injuries and illness.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many days of sick leave were taken by employees in his Department in the last year for which records are available; what proportion of those were due to work-related illness or injury; and what the cost was to the Department. [56089]

  Ruth Kelly
  The latest published information on sick absence covering 2000 is contained in the annual report "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service" published by the Cabinet Office. That report shows an average number of working days sickness absence per staff year of 9.9 days for non-industrial civil servants. The Treasury figure was 3.9 days per staff year. Information on the extent to which those figures are purely work-related and on costs are not held and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost. The Treasury has a legal obligation to provide a safe working environment for all employees and is committed to minimising the number of working days lost generally due to work-related injuries and illness.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received from(a) motorists and (b) motoring organisations in relation to motorists who did not qualify for VED rebate because their VED was purchased before the qualifying date of 1 November 2000. [57275]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government extended the reduced rate of VED following consultation with motoring organisations who were generally supportive of the move.

  Following its introduction the Government have received representations from motorists on a wide range of issues including the extension of this scheme, which ensured that an additional five million cars attracted the reduced rate of VED.

  Emissions
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent estimate he has made of reductions in emissions of(a) carbon dioxide, (b) methane, (c) nitrous oxide, (d) hydrofluorocarbons, (e) perfluorocarbons and (f) sulphur hexafluoride which are attributable to the climate change levy. [57446]

  Mr. Boateng
  The most recent estimate of the carbon emission savings attributable to the Climate Change Levy is published in EFSR 2002 (Table 7.2, page 142). These emission savings related solely to carbon dioxide. No estimate has been made of reductions in the other five greenhouse gases.

  Credit Unions
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been spent on the promotion of credit unions in(a) Scotland and (b) England and Wales by (i) central and (ii) local government since 1979. [57166]

  Ruth Kelly
  This information is not readily available. However, research by Liverpool John Moores University in 1999 estimated that total public investment in credit unions in Britain could be in the range of £15–20 million per annum.

  Customs Officers
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many complaints have been made about the behaviour of customs officers in each of the last five years; how many have been(a) upheld and (b) referred to the independent adjudicator; and what proportion of referrals have been upheld by the adjudicator. [49773]

  Mr. Boateng
  Figures for the total number of complaints against HM Customs and Excise for the financial years 1997–98 to 1999–2000 are contained in the Department's annual reports for those years. The total number of complaints against HM Customs and Excise in 2000–01 was 10,092. The complaints upheld for the financial years 1997–98 to 2000–01 is as follows:

  Year

  Percentage

  1997–98

  45

  1998–99

  48

  1999–2000

  51

  2000–01

  70

  Note

  Figures for 2001–02 are not yet available.

  Figures for the number of complaints against HM Customs and Excise received by the Adjudicator and the number upheld are published in the Adjudicator's annual report.

  Maladministration
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many findings there have been of maladministration by ombudsmen with responsibility for agencies under the remit of his Department since 1997. [56300]

  Ruth Kelly
  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 90W
  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.dbmudsman.org.uk.

  Global New Deal
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if the Treasury will publish annual projections of market borrowing in relation to global economic growth under the Global New Deal; [56401]

  (2) when the Government expect to reach 0.4 per cent. ODA/GNI as proposed in the Global New Deal; [56395]

  (3) what the relationship will be between the Global New Deal and the usual channels of ODA; [56396]

  (4) what, under the Global New Deal, will be the lending conditions; when these will be published; and what representations he has made to DAC donors on the lending conditions in particular to the US and Japan; [56402]

  (5) what role the (a) Bretton Woods Institutions and (b) UN Statistical Office take on assessing progress towards the MDGS in relation to the Global New Deal; [56405]

  (6) if the Global Health Deal will focus on specific MDGs; [56398]

  (7) if the Global New Deal will focus resources on those developing countries struggling most to meet the MDGs; [56399]

  (8) how ODA flows will be controlled after 2015 for sub-Saharan African countries once the Global New Deal fund expires; [56400]

  (9) what the accountability will be of the Global New Deal's dispersal of the ODA in respect of (a) developed countries' institutions and (b) developing countries' Governments in receipt of financial aid; [56403]

  (10) if the Global New Deal will propose that ODA from all DAC donors below 0.4 per cent. ODA/GNI will be used to finance the fund. [56397]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government remain focused on its long-term goal of helping to tackle global poverty and achieve the internationally agreed Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). These include halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty, providing universal access to primary education, reducing child and maternal mortality and reversing the spread of HIV/AIDS, malaria and other fatal diseases.

  To advance these goals the Government are promoting a significant increase in development aid from all donor countries and international institutions to build capacity and address the long-term causes of poverty in the poorest countries. To tackle global poverty the Chancellor has proposed a Global New Deal as a modern Marshall plan for the developing world. As part of the Global New Deal the Government have proposed an international development trust fund to pool contributions and build on the work of the World bank, IMF and the Regional Development banks.
  91W
  However, creating new channels for distributing aid would impose unnecessary costs and burdens on developing countries. We therefore believe that any additional aid from the international development trust fund should be distributed in a balanced way through existing bilateral, multilateral and civil society mechanisms used in supporting poverty reduction strategies in developing countries.

  No specific target for ratio of overseas development assistance (ODA) to gross national income (GNI) has been proposed as part of the Global New Deal. However, the UK is committed to the target of raising ODA to 0.7 per cent. of national income, and has increased the budget for the Department for International Development by 45 per cent. in real terms between 1997–98 and 2003–04. Moreover, we have made clear that we will significantly raise the amount of our aid, and raise its share of national income, in our next spending round covering the years up to 2005–06.

  There are no plans to propose that ODA from all Development Assistance Committee (DAC) donors below 0.4 per cent. of GNI is used to finance an international development trust fund. However, at the meeting of European Finance Ministers on 5 March 2002 the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed that the European Union (EU) should commit to reach an ODA/GNI ratio of 0.39 per cent. by 2006. At the EU Council Meeting in Barcelona on 15–16 March 2002, just before the United Nations conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey, EU members committed to increase their collective ODA to 0.39 per cent. of GNI by 2006 as a step towards the 0.7 per cent. target. Within this, all member states would strive to attain at least 0.33 per cent. by 2006, with other member states above that ratio maintaining or improving their levels of aid.

  Clearly the international community will need to debate how any additional aid flows are used to greatest effect in order to help developing countries tackle global poverty and achieve the internationally agreed Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). To that end the UK has consistently argued that resources should be focused on the poorest countries.

  In terms of the prospective accountability of developing countries receiving assistance from such a fund a major step forward has been the establishment of the poverty reduction strategy process. It includes consulting widely with civil society and producing a Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) as a framework for IMF, World bank and other donor support. These PRSP's must be clearly linked to the MDGs and provide a budgetary framework to allocate Government revenue, aid and debt relief so that the impact on poverty reduction is maximised.

  The Government believe that any lending conditions must be set so that we never return to a situation where countries build up unsustainable burdens of debt. So the very poorest and most vulnerable countries should receive investment help primarily in the form of grants to partner their soft IDA loans and all other low-income countries should be offered interest-free loans. Assistance to middle-income countries should be given via interest-reduced loans conditional upon implementing agreed poverty reduction strategies and engaging civil society.
  92W
  The extent to which an international development trust fund might have to leverage funds from international financial markets would depend on a wide range of factors, including donor contributions, interest rates, the total amount disbursed and the proportions and terms of any grants and loans within that total. If such a fund were to cease dispensing ODA in 2015 the total volume of ODA would then depend on other bilateral and multilateral ODA flows at that time.

  The Government have not proposed a separate Global Health Deal but regards achievement of all the Millennium Development Goals in all developing countries as essential to combating global poverty.

  Following the 2000 United Nations Millennium Summit, the United Nations is charged with the task of reporting on progress towards the millennium development goals at the global and country levels, coordinated by the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat and UNDP, respectively. Reporting is based on two principles:

  1. Close consultation and collaboration with all relevant institutions, including the United Nations Development Group (including WHO and UNCTAD), other United Nations departments, funds, programmes and specialized agencies, the World bank, IMF and OECD, and regional groupings and experts; and

  2. The use of nationally owned poverty reduction strategies, as reported in poverty reduction strategy papers, United Nations common country assessments and national human development reports, which emphasise a consultative process among the development partners.

  An annual report is to be submitted by the UN that will chart progress, made or not made, in fulfilling the Millennium commitments, and highlight particular themes of special significance for that year. Every five years a comprehensive progress report will be submitted.

  Beer Duty
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his statement of 17 April 2002,Official Report, column 584, on the decrease in beer duty for smaller brewers, what plans he has to monitor the effect on consumer prices. [56506]

  Mr. Boateng
  The impact of all Budget measures is closely monitored.

  European Union
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each year since 1997,(a) contributions and (b) receipts between each member state and the European Community, and figures relating thereto, as were published in (i) the Official Report, 19 February 1997, columns 573–76W and (ii) those of 17 December 1998, Official Report, columns 757–60W. [56635]

  Ruth Kelly
  Updated versions of the tables provided on 17 December 1998 are as follows. Information relating to UK gross contributions to, abatement and public sector receipts from the EC Budget from 1996 to 2000, broken down by the various elements asked for on 19 February 1997, in current prices, can be found in Table 3 of the White Paper, European Community Finances (Cm 5173).
  93W

  Table 1—Net contributions by member states 1997–2000

  euro million

  Member state

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Belgium1

  1,427.5

  1,275.5

  1,457.1

  Denmark

  192.3

  144.6

  87.8

  Germany

  10,465.7

  11,359.0

  11,708.4

  Greece

  -4,566.3

  -3,640.9

  -4,145.2

  Spain

  -6,482.6

  -6,656.1

  -4,315.1

  France

  1,718.3

  1,164.4

  2,407.6

  Ireland

  -2,134.8

  -1,822.6

  -1,524.2

  Italy

  2,110.6

  1,751.7

  289.7

  Luxembourg1

  133.7

  114.0

  105.4

  Netherlands

  3,046.6

  3,358.0

  3,303.1

  Austria

  822.4

  836.0

  721.7

  Portugal

  -2,824.4

  -2,677.4

  -1,934.6

  Finland

  228.6

  310.1

  -137.9

  Sweden

  1,122.5

  1,226.9

  1,469.1

  UK

  5,659.0

  5,290.0

  6,181.2

  1 A negative figure indicates the member state is a net recipient. The table above has been compiled from the annual reports of the European Court of Auditors and the European Commission's publication, Allocation of 2000 EU Operating Expenditure by Member State. These reports do not attribute all EC spending between members states and do not provide a full picture of net contributions. In particular, the effects of administration spending are understated. Most EC administration spending is disbursed in Belgium and Luxembourg. The figures for these countries must therefore be treated with considerable caution.

  Source:

  Court of Auditors Reports and European Commission publication, Allocation of 2000 Operating Expenditure by Member State.

  Table 2–Percentage of member states GDP accounted for by the net contribution or receipt

  Member state

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Belgium*

  0.64

  0.55

  0.59

  Denmark

  0.12

  0.09

  0.05

  Germany

  0.54

  0.57

  0.58

  Greece

  -4.21

  -3.11

  -3.41

  Spain

  -1.24

  -1.18

  -0.71

  France

  0.13

  0.09

  0.17

  Ireland

  -2.77

  -2.08

  -1.48

  Italy

  0.20

  0.16

  0.02

  Luxembourg*

  0.82

  0.63

  0.51

  Netherlands

  0.87

  0.90

  0.82

  Austria

  0.44

  0.42

  0.35

  Portugal

  -2.83

  -2.50

  -1.70

  Finland

  0.20

  0.26

  -0.10

  Sweden

  0.53

  0.54

  0.60

  UK

  0.45

  0.39

  0.40

  * See note in Table 1 regarding Belgium and Luxembourg net contribution.

  Note:

  A negative figure indicates the member state is a net recipient.

  Source:

  GDP figures taken from European Commission publication:

  European Economy No. 72 (2002).

  Net contributions as in Table 1.

  Table 3—Net contribution per capita by member state

  £ sterling

  Member state

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Belgium*

  93.9

  82.1

  86.6

  Denmark

  24.4

  17.9

  10.0

  Germany

  85.7

  91.1

  86.9

  Greece

  -291.5

  -227.6

  -239.6

  Spain

  -110.5

  -111.2

  -66.6

  France

  19.1

  12.6

  24.1

  Ireland

  -386.8

  -320.3

  -245.3

  Italy

  24.6

  20.0

  3.1

  Luxembourg*

  210.4

  173.5

  146.3

  94W

  Table 3—Net contribution per capita by member state

  £sterling

  Member state

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Netherlands

  130.2

  139.8

  126.5

  Austria

  68.3

  68.0

  54.2

  Portugal

  -190.2

  -176.4

  -117.8

  Finland

  29.8

  39.5

  -16.2

  Sweden

  85.1

  91.2

  100.9

  UK

  64.1

  58.5

  63.1

  * See note in Table 1 regarding Belgium and Luxembourg net contribution.

  Note:

  A negative figure indicates the member state is a net recipient.

  Source:

  Population figures taken from European Commission publication:

  European Economy No. 72 (2002).

  Conversion to £ sterling using the annual average £/€exchange rate.

  Net contributions as in Table 1.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the mandate of the European Securities Committee is; 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. [56765]

  Ruth Kelly
  The role and responsibilities of the European Securities Committee are set out in the resolution of the European Council on more effective securities market regulation in the European Union of 23 March 2001 and Commission Decision COM 2001/1493.

  Since the start of May 2001 the European Securities Committee has met five times. Each member state has appointed a representative and alternate to the Committee. Officials from HM Treasury represent the UK.

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

  The items currently under consideration by the European Securities Committee include: implementing the Lamfalussy process; post-Enron issues; and the activities of the Committee of European Securities Regulators.

  The regular EU scrutiny process ensures transparency to Parliament; where the Commission issues a depositable text as a result of the Committee's work, the document along with an Explanatory Memorandum are examined by the Parliamentary Scrutiny Committees.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on value added tax 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. [56792]

  Mr. Boateng
  The legal base of the Advisory Committee on value added tax is set out in Article 29 of the Sixth VAT Directive (EC Directive 77/388). The Committee has a mandate to discuss any questions relating to the application of the Directive.
  95W
  Since the beginning of May 2001 the Committee has met on three occasions.

  The UK is normally represented by one or two officials from HM Customs and Excise.

  Travel expenses for one official are reimbursed by the Commission. The usual cost of overnight accommodation and subsistence per day per official is 217.95 euro (£134.70).

  Items under consideration concern any questions on the application of the Community provisions on value added tax.

  Accountability and transparency to Parliament is ensured by the regular EU scrutiny process.

  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 the 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 an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agenda and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the mandate of the Committee on Excise Duties 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. [56716]

  Mr. Boateng
  The legal base of the Excise Committee is set out in Article 24 of Council directive 92/12/EEC on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products.

  The committee has met twice since May 2001.

  The UK is normally represented by two officials of HM Customs and Excise.

  Travel expenses for one official are reimbursed by the Commission. The usual cost of overnight accommodation and subsistence per day per official is 217.95 euro (£134.70).

  Items under consideration concern interpretation and application of the EC provisions on excise duties and procedures.

  Accountability and transparency to Parliament is ensured by the regular EU scrutiny process.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line
  96W
  with Council decision 1999/468/EEC, 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 the 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 Chancellor of the Exchequer what the mandate of the Customs 2002 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 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. [56789]

  Mr. Boateng
  The legal base for the Customs 2002 committee is set out in Council decision 105/2000/EC. It has a mandate to manage the application of the Customs 2002 programme.

  The committee has met twice in the last 12 months.

  Representation is normally two officials from HM Customs and Excise.

  Travel expenses for one official are reimbursed by the Commission. The usual cost of overnight accommodation and subsistence per day per official is 217.95 euro (£134.70).

  Items under consideration at present are the evaluation of the current programme, which ends in December this year, and the establishment on a replacement Customs 2007 programme.

  Accountability and transparency to Parliament is ensured by the regular EU scrutiny process.

  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 the 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 agenda and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the mandate of the committee on administrative co-operation in the field of indirect taxation, including the Fiscalis programme (SCAC), and considering anti-fraud (SCAF) measures is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what
  97W
  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; [56794]

  (2) what the mandate of the committee on administrative co-operation in the field of indirect taxation, including the Fiscalis programme (SCAC), and considering information technology, 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; [56715]

  (3) what the mandate of the committee on administrative co-operation in the field of indirect taxation, including the Fiscalis programme (SCACF), and considering training measures, 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. [56714]

  Mr. Boateng
  The legal base for the Standing Committee on Administrative Co-operation (SCAC) is set out in Article 10 of Regulation 218/93. It also operates as the committee referred to in Article 9 of Council Directive 77/799/EEC and in Article 11 of Decision 888/98/EC.

  The committee has the authority to establish sub-committees and working parties to assist it with its work. Three sub-committees have been established:
  SCAT, which deals with training issues such as developing standards for indirect tax audits and computer audits;
  SCAF, which discusses and develops anti-fraud measures; and
  SCIT, which advises on technical issues in respect of EU information exchange in the indirect tax area.
  The main committee has met twice since the end of May 2001 and each of the subcommittees between one and three occasions.

  Depending on the agenda, the UK is represented by either one or two officials from HM Customs and Excise.

  Travel expenses for one official are reimbursed by the commission. The usual cost of overnight accommodation and subsistence per day per official is 217.95 euro (£134.70).

  Accountability and transparency to Parliament is ensured by the regular EU scrutiny process.

  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 the committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (COM(2001)783) Final.
  98W
  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 agenda and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the mandate of the Contact Committee on certain schemes for collective investment in securities 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. [56764]

  Ruth Kelly
  The role and responsibilities of the Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS) Contact Committee are set out in Article 53 of Council Directive 85/611/EEC.

  Since the start of May 2001, the UCITS Contact Committee has met on two occasions. In accordance with Article 53 of Council Directive 85/611/EEC, member states each appoint representatives to the Committee; the UK is represented by officials from HM Treasury and the Financial Services Authority.

  The information regarding the annual cost of the Committee's work to public finds can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The items currently under consideration by the UCITS Contact Committee are harmonised implementation of Directives 2001/107/EC and 2001/108/EC amending Directive 85/611/EEC.

  The regular EU scrutiny process ensures transparency to Parliament; where the Commission issues a depositable text as a result of the Committee's work the document along with an Explanatory Memorandum are examined by the Parliamentary Scrutiny Committees.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the mandate of the Insurance 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 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. [56750]

  Ruth Kelly
  The role and responsibilities of the Insurance Committee are set out in Council Directive 91/675/EEC. While the Committee has comitology powers these have never been used to date.

  Since the start of May 2001, the Insurance Committee has met on two occasions. In accordance with Article 1 of Council Directive 91/675/EEC, member states each appoint representatives to the Committee: the UK is represented by an official from HM Treasury and an official from the Financial Services Authority.

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

  The items considered at the last meeting of the Insurance Committee in April 2002 included reinsurance supervision; issues relating to financial conglomerates, insurance groups and credit risks; terrorism; environmental liability; and enlargement. The Committee also considered its own rules of procedure, and the

  99W
  application of the new rules on public access to documents under Regulation (EC) 1049/2001. The regular EU scrutiny process ensures transparency to Parliament; where the Commission issues a depositable text as a result of the Committee's work, the document along with an Explanatory Memoranda are examined by 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 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 Chancellor of the Exchequer what the mandate of the Committee on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims 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. [56793]

  Mr. Boateng
  The legal base for the Committee on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims is set out in Article 20 of Directive 76/308 as amended by Directive 2001/44 EC. The committee may examine any matter concerning the application of this directive.

  The committee has met three times since May 2001.

  The UK is typically represented by two officials of the Revenue Departments.

  Travel expenses for two officials are reimbursed by the Commission. The usual cost of overnight accommodation and subsistence per day per official is 217.95 euro (£134.70).

  The main item under discussion is the implementation of the revised Mutual Assistance for the Recovery of Debts Directive.

  Accountability and transparency to Parliament is ensured by the regular EU scrutiny process.

  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).
  100W
  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 Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the mandate of the Customs Code Committee dealing with customs valuation 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; [56773]

  (2) what the mandate of the Customs Code Committee dealing with customs procedures with economic impact 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; [56775]

  (3) what the mandate of the Customs Code Committee dealing with duty free arrangements 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; [56783]

  (4) what the mandate of the Customs Code Committee on the recovery of claims 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; [56786]

  (5) what the mandate of the Customs Code Committee dealing with recovery of claims 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; [56772]

  (6) what the mandate of the Customs Code Committee dealing with customs warehouses and free zones 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; [56774]

  (7) what the mandate of the Customs Code Committee dealing with general customs rules 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; [56771]
  101W
  (8) what the mandate of the Customs Code Committee dealing with counterfeit and pirated goods 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; [56776]

  (9) what the mandate of the Customs Code Committee dealing with tariff and statistical nomenclature 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; [56784]

  (10) what the mandate of the Customs Code Committee dealing with the movement of air or sea passengers' baggage (technical problems) 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; [56779]

  (11) what the mandate of the Customs Code Committee dealing with transit 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. [56780]

  Mr. Boateng
  The legal basis for all sections of the Customs Code Committee is set out in Article 247 of the Community Customs Code (Council Regulation EEC 2913/92). The mandate of the committee is to examine any questions relating to the implementation of this regulation.

  The following table shows the frequency of meetings for all sections of the Customs Code Committee.

  Name of section1

  Meetings in last year

  Tariff Quotas

  3

  Customs Warehouses and Free Zones

  12

  Duty Free Arrangements

  1

  Customs Valuation

  7

  Customs Procedures with Economic Impact

  7

  General Rules

  2

  Counterfeit and Pirating

  4

  Tariff and Statistical

  24

  Transit

  12

  Movements of Air and Sea passengers

  2—

  1 There is no such section of the Custom Code Committee dealing with recovery of claims.

  2 No meetings.

  The UK is normally represented by one official from HM Customs and Excise.Travel expenses for one official are reimbursed by the Commission. The usual cost of overnight accommodation and subsistence per day per official is 217.95 euro (£134.70).

  Items considered by the sections of the committee all relate to the implementation, interpretation and application of Community Customs Code.
  102W
  Accountability and transparency to Parliament is ensured by the regular EU process. EC documents which fall within the Scrutiny Terms of Reference are deposited with Parliament along with an Explanatory Memorandum for examination by 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 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 Chancellor of the Exchequer what the mandate of the Banking Advisory 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 he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [56748]

  Ruth Kelly
  The role and responsibilities of the Banking Advisory Committee are set out in Title VI of Council Directive 2000/12/EC. While the Committee does have comitology powers these have not been exercised for some years.

  Since the start of May 2001 the Banking Advisory Committee has met on four occasions. In accordance with Article 57 of Council Directive 2000/12/EC, member states each appoint representatives to the Committee: the UK is represented by an official from HM Treasury and two officials from the Financial Services Authority.

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

  The items considered at the last meeting of the Banking Advisory Committee in March 2002 included issues relating to the work of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision; Bank accounting and auditing; accession countries (enlargement) and financial stability. The Committee also considered its own internal rules including the application of the new regulation on public access to documents under Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 of 30 May 2001, and the comitology function of the Committee.

  The regular EU Scrutiny process ensures transparency to Parliament; where the Commission issues a depositable text as a result of the Committee's work, the document along with an Explanatory Memorandum are examined by the Scrutiny Committees.

  Together with members states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line

  103W
  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 an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Gender Pay Gap
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average gap between men's and women's pay is in Bolton. [57170]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Brian Iddon, dated 20 May 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the average gap between men's and women's pay in Bolton. (57170)
  The New Earnings Survey (NES) provides earnings data for Great Britain for full-time employees on adult rates of pay. In April 2001, the latest date for which figures are available, the average hourly earnings in Bolton were £9.36 for men and £8.98 for women.

  Taxation (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the estimated amounts of tax revenue attributed to Northern Ireland in each of the last 20 years, broken down by each principal category of(a) income tax, (b) corporation tax, (c) value added tax, (d) national insurance, (e) excise duties, (f) inheritance tax and (g) other. [57153]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what conventions and methods are used for calculating the Northern Ireland attributed share of UK taxes. [57152]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  With the advent of devolution in Northern Ireland in December 999, Northern Ireland's attributed share of United Kingdom taxes is no longer calculated for the purposes of determining Exchequer funding to the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. Instead, the Northern Ireland Executive receives block grants in accordance with Section 58 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

  Finance Bill
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if statutory instruments under clause 19 of the Finance Bill will be subject to the affirmative procedure. [57339]
  104W
  Mr. Boateng
  Clause 19 provides that Schedule 5 to the Bill shall have effect. Under the provisions of Schedule 5, affirmative resolutions will be required where regulations are to be made:requiring a supplement to be payable (where not otherwise payable) when a licence expires and is not renewed before the end of a specified period;
  as to the time at which a supplement is payable (where payable earlier than it would otherwise be payable) and by whom it is payable (where payable by a person who would not otherwise have to pay it);
  to increase the amount of a supplement (which may vary according to the period between expiry of a licence and renewal of payment of the supplement.

  Rural Policy
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason no information relating to the banking regulations was passed to the Countryside Agency for its Rural Proofing report; and if he will make a statement. [57460]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury was happy to work with the Countryside Agency to produce its Rural Proofing report, and provided relevant information on how the Treasury had considered the rural dimension on new policies, where that did not pre-empt policy in the process of development. The Treasury takes Rural Proofing very seriously and has appointed a full-time secondee from the Countryside Agency to rural proof the 2002 Spending Review. That commitment is well demonstrated in the area of banking, where the "Universal Bank", a project on which the Treasury has been closely involved, is planned to make bank accounts accessible to all at post office counters by April 2003. This will be of particular benefit to those living in rural areas, where post offices are far more numerous thank bank branches: 93.5 per cent. of households in rural England live within 2 km of a post office.

  Yaba
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what weight of the drug yaba was seized by Government officials last year in the UK; [57688]

  (2) what steps he is taking to tackle illegal imports of the drug yaba into the UK. [57689]

  Mr. Boateng
  HM Customs and Excise is responsible for combating illegal importations of controlled drugs. Customs undertake enforcement action at the UK frontier by seizing all prohibited drugs found. They also prosecute offenders through the courts.

  Yaba is a street term of methyl-amphetamine, a Class B synthetic drug. 34 kilos of methyl-amphetamine were seized by UK police and Customs during the calendar year 2001.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has asked his officials to conduct assessments on the five economic tests for membership of the euro. [57852]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 330W.
  105W
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the economic models through which the five economic tests will be assessed. [57885]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 7 February 2002,Official Report, column 1144W.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those(a) advisers and (b) departments within the Treasury, that will be responsible for analysing the five economic tests on the Euro; what outside experts will be consulted; and if he will make a statement. [57857]

  Ruth Kelly
  The assessment has not yet started, but the necessary preliminary analysis—technical work that is necessary to allow us to undertake the assessment within two years as promised—is under way. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) on 25 March 2002,Official Report, column 755W.

  European Council Decisions
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the reasons underlying Council Regulation 134/2002, on minimum reserves of the European central bank. [57909]

  Ruth Kelly
  Council Regulation (EC) 134/2002 amends Council Regulation (EC) 2351/98, on the application of minimum reserves by the European central bank, by increasing the period available to the ECB Governing Council to review decisions by the ECB executive board to impose sanctions for non-compliance with minimum reserve requirements.

  Neither Regulation 134/2002, nor Regulation 2351/98, applies to the United Kingdom.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) amount and (b) proportion of the estimated total revenue to be raised in 2003–04 from the increases in national insurance contributions on (i) employees and (ii) the self-employed announced in the Budget he estimates will be raised from individuals who have salaries below the upper earnings/profit limit. [56470]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]: The NIC changes announced in the Budget are shown in table A.1 of the April 2002 Financial Statement and Budget Report (page 154), a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  The proportions of the additional NIC revenue split between those with incomes below and above the upper thresholds are estimated in the following table.

  Percentage

  Class 1 primary

  Class 4

  From individuals with earnings/profits below the UEL/UPL

  56

  40

  From individuals with earnings/profits above the UEL/UPL

  44

  60

  Taxation
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 1 May 2002,Official Report, column 880W, on taxation, what the annual income to the Inland Revenue from forward contracts was for each year since 1988; and whether those who have benefited from forward contract arrangements which have ended are paying taxation in the normal way. [55478]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 15 May 2002]: The number of cases in which agreements of this sort have applied is small. In some instances the identities of the taxpayers involved are or might in the future become public, for example in the course of court proceedings. In these circumstances, it would not be right to give details of the amounts involved, because of taxpayers' entitlement to confidentiality about levels of income and tax.

  When agreements end, tax is paid in the normal way.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to extend the reduction in corporation tax, extended to incorporated companies in the last Budget, to unincorporated businesses. [57232]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We have no plans to extend the reduction in corporation tax to unincorporated businesses. In appropriate cases the Government have introduced specific incentives which apply to all businesses. But the profits of unincorporated businesses are liable to income tax, as part of the income of their proprietor, rather than to corporation tax, and in general unincorporated businesses and companies are not directly comparable. Companies are distinct legal entities, separate from their owners, and are subject to the obligations laid down in the Companies Act. It is right that there is a system of taxation specific to them.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer following implementation of the Budget, what corporation tax will be payable by(a) an incorporated and (b) an unincorporated company with turnover of £99,000 and with taxable profits of £40,000. [57233]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The corporation tax payable by a company with profits of £40,000 for an accounting period ending 31 March 2003 would be £7,125 (assuming it is entitled to marginal relief from the small companies' rate but no further reliefs such as double taxation relief). Unincorporated businesses are not taxed separately from their proprietors and it is not possible to give a figure for the income tax payable as that will depend on the allowances and reliefs to which the proprietor is entitled and the extent of any other income.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) individuals and (b) enterprises have negotiated forward payment contracts with the Inland Revenue for income and corporation tax in each year since 1996. [53476]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Since 1988 the Inland Revenue have entered into arrangements of this sort in a small number of cases. Typically, these arrangements were made on the basis that they were sensible practical solutions that gave
  107W
  a broadly accurate measure of the tax due where there would otherwise be particular difficulties in establishing an exact figure.

  In the years since 1996, seven such agreements were made in cases concerning individuals, one in each of the years 1996 and 1999, three in 1997 and two in 2000. In three of these cases the agreements were renewal agreements where the original was entered into prior to 1996. All such agreements have concerned individuals, though some have included corporate aspects as a secondary matter.

  These numbers differ from those in my answer of 1 May 2002, Official Report, column 880W because that question and the response to it concerned forward contracts involving fixed regular payments only.

  National Insurance Records
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many records of individuals stored in the national insurance record system were removed because the identities concerned were found to be bogus in 2000–01. [54724]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Records of individuals with bogus identities are not removed from the National Insurance Recording System. The process is to flag the accounts via the Department of Work and Pensions National Identity Fraud Unit so that activity on the accounts can be monitored.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been spent in each year for which figures are available on administering payments of the working families tax credit, broken down by(a) costs associated with direct payment of the working families tax credit and (b) costs associated with payment via employers. [56419]

  Dawn Primarolo
  During the 12 months to March 2001 the cost to the Inland Revenue of administering working families' tax credit was £133.8 million. In the previous six months the cost was £36.1 million.

  The Department does not record separately the costs of payment directly to the recipient and payment via the employer.

  Government Statistics (Longevity)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to revise Government statistics to take account of recent research into human longevity. [56913]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 20 May 2002
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking what steps are being taken to revise government statistics to take account of recent research into human longevity. (56913)
  108W
  The Office for National Statistics keeps abreast of international research into shifts in aging, and is able to increase the analytical understanding we have through publishing measures of healthy life expectancy. We are also a significant contributor to the major UK social research programme into influences on aging.
  Population projections for the United Kingdom and its constituent countries are prepared by the Government Actuary's Department at the request of the Registrars General of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The assumptions used for these are agreed in consultation with the statistical offices of the four constituent countries. A range of projections are then published, based on agreed variations in the assumptions made about mortality, fertility and migration.
  The Government Actuary's Department last year carried out a review of the methodology for projecting mortality in these projections as part of the National Statistics Quality Assurance review programme.
  The review report, published in December 2001 (available of the National Statistics website at www.statistics.gov.ukimethodsquality/quality—review/population) compares the performance of several methods of projecting future mortality and concludes that the method currently used outperformed the other methods assessed in terms of accuracy. However, several recommendations were made to improve the current methodology. The Government Actuary's Department will take the recommendations of the review and the findings of all relevant recent research into account when setting the assumptions for future population projections.

  Children's Credit
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made on developing payment systems to ensure that the main carer of a child, even if she or he does not have a bank account, can be paid children's credit from April 2003 onwards. [57206]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue will provide advice in the tax credits application pack on what types of bank accounts can be used for Child Tax Credit payments. The options are current accounts, basic bank accounts or the card account that the Post Office is currently developing and which should be available from April 2003. The Inland Revenue are also making it clear in the material they issue that main carers who do not wish to use an existing joint or sole account to receive payments of their Child Tax Credit can open another account for those payments if they wish.

  Tax Returns
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what help is available for(a) people and (b) people over the age of 75 who experience difficulties in completing their tax returns; and if he will make a statement. [57172]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are five main ways in which the Inland Revenue provides help for people who experience difficulties in completing their Tax Returns.

  1. The Tax Return Guide, issued to tax advisers annually, or with the Tax Return to people who do not have a tax adviser.

  2. The national Self Assessment Telephone Helpline 0845 9000 444 is open seven days a week. This line has a MINICOM facility.

  3. The Inland Revenue website www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk has a specific area for Self Assessment and provides on-line help and guidance notes.

  4. People can telephone any tax office or contact centre for information.

  109W

  5. People can visit any Inland Revenue Enquiry Centres (IREC) across the UK—most of these are open from 8.30am to 5pm weekdays.

  How to get this help is shown on the front page of each Tax Return and help is available when people need it and not just during office hours. While we do not have help aimed specifically at people aged over 75, local offices will arrange home visits, on request, to help anyone complete their tax return who has difficulty going to a tax office, such as pensioners, the elderly, the sick or disabled.

  We also have a range of leaflets that are available to customers on request form the IRECs and we provide separate specialist telephone Helplines for subjects such as Disabled Persons Tax Credit or Trusts.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to simplify(a) the tax system and (b) tax returns; and if he will make a statement. [57171]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Budget 2002 contained a number of measures to simplify tax including measures to ease the impact of VAT on small business and implementing the recommendations of the Carter Review of Payroll Services.

  Poverty
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his definition of poverty is; and what plans he has to alter his definition. [57190]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There is no single definition of poverty as it is a complex and multi-dimensional problem. The Government's annual "Opportunity for all" publication sets out the strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion and monitors progress against a range of indicators.

  On 18 April 2002, the Department for Work and Pensions published a consultation document on child poverty measurement looking at how best to build on the Government's existing indicators for the measurement of child poverty in the long-term, seeking views on a range of approaches proposed by academics and poverty experts from the UK and overseas. The consultation period ends on 10 July 2002.

  Commonwealth Education Fund
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when he expects to announce the details of the scope and distribution of the Commonwealth Education Fund; [38816]

  (2) what calculations he has made (a) inclusive of tax relief and (b) exclusive of tax relief of the cost of the Commonwealth Education Fund; [56394]

  (3) if the Commonwealth Education Fund will be applied to a fund separate from DFID's budget; [56438]

  (4) what representations to United Kingdom industry the Treasury has made in relation to the Commonwealth Education Fund; [56391]

  (5) who the trustees of the proposed Commonwealth Education Fund will be; [56392]
  110W
  (6) for how long the Treasury expects the Commonwealth Education Fund to be operational. [56393]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government launched the Commonwealth Education Fund (CEF) on 12 March to mark Her Majesty the Queen's Golden Jubilee year. The CEF will help Commonwealth developing countries to achieve the Millennium Development Goals in education, so that by 2015 every child will be able to enrol in and complete primary school, and by 2005 gender equity in enrolments can be reached.

  At present 75 million primary school-age children in the Commonwealth do not attend school.

  Since 1997 the Government have committed over £650 million to support the development of sustainable, quality primary education systems, mainly in Commonwealth sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia.

  Under the chairmanship of Sir Edward George, the Governor of the Bank of England, the CEF will raise resources from business and individuals to support this objective. The Governor is currently working with the administering NGOs to establish the formal umbrella board of the fund, determine trustees, and will make a number of representations to UK industry over the course of this year.

  The CEF will have three financing windows:
  (i) A strategic fund that will be administered jointly by ActionAid, Oxfam and Save the Children. This will be the largest element of the CEF.
  The strategic fund will strengthen the capacity of low-income Commonwealth countries to ensure that the poorest and most marginalised children are able to enrol in and complete good quality primary education. Activities will cover three broad areas:
  Strengthening civil society participation in the design and implementation of national and local education plans and frameworks. Particular priority will be given to supporting initiatives that can accelerate progress towards gender equity in education;
  Enabling local communities to monitor Government spending on education, both at the national and local levels;
  Supporting innovative ways for civil society to ensure that all children, especially girls and the most vulnerable and disadvantaged (including street children, former child soldiers and nomadic children) are able to access quality education.
  The Government will provide a grant of £10 million to kick-start the fund. In addition moneys raised in 2002 by business for the CEF will be matched by the Government pound for pound (including tax relief). Funding from the CEF will commence from mid-2002 and be made available over three and a half financial years, ending in December 2005 (coinciding with the gender equity Millennium Development Goal).
  The strategic fund will concentrate on low-income Commonwealth countries identified by ActionAid, Oxfam and Save the Children as being seriously under-resourced in relation to education provision, and in which one or more of them has existing capacity to provide support to local organisations and to monitor and evaluate outcomes and impact. The potential 17 countries are: Bangladesh, Cameroon, Gambia, Ghana, India, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
  (ii) The Government will also match, pound for pound (including tax relief) funds raised for primary education in Commonwealth developing countries through Comic Relief's

  111W
  'Sport Relief'. Comic Relief will manage these funds independently, and they will disburse funds via UK based NGOs.
  The Government will expand its work to develop links between schools in Commonwealth developing countries and the UK. to raise awareness and understanding of international development issues and strengthen the global dimension in the life and work of schools.

  The CEF will be separately administered by the three NGOs according to a framework agreed with Government. The Government's £10 million endowment and matching funds will be channelled as a grant to the NGOs through DFID, whose existing budget will be increased accordingly. The precise cost of the matching funds will not be known until the end of 2002. Tax relief can be claimed by corporate donors and Comic Relief (in respect of donations from private individuals) at the appropriate tax rate.

  Employees' Accommodation
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the tax implications for an employee of a company which makes accommodation available for key workers recruited from a different part of the country and working away from their normal home base. [57268]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Where an employee is supplied with free or cheap living accommodation by reason of his or her employment a tax charge can arise under section 145 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act (ICTA), subject to the exemptions from charge of that section. But for an employee who is sent away from their normal work place to work at a temporary work place for a period not expected to last more than two years, the cost of accommodation at or near the new work place is exempt under the employee travel rules in section 198 ICTA.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the(a) number and
  112W
  (b) percentage of (i) pensioners and (ii) pensioner households (A) paying income tax and (B) entitled to the minimum income guarantee. [57201]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is estimated that there will be some 4.9 million taxpayers over state retirement pension age in 2002–03 and this is some 45 per cent. of the 10.9 million pensioners. The taxpayer estimates are based on the survey or personal incomes and are consistent with the April 2002 Budget. The population estimates were provided by the Government Actuary's Department.

  Based on the family resources survey it is estimated that there are some eight million families where at least one person is over pension age, 4.2 million of these families contain a taxpayer in 2002–03.

  Estimates for those entitled to the minimum income guarantee are not available in the format requested. Estimates for the number of single pensioners and pensioner couples in receipt of MIG and those entitled to but not in receipt of MIG are presented in "Income Related Benefits Estimates of Take Up in 1999–2000". A copy of the publication is available in the Library of the House.

  Federation of Small Businesses
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Federation of Small Businesses regarding the implications of the Budget for small firms. [58121]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have received a number of representations from a variety of organisations regarding the Budget.

  Unincorporated Small Businesses
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the implication of the Budget for unincorporated small businesses. [58120]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Unincorporated small businesses benefit from a number of Budget 2002 measures including measures to ease the impact of VAT on small business and implementing the recommendations of the Carter review of payroll services.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Planning (North-West)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he intends to publish his response to the recommendations of the panel that conducted the Public Examination of Draft Regional Planning Guidance for the North-West; and if he will make a statement, [58148]

  Ms Keeble
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is today publishing for public consultation proposed changes to the Draft Regional Planning Guidance for the North-West (RPG13). They are based on the recommendations of the independent panel that held a Public Examination into Draft RPG13 in February and March 2001.

  Draft RPG was prepared and published by the North-West Regional Assembly (NWRA). Its overall strategy is to establish a broad framework for the preparation of development plans by the North-West's local planning authorities up to 2016. It aims to achieve greater economic competitiveness and growth with associated regional progress; to secure an urban renaissance in the cities and towns of the North-West; to sustain the region's smaller rural and coastal communities; to create an accessible region; to assure the prudent management of the region's environmental and cultural assets; and to secure environmental quality. We support this and, as recommended by the panel, we are proposing changes to ensure that the strategy is more clearly expressed and relates clearly to the policy chapters. It is important that the implications for development plans and other strategies are clear and unambiguous in order to make a real difference on the ground.

  A key issue for the region is to bring about the renaissance of the urban areas by encouraging economic growth and regeneration in a sustainable way. To achieve this we are promoting the renewal of the region's urban areas by concentrating resources upon the selective refurbishment, conversion and redevelopment of outworn building stock, and the comprehensive improvement of older and unpopular neighbourhoods. At the same time, we are proposing to include a reduction in the annual rate of provision of totally new housing (unrelated to clearance) by 15 per cent., and increase the proportion of housing provided on previously used (brownfield) land from 65 per cent. to 70 per cent. The proposed changes give added weight to avoiding any premature release of greenfield land which would undermine attempts to promote the use of recycled land and the redevelopment of existing housing areas.

  The proposed changes set out projected annual housing provision rates in Table 5.1 and policy on housing provision in Policy UR7. We expect RPG to bring forward an integrated approach to housing renewal at regional and sub-regional level, recognising that the development of sub-regional strategies should look beyond purely housing considerations, and allow for holistic approaches, which include economic, environmental and social elements and mechanisms. We also expect that in developing and
  114W
  implementing sub-regional strategies there will also be a need to have respect for local area/neighbourhood diversity.

  Tackling low demand and abandonment lies at the heart of the revised strategy. In underlining the importance of these proposed changes I also wish to draw to attention to the pathfinder initiative "Action to Tackle Housing Abandonment" announced by the Secretary of State on 6 April 2002. Pathfinders will be formed in Greater Manchester (Manchester—Salford, Oldham—Rochdale), Merseyside (Liverpool, Sefton and Wirral), East Lancashire (Blackburn, Hyndburn, Burnley and Pendle). The role of the Regional Assembly, the North-West Development Agency and local planning authorities working with housing and other partners is to pursue a fully integrated response to these issues of low demand, high vacancy rates, falling housing numbers and abandonment, wherever they are to be found. We would welcome views on whether the proposed changes provide an adequate planning framework for tackling low demand and on the sub-regional approach to housing renewal set out by Policy UR6. In particular, we welcome views on whether the proposed changes are sufficient to prevent the unnecessary release of greenfield land for housing. Alternatively, we need to consider whether there should be further changes to reflect the recommendation made by the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee that no new planning permissions should be granted for greenfield sites.

  The panel recommended the merging of the original Core Strategy/ Development Principles and Spatial Development Framework chapters. After careful study we have decided that it would be better to keep the two chapters apart but re-draft them. In so doing I believe that we have kept true to the spirit of what the original draft intended but added a Core Development Principle (on economic competitiveness with social progress), and expressed the Spatial Development Framework with greater clarity. I would particularly welcome views on the proposed priority for urban renaissance resources (set out in Policy SD1) as suggested in the panel's report (R5.6a).

  The panel recommended the development of Table 11.1 in Chapter 11 on Monitoring, Implementation and Review. While attempting to set out targets and indicators in the form suggested by the panel there is a need to develop these further and views on this would be particularly welcome. To help progress this in line with the panel's recommendations, there will be a seminar for stakeholders during the consultation period and assistance from the assembly will be invaluable in this matter. As part of that deliberation an action plan will be considered in line with the panel's recommendation (R13.2).

  During the Public Examination it was acknowledged that there is a considerable amount of further work that needs to be done and a range of issues that will require an early review of both RPG and the Regional Transport Strategy by the NWRA. Specifically, guidance will need to take into account the findings of a number of studies including those on Air Service; Multi-Modal Transport Studies; Public Transport Accessibility Profiling; Regional Freight; Regional Park and Ride Sites; Renewable Energy Resources; Transport Demand Management; Regional Park Resources; Regional Waste Facility Requirements; Regional Derelict Land Survey; Assessment of distribution and effectiveness of a variety

  115W
  of Waste Minimisation Initiatives across the Region; Review of Urban Potential Studies; and the implications of reviews of PPG 25, MPG6 and the Proposed Policy Guidance on the Extraction of Minerals from the Seabed.

  In considering these proposed changes and carrying out future review of RPG13 it is important that account is taken of the principles set out in the Planning Green Paper1, in particular the need to make RPG shorter and more strategic; more regionally specific; and more integrated and coordinated with other regional strategies; the increasing importance of introducing sub-regional policies within RPGs will also need to be addressed; and ensuring that the RPG process does not avoid making difficult decisions. Such a review is intended to help develop RPG13 and I am sure that the NWRA will continue to embrace the challenge of helping to implement and develop the Guidance. Consequently, while the proposed changes to the policies in this Draft RPG should be the focus of attention, views are also invited on the changes to the supporting text, including on the extent to which there is any scope for it to be shorter, clearer, and more regionally focused. We intend to revisit this issue following the period of consultation.

  There will now be a 13-week consultation period on the proposed changes which will end on Friday 16 August. Copies of the relevant documents have been placed in the Libraries of the House and provided to all of the region's MPs.
  1 Planning: delivering a fundamental change. Published February 2002.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans the Government have for housing development in Lancashire in the next 10 years. [57280]

  Ms Keeble
  The Secretary of State's Proposed Changes to draft Regional Planning Guidance for the North West indicate that the annual average rate of housing provision for Lancashire, net of clearance, should be 2,690 dwellings.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many council houses have been transferred to RSLs and other private bodies since 1997. [57271]

  Ms Keeble
  In the five years since January 1997, it is estimated that approximately 365,000 council houses in England have been transferred to RSLs and other private bodies.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many council houses have been(a) built and (b) sold in each local authority since 1997. [57270]

  Ms Keeble
  The number of council dwellings built has been falling for many years. Of the 354 local authorities, only 48 reported completing any council dwellings since April 1997. These are given in the following table. These figures are based on monthly numbers reported by local authorities and have not been adjusted for incomplete returns. Figures for the number of dwellings completed each year are published in the Department's Local Housing Statistics.
  116W
  Tables showing reported information on council houses sold by each local authority in England, along with national and regional summaries, for each year since 1979–80 are available in the Library.

  New council dwellings built between April 1997 and March 2002

  Local authority

  Council dwellings built

  Ashford

  9

  Bedford

  8

  Bristol

  17

  Broadland

  6

  Bromsgrove

  21

  Canterbury

  11

  Cotswold

  54

  Derwentside

  6

  Derby

  1

  Durham

  3

  Eastbourne

  8

  East Hampshire

  26

  East Hertfordshire

  4

  East Lindsey

  1

  Eden

  1

  Erewash

  12

  Hackney

  34

  Hertsmere

  1

  Hillingdon

  37

  Islington

  5

  Kennet

  11

  Leeds

  17

  Leicester

  130

  Litchfield

  21

  Mansfield

  10

  Milton Keynes

  7

  Mole Valley

  12

  North Hertfordshire

  1

  Nottingham

  15

  Reigate and Banstead

  2

  Rotherham

  4

  Rushcliffe

  17

  Sandwell

  33

  Selby

  3

  Sevenoaks

  1

  Shepway

  2

  South Bucks

  29

  South Cambridgeshire

  55

  South Hams

  24

  South Kesteven

  8

  South Northamptonshire

  1

  South Tyneside

  11

  Stroud

  46

  Teignbridge

  4

  Waltham Forrest

  282

  Waveney

  1

  West Oxfordshire

  3

  Worcester

  27

  Supported Housing
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what safeguards have been put in place to ensure that tenants in supported housing, whose support costs are met in full by housing benefits, will continue to have these costs met in full from April 2003 under the provisions of Supporting People. [57209]

  Ms Keeble
  Local authorities administering Supporting People from April 2003 are being instructed to pay Supporting People grants where housing benefit is
  117W
  currently covering support costs and are auditing the preparation to make this change. People on housing benefit at 31 March 2003 will see no change.

  Affordable Housing
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many affordable

  Table 1: Number of LA and RSL empty homes in England which are in rural areas by region

  Region

  1 April: 2001

  2000

  1999

  1998

  1997

  1996

  1995

  1994

  19931

  1992

  North-east

  3,500

  3,000

  2,800

  2,600

  2,200

  2,200

  2,100

  1,900

  1,700

  2,000

  North-west

  2,400

  2,200

  2,000

  1,700

  1,600

  1,400

  1,200

  1,000

  1,100

  1,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,100

  1,400

  1,100

  1,000

  800

  600

  600

  600

  700

  600

  East Midlands

  1,100

  1,300

  1,200

  1,200

  1,200

  1,200

  900

  800

  800

  600

  West Midlands

  700

  900

  700

  800

  700

  700

  600

  600

  500

  500

  East of England

  1,300

  1,500

  1,500

  1,500

  1,500

  1,600

  1,200

  1,300

  1,700

  1,200

  London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South-east

  1,300

  1,500

  1,900

  1,700

  1,700

  1,400

  1,300

  1,300

  1,800

  1,200

  South-west

  1,300

  1,600

  1,500

  1,400

  1,600

  1,500

  1,300

  1,300

  1,400

  1,000

  England

  12,700

  13,400

  12,700

  11,900

  11,300

  10,600

  9,200

  8,800

  9,700

  8,100

  1 Figures for 1993 are unusually high due to many dwellings bought by RSLs towards the end of the financial year (1992–93) under the Housing Market Package.

  Table 2: Total number of LA and RSL empty homes in England by region

  Region

  1 April: 2001

  2000

  1999

  1998

  1997

  1996

  1995

  1994

  19931

  1992

  North-east

  12,100

  12,100

  11,400

  11,100

  10,100

  9,400

  8,500

  7,600

  7,700

  8,500

  North-west

  31,500

  30,100

  26,500

  24,500

  21,100

  19,100

  17,100

  16,300

  19,400

  20,500

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  17,500

  17,800

  16,600

  15,300

  14,200

  11,800

  10,000

  10,100

  9,900

  9,200

  East Midlands

  8,600

  8,700

  7,600

  7,100

  7,300

  7,300

  5,700

  5,300

  5,700

  4,800

  West Midlands

  16,100

  17,200

  14,200

  13,200

  11,900

  10,900

  9,600

  9,000

  9,400

  8,800

  East of England

  5,600

  5,900

  5,900

  5,600

  6,000

  5,800

  5,300

  5,400

  6,500

  4,800

  London

  18,800

  20,200

  21,700

  22,100

  25,100

  27,300

  26,300

  26,600

  27,100

  23,700

  South-east

  6,800

  7,200

  7,600

  7,300

  7,700

  7,200

  6,200

  6,400

  8,000

  5,800

  South-west

  4,600

  5,500

  5,100

  4,700

  4,500

  4,300

  3,900

  3,800

  3,800

  3,500

  England

  121,600

  124,700

  116,600

  110,900

  107,900

  103,100

  92,600

  90,500

  97,500

  89,600

  1 Figures for 1993 are unusually high due to many dwellings bought by RSLs towards the end of the financial year (1992–93) under the Housing Market Package.

  Note:

  Figures rounded to the nearest 100

  Sources:

  For Table 1 and Table 2: DTLR's annual Housing Investment Programme (HIP) returns and the Housing Corporation's annual HAR 10 and Regulatory and Statistical Return (RSR)

  Housing Stock Transfers
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the local housing authorities who have transferred their council house stock to date to alternative landlords and give in each case(a) the grant from Government to write off debt, (b) the total cost to the local authority in professional fees, (c) other relevant costs of the transfer and (d) the capital receipt. [56695]

  Ms Keeble
  I have placed in the Libraries of the House lists which show all large scale voluntary transfers completed to date. The details include the four Government one-off payments in transfers where the capital receipt was insufficient to pay off the authority's
  118W
  empty homes there were in (a) rural areas by region and (b) England by region in each of the last 10 years. [56974]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: The number of local authority (LA) and registered social landlord (RSL) empty homes in (a) rural areas by region and (b) England by region in each of the last ten years are set out in the following tables:

  housing debt, the set up cost for transfer and the capital receipt. Costs to local authorities for professional fees are not held centrally.

  Lighting Maintenance
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what has been included in the Single Capital Pot for road, bridge and street lighting maintenance as part of this year's LTP settlement. [57266]

  Ms Keeble
  All of the block allocation for highway maintenance in the 2002–03 LTP settlement has been included in the Single Capital Pot. The total allocation
  119W
  was £545 million made up of indicative amounts of £189 million for principal roads, £243 million for non-principal roads, and £113 million for bridges. There was no indicative allocation for street lighting. In addition £10 million was allocated for major maintenance schemes greater than £5 million: this sum is not included in the Single Capital Pot.

  It is for local authorities to decide how much capital resource from the Single Capital Pot they will spend on highway maintenance in the light of their priorities for this and the other services they provide.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether an allowance for street lighting will be included in the LTP settlement for 2003–04. [57267]

  Ms Keeble
  A decision on whether to include an indicative amount for street lighting in the LTP highway maintenance settlement for 2003–04 has not yet been taken. It would depend upon the total resources available and the progress made in other areas of maintenance. The first targets in the 10 Year Plan for Transport are to stop carriageway deterioration by 2004 and to complete bridge strengthening to carry 40 tonne lorries where necessary.

  Provision for street lighting replacement is already made within the Highways Maintenance Standard Spending Assessment for Revenue Support Grant. Local authorities are also free to fund street lighting replacement from the Single Capital Pot which has been introduced in 2002–03.

  Work-related Illness
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many claims for work-related injury illness were settled on behalf of workers in local government in the last year for which figures are available; and what the total cost was in compensation. [56069]

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

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many employees in local government retired through work-related illness or injury in the last year for which records are available; and what the total cost was to the Department. [56070]

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

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many claims for work-related illness were settled by his Department in the last year for which records are available; and what the cost was in compensation. [56066]

  Dr. Whitehead
  In 2001–02, this Department settled 15 cases of work-related illness and injury. 13 of these claims were long standing cases relating to ex-PSA staff, mostly for asbestos related disease, amounting to £402,305 in compensation costs. There were two claims for DTLR staff amounting to £8,500.
  120W
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many employees of his Department retired through work-related ill health in the last year for which records are available; and what the cost was to the Department. [56067]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Records are not maintained by DTLR which enable ill health retirements to be separately identified as work-related. The number of staff retired in DTLR (including its executive agencies) with a medical retirement certificate issued by the civil service pension scheme medical adviser in the year 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 was 56. Benefits provided on medical retirement are as set out in the rules of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme and laid before Parliament. This provides for an immediate payment of an enhanced pension and lump sum. Ill health retirement expenditure is met centrally from the Civil Superannuation Vote and it is not possible to separate out the cost for cases in this Department.

  Committee Mandates
  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 application of tonnage measurement of ballast spaces in segregated ballast of oil tankers 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. [56834]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The committee was set up under Article 7 of regulation (EC) 2978/94/EC on the implementation of IMO resolution A.747(18) on the application of tonnage measurements of segregated ballast tanks in oil tankers. The committee is composed of representatives of member states and is chaired by the European Commission with a remit to assist the European Commission with the application of the regulation. My Department is not aware of any committee meetings in the past 12 months and has incurred no travel or subsistence costs in relation to it.

  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 the House 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 Implementation Committee on minimum requirements for vessels bound for or leaving Community ports and carrying dangerous or polluting goods 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
  121W
  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. [56835]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Minimum Requirements for Vessels Bound for or leaving Community Ports and Carrying Dangerous or Polluting Goods Committee was established under Article 12 of Council directive 93/75/EEC. The committee is composed of representatives of the member states and is chaired by a representative of the Commission. The remit of the Committee is to consider amendments to the Council directive and vote on them accordingly. This committee has not met in the last 12 months and therefore there has been no cost to the public funds.

  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 (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 Committee for the establishment of conditions for the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system 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. [55679]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A regulatory committee, comprised of member states' representatives and chaired by the Commission, was set up under Article 21 of Directive 96/48/EC on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system. The remit of the Committee has now been extended to include conventional rail in accordance with Directive 2001/16/EC on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system. The "Article 21 Committee" approves technical specifications for interoperability-TSIs—and considers various issues arising from the implementation of interoperability (including the cost-benefit analysis to support the draft TSIs and applications to the Commission for derogations from the TSIs).

  The Committee has met four times over the last 12 months—there have also been a number of subordinate working group meetings. The UK is now represented by the Strategic Rail Authority, although officials from DTLR and 1-IM Inspectorate of Railways have also attended. Over the last 12 months, the cost of the main committee's work to public funds has been approximately £7,000.
  122W
  The Article 21 Committee is currently completing the formal adoption of TSIs for the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system and establishing ground-rules for the preparation of TSIs for the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system.

  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 (Commission Document 5685–02). 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 Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the Advisory Committee for the application of legislation on the development of the community railways 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. [55682]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Developing European Railways Committee was established under the provisions of Directive 2001/12/EC. The Committee is composed of representatives of member states and is chaired by the European Commission. The remit of the Committee is to facilitate the implementation of Directives 2001/12/EC, 2001/13/EC and 2001/14/EC, commonly referred to as the 'Railway Infrastructure Package Directives'. The Committee has met twice in the last 12 months. The UK is represented by officials from my Department and the Office of the Rail Regulator. The annual cost of its work to public funds is about £2,500.

  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 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 Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the Advisory Committee for the application of legislation on the conditions under which non-resident carriers may operate national road passenger transport services within a member state 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;
  123W
  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. [55685]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Advisory Committee is established under the provisions of Article 10 of the road passenger transport cabotage regulation (Council Regulation (EC) 12–98). The Committee is composed of representatives of the member states and chaired by the European Commission. The remit of the Committee is to advise the Commission on measures intended to resolve a serious disturbance of the internal transport market due to cabotage. As no member state has ever reported such a disturbance to the Commission, the Committee has not been convened.

  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 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 Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on measures to be taken in the event of a crisis in the market in the carriage of goods by road and for laying down the conditions under which non-resident carriers may operate national road haulage services within a member state 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. [55686]

  NDPB

  Code of practice

  Availability

  Advisory Panel on Standards in the Planning Inspectorate

  Does not yet have a code of practice

  Audit Commission

  The Code of Conduct for Commissioners, which is part of The Commissioners' Handbook.

  By appointment at the Audit Commission, 1 Vincent Square, London, SW1P 2PN

  Building Regulations Advisory Committee

  Members' handbook and register of interests

  By appointment at Zone 3/C2, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5DU

  Commission for Integrated Transport

  Uses the Cabinet Office's standard code of practice

  The register of interests is published in CflT's annual report and is available on request.

  Community Forum

  This body was established in January 2002, the code of conduct has not yet been finalised. A register of members' interests will be included in the annual report.

  When agreed it will be published on the Community Forum website www.neighbourhood.gov.uk or available from the Community Forum Secretariat, Zone 3/A5, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5DU.

  Civil Aviation Authority

  Although the CAA has no formal register of interests, under Paragraph 10, schedule 1 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, board members are obliged to disclose their interests, and provide this information when requested. The Secretary of State must satisfy himself that members have no prejudicial interests.

  Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee

  Code of practice for members in existence. Register of interests being developed.

  Available on request

  English Partnerships

  Code of practice

  www.englishpartnerships.co.uk/pdf/codesofpractice.pdf

  124W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Advisory Committee is established under the provisions of Article 7 of Council Regulation (EEC) 3118–93 and Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) 3916–90. The Committee is composed of representatives of member states and chaired by the Commission. The remit of the Committee is to advise the Commission on measures proposed to deal with a serious disturbance of the national transport market due to either international haulage or cabotage. As no member state has ever reported such a disturbance to the Commission, the Committee has not been convened.

  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 the House on 26 February (Corn (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.

  Disclosure of Interests
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what rules apply to the disclosure of interests on the part of those serving on public bodies which are responsible to his Department. [56455]

  Ms Keeble
  All advisory and executive non-departmental public bodies are required to adopt a board members' code, based on guidance produced by the Cabinet Office, and they should have registers of interests. The definition of interests is ultimately for individual Departments since they are best placed to decide what might be thought to influence members of their NDPBs.

  The following table lists the NDPBs sponsored by this Department and in each case indicates what the relevant code of practice is and where it is available.
  125W

  NDPB

  Code of practice

  Availability

  Health and Safety Commission

  Code of practice, including conflicts of interest for board members.

  Available on request from the Commission

  Housing Action Trusts

  Code of conduct and register of board members' interests.

  Available on request from the Trusts

  Housing Corporation

  Code of best practice for board members of the Housing Corporation.

  www.housingcorp.gsx.gov.uk

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England

  Code of practice

  www.statistics.gov.uk./pbc

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales

  Code of practice currently not available as the Commission are moving their website.

  From 1 July, the website will be hosted by the National Assembly for Wales, where the code of practice will be available for viewing.

  Property Advisory Group

  Code of practice and public register of interests

  On request via the Secretariat, Zone 3/G10, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5DU.

  Northern Lighthouse Board

  Code of best practice for board members which includes a commitment to the Principles of Standards of Public Life.

  On request from Director of Finance and Administration, Northern Lighthouse Board, 84 George Street, Edinburgh, EH2 3DA.

  Rent Assessment Panels

  Guidance to members on conflicts of interest and a register of interest.

  Available on request from RAPCU, Whittington House, 19–30 Alfred Place, London, WC1E 7LR. Parties to cases being dealt with by RAPs are advised of the existence of the register and how it may be inspected.

  Standards Board for England

  Code of conduct

  www.standardsboard.co.uk/board/membersCodeOfConduct

  Strategic Rail Authority

  Code of conduct currently being prepared, to be formally in place this summer. A register of interests is maintained.

  On request from SRA, 55 Victoria Street, London, SW1E OEU

  Traffic Area Networks

  No code of conduct or register of interests maintained.

  Trinity House Lighthouse Service

  Code of best practice for board members which includes a commitment to the Principles of Standards of Public Life.

  On request from Director of Administration, Trinity House Lighthouse Service, Tower Hill, London, EC3N 4DH

  Sick Leave
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many days of sick leave were taken by employees in local government in the last year for which records are available; and what the cost was. [56071]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Findings from research carried out by the Employers' Organisation research indicates that the number of days' sick leave taken by local government employees in England for the year April 2000 until March 2001 was approximately 15.9 million—an average of 9.6 days per employee.

  The total number of employees in English local authorities (excluding teachers) was estimated in 2001 by the Employers' Organisation as being 1,654,925. A CBI/PPP healthcare survey also for 2001 suggested that sick absence costs the public sector an average £518 per employee per annum. From these surveys the total cost of sick leave taken by employees in local government can be estimated at approximately £857 million.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many days of sick leave were taken by employees in his Department in the last year for which records are available; what proportion of those were due to work-related illness or injury; and what the cost was to the Department. [56068]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The most recent figures published in the Cabinet Office "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service" are for the calendar year 2000. For the "Environment and Transport Group", the average working days' absence per staff-year was 9.0 days compared with a civil service average of 9.9 days. The total number of days lost were 142,853. DTLR is committed to meeting 126W
  the target for reducing the number of working days lost due to sick absence in its service delivery agreement by 30 per cent. based on a 1998 baseline by the end of 2003. The Department does not have details of the days lost and associated costs for work-related illness and injury.

  Coastguard (Lyme Bay)
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has for the coastguard helicopter serving Lyme Bay in Dorset; and if he will make a statement. [57234]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is currently in discussions with contractors and other organisations about the future helicopter provision for the Lyme Bay area. No firm decisions have yet been taken.

  Rural Transport (Cumbria)
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what improvements have been made to rural transport in Cumbria to increase access to health services. [57000]

  Ms Keeble
  Government funding has enabled Cumbria county council to increase the frequency of many rural bus routes facilitating access to health services. Recent community transport enhancements include:Wigton town service
  Cumbria Plusbus (Kirkby Stephen area)
  Rural fells project (Caldbeck)
  Community buses (brokerage schemes)
  Voluntary social car schemes
  Rural wheels—an innovative demand responsive service. Pilot being developed in South Cumbria using smartcard technology.

  127W
  Enhancements to conventional bus services include:
  Service X35 (Kendal—Barrow) provides access to both Westmorland hospital in Kendal and Furness general in Barrow.
  Service 59 (West Cumbria to West Cumberland hospital) dial-a-ride service for evening visiting.
  Service 58 (Maryport—Cockermouth) will be extended shortly to serve the health centre in Maryport; already serves Cockermouth hospital.
  Service X12 (Coniston—Ulverston) will extend on request to the hospital/health centre in Ulverston.

  Train Traffic (Scotland)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what percentage of the train traffic on the(a) Kilmarnock to Dumfries and (b) Dumfries to Carlisle railway lines was (i) passenger and (ii) freight in the last 12 months; [54819]

  (2) what percentage level of capacity the Kilmarnock to Dumfries railway line has operated in the last 12 months. [54821]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I understand that current weekday train traffic in each direction is as follows:

  Rail line

  Passenger trains

  Freight trains

  Kilmarnock to Dumfries

  10

  10

  Dumfries to Carlisle

  13

  10

  Over the last year, according to demand, up to 15 or 20 freight services per weekday have operated in each direction over each line. When the maximum number of freight services operate, the Kilmarnock to Dumfries line is operating to its maximum practical capacity.

  Rail Franchises
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement on the rail franchise renewal process; [55770]

  (2) if he will list the bidders who have pre-qualified for rail franchise applications. [55771]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority's Strategic Plan, published on 14 January, includes a report on its franchising programme. A new Chiltern franchise was signed on 18 February. The table lists the parties currently pre-qualified for franchises.

  Franchise/Pre-qualified parties
  Merseyrail Electrics

  Arriva Trains Ltd.

  Connex Transport UK Ltd.

  Serco Ltd.

  Transdev plc jointly with RATP International

  NS/Dutch Railways

  Keolis SA

  Northern

  Arriva Trains Ltd.

  FirstGroup plc jointly with Keolis SA

  National Express Group plc

  Connex Transport UK Ltd.

  GB Railways Group plc

  Serco Ltd.

  128W
  Wales and Borders

  Arriva Trains Ltd.

  Connex Transport UK Ltd.

  FirstGroup plc

  GB Railways Group plc

  National Express Group plc

  NS/Dutch Railways

  Serco Ltd.

  Keolis SA

  TransPennine Express (best and final offers stage)

  Arriva Trains Ltd.

  Connex Transport UK Ltd.

  Keolis SA with First Group plc.

  Network Rail
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions who the shareholders are in Network Rail; and what obligations it has to report to the Strategic Rail Authority. [57292]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Network Rail was incorporated on 22 March 2002 as a private company limited by guarantee. As such, it has no shareholders. At present, Network Rail is a bidder to succeed Railtrack plc as network operator and has no obligations to report to the Strategic Rail Authority.

  London Underground
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action is being taken to reduce the number of working days lost through the absence of London Underground staff on medical grounds. [56426]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Improving attendance is a key part of London Underground's work to improve the reliability of services. Improved staff attendance means fewer cancellations, and a better service for passengers.

  LU have taken a number of steps to improve staff attendance. Over the past year, these have resulted in a 2 percentage point increase in station staff attendance, and a 1 percentage point increase in the attendance of train and signalling staff.

  Road Bridges (Railways)
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when Railtrack will complete repairs on the road bridge over the railway at Easter Road, Edinburgh to enable it to carry heavy traffic again. [55709]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As part of the national programme of assessment and strengthening to ensure that road bridges within specified categories can carry loads of up to 40 tonnes, I understand that city of Edinburgh council has carried out an initial assessment of the load-bearing capacity of the bridge; and that Railtrack is awaiting receipt of the council's assessment report.

  Blackwall Tunnel
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent reports he has received regarding the safety of
  129W
  the Blackwall tunnel in London; what concerns have been expressed about emergency lanes and escape routes; what response he has made; and if he will make a statement. [55847]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is not a matter for the Government; it is a matter for Transport for London (TfL) which is the highway authority for the Blackwall tunnels.

  I understand that TfL have recently awarded a £15.5 million contract for extensive refurbishment of the southbound tunnel. They are also planning to undertake a review of the northbound tunnel, which was extensively refurbished in 1992, to identify the need for any further works on that tunnel.

  Further information can be obtained from Peter Heather, Director of Operations, TfL—Street Management.

  Off-road Motorcycling
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans the Government have to change controls on the use of land for off-road motorcycling. [57323]

  Ms Keeble
  My Department published research on 12 September 2001 on the impact of provisions relating to the temporary use of land, including for off-road motorcycling. It addressed matters such as impact on local amenity and the environment, for example in terms of litter, noise and relationships with other land uses in the area.

  On 24 January 2002 a consultation paper was issued on possible options for change to the current temporary use provisions. The paper put forward six options for change as well as inviting proposals for alternative options. The closing date for responses was 24 April 2002. The views of all those who responded will be considered before any decisions are made on the future composition of the Use Classes Order and the temporary use provisions, including controls on the use of land for off-road motorcycling.

  Coaches
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to encourage the use of coaches for long-distance public transport. [57329]

  Ms Keeble
  Coaches play an important role in the provision of inter-city and commuter transport. They are commercially self-supporting and demand has remained buoyant over the last decade. I am keen to encourage their use. Officials are regularly in touch with coach industry representatives.

  The Government are in discussion with the coach industry about proposals to pay bus service operators' grant (formerly called "fuel duty rebate") for scheduled coach services which offer concessionary fares.

  Bus Lanes
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has received from Transport for London and the Highways Agency on allowing coaches to use bus lanes. [57330]
  130W
  Ms Keeble
  Coaches are permitted in a large number of existing bus lanes including the vast majority of those in London. Transport for London have powers to make traffic regulation orders on GLA roads and would not need to submit any plans to the Department.

  Road Accidents
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his strategy is towards eliminating fatalities in road crashes. [57121]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: The Government's current road safety strategy, "Tomorrow's roads—safer for everyone", aims to reduce road deaths and serious injuries by 40 per cent. by 2010 compared with the average for 1994 to 1998.

  Mobile Phones (Drivers)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what road safety campaigns his Department has supported on the issue of driving while talking on mobile phones. [57537]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highway Code has, for many years, included advice to drivers not to use a mobile phone while driving. In March 1998, newspaper advertising alerted readers to the dangers of killing or injuring yourself or another road user. Leaflets and posters have been made widely available since then. In January 2000, television advertising reminded of the possible tragic consequences of using a mobile phone. We launched new radio advertising this month to demonstrate the distracting effect of using a mobile phone while driving. A public information film for use by TV stations has also been produced, as have new posters, and further publicity is being prepared. We continue to support local campaigns by police forces and local authorities.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether he is planning to introduce a bill prohibiting the use of mobile phones by car drivers. [57293]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government recognise the dangers of using mobile phones while driving. If drivers cannot be persuaded not to use mobile phones while driving, the Government accept that new legislation may be necessary.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what the cost is to public funds of(a) hotel expenses and (b) flights for overseas visits made by his Department since 1 June 2001; [57843]

  (2) how many overseas visits he has made since 1 June 2001; to where; for what purposes; and at what cost to public funds; [57844]

  (3) how many international flights he and his officials have taken since June 2001. [57845]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  All travel arrangements for Ministers and officials are made in accordance with rules set out in the
  131W
  Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House, and the Civil Service Management Code.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer provided to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on 6 March Official Report column 421W.

  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) officials, (b) ministers and (c) special advisers from his Department will be travelling to Bali at public cost. [57841]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  It is planned that two officials from the Deputy Prime Minister's Central Policy Group and two from the Performance and Innovation Unit will attend.

  Work-related Illness
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many claims for work-related illness were settled by his Department in the last year for which records are available; and what the cost was in compensation. [56084]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Cabinet Office, including Government Car Despatch Agency, did not settle any claims for work-related illness in year 2001.

  This information requested for the Central Office of Information and the Regional Co-ordination Unit is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Cabinet Office is aware of its legal obligations to provide a safe and healthy working environment. It is committed to reducing the number of working days lost through work-related injuries and illness. The Government's Revitalising Health and Safety initiative is being used as a supporting framework to achieve this goal.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many employees of his Department retired through work-related ill-health in the last year for which records are available; and what the cost was to the Department. [56085]

  Mr. Leslie
  Records are not maintained by Cabinet Office that enable ill health retirements to be separately identified as work related. The number of staff retired with a medical retirement certificate issued by the civil service pension scheme medical adviser for year 2001 is as follows:

  Number of medical retirements 2001

  Cabinet Office

  6

  COI

  1

  GCDA

  0

  RCU

  2

  Benefits provided on medical retirement are as set out in the rules of the principal civil service pension scheme and laid before Parliament. They provide for an immediate payment of an enhanced pension and lump sum. Ill health retirement expenditure is met centrally from the Civil Superannuation Vote. For the year ending March 2002, provisional expenditure met from the Vote was £310 million in respect of all civil service cases for which an ill health pension has been awarded. These cases
  132W
  number approximately 67,000 and include those who have formerly been ill health retired but who have now reached and exceeded the normal retirement age.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many days of sick leave were taken by employees in his Department in the last year for which records are available; what proportion of those were due to work-related illness or injury; and what the cost was to the Department. [56086]

  Mr. Leslie
  Cabinet Office publishes an analysis of sickness absence in the civil service each year. The most recently published figures (available on the Cabinet Office website) are for calendar year 2000. Cabinet Office Departments (which included in that year GCDA and COI but not RCU) had an average of 4.6 working days absence per staff year.

  The report estimates the overall cost of sickness absence within the civil service but does not provide a breakdown by Department.

  Information relating specifically to absence caused by work-related illness or injury is not held and could be obtained only at disproportionate costs.

  The Cabinet Office is committed to improving levels of attendance to meet agreed targets and to minimising the number of days absence caused by work-related injury or illness.

  Electronic Voting
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research projects have been commissioned by his Department into electronic voting since June 2000, stating in each case(a) the organisation or consortium members carrying out the research, (b) the cost, (c) the purpose and title, (d) the date on which the research was or is due to be delivered to his Department and (e) the date or expected date of publication of the results. [54137]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to her by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), on 14 May 2002,Official Report, column 515W.

  Public Bodies
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the public bodies which are required to report to Parliament. [54244]

  Mr. Leslie
  Where a public body is under a statutory obligation to report to Parliament, this is set out in the relevant statute.

  As set out in "Quangos: Opening the Doors", the Government believe that all advisory and executive non-departmental public bodies should produce and make publicly available annual reports. However, in the case of the small advisory bodies, these need only be short reports with costs of producing them kept to a minimum. The intention is that the next edition of the annual public bodies publication should include, for the first time, summary information on the arrangements that each body has in place for ensuring greater transparency in their work.

  Aga Khan Development Network
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent discussions the Government Office for London has had with the Aga Khan Development Network about sites in London suitable for purchase by it. [55412]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government Office for London regularly has meetings with potential site developers in London but it is not the practice to provide details of such meetings in line with exemption 7 and 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Data Protection Act
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister 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. [53389]

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

HEALTH

  External Contracts
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the 30 largest contracts awarded by his Department from(a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999, (c) May 1999 to April 2000, (d) May 2000 to April 2001 and (e) May 2001 to the latest date, indicating in each case the values of the contracts and the companies with which the contracts were placed. [38746]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the time taken to answer his question. Despite considerable research through our records, the information is unfortunately not held centrally in the format requested.

  Speech Therapy
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the average annual salaries for NHS(a) speech therapists, (b) pharmacists and (c) clinical psychologists were for each of the past 10 years for (i) males and (ii) females; and if he will make a statement; [46584]

  (2) how much money the NHS awarded to female speech therapists in the case against the MSF Union for Speech and Language Therapy; and if he will make a statement; [46582]

  (3) how the formula to ascertain the amounts of monetary awards given to female speech therapists in the NHS case against the MSF Union for Speech and Language Therapy was determined; and if he will make a statement; [46579]

  (4) how many women originally submitted equal pay claims in the NHS case against the MSF Union for Speech and Language Therapy; and if he will make a statement; [46581]
  134W
  (5) of the women who received monetary awards from the NHS case against the MSF Union for Speech and Language Therapy, how many were awarded (a) £2,500–£5,000, (b) £5,000–£10,000, (c) £10,000–£20,000, (d) £20,000–00,000, (e) £30,000–£40,000, (f) £40,000–£50,000, (g) £50,000–£70,000 and (h) £70,000 or more; and if he will make a statement; [46580]

  (6) how much the NHS spent on the case against the MSF Union for Speech and Language Therapy each from 1986 to 2000; and if he will make a statement; [46583]

  (7) how much money the NHS spent employing (a) lawyers and (b) researchers working on the case against the MSF Union for Speech and Language Therapy each year from 1986 to 2000; and if he will make a statement; [46578]

  (8) how many (a) lawyers and (b) researchers were employed by the NHS to work on the case against the MSF Union for Speech and Language Therapy in each year from 1986 to 2000; and if he will make a statement. [46577]

  Mr. Hutton
  Some 1,800 speech and language therapists in the United Kingdom lodged equal pay claims from around 1985 onwards. Following decisions of the employment tribunal and subsequent out of court negotiations between the Department and Manufacturing and Services Federation, the settlement provided for 370 speech and language therapists to receive retrospective payments totalling £5.8 million1 broken down as follows:

  Amount awarded from NHS £1

  Number of women receiving payment1

  <2,500

  14

  (a) 2,500–5,000

  49

  (b) 5,000–10,000

  112

  (c) 10,000–20,000

  68

  (d) 20,000–30,000

  48

  (e) 30,000–40,000

  22

  (f) 40,000–50,000

  7

  (g) 50,000–70,000

  26

  (h) 70,000 or more

  0

  1 All figures are net (less tax, national insurance and pension contributions) and include interest. There may be a personal tax liability on the interest. All figures exclude 24 claims lodged in Scotland in 1980s and receiving payments.

  The retrospective payments were based on (i) the decisions of the employment tribunal and findings of independent experts (this applies to the 1980s cases only), (ii) an assessment of the job weight carried out by work assessment experts, (iii) a formula agreed by negotiators to provide a reasonable and fair payment and (iv) the length of relevant claim.

  Employers and the Secretary of State were both named as Respondents and the claims were defended centrally on behalf of employers and Secretary of State to minimise costs. The following table shows the estimated total costs to the national health service involved in defending the cases, including legal and research costs (which it is not possible to identify separately). These are the best available estimates but should be treated with caution. A very few employers sought and paid for separate legal and other advice locally.
  135W

  £000

  Year

  Cost

  1986–97

  760

  1997–98

  440

  1998–99

  192

  1999–2000

  9

  Two barristers and their juniors were retained by the Treasury Solicitor to represent employers and the Secretary of State to provide legal services as necessary over the lifetime of the cases. It is not possible to pinpoint their input for each year from 1986 to 2000. Three researchers were engaged for several days in 1995 at a total cost of approximately £4,000. A firm of consultants was engaged to assess the work in the 20 lead cases and several analysts shared the assessments.

  Average salary and total earnings by sex in 1998. 1999 and 2000 for clinical psychologists, pharmacists, and speech and language therapists

  £

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Staff group

  Average salary

  Average earnings

  Average salary

  Average earnings

  Average salary

  Average earnings

  Speech and language therapists

  Male

  19,800

  20,600

  20,100

  20,800

  21,400

  22,100

  Female

  19,800

  20,400

  20,200

  20,900

  21,200

  21,900

  Clinical psychologists

  Male

  31,200

  31,700

  31,700

  32,400

  33,800

  34,500

  Female

  23,800

  24,400

  24,100

  24,800

  26,100

  26,800

  Pharmacists

  Male

  27,600

  28,500

  27,800

  28,600

  29,100

  31,400

  Female

  23,600

  24,300

  24,000

  25,000

  25,800

  27,900

  Note:

  All figures are rounded to the nearest £100.

  Source:

  Department of Health's August 1998, 1999 and 2000 Earnings Surveys.

  The Earnings Survey

  The earnings survey is based on payroll data for August of the appropriate year. It covers about half of the NHS trusts in England. It is taken for NHS organisations which use the standard payroll system (SPS), and as such the sample may change from year to year. There is some unevenness in the geographical spread of the organisations included in the survey, but the overall results are broadly representative of all regions and different types of staff. Health authority staff were included for the first time in 2000. Independent contractors (including GPs and their staff) were not included in any of the surveys.

  Gross earnings data, i.e. before any deductions, were collected from payroll records. Annual basic salary was read directly from payroll records, and annual equivalent total earnings were calculated using all payments made during August, including e.g. overtime, London weighting, special duty enhancements and other leads/ allowances, and multiplying by 12. Average pay figures were calculated by dividing total salaries/earnings by total whole time equivalents.

  Health Community/Economy
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his definition is of (a) a health community and(b) health economy. [47833]
  136W
  Estimated total average earnings for speech and language therapists, clinical psychologists and healthcare pharmacists taken from the Department's August 1998, 1999 and 2000 survey are shown in the following table. Similar information for earlier years is not available centrally but advance letters issued to the NHS containing information about the national pay rates for these staff from 1991 to 1997 have been placed in the Library together with the gender breakdown information available for the three professions for the same years. As part of the negotiated settlement of their equal pay claims, a new improved pay and grade structure for speech and language therapists was introduced in May 2000 to take effect from 1 April 2000. The regradings are not likely to have been in place by August 2000 and will not be reflected in the figures in the table.

  Mr. Hutton
  The terms "health economy" and "health community" can be used to describe all statutory and voluntary organisations in one area with an interest in local health service delivery and tackling health inequalities.

  The term "health economy" can be used to refer to financial relationships between local health service providers and other key stakeholders. The term "health community" encompasses all local groups and individuals with an interest in all aspects of the health of a local community, including the wider determinants of health. This may include patient groups, carers, primary care trusts, local authorities, voluntary and community groups and the private sector.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those medical interventions which would allow an elderly person in need of nursing care to be treated free of charge in an NHS setting. [50851]

  Jacqui Smith
  If a person's continuing health care needs are of a nature, complexity, intensity or unpredictability that requires regular supervision by a member of the national health service multidisciplinary team then they would be able to receive continuing NHS health care in a hospital, care home, hospice or domiciliary setting. All nursing care provided by the NHS is free of charge.

  Polio
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a risk analysis of infants vaccinated against polio who(a) do not travel outside the UK and (b) travel outside the UK. [51604]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 22 April 2002]: I am advised that children who are vaccinated against polio and who do not travel outside of the United Kingdom face extremely small risks from polio, and would only be vulnerable if the vaccine had failed to protect and they were exposed to wild polio virus from a recently arrived infected visitor from an endemic country. Children who have been immunised against polio and who travel abroad are at similarly low risk if visiting another non-endemic country. The risks will increase progressively according to the extent of endemicity of countries visited.

  Experts advise that the risk of vaccine associated polio is approximately one in every million doses administered and this will not be affected by travel.

  NHS
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated, and what the underlying costs to the NHS were, as a result of(a) accidents incurred and (b) diseases contracted abroad in each of the last 10 years. [52693]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information on the number of patients treated in the national health service after suffering an accident or contracting an illness while abroad, and the associated costs, is not held centrally.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people were waiting more than eight months to have heart by-pass surgery in Lancashire in each year since 1997; [53106]

  (2) how many people were waiting more than eight months to have brain tumour surgery in Lancashire in each year since 1997. [53109]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not available on the basis requested. Waiting list data are collected down to specialty level, but not by specific procedure. Figures are recorded in three-month time bands, so it is not possible to identify people waiting more than eight months.

  Breastfeeding
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Government are taking to promote the benefits of breastfeeding in the UK; how many and what percentage of women in the UK breastfed their child in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [53521]

  Area of measurement

  Current status

  Fraud measured

  Completion date

  Pharmaceutical patient fraud

  Two full measurement exercises completed

  1998–99: £117 million 1999–2000: £69 million A reduction of 41 per cent.

  December 2000

  Pharmaceutical contractor fraud

  First full measurement exercise nearing completion

  Data currently with statisticians for analysis

  —

  138W
  Yvette Cooper
  The Government are fully committed to the promotion of breastfeeding, which is accepted as the best form of nutrition for infants. Action includes the development and dissemination of the evidence base on good practice, embedding messages into national health service practice and other policies, and ensuring effective monitoring of infant feeding practices.

  A total of 79 'best breastfeeding practice' projects have been funded across all regions. The aim is to increase the rates of breastfeeding, both initiation and duration. This is a goal shared by all sure start initiatives and several health action zone programmes. Many of the 'best breastfeeding practice' projects have now obtained mainstream funding from sure start initiatives.

  Other related Department activities include support for an annual national breastfeeding awareness week, four main voluntary organisations involved in the promotion of breastfeeding, research into breastfeeding through quinquennial infant feeding surveys, and maintaining close links with United Nations Children's Fund's baby friendly initiative. The forthcoming national service framework for children will cover maternity services and we are considering how best to include breastfeeding within this framework.

  The results of the infant feeding survey 2000 showed an increase in the breastfeeding rates between 1995 and 2000: 71 per cent. of the mothers in England and Wales breastfed their infants as compared to 68 per cent. in 1995. In social class V there has been a significant increase in the incidence of breastfeeding from 50 per cent. in 1995 to 59 per cent. in 2000.

  Healthcare Audit and Inspection
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department intends to introduce legislation and guidance on the respective division of responsibilities between the Healthcare Audit and Inspection and the new Commission for Social Care Inspection. [53768]

  Jacqui Smith
  Primary legislation will be required for the establishment and functions of the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and the Commission for Social Care Inspection. We hope to introduce the necessary legislation as early as possible.

  Fraud
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated level of losses to fraud and corruption was in(a) his Department's vote 1 budget and (b) his Department's vote 2 budget for (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01. [54721]

  Ms Blears
  A number of risk measurement exercises have been carried out since the inception of the national health service counter fraud service in 1998. The purpose of these exercises is to show the actual figures for losses to fraud and corruption, and figures for the sums at risk in each area of the NHS (the vote 1 budget). The status and results of these exercises are set out in the table.
  139W

  Area of measurement

  Current status

  Fraud measured

  Completion date

  Dental patient fraud

  Two full measurement exercises completed

  1999–2000: £40.3 million 2000–01: £30 million A reduction of 25 per cent.

  January 2002

  Dental contractor fraud

  First baseline measurement exercise completed

  Sums found to be 'at risk' 1999–2000: £59.7 million

  January 2002

  Optical patient fraud

  First full measurement exercise completed

  1999–2000: £13.25 million

  January 2002

  Optical contractor fraud

  Baseline measurement exercise completed

  Sums found to be 'at risk' 1999–2000: £20.9 million

  February 2002

  GMS fraud

  Baseline measurement exercise nearing completion

  Data currently with statisticians for analysis

  —

  Health authorities and NHS trusts

  Initial work commenced

  —

  —

  The estimated levels of losses to fraud and corruption in the Departments vote 2 budget are as follows:

  £

  1999–2000

  48,148.81

  2000–01

  56,831.99

  Department of Health: Information collections on gender, race, disability or age since August 19971

  Title

  Information collected2

  Collection period

  Population surveys3

  ONS omnibus survey (Sun exposure 1997, ultraviolet monitor 1999, physical punishment of Children 1998)

  Age, gender, ethnicity

  Survey is annual, but elements vary—these items may not be included every year

  National survey of patient experience

  Age, gender, ethnicity, disability (limited information)

  Annual

  Mental health of children and adolescents in Great Britain 1999

  Age, gender, ethnicity, special learning difficulties

  Every five years

  Adult psychiatric morbidity among adults 16–74 in Great Britain 2000

  Age, gender, ethnicity

  Period varies, but every few years

  Ethnic minority psychiatric illness rates in the community

  Age, gender, ethnicity, disability (limited information)

  Every 5 years

  Mental health of carers

  Age, gender, ethnicity, disability (limited information)

  Period varies, but every few years

  Mental health of children looked after in Great Britain

  Age, gender, ethnicity, disability

  New survey—likely to be every 5 years

  Learning difficulties survey 2003

  Age, gender, ethnicity, disability

  Feasibility commissioned

  Health survey for England—ethnic minority Groups 1999

  Age, gender, ethnicity

  Annual, but elements vary

  Health survey for England—health of older people 2000

  Age, gender, ethnicity, disability

  Annual, but elements vary

  Health care

  Smoking cessation services return

  Age, gender, ethnicity

  Annual

  NHS written complaints

  Ethnicity

  Annual

  NHS performance indicators

  Age, gender

  Annual

  Mixed sex hospital accommodation

  Gender

  Annual

  Social care

  Children looked after by local authorities

  Age, gender, ethnicity

  Annual

  Children in need census

  Age, gender, ethnicity, disability (limited information)

  Biannual

  Children on child protection registers

  Age, gender, ethnicity

  Annual

  Referrals, assessments and packages of care

  Age (limited), ethnicity

  Annual

  Social services staffing return

  Gender, ethnicity

  Annual

  1 Includes only those collections which started after August 1997, or those previously existing collections that changed after August 1997 to include gender, race, disability or age. "One off" surveys are also not included.

  2 For some collections, the types of information shown have been built up over time; e.g. data on ethnic origin may not have been collected for as long as those for age.

  3 The population surveys listed are commissioned by the Department but carried out by others (eg ONS).

  140W
  From 2002 work to counter fraud and corruption in the Department of Health vote 2 budget will be the responsibility of the NHS counter fraud service.

  Data
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new data series separated by gender, race, disability and age have been commissioned by his Department since August 1997. [54832]

  Ms Blears
  The readily available information on new or revised statistical data collections is shown in the table.
  141W
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to maintain the continuity of medical, epidemiological, financial and other data series in respect of(a) the former Isle of Wight health authority, (b) the former Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire health authority, (c) other health authorities which have been abolished since 1997 and (d) other health authorities which may be abolished; what his policy is on this matter; and if he will make a statement. [55082]

  Ms Blears
  Throughout all changes to the structure of the national health service, whether the merger of two health authorities or the major restructuring of the NHS that took place in April this year, the need to maintain sound data systems has been paramount. Throughout the changes, the Department's officials involved in the collation and publication of data have and continue to take action to ensure the continuity of key data streams is maintained.

  Since 1 April, primary care trusts have taken on the majority of functions previously carried out by health authorities and will be the focal point locally for improving the health of the community, securing high quality services and integrating health and social care locally. They will become the unit of collection for many data systems.

  Horton Hospital Site
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the future of the original Horton hospital site and corrugated iron buildings in Horton Lane, Epsom. [54899]

  Ms Blears
  Apart from a small area within the site that will continue in national health service use, Horton hospital is surplus to requirements and is programmed to be sold during 2002–03.

  The corrugated iron buildings situated at the Old Moat Country Centre are in the ownership of Surrey Oaklands NHS Trust. Departmental officials have been advised that the buildings are mainly empty and the trust proposes they be demolished and the site reused for a use to be finalised.

  Foot Care
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the provision of chiropody and podiatry services in the south-east of England in(a) 1997 and (b) 2000. [54808]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government are aware that chiropody and podiatry services play a vital role in helping to maintain people's independence. For older people especially, we see these services as having a strong preventative role in helping them maintain their mobility and may enable them to stay in their homes rather than move prematurely to a residential care or nursing home. Chiropodists and podiatrists have been involved in developing the national service frameworks for older people and diabetes to ensure adequate standards for these services.

  The Government recognise that, in common with the rest of the country, the south-east needs more chiropodists and podiatrists. We are committed to recruiting more allied health professionals, which includes chiropodists/
  142W
  podiatrists, through the NHS Plan targets and will build on the 6,500 extra allied health professionals as announced in the 2002 Budget. £3 million was allocated in 2001–02 to modernise allied health professionals education and training programmes. Chiropody and podiatry were among the first group of specialities to be addressed.

  Obesity
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department have to increase awareness regarding the dangers of obesity and the need for exercise; how many cases of obesity have been diagnosed in each year since 1997 in(a) children and (b) adults; what the cost has been of treating obesity since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [54793]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government have made policy commitments through the NHS Plan, the Cancer Plan, the coronary heart disease national service framework and the diabetes national service framework to tackle the rising trend in obesity. As required by the coronary hear disease national service framework, local programmes of effective policies on promoting healthy eating and physical activity and reducing overweight and obesity are under way.

  We have put in place major cross-Government work. Specifically, this includes a national school fruit scheme and a wider five-a-day programme to increase access to and consumption of fruit and vegetables, supported by £52 million from the New Opportunities Fund (NOF). Also, work is under way with industry to improve the overall balance of diet including salt, fat and sugar in food.

  Among children, there has been significant investment in primary physical education and sports facilities, including £581 million from the NOF for a physical education and sports programme.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence has provided guidance on the use of the anti-obesity drugs orlistat and sibutramine.

  Information on how many cases of obesity have been diagnosed each year is not held. However, the Department's hospital episode statistics for in-patient admissions in England showed a rise in children (0 to 16-years-old) from 152 in 1996–97 to 240 in 2000–01 and a rise in adults (over 16) from 630 in 1996–97 to 828 in 2000–01.

  The National Audit Office report "Tackling Obesity in England", published in February 2001, estimated that in 1998 the direct cost to the NHS was at least £0.5 billion a year, or about 1.5 per cent. of NHS expenditure. It has also estimated a direct cost of £2 billion a year to the wider economy.

  Alcohol
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of attendances at accident and emergency departments were alcohol-related in each of the last five years. [54991]

  Ms Blears
  The data are not available centrally. The Health Education Authority carried out a survey in 1998, which was published in the journal "Alcohol and Alcoholism", which indicated that one in six people
  143W
  attending accident and emergency departments for treatment had alcohol-related injuries or problems, rising to eight out of I0 at peak times.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much central Government funding was allocated to preventative work in relation to alcohol misuse in each of the last five years, [54992]

  Ms Blears
  Most of the work on the prevention of alcohol misuse is undertaken at local level by national health service health promotion units and primary health care professionals such as general practitioners and practice nurses. It is not possible to separately identify the funds devoted to this alcohol misuse prevention work.

  Details of the central funding allocated by the Department to health promotion work on alcohol misuse during each of the last five years are as follows:

  £

  1997–98

  868,000

  1998–99

  582,000

  1999–2000

  500,000

  2000–01

  500,000

  200–02

  400,000

  The figures for 1997–98 and 1998–99 also include an element towards the running costs of the health education authority. This element does not appear in the figures for subsequent years.

  The Department for Education and Skills provides substance misuse education in schools. Substance misuse education covers alcohol, tobacco and drugs. The Department for Education and Skills has allocated an additional £29.5 million to substance misuse education over the last three years.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent estimate he has made of the percentage of teenagers who(a) drink alcohol once a week and (b) drink more than the recommended benchmarks for alcohol in (i) each NHS region and (ii) England. [54993]

  Ms Blears
  The information available is given in the tables. The sample sizes for the 16 to 19 age group are too small to provide reliable results at NHS regional level.

  Table 1: Percentage of pupils aged 11 to 15 usually drinking at least once a week, England 2000

  Government office region

  Percentage

  Base

  North-east

  22

  425

  North-west/Merseyside

  18

  997

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  19

  578

  East midlands

  17

  686

  West midlands

  16

  928

  Eastern

  22

  817

  London

  11

  564

  South-east

  19

  1,318

  South-west

  18

  721

  England

  18

  7,034

  Source:

  Department of Health school survey, published as "Smoking, drinking and drug use among young people in England in 2000".
  144W

  Table 2: Drinking behaviour among adults aged 16 to 19, by gender, England, 2000

  Percentage

  Usually drink at least once a week

  Drank more than 3–4 units on at least one day last week

  Base

  Men

  64

  48

  316

  Women

  51

  34

  312

  Note:

  Current Department of Health advice is that regular consumption of between three and four units a day for men (between two and three for women) will not accrue significant health risk. Regular drinking above these levels is not recommended because of the progressive health risk this carries.

  Source:

  Taken from the Office for National Statistics General Household Survey, published as "Living in Britain—Results from the 2000 General Household Survey". The percentages have been calculated using weighted data—the bases given are unweighted.

  Folic Acid
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce folic acid supplements into flour following the UK Health Department and Food Standards Agency meeting on 18 March. [54999]

  Yvette Cooper
  A report of the joint stakeholders meeting held on 18 March is posted on the Food Standards Agency (FSA) website: http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/ yourviews/foliacid/folicacidmeetingreport

  The FSA Board discussed the issue of folic acid fortification at an open meeting on 9 May 2002. The board took into account the comments made at the stakeholders meeting and from the consultation exercise carried out in 2000. The board paper and a summary of the discussion have been posted on the FSA website: http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/FSA02-05-02.pdf; http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/news/ newsarchive/62488

  Health Ministers will consider options for action, taking into account any advice from the FSA and the Health Departments.

  Ward Matrons
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if all hospitals in England(a) had in 2001–02 and (b) have for 2002–03 in place senior sisters or modern matrons with a ward environment budget of over £5,000. [55269]

  Mr. Hutton
  Ward environment budgets were introduced on 1 October 2000. In 2001–02 each budget was to be worth be worth a minimum of £5,000 and placed under the direct control of a ward sister or charge nurse. The budget can be spent on whatever the ward sisters and charge nurses that manage the ward consider will best enhance and humanise patient care.

  It is the responsibility of each trust to allocate ward environment budgets, worth a minimum of £5,000. Trusts also have the freedom to create larger budgets for some or all of their wards.

  Primary Care Premises
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer, of 2 May 2002,Official Report, column 1003W, on primary care premises, how many separate premises were improved since March 1999. [55406]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data on refurbished premises only has been collected since April 2000 and 640 were reported in health authority returns up to December 2001.

  Department of health vacancies survey vacancies in the specified trusts, for nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff three month vacancy rates1,2 and numbers3

  1999

  2000

  2001

  3 month vacancy rates (percentage)

  3 month vacancies

  3 month vacancy rates (percentage)

  3 month vacancies

  3 month vacancy rates (percentage)

  3 month vacancies

  Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5.1

  70

  Qualified

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5.6

  70

  Unqualified

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.0

  0

  Kent and Sussex Weald NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  3.1

  20

  —

  —

  Qualified

  0.0

  0

  3.3

  20

  —

  —

  Unqualified

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  —

  —

  Mid Kent Healthcare NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  4.9

  40

  —

  —

  Qualified

  0.0

  0

  5.5

  40

  —

  —

  Unqualified

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. Three month vacancies are vacancies as at 31 March which trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole time equivalents).

  2. Three month vacancy rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies plus staff in post from the previous September non-medical workforce census (whole time equivalent)

  3. Vacancy numbers are rounded to the nearest ten.

  4. Percentages are rounded to one decimal place.

  5. Totals may not equal sum of component parts due to rounding.

  6. Kent & Sussex Weald NHS Trust and Mid Kent Healthcare NHS Trust merged in April 2000 to become Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust

  7. Not applicable

  Source:

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey

  Department of Health non-medical workforce census

  As stated above Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells National Health Service Trust was formed from the merger of Kent and Sussex Weald and Mid Kent Healthcare NHS Trusts in April 2000. For 1999 Mid Kent Healthcare reported a sickness absence rate of 4.68 per cent. Kent and Sussex Weald did not return data. In 2000 Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells reported a sickness absence rate of 5.3 per cent. for the calendar year. Figures for 2001 are not yet available.

  NHS Staff (Religion)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will collect statistics on the religious affiliation of staff employed in the NHS with special reference to Muslim women in the work force; and if he will make a statement. [55439]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not collect these data centrally and there are no plans to do so. Ministers are, however, concerned about the treatment of staff as a result of their religion or belief and through the "Positively Diverse" programme are engaged in a service-wide initiative to look at how local employers can best ensure that their work force reflects the communities they serve.

  Nurses (Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells)
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nurse vacancies there were in and (b) nurses left the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust in each of the last three years; and what was the average level of absenteeism in each of these years. [55178]

  Ms Blears
  Figures on vacancy rates are only available centrally up to 2001. Information for the years 1999–2001 is given as follows:

  Progress is being supported by local target setting to increase the representation of people from black and minority ethnic communities, in those sections of the work force were they are currently under-represented.

  Arthritis
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further plans he has to help sufferers of arthritis. [55273]

  Ms Blears
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) issued its guidance on 22 March 2002 which recommended the use of etanercept for the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) and etanercept and infliximab for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

  On 5 December 2001, the Government announced that they would meet their manifesto commitment to ensure that patients receive drugs and treatments recommended by NICE on the national health service if deemed appropriate by their clinicians. Directions have been issued obliging health authorities and primary care trusts to provide appropriate funding for recommended treatments.

  People with arthritis will benefit from the emerging expert patients programme which will see the NHS provide training in self-management skills for people with

  147W
  long term chronic conditions. The first pilot phase has recently begun in selected primary care trust sites, with activity to take place both on a generic and a disease-specific basis. Also, the Medical Research Council and the Department's policy research programme is funding major research projects into arthritis.

  Orthopaedic Surgery
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to reduce the waiting times for operations for people in need of orthopaedic surgery. [55272]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Plan sets out the progress we want to make on waiting over the coming years. Each year maximum waiting times will fall so that, by the end of 2005, the maximum in-patient waiting time will be cut to six months and the maximum out-patient waiting time for a first outpatient appointment will be cut to three months. Urgent cases will continue to be treated much faster. All patients will benefit from shorter waiting times as maximum waiting times reduce in the years leading up to 2005.

  As a step towards achieving the NHS Plan targets from 1 April 2002 the maximum waiting time for in-patients has been cut from 18 to 15 months and a new maximum waiting time of six months has been established for patients waiting for their first out-patient appointments with a consultant.

  The "Action On" programmes have been established by the Government as part of the modernisation of the NHS. They are led by the National Patients' Access Team (NPAT). Their aim is to significantly encourage and disseminate best practice, improve access to care and to reduce variations in waiting times in the four areas with the longest waiting times: cataracts; orthopaedics; ear, nose and throat; and dermatology. Local services are helped to identify their constraints and to find effective solutions.

  Mental Health
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new proposals and additional resources he plans to allocate to deal with mental ill health and(a) drug use, (b) ethnic minority communities and (c) children and youth; and if he will make a statement. [55804]

  Jacqui Smith
  The mental health national service framework (NSF), published 1999, is a 10-year programme which sets out national standards for mental health. The NHS Plan built on the NSF and provided over £329 million by 2004 to fast forward the NSF and deliver our NHS Plan commitments. Plans for mental ill health are:

  (a) drug use—include every health authority area having received a 30 per cent. increase in funding for the drug treatment pool budget for 2002–03 for drug treatment. The national treatment agency for substance misuse are working to reduce drug treatment waiting times around the country to ensure that all drug users who need access to treatment services will receive it. A good practice guide has also been published on dual diagnosis;

  (b) ethnic minority communities—a strategy on black and minority ethnic mental health is currently being prepared and will be sent out for consultation later this year; and

  148W

  (c) children and youth—a strategy for the development of child and adolescent mental health services is on-going with the aim of improving the overall quality and accessibility of local services for children and young people with mental health problems. £85 million has been invested over the last three years across the NHS and local authorities, with each agency receiving funding. A further £20 million is being allocated to local authorities this year.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the increased spending earmarked for mental health has been allocated in the current year. [55628]

  Jacqui Smith
  The increased funding of £75 million allocated to health authorities in 2002–03, earmarked for mental health, was allocated with baseline health authority allocations. A detailed description how health authority allocations are calculated can be found in the health service circular ref: HSC 2001–024 Health Authority Revenue resource 2002–03.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 29 April 2002,Official Report, column 622W, on mental health, if he will make a statement on the range of initiatives being introduced to address issues of inequalities in access to mental health services for people from Asian, black and minority ethnic groups with special reference to how such initiatives are being developed and implemented; and where and when professionals and members of the public can learn more. [55999]

  Jacqui Smith
  Addressing inequalities in access for minority ethnic groups is recognised as a crucial issue for mental health services. Consultation documents on the black and minority ethnic mental health and women's mental health strategies will be published later this year.

  Following publication of these documents, the Department will be consulting with a wide range of key stakeholders, including service users and carers and representative organisations, to develop final implementation strategies.

  The strategies will be placed on the Department's website when published.

  Also, to assist implementation of mental health policy the National Institute for Mental Health for England (NIMHE) will develop targeted programmes aimed at assisting change within service and improving access to services. NIMHE will disseminate good practice and create and share developing evidence through its research development centres.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the primary care mental health workers he intends to recruit will work in children's and adolescents' services; and if he will make a statement setting out his plans for the recruitment of extra primary care mental health workers for children and adolescents [56323]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]The NHS Plan said that by 2004 "one thousand new graduate primary care mental health workers trained in brief therapy techniques of proven effectiveness will be employed to help general practitioners manage and treat common mental health problems in all age groups, including children". Additional financial resources for their appointment are planned for next year. This year we are concentrating on the establishment of training programmes to support them.
  149W
  Last year the NHS Modernisation Fund allocated million of targeted funding to improve child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) at primary care level (which could include the recruitment of primary care mental health workers) in accordance with the national CAMHS development strategy. Preliminary results from Departmentally-commissioned research into CAMHS in Primary Care indicate that one third of provider trusts have already developed primary mental health worker posts and one quarter had plans to do so.

  Human Rights and Biomedicine Convention
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Government intend to sign and ratify the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine 1997. [55632]

  Ms Blears
  The convention covers a wide range of complex ethical and legal issues, many of which have been, and remain, actively under debate in the United Kingdom over recent years. The Government wish to consider the conclusions of these debates before reaching a final view on signature and ratification of the convention.

  Care Homes (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will meet union representatives from Lancashire care homes to discuss the proposed closure of care homes by Lancashire county council. [55787]

  Jacqui Smith
  I recently met the leaders of Lancashire county council and some hon. Members representing constituencies in the county to discuss the provision of care services for older people in Lancashire. I have previously met the Lancashire care association.

  I should be happy to meet union representatives from Lancashire care homes to discuss their concerns about the council's plans.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the availability of residential care home places in Lancashire; [57286]

  (2) the proposed closure of the Galloway's Home for the Blind, Penwortham, near Preston. [56692]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (David Borrow) on 7 May 2002,Official Report, columns 17 and 18.

  Patient Information Advisory Group
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps have been taken towards setting up the Patient Information Advisory Group; and when it is expected to be operational. [55871]

  Ms Blears
  The Patient Information Advisory Group has been established and met on 10 December 2001 and 8 March 2002. The membership of the advisory group is as follows:Chairman
  Professor Joan Higgins Members
  150W
  Mumbers

  Dr. Michael Catchpole

  Professor Sir Cyril Chantler

  Dr. Tricia Cresswell

  Mrs. Helen Darracott

  Professor Andrew Haines

  Mr. Michael Hake

  Ms Barbara Meredith

  Ms Helen Miller

  Ms Julia Palca

  Professor Sir Denis Pereira

  Mrs. Shahwar Sadeque

  Ms Karen Thomson Dr.

  Michael Wilks.

  NHS Appointments (Non-attendance)
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he plans to take to reduce the number of failed appointments in the NHS due to non attendance. [55790]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government have a number of actions in place that will contribute to reducing the number of failed appointments in the national health service due to non-attendance:Booked appointments (including in-patient and out-patient visits) have been shown to reduce the number of failed appointments due to non-attendance. By the end of 2005, all out-patient appointments and in-patient elective admissions will be pre-booked;
  Alongside this, electronic booking systems are being implemented. They will make booking more convenient for patients and clinicians, allow bookings to be easily changed to take account of changing circumstances and over time they will also enable appointment reminders to be issued via phone, email and other technologies;
  All acute hospital trusts now have booking systems in place in at least two specialities/high volume procedures and more than five million patients have now benefited from booked appointments. A fourth wave of the national booking programme, 'moving to mainstream', began in September 2001 and will shift booking to mainstream NHS activity.
  The Modernisation Agency's Theatre Project have issued interim guidance which includes a checklist of actions for addressing patient cancellations, including validating lists and telephoning patients near the date of admission to confirm attendance. Pre-operative assessment is being rolled out as part of operating theatres and pre-operative assessment programme and should reduce non-attendance and last minute patient cancellations;
  Use of partial booking systems support reducing the level of non-attendance by ensuring patients are contacted before their appointment so that they can agree a convenient date and time.

  These initiatives are already starting to make an impact. As the level of booking increases and the guidance from the theatre project is spread across the NHS we will see a reduction in number of failed appointment due to non-attendance.

  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of appointments at GPs' surgeries were not kept by patients in(a) England, (b) Bedfordshire and (c) Luton in the last 12 months for which figures are available; [55756]
  151W
  (2) what the level of failed GP appointments as a result of non-attendance was in each PCT in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [55757]

  Mr. Hutton
  These data are not collected or held centrally.

  Consultants (Suspensions)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many medical consultants(a) are suspended and (b) have been suspended in each of the last five years. [55691]

  Mr. Hutton
  National Health Service trusts report suspensions lasting six months or longer to the Department. As at 31 December 2001, the latest date for which figures are available, of the 29 hospital and community medical and dental staff who have been suspended for more than six months, 23 are consultants.

  The number of consultants suspended for more than six months in each the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  Numbers

  19971

  4

  1998

  16

  1999

  14

  2000

  19

  2001

  18

  1 This information is unlikely to be accurate due to the data collection methods used at the time.

  Botulinum Toxin Injections
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding for botulinum toxin injections is available to patients in Fordingbridge; and if he will make a statement. [55901]

  Ms Blears
  The information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about(a) the effectiveness and (b) the availability on the NHS of botulinum toxin injections; and if he will make a statement. [55900]

  Jacqui Smith
  For several years, botulinum toxin in very carefully timed and measured doses has been used to treat overactive muscles in adults, particularly around the eyes and in the neck. More recently, it has been used as part of the management of spasticity and dystonia sufferers. It is also useful for people with cerebral palsy. It helps relax muscles so they become less stiff—and this helps walking and movement. Botulinum toxin is usually most effective if the condition affects only a limited group of muscles.

  A decision on whether botulinum toxin treatment should be given to a particular patient would be made by the clinician at the National Health Service trust to whom the patient was referred. The injections are available in certain neurology, ophthalmology, and ear, nose and throat clinics.

  Departmental Staff (Scotland)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of(a) Civil Service, (b) executive agencies and (c) non-departmental
  152W
  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. [56308]

  Ms Blears
  The Department has no offices in Scotland and no staff located in Scotland or relocated to Scotland since May 1997.

  The National Radiological Protection Board has 26 staff in Scotland. This represents 8.7 per cent. of its total staff. None have been relocated to Scotland since May 1997.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children are in care. [56152]

  Jacqui Smith
  The number of children who were looked after by local councils in England at 31 March 2001 was 58,900.

  This figure excludes children looked after under an agreed series of short term placements.

  Source:
  DH Annual publication—Children Looked After by Local Authorities, year ending 31 March 2001, England

  Homeless People
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the percentage of homeless people who have presented themselves at accident and emergency departments where the visit was inappropriate in the last 12 months. [56568]

  Ms Blears
  Information is not collected on the number of patients who are homeless at the time they attend accident and emergency.

  Electrophysiologists
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultant electrophysiologists are employed in the NHS in each of the past five years; and how many are employed in the London region. [56541]

  Mr. Hutton
  Electrophysiology is not a recognised medical specialty.

  Information about consultant clinical scientists working in electrophysiology is not collected centrally.

  Cancelled Operations (Eastbourne)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations were cancelled at Eastbourne district general hospital in each of the last 36 months. [56583]

  Ms Blears
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 14 February at column 676W which provided information on cancelled operations at Eastbourne Hospitals NHS Trust in the proceeding 60 months. Since then, figures for Quarter 3 of 2001–02 have been published. The number of last minute cancellations for non-clinical reasons at the Trust, in this quarter, was 90.

  Health Protection Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the Health Protection Agency to be operational; what funds will be available to the agency above the aggregated budgets of its component bodies; and if he will make a statement. [57682]

  Yvette Cooper
  We aim to establish the Health Protection Agency by 1 April 2003, by means of a Regulatory Reform Order. Decisions on budgets for 2003–04 have not yet been announced.

  Parliamentary Question
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will answer the question from the hon. Member for Reading, East tabled for answer on 19 July 2001, on the use of bed strap restraints in nursing homes, ref 5538. [57640]

  Jacqui Smith
  I replied to my hon. Friend by letter on the 11 September 2001. A copy of this letter was placed in the Library, and I have forwarded a further copy to my hon. Friend.

  Epilepsy
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what efforts are being made by his Department to raise awareness of epilepsy as a life threatening condition. [56497]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has already undertaken a range of initiatives to raise awareness of epilepsy. For example, we have:Supported the epilepsy advisory board to produce "Epilepsy Care—Making it Happen", a tool-kit and source of information designed to improve epilepsy services.
  Commended the clinical standards advisory group (CSAG) report "Services for patients with epilepsy" to the NHS.
  Provided government funding to the joint epilepsy council (JEC) to undertake a project to draw upon the good practice advice in the CSAG report and other recent epilepsy initiatives. The JEC launched its "National Statement of Good Practice for the Treatment and Care of People who have Epilepsy" in May 2002.
  Supported the national sentinel audit into epilepsy related death which is being published in May 2002.
  Published the chief medical officer's (CMG) Annual Report 2001, on the state of the public health, which included a chapter on epilepsy, "Epilepsy—death in the shadows". The report makes a commitment to putting in place an action plan to lower the number of preventable deaths from sudden unexpected death in epilepsy within three months of publication of the sudden unexpected death in epilepsy audit.

  We will continue to raise awareness of epilepsy and are working with the NHS Modernisation Agency to see how its programmes of work could help with this.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is developing a clinical guideline for the diagnosis, management and treatment of epilepsy to help address widespread variations in clinical practice and contribute to the improvement of services. This will be supported by an appraisal of the clinical and cost effectiveness of new anti-epileptic drugs in children and adults, to help promote appropriate uptake and equitable access.
  154W
  People with epilepsy will also benefit from the expert patients programme, which aims to provide training in self-management skills for people with long term chronic conditions. The first pilot phase in selected primary care group and trust sites will include people with epilepsy.

  These initiatives will contribute to raising awareness of epilepsy and specific trigger factors.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to publish the action plan on Epilepsy Death recommended in the Chief Medical Officer's report 2001. [56669]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department will consider the findings of the national sentinel audit of epilepsy related death, which is being published on 20 May 2002. We expect to develop and put in place an action plan to reduce the number of avoidable deaths from epilepsy within three months of publication of the audit report.

  Mr. Barrie Such
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 23 October 2001,Official Report, column 151W, at the undertaking given in the Adjournment debate on 7 December 2000, Official Report, column 246, if he will make a statement on the progress of the case of Mr. Barrie Such. [572761

  Jacqui Smith
  Mr. Barrie Such is currently an in-patient at Evesham Community Hospital. A discharge package for 24-hour care for Mr. Such has been agreed between local health and social services and will be put in place when Mr. Such is discharged from hospital.

  The discharge plan includes provision for a family property specially adapted to be built with a separate unit to house Mr. Such and carer. Planning permission has now been approved for this property with building completion expected in about four months.

  Smallpox
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 985W, to the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), what the outcome was of the safety and quality control tests performed on vaccine stocks. [440081

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 26 March 2002]Since 1979, vaccine batches have been tested on a rolling basis for maintenance of potency.

  A three month project of vaccine testing in accordance with the original World Health Organisation recommendations for smallpox vaccine manufacture applicable at the time of production for this vaccine, commenced at the beginning of January 2002.

  As the vaccine is a live, biological material, its potency would be expected to decrease over time. Expert advice in September 2001 was that the current stocks of vaccine could still be used. The result of the recent testing show all the current vaccine has a potency at least equivalent to that found in a recent American study to induce adequate clinical and immunological reaction. Further expert advice has confirmed that the findings of the American study can be applied to the United Kingdom's vaccine.

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what impact the 2002 Budget allocation to the NHS will have on NHS dentistry; and if he will make a statement. [55464]

  Ms Blears
  As a result of the Budget, the national health service in England will receive an annual average real terms growth in resources of 7.4 per cent. for the five years from 2003–04 to 2007–08. Decisions about allocation of this increased funding will be announced later this year.

  In the mean time the Government have announced that demonstration sites will be established to test the ideas developed by the options for change group. These sites will look at ways of improving access and oral health.

  TB-infected Meat
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to control the entry of TB-infected meat into the human food chain. [56011]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 13 May 2002]I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that all carcases are inspected after slaughter for signs of bovine TB by Meat Hygiene Service Inspectors, in accordance with the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995 (as amended). Those Regulations require the carcases of animals with evidence of generalised tuberculosis to be condemned as unfit for human consumption. Where there is evidence of localised disease the Regulations require the affected parts to be condemned.

  In September 2000 the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food reviewed the measures in place to protect the food chain from risks associated with "M.bovis" and concluded that the risk, if any, from the consumption of meat following assessment and action by the NHS staff in UK abattoirs is very low. The committee made recommendations to the Agency to reduce any residual risk still further. These measures included some changes to inspection procedures in slaughterhouses, and a change to national legislation bringing it fully into line with EU requirements. Copies of the ACMSF report were placed in the Library on 1 February 2002. The Board of the Food Standards Agency has accepted the recommendations and they will be taken forward as appropriate.

  Prescribed Drugs
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent studies he has commissioned in respect of the number of persons suffering side effects from prescribed drugs; and if he will make a statement; [56015]

  (2) how many persons died in the last year for which figures are available from the side-effects of prescribed drugs. [56022]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]A recent pilot study conducted in Liverpool has investigated the frequency of adverse drug reaction-related hospital admissions. The findings of this study suggest that the proportion of such reactions has not altered significantly in the last decade; that is, around 5.5 per cent. of all hospital admissions are due to adverse drug reactions 156W
  (ADRs). A follow-up study is anticipated which should identify areas in which prescribing issues and practices should be addressed in order to reduce the incidence of ADRs in the United Kingdom.

  The ADRs observed during the pilot study were subsequently submitted via the Yellow Card Scheme to the Medicines Control Agency, which is responsible for monitoring the safety of all marketed medicines to ensure that medicines meet acceptable standards of safety and efficacy. Spontaneous reporting schemes, such as the UK's Yellow Card Scheme which has been in operation since 1964, are one of the primary tools used in monitoring drug safety and provide an 'early warning' of previously unrecognised drug safety hazards in association with medicines.

  The Committee on Safety of Medicines/Medicines Control Agency receive reports of suspected ADRs from doctors, dentists, pharmacists and coroners and there is a legal requirement for companies to report suspected ADRs to their drugs. Approximately 18,000–19,000 suspected ADR reports are received each year via this scheme. The number of reports received via the Yellow Card Scheme does not directly equate to the number of people who suffer adverse reactions to drugs for a number of reasons, as this scheme is associated with an unknown level of under reporting. It is important to note that the reporting of a reaction does not necessarily mean it was caused by the drug and may relate to other factors such as the patient's underlying illness or other medicines taken concurrently.

  Over the last 20 years, suspected ADRs submitted via the Yellow Card Scheme with a fatal outcome account for less than 3 per cent. of these reports. The Office for National Statistics also collates data on deaths certified by doctors and coroners as due to adverse effects of drugs in therapeutic use. The quality of these data may be inconsistent as many thousands of doctors write certificates with a wide variation in knowledge, training and practice. In 2000 a total of 159 deaths were certified as due to adverse effects of drugs in therapeutic use.

  Pesticides
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent studies he has commissioned relating to the health dangers from chronic low-level exposure to a mixture of pesticides; and if he will make a statement. [56020]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]The Food Standards Agency asked the Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) to critically review the science of mixtures of pesticides and veterinary medicines and consider the implications for the risk assessment process.

  Part of the COT's consideration of this issue has been the compilation and review of information covering a wide number of areas, including scientific data on exposure to mixtures of pesticides. These are considered in detail in the report which will be published in July.

  Mid Essex Hospital Trust
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the level of delayed discharges in the Mid Essex Hospital Trust area was for the most recent period for which figures are available. [55740]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]Information on delayed discharges is collected centrally at health authority level. Service and financial framework

  Department of Health vacancies survey, March 2001. Vacancies in NHS trusts by specific NHS trust, specified staff groups—3 month vacancy rates1,2 and numbers3

  3 month vacancy rates (percentage)

  3 month vacancies

  Staff in post (wte)

  Staff in post (hc)

  All medical and dental staff

  1.5

  0

  130

  160

  All nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  1.5

  20

  1,330

  1,730

  1 Three month vacancies are vacancies as at 31 March 2001 which trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole time equivalents).

  2 Three month vacancy rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies pluss staff in post from the September 2000 medical and dental and non-medical workforce censuses (whole time equivalents).

  3 Vacancy and staff in post numbers are rounded to nearest 10.

  Notes:

  1. Percentages are rounded to one decimal place.

  2. Medical and dental figures exclude staff in training.

  3. Due to rounding calculating the vacancy rates using the above data may not equal actual vacancy rates.

  Source:

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey 2001

  Department of Health non-medical workforce census 2000

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census 2000

  Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the latest calculation of the average waiting time at the accident and emergency department at Broomfield hospital, Chelmsford is: and what the equivalent figure was 12 months before. [55733]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]The average waiting time in accident and emergency departments is not collected.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list each prescription drug and medical appliance subject to multiple prescription charges; and if he will make a statement. [54366]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]Tights supplied by hospitals (they are not prescribable by general practitioners) and pairs of elastic hosiery attract a double prescription charge. Otherwise one charge is payable for each type of appliance and each quantity of a drug supplied. This rule applies regardless of whether the different drugs or appliances are supplied in one pack or more. Examples of combination packs where more than one charge is payable are included in Part XVI of the Drug Tariff.

  Children's Services
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the names and positions of the senior members of staff who from 1 April have responsibility for children's services in each strategic health authority, PCT and NHS trust. [56160]
  158W
  data for delayed discharges in north Essex health authority for Quarter 3 2001–02 are in the Library.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies there are in the Mid Essex Hospital Trust area for(a) nurses and (b) doctors. [55739]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]The information requested is shown in the table.

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]This information is not collected centrally. Strategic health authorities are responsible for ensuring that primary care and acute trusts have in place mechanisms to assure high quality service provision, such as those recommended as part of national documents or standards. Directors of health and social care have a role in overseeing the activities of strategic health authorities.

  Sick Leave
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many days of sick leave were taken in his Department last year; how many related to employees suffering(a) stress and (b) other mental health problems; and what the cost was to his Department. [56481]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]: The latest annual report published by Cabinet Office "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service—2000" shows that, in 2000, the Department's unadjusted average working day absence per staff year was 5.5, down from 6.6 in 1999. Figures for 2001 or later years are not yet published.

  While the Department collects data on sickness absence, which includes stress, it is not possible to identify if the cause of the recorded 'stress related illness' was work related, or due to other work related mental health problems. It is not possible, therefore, to identify these costs.

  The Department is committed to meeting its public sector agreement (PSA) target on reducing sickness absence as agreed with the Cabinet Office and Treasury,

  159W
  and has a number of procedures in place to help managers and staff to be aware of and to reduce work-related stress. The Department has:
  issued guidance for managers and staff in line with health & safety legislation on 'Working Time Regulations'.
  has a mental health policy that recognises that stress at work is a significant contributor to mental health problems.
  issued guidance to managers and staff on the causes of stress and how to reduce this
  provides staff with a free confidential counselling service, "Care First", and
  encourages its staff to attend relevant training or discuss any concerns with their line managers.

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients received liver transplants under the NHS for conditions related to infection with Hepatitis C in each of the last five years; and what the unit cost of such operations was compared with drug therapies. [56335]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]Liver transplants are only performed on people with Hepatitis C if they have liver failure which is normally due to the development of post hepatitis liver cirrhosis. Each liver transplant cost the National Health Service approximately £66.000 and there is no alternative drug therapy. The number of liver transplant performed in England for Hepatitis C cirrhosis in the last five years is:

  Number

  1997

  54

  1998

  60

  1999

  69

  2000

  56

  2001

  59

  International Recruitment
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, (1) pursuant to his answer of 17 April 2002,Official Report, column 1025W, on international recruitment, what the website address listing will be where those agencies who comply with the Code of Practice on International Recruitment will be published; [56627]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 17 April 2002, Official Report, column 1025W, on international recruitment, which (a) international recruitment agencies, (b) their representative bodies and (c) other stakeholders have been asked to establish arrangements whereby agencies can register their agreement to comply with the Code of Practice on international recruitment; [56628]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 17 April 2002, Official Report, column 1025W, on international recruitment, what steps he is taking to ensure that overseas nurses will receive information relating to the compliance of international nurse recruitment agencies to the Code of Practice; [56629]

  (4) pursuant to his answer of 17 April 2002, Official Report, column 1025W, on international recruitment, how many of his officials have been assigned to implement the Code of Practice on international nurse recruitment. [56630]
  160W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]The Department of Health is working closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Work Permits UK, Independent Healthcare Association, Recruitment and Employment Confederation, Registered Nursing Homes Association, UNISON, the Royal College of Nursing and other professional bodies to ensure that all potential recruits have access to comprehensive information and to identify commercial agencies who are recruiting healthcare professionals from abroad.

  To date the following agencies have been identified:

  Areo Allied

  BMB International

  Cathy Hardy Associates Ltd.

  D. P. Healthcare

  Drake International

  ETI Recruitment

  Farochilen Nurses Placement

  First Gateway Recruitment Ltd.

  First Call Care Ltd.

  Geneva Health International

  Global Nurses Ltd.

  Global Recruitment Associates Ltd.

  Health Connections

  Health Professionals

  Interchange

  Jenrick Medical

  Kate Cowhig International Recruitment Ltd.

  Medic International

  Nestor Healthcare Group

  Nightingale Nursing

  Norman Broadbent International Executive Search

  O'Grady Peyton Europe

  Prime Time Healthcare

  ProCare Ltd.

  Professional Connections (UK) Ltd.

  Pulse

  Recruitment and Employment Confederation

  RGN Ltd.

  Rutledge Recruitment

  Scotnursing Ltd.

  Search Medical

  Seven Sisters Hospital Services

  St. Georges Ltd.

  Strand Nurses Bureau

  Sugarman Medical Ltd.

  WYMAS International Recruitment department

  Worldwide Healthcare Exchange

  Yorkshire Medical Services.

  The final list of agencies who comply will appear on the Department of Health's website at http:// www.doh.gov.uk/international-recruitment

  The Department of Health has an international recruitment team of six officials and a network of 12 national health service based international recruitment co-ordinators and advisors working to implement the Code of Practice.
  161W
  Workforce Development Confederations are working with NHS employers to ensure collaborative and ethical international recruitment, including compliance to the Code of Practice, in their area

  Advisory Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the mandate of the Standing Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products 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. [55364]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply

  The Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products (CVMP) was originally established under Article 16 of Directive 81/851/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to veterinary medicinal products.

  Under Article 27 of Regulation (EEC) No 2309–93 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA), the CVMP is responsible for formulating the opinion of the EMEA on any question concerning the admissibility of the files submitted in accordance with the centralised procedure, the granting, variation, suspension or withdrawal of an authorisation to place a veterinary medicinal product on the market arising in accordance with the provisions Title III of Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93.

  The CVMP met on 11 occasions during 2001 and has met five times so far this year.

  There are two UK members on the CVMP. Currently the committee is also chaired by the UK.
  162W
  The cost of its work is met by the EMEA. There are no direct costs to public funds although the salaries of officials representing the UK and preparing for meetings are met from public funds. Details of its work can be found on the EMEA website and in press releases issued by the EMEA.

  As an agency established by Community legislation the CVMP is accountable to the EMEA and ultimately to the European Parliament.

  Coolants
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the climate change impact is of using(a) HFC 134a and (b) 407. [56388]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  Total UK greenhouse gas emissions were estimated to be 664.1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2000. HFC134a and HFC407c contributed respectively 2.61 million tonnes and 0.35 million tonnes to these emissions. Together, they represented about 0.5 per cent. of the total.

  PFI Projects
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the PFI-funded hospital projects started or under construction since 1 May 1997; and what financial assessment has been made relating to the(a) saving and (b) cost to the public purse in each case. [56104]

  Mr. Hutton
  A list of all major private finance initiative contracts which have reached financial close since May 1997. showing net present costs of public sector comparator versus private finance option (at the time of signing contracts), has been placed in the Library; as has a table of unitary payments for the same schemes for each of the next 15 years, ie the amount each trust will be paying to its private sector partner.

Preamble
The House met at half–past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.

Energy Efficiency: Low Income Households
Lord Ezraasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made with the Warm Front scheme to improve the energy efficiency of low-income households.
The Parliamentary Under–Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the UK Fuel Poverty Strategy was published last November. Its first target is to seek an end to fuel poverty for vulnerable households by 2010.
The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme in England, launched in June 2000, is now marketed as the Warm Front Team. The scheme provides packages of insulation and heating measures to private sector households who receive certain benefits.
Warm Front has assisted over 350,000 households and spent £180 million on installing measures.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, while noting the progress made under the Warm Front scheme, is the noble Lord aware that the short–term nature of the contracts in England and Wales offered to the installers of heating equipment and insulation prevents them from planning ahead and retaining adequate skilled staff, which in turn has led to a substantial backlog of orders? Is the noble Lord further aware that those problems have been avoided in Scotland where longer–term arrangements are in place? Could we learn from the Scottish experience?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are prepared to learn from all experience but the difference between the position in Scotland and that in England is that Scottish firms are allowed to broaden the services which they offer. Therefore, it is not the contracts themselves which give them longer-term, more stable arrangements. Some of the problems that arose at the beginning of the scheme as regards the supply of insulation firms and of insulation staff have largely been overcome. We have certainly speeded up the operation in recent months. We are now on target to meet our objectives.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, the scheme was set up to target vulnerable households. Therefore, why in the other place did the Government vote against their own targets in a Private Member's Bill the other day which sought to improve conservation of energy, to
510
assist the most vulnerable and to get rid of had landlords? Do the Government intend to support that Bill in July?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Private Member's Bill to which the noble Lord refers would in its present form have committed substantial resources over and above what are committed under the energy efficiency scheme and other schemes. It was therefore not appropriate for the Government to support a Private Member's Bill which had those resource implications.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is it not a fact that this is but one of the many measures that will be needed if the Government are to come anywhere near achieving the targets set out in the PIU report for energy savings up to 2020? Is it not the case that when governments regard targets as challenging they have absolutely no hope whatever of reaching them? Is that not rather a dreadful position?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is correct but I dispute the second part. Clearly the scheme is but one part of the programme to improve the energy performance of domestic sector households which will need to make a substantial contribution to meeting our carbon saving targets. It is skewed also to meet the social objectives which we have set out which are intended to cover all vulnerable households by 2010. There are a substantial number of other programmes, including the energy efficiency commitment, the building regulations improvements and various other schemes to improve efficiency in the domestic sector as a contribution towards the overall target. As the noble Lord will know, there are a substantial number of measures in the industrial, transport and energy sectors.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, are the Government satisfied with the statistics and research relating to the operation of the Warm Front scheme? It seems to me that there is some confusion about the number of properties that have been treated and the number of people who have been taken out of fuel poverty. If the scheme is to be successful, it needs to be flexible and good data are needed to take it forward.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not aware that there is a general problem as regards identifying the relevant number of households. I refer to the initial commitment as regards social housing. The matter we are discussing is primarily related to the private sector. Broader improvements to housing facilities within the social housing sector have subsumed insulation improvements. That may be the matter to which the noble Baroness refers. However, in general, we can say confidently that the scheme has helped, as I said, 350,000 households.

National Stadium
2.41 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In asking this Question, I should make it clear that I am not speaking for the Front Bench on this topic.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government where they consider that the national stadium should be sited.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the location of the national stadium is a matter for the Football Association as the project sponsor and provider of risk capital. As I explained to the House on 7th May, the FA has made substantial progress in addressing the four conditions which I outlined to the House on 19th December. I shall make a further statement to the House on the national stadium project later this week.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. However, is it not the case that the plans for a national stadium capable of holding an Olympic Games have been all but abandoned? Does not the Minister agree that the £120 million of lottery money paid to the FA should be returned forthwith?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the abandonment of athletics has not taken place. The noble Lord may be aware that a Sport England report was published last Wednesday, as I informed the House last week would happen. The report makes absolutely clear that it would be possible to build a new national stadium primarily for football and rugby league but with the opportunity to include athletics at far less cost than originally anticipated.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, as I understand it, at least two separate sets of financial negotiations remain to be completed on the funding of the ridiculously over–priced Wembley proposal. Given that, will my noble friend renew the assurance that if Wembley has still—after six years—not got its act together by the end of this month, the proposal to site the national stadium at Birmingham, Solihull, which is supported by seven out of every 10 fans and 53 out of 56 club chairmen, will seriously be taken forward?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, my noble friend thinks that a ridiculously expensive stadium is proposed for Wembley. I dispute that. For £161 million of public money, we should get a state–of–the–art stadium at Wembley. However, I reiterate, as I have done on a number of occasions to my noble friend, that the decision about where to locate the stadium is a matter for the Football Association. It will pay the vast majority of the costs. I also make clear to my noble friend and the House that should a deal at Wembley fail, significant work would be required to make the Birmingham bid practicable. As
512
Patrick Carter's report made absolutely clear, the Birmingham proposals currently have to address a funding gap of between £43 million and £163 million. Moreover, the selected location is on a greenfield site in the green belt around Birmingham. Planning issues are therefore also involved.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, can the Minister help the House on the question of access by customers to Wembley should that site be chosen? If the proposed stadium were to be erected today, the current transport links—both road and rail—would clearly be inadequate. What does she understand are the plans to improve those links? At what rate does the speed at which customers are admitted to the stadium need to be increased? Can she also add a word on costs?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government have already committed themselves to an extra £20 million of infrastructure expenditure to improve transport links. A further £21 million has been promised by the GLA. Brent Council has already cleared planning permission for improvements at the Tube station at Wembley. I believe that the facilities will be adequate to cope with the numbers of people going there.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, will the Minister say more about the athletics track, which interests us in view of the £120 million from Sport England? How long will it take to install and remove the track on each occasion, at what cost, and who will pay for that?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the cost of installing and removing the track will be £8·5 million, which is substantially less than originally anticipated. It will take around 17 weeks, which is again substantially less than originally proposed. The earlier estimate was between 42 and 52 weeks. That would make it possible to stage major international athletics events at the new national stadium.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, on the assertion by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, about the £120 million paid by Sport England for a national stadium, will the Minister confirm that that was not for an Olympic stadium but for a national football and rugby stadium that was capable of accepting the World Athletics Championships, which is an entirely different proposition? If the Football Association can comply with the four conditions that the Government have laid down, many of us on these Benches do not support the Birmingham proposal but believe that Wembley is the right choice.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I can confirm my noble friend's comments on an Olympic stadium. It is for the British Olympic Association and the Mayor of London to decide whether they wish to bid for the Olympic Games. I understand that thought and consideration are being given to that by the BOA and the mayor. However, the mayor has indicated that he

513
wants an Olympic stadium to be built in the east of London, with facilities for a range of sports, including swimming, which would not be available at Wembley.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, bearing in mind that the Dome was good enough for the celebration of the millennium, why would it not be good enough for a national stadium? It is, after all, in the east of London.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Dome is not capable of housing the necessary facilities for a national football stadium or athletics events.
Lord Elton: My Lords, did I understand the Minister to say that it will cost £8 million every time the stadium is converted for athletics and that it will take 17 weeks on each occasion? Will the stadium be usable during those 17 weeks and, if so, for what?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, when national stadia of this sort are built and used for different purposes, it always takes a substantial length of time to convert them. While the conversion is taking place, it will not be possible, so far as I understand it—I shall write to the noble Lord— to use it for other events. That is exactly what happens in stadia around the world that are used for football and athletics.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, does the Minister agree that almost every football supporter who goes to the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff recognises what a wonderful structure it is? It would be good for this country if we simply replicated the Cardiff design, put it on the Wembley site and got on with it.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I believe that everyone involved in building the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff should be congratulated on the success of the project.

Charities: National Insurance Increase
2.50 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchesterasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have received any representations on the effects of the proposal to increase national insurance contributions for charities that assist the National Health Service in providing home care services for severely disabled and elderly people.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have received a number of representations from such charitable organisations. Charities play a valuable role in providing home care funded by local authorities. We believe that that role will continue to develop in the light of the substantial increases in funding for personal social services from 2003–04.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Is he aware that, for charities like the admirable Enham Trust, providing, as they do, 24-hour care, supported accommodation and home care for chronically sick and severely disabled people, the rise in national insurance contributions will mean higher costs and cuts in staff and will lead to more so-called "bed-blocking" in NHS hospitals? Is that not hurtful to highly vulnerable people and plainly self-defeating?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for making me aware of the concerns of the Enham Trust. Of course, we are very sympathetic to those concerns, but I believe that their problems must be set in context. The increase in national insurance contributions is only 0.7 per cent of payroll nationally. Unfortunately, of the 200,000 or so staff who are involved in home care, 60 per cent work fewer than 30 hours a week. Therefore, I am sorry to say, many of them are likely to earn less than £89 per week, which is the primary threshold for national insurance contributions. Thus they will not pay any more.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, rather than doing as the noble Lord has just suggested and giving a credit to charities against their national insurance bill, would not charities far prefer to be relieved of the burden of VAT and would not the Government be far better off providing that relief?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believed that the noble Lord was going to ask for special treatment in relation to national insurance contributions. I understood that to be the thrust of the Question; indeed, it was the thrust of the Question. As the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, knows very well, the issue of value added tax is governed by the annex to the sixth directive. We do not have the same control over these matters.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I declare an interest as an employee of Age Concern. Given that all providers of home care—statutory, independent or private—are equally subject to provisions of employment and taxation law, does the Minister agree that the key factor is that contracts should be awarded by commissioning officers on a fully costed basis? Will the Department of Health be taking that issue into account?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that this matter goes together with the whole issue of charging. I do not believe that one can separate the contracts from the charging regime. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, well knows, under the Care Standards Act guidance must be issued on home care charging. The consultation period has only just concluded and we shall respond to it publicly very soon. But that, in turn, will of course have an influence on the contracts awarded to home care providers.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, can the Minister give the House an idea of how much the increase in

515
national insurance contributions will cost the charities concerned? He says that it may be only 0.7 per cent of payroll costs. I have heard estimates of as much as £50 million.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is quite implausible. The figure for the whole health and social work sector in this country will be £270 million. That sum covers many times the number of staff involved in home care. Only 200,000 staff are involved in home care, including all the administrative staff. I do not know what the figure is. There is no way of knowing what it is, but it is not that quoted by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk.

Badgers and Bovine TB
2.54 p.m.
Baroness Trumpingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What their position is regarding badgers and bovine tuberculosis.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, tuberculosis in cattle is one of the most difficult animal health problems that we face and the increase in its incidence continues to give considerable concern. The Government are seeking to proceed on the basis of sound science drawn from independent scientific and veterinary experts. The causes of the disease are complex, but there is evidence to suggest that the badger plays a role in bovine TB. The badger field trial is designed to quantify any such role and, if it exists, to find out whether culling badgers has a part to play in controlling the disease.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Have the researches taken into account whether other European countries have bovine TB, whether we are high in the pecking order of countries that have it, which countries do not have it, and whether the countries that have it have badgers?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not have that information at present. We are certainly taking account of the spread of TB in other European countries. It appears that the growth in the incidence of TB in cattle has been greater here than in other European countries. However, I shall write to the noble Baroness with further information on the matter.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, how many farms have been affected by bovine TB in the past year, and was testing delayed due to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords. Throughout more or less the whole of last year a delay in veterinary testing was caused by the priority given to controlling foot
516
and mouth disease. Since then, it is clear that there has been an increase in the incidence of bovine TB. Approximately 10 per cent of all cattle herds have been affected. The total number of individual cattle affected thus far is quite low—some 9,000 in a national herd of 8 million—but the incidence of the disease is growing in a worrying way.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister accept that in this current environment there is a grave danger that farmers will feel under pressure and may start illegally to cull this protected species? What measures are the Government taking to restore confidence that their actions will affect the rate of TB infection?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I hope that that would not be the response from farmers. I recognise their anxiety but it is important that we operate on a scientific basis. The group headed by Professor Bourne indicates that about four months has been lost on the Krebs trial rather than a full year, as is sometimes suggested. Over the past few months we have significantly reduced the backlog in testing. It has come down from 27,000 to 22,000, and that improvement will continue. Therefore, I hope that farmers are assured that we are moving in the right direction as rapidly as we can within the resources available.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, first, I congratulate my noble friend on raising a very important Question on the subject of badgers. To the best of my knowledge, debates on a connection between badgers and bovine tuberculosis have been going on for at least 20 years, as have attempts by the Ministry of Agriculture to find out whether there is any such connection. Is not 20 years rather a long time, and should we not have found an answer much more quickly?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the allegation of a connection between badgers and bovine TB has, indeed, been long-running. However, the scientific basis for it has been unproven. That is why Sir John Krebs and his team proposed a scientific trial. The trial was to last five years and was set up on the robust basis of having three different parallel forms. Of course, the foot and mouth outbreak set that back slightly, but, as I said, we are still on course for a delay of only four months. We need to see the full results of that trial before we can be absolutely sure whether there is such a connection and to what degree, whether badgers are a contributing factor and what other factors are involved.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is not there something very wrong with this country? On the one hand we have unproven allegations that MMR vaccine in human babies causes all sorts of nasty side effects and the Government are insistent that MMR is the right course to pursue; on the other, as my noble

517
friend, Lord Onslow, pointed out, the situation as regards badgers and TB is unproven yet we continue to cull badgers.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is clear that there is a correlation between the growth in the number of badgers and the growth in bovine TB, but not area by area. Correlation does not mean cause. Therefore, we have to assess whether there is a causal element in the badger population. We are culling in a specific, targeted and scientific way. This is not an overall cull, and we would not engage in one. I understand the frustrations to which the noble Earl refers. I understand also the anxiety that we do not cull badgers unnecessarily. However, the experiment is designed to try to deliver a scientific basis on which we can proceed sensibly and not by allegations and rumour.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the Minister continually mentions the scientist but only occasionally and reluctantly mentions farmers and, I would add, gardeners. Does not he think that the new department is becoming lackadaisical in producing the results of research that has been carried out for many years? Would he go into the South West and talk to some of the farmers about the effects which badgers are having at present?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards going into the South West, I was at the Devon County Show on Saturday, where a number of farmers made clear to me what they thought about badgers, bovine TB and the general stance taken by the department. However, it is important that whatever we do as regards agriculture has a scientific basis. The strong scientific advice was that the trial had to run for the full five years. There has been a slight set-back; nevertheless, that must be the basis of the way forward. I believe that most farmers recognise fully that a scientific basis is needed to justify the approach to badgers which some of them would like to pursue.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we used to have a tame badger? Is he also aware that one of my children sometimes slept in the straw with the badger and never developed any kind of TB?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I was unaware of the sleeping arrangements referred to by the noble Baroness, and shall not comment further. Clearly, there are people who are fond of badgers. Equally, as I hear from the farmers, there are many who blame them for many of their ills.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, is the Minister aware—there is no reason why he should be—that I, too, was at an agricultural show on Friday, this time at the Royal Show in Belfast? Coincidentally, not knowing that I would be responding to this Question, I spoke about bovine TB and brucellosis, both with farmers and the department. Since the ceasing of testing for foot and mouth disease, the situation has become worse and
518
people are concerned. Can the Minister assure the House that serious measures are being taken to catch up with the testing for those two diseases? I am not a Bertie Badger knocker, but farmers in my part of the world are convinced that there is a close association between the spread of bovine TB and badgers. Can he also tell the House, because I do not know the answer, whether bovine TB is transmissible to humans?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in response to the last question asked by the noble Lord, bovine TB is transmissible to humans. However, the vast majority of cases which have occurred within this country are in people significantly over the age of 55 years, who probably developed the disease from unpasteurised milk rather than through contact with animals. The perceptions in Northern Ireland reflect the situation in England. Many farmers are similarly convinced. Nevertheless, I underline the need for a strong scientific basis if we are to move further down the culling road. It may well be that there is a partial causal effect. However, we are also examining other means of transmission, in particular, direct cattle-to-cattle transmission. We want to have the full results of that research before we have the final strategy.
Finally, I assure the noble Lord that we are addressing the backlog which, as I indicated earlier, has been rapidly reduced.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, would the cattle-to-cattle transmission be relevant in Cumbria? Until recently, there was no bovine TB in Cumbria but, since foot and mouth, there has been.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have to be careful. The answer is that it may be relevant. Although there was a significant increase in TB prior to foot and mouth— it increased by 20 per cent from a relatively low level—it is also possible that some of the latest outbreaks, particularly in areas which did not have TB prior to foot and mouth, are related to restocking. That is a matter we are examining.

Employment Bill
3.6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 12,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 13 to 29,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 30 and 31

Schedule 3,

Clause 32,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 33 to 38,

519

Schedule 5,

Clauses 39 to 50,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 51 to 53,

Schedule 7,

Clause 54,

Schedule 8,

Clause 55.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Export Control Bill
Read a third time.
Clause 4 [Academic freedom]:
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 46, at end insert "or
(ii) that such information is military technology"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. The amendments all relate to new Clause 4 inserted in the Bill on Report by your Lordships following an amendment proposed by me and my noble friend Lord Rotherwick, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford.
The purposes of these further three amendments is simply to respond to objections made by the Minister either during debate or subsequently. It is not that I agree with those objections or comments; I was perfectly happy with the clause as passed on Report. However, I want to try to accommodate the Minister and his worries and to dissuade him from having his colleagues in the other place overturn your Lordships' decision. I remind the Minister and, indeed, the House that the clause was passed by an overwhelming majority in this House of 150 to 108; that is, a majority of one-third. That majority comprised noble Lords on all three party Benches as well as distinguished Cross-Benchers, and therefore cannot be dismissed as a party political act.
The Government often pay lip service to your Lordships' House as the finest revising Chamber in the world. Just as we pay due respect to the wishes of the elected House, I believe that the Government should pay due attention to what in this case is the carefully considered and authoritative opinion of so many highly qualified Members of this Chamber with no political axe to grind; merely the wish to preserve academic freedom and maintain the status of the United Kingdom as an international centre of academic excellence.
In my closing remarks before testing the opinion of the House on Report, I said in response to some of the observations of the Minister:
"my amendment may not be perfect but it could certainly be put right at Third Reading. That would be the appropriate thing to do".—[Official Report, 18/4/02; col. 1126.]
520
In order to see how I could accommodate any genuine technical problems that the Government might have over the clear wishes of this House. I offered to meet the Minister to discuss them with him. I received an offer of an appointment from the Minister's office which, to my amazement, as I told the Minister when I later saw him, was cancelled within a matter of a few minutes. The second telephone call I received from the Minister's department simply stated: "Forget the previous message, the Minister is unable to see you". I thought that meant that the Minister did not wish to talk to me. I am sure that that could not be true, but I did at that stage following such a brusque push off. Therefore, I tabled my amendments to meet my understanding of the Minister's problems—ill founded as they were, as I said. It was only then that the Minister agreed to meet me as late as last Wednesday, 15th May, exactly four weeks after the Report stage of the Bill.
He then wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, of Universities UK. That organization, I remind your Lordships, represents university vice-chancellors. The copy of the letter which he faxed to me arrived incomplete with several important pages somehow missing. I did not see what he said to her until last Friday afternoon. I cannot tell your Lordships the exact time because—the Minister may like to know—his fax machine thought the time was 32 minutes past midnight on 27th June 1996. Perhaps that is an undiscovered example of the dreaded Y2K virus, and it lurks in his office.
I shall return to that fax shortly. First, however, I should like to explain each of my amendments, which are all quite simple and which, I hope, improve the clause to the Government's satisfaction. Clause 4(1) sets out the matters on which the Government may not impose transfer of controls or technical assistance controls; in other words, what academic teaching and publication may not be prohibited. Clause 4(1)(c) limits publication and teaching where the teachers know or ought to know that the information is intended or may be used for a number of highly objectionable purposes. These include such matters as the development, operation, and so on, of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. I shall not read out the 10 lines of the paragraph, but I remind your Lordships that the words used exactly follow Article 4 of the EC dual-use regulation.
Amendment No. 1 seeks to add the words "military technology" to that lengthy catalogue. I propose those words because of the Minister's astonishing intervention after he had lost the first technical Division on a paving amendment. In the discussion on the main amendment he stated:
"I was talking about blueprints on cluster bombs and other activities. That is exactly what the Export Control Bill will control … We have just made a large hole in the Bill by saying that if someone is an academic, he can export blueprint instructions on how to make cluster bombs, electric shock batons … and any military equipment".—[Official Report, 18/4/02; col. 1135.]
With every respect to the Minister, I find it difficult to answer such a fanciful interpretation of the new clause without using the word "nonsense". I hope that the

521
Minister does not mind that word. I content myself by pointing out to the noble Lord and to your Lordships that the whole of the clause is governed by the phrase,
"in the ordinary course of academic teaching or research".
It would he a particularly foolhardy barrister who tried to persuade even the most gullible magistrate or jury that the manufacture of weapons is—I repeat—
"in the ordinary course of academic teaching or research".
However, leaving no "i" undotted or "t" uncrossed, I have added the words "military technology" to the list of prohibited subjects.
Amendment No. 2 is a purely housekeeping or drafting amendment which seeks to make Clause 4(2) clearer. Clause 4(2) preserves the legal restrictions on two types of publication. I hope that I have made the subsection clearer by breaking it up into its two component parts. The first part—which eventually will be lettered (a)—refers to the powers of the Comptroller-General of Patents and new paragraph (b) refers to any other enactment or common law obligation as to secrecy—for example, the Official Secrets Act.
Amendment No. 3 is new. It seeks to replace the previous subsection (4) passed by your Lordships. That made clear that there is nothing in the Act which enables the Government to prevent anyone leaving the country merely because he is possessed of certain information. It followed yet another EC directive.
However, at the belated meeting with the Minister, he expressly assured me that there were no such powers either in the Act or elsewhere, at least in relation to the export of arms and technology. He said that he would repeat that assurance today for the purposes of the record. I shall be glad to accept that assurance from him in due course.
I propose to use the space vacated by that now redundant provision with new subsection (4). Its purpose is to meet yet another of the points raised by the noble Lord—that licensing may in any case be subject to international obligations entered into by the United Kingdom. I believe that the Minister's problem —whatever it is—was anticipated by me and resolved in the wording of Clause 4(1). That states expressly that academic freedom is subject to,
"any international treaty obligation of the United Kingdom or a Directive of the Council of the European Community".
The amendment reinforces that. It also, conversely, makes clear that where any such EC law permits the transfer of technology and technical assistance, the Secretary of State shall grant any necessary licences and not leave the United Kingdom isolated and alone in a sea of secrecy and restriction which is not endured by the rest of the world. The amendment provides that where information is freely obtainable by a touch of a European button, it should not be denied here.
The amendment is, as I said, new and reflects my understanding of the Minister's views. I am sure that if your Lordships agree to the amendment, or, better still, the Minister accepts it, my colleagues in the other place will be happy to fine tune the wording if the Minister considers that necessary.
522
Perhaps I may now briefly turn to the Minister's letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, who I see is not in her place. The Minister gave an example of overseas students studying programmes on the modification of semi-conductor chips or medicine including toxology. The Minster admits that the professor would need to be teaching something not in the public domain. He would need to know that the student might intend to use the information for what I will in shorthand call "a bad purpose". That is exactly what Clause 4(1) and (2) spell out. They do not leave a decision to some over-zealous prosecutor.
The letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, confirms that information already in the public domain is exempt from the operation of the Act. Indeed, it is. But it most certainly was not before the new Clause 4 was added as a result of our amendment, which the Government bitterly opposed and which I infer from their present attitude they want to argue is unnecessary. Using the analogy of belt and braces, we want the law to be precisely defined and not left to the possible changing attitudes of Whitehall.
The letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, talks at great length about transfer controls and technical assistance controls in the case of dual-use technology, which the Minister says, quite rightly, are subject to European Community legislation. Clause 4 ensures that the United Kingdom keeps within the same boundaries as our European partners. The Government will not be able to achieve their apparent ambition of exercising even more stringent control over academic teaching in the United Kingdom than that which applies in the rest of the EC, and imposing on universities an impossible degree of control which they are not willing to undertake themselves.
I shall return to that point in a moment or two. The last point in the Minister's letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, referred to the new Clause 9 which was added to the Bill by the Government, obviously as an attempt to answer the new Clause 4. I mention that now in anticipation of the Minister offering it as an explanation to your Lordships. The clause simply instructs the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to avoid unreasonable restrictions. What on earth does that mean?
On Thursday 16th May—the day after my meeting with the Minister—I wrote two letters to him attempting to clarify remaining issues and I received a reply by e-mail to my home at one minute to eight o'clock on Saturday evening when, purely by chance, I was sitting at my personal computer working on these speaking notes. I was astonished at some of the contents of the e-mail. Throughout the Bill's earlier stages, the Minister vehemently denied that the Government were seeking to impose a licensing regime affecting students. The Minister said:
"subsections (2)(c) and (d) of Clause 2 do not cover the licensing of students. The clause contains no power to license students, and no such a power is contained in the — [Official Report, 18/4/02; col. 1120.]
My advisers and I believe that Clause 2 as drafted, before it was amended on Report, could definitely have been interpreted as imposing powers to require

523
not the licensing of overseas students themselves—or indeed of United Kingdom students known to be going abroad—but their teachers to control who can be taught and what they can be taught. The Minister's reply to me stated:
"It is not currently an offence to acquire knowledge which in future could be used in connection with a weapons of mass destruction programme. That is precisely why we are introducing the controls … which will enable the government to prevent transfers of technology".
I echo the Ministers word "precisely". Before Clause 2(2) was drastically modified by our amendment, it enabled the Secretary of State to restrict the transfer of technology within the United Kingdom, including from persons who were outside the United Kingdom. Similarly, Clause 3 enables the Secretary of State to impose controls on technical assistance but, as a result of our successful amendment, that is now also subject to the new Clause 4 protecting academic freedom.
In other words, despite the Minister's denial in his email to me, it is clear that the Government still harbour ambitions to license the teaching of some subjects to some students, as is borne out by his rearguard action over Clause 4—his refusal to accept it and reluctance to discuss it with me. Similarly, the Government have consistently denied that they are imposing a responsibility—indeed, a liability—on universities to vet the motives of students seeking to study here. Yet in his e-mail, concerning offences in connection with weapons of mass destruction programmes, the Minister said:
"You suggested that … should be prevented by entry control of overseas students by the immigration authorities"—
which I had done in my letter to the Minister. He then went on to give me a lengthy explanation of why that is impractical.
Short of refusing all students from certain countries or backgrounds—which the universities obviously cannot do, and would not even if they could—how can they do what the Immigration Service, with its vast information resources, cannot or will not do? Let us consider what happened in the United States last year. Certain students took flying lessons and used the information that they obtained to turn four planes into weapons of mass destruction. The combined resources of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency were unable to fathom what they were up to. Why then is it to be the responsibility of universities to vet the bona fides of overseas students when, according to the Minister, the Government cannot or will not do so?
Finally, I repeat that of the three amendments in this group, Amendment No. 2 purely tidies up the drafting and the other two are intended to do no more than meet the Government's objections—even though I do not accept that they are valid. Amendment No. 1 is intended unequivocally to answer the Minister's specious claim that academics would be free to teach their students how to manufacture cluster bombs and other weapons of mass destruction. The question for
524
the Minister to answer, equally unequivocally, is: does he accept my compromise offer? Yes or no. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: My Lords, during earlier stages of the Bill, I was one of those who raised concern that amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, would not fully meet the security requirements that the Bill is all about. I should again emphasise my continuing involvement, albeit in an unremunerated capacity, in Saferworld and Oxfam, both of which are closely interested in the Bill.
I thank the noble Baroness for tabling her amendments today, because they address one concern—the provision would no longer simply concern weapons of mass destruction. But with some trepidation, I suggest to her that it still does not cover dual use or non-military security goods. That is a real cause for anxiety. Furthermore, if we are serious about the Bill's purpose—and we must be—while it is vital to protect academic freedom, that cannot be at the expense of ensuring that proper controls are in force. I am still concerned that the amendments passed on Report leave some potentially dangerous loopholes, especially with regard to controls on intangible transfers.
As I understand it, under the Bill as amended, people could visit the United Kingdom and gather information that could then be used in other countries. Controlling that activity is not new. For many years, physical forms of such transfer have been controlled—for example, paper letters and computer disks containing blueprints. The extension of those controls to cover intangible means reflects the need to address new methods of communication. Who could have envisaged the introduction of e-mail in 1939 when the most recent export control legislation was passed? Surely, it is logical that the controls already in place should be extended to cover today's methods of communication. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say on that point.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I should first say that, despite her denial of the fact, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and I have been meeting. Indeed, it is a sign of the closeness of our relationship that we were corresponding at eight o'clock on Saturday evening to try to resolve the issue.
I did not want to meet her originally because we were doing important work with Universities UK. It had proposed various scenarios with which it believed that academics were concerned. We wanted to test those scenarios against Clause 9 to see whether it was robust in defending academic freedom. It was, but I shall come to that in a moment.
The clause to which the amendments relate, Clause 4, has introduced some highly damaging loopholes to the Bill, as I explained on Report. As the noble Baroness said, she seeks through the amendments to deal with some of the concerns that I mentioned on Report. While grateful to her for that,

525
I regret that the amendments do not solve the problems with Clause 4. Indeed, they could not do so, because Clause 4 simply takes the wrong approach.
It is worth going back to first principles. The Bill is about regulating exports, trade, intangible transfers and technical assistance that could have extremely serious consequences—consequences that must be the concern of any government with a responsible foreign and defence policy. The Bill can be used to impose controls only within the limits set by Clause 6 and the schedule. That means that it can be used to impose controls only on military equipment or technology, or equipment or technology whose export or transfer risks adverse consequences, such as damage to our national security or its use for human rights abuses, in terrorism or in serious crime.
We must ensure that, in regulating to try to avoid those serious consequences, the Government do not damage fundamental freedoms. As I have said, the Human Rights Act 1998, which the Government enacted, has the precise function of protecting fundamental freedoms, such as the right to freedom of expression. We have, nevertheless, gone further and included what is now Clause 9 to meet the valid request of the academic community for protection of academic freedom in the Bill.
Clause 9 does not use the words "academic freedom", but it goes to the heart of what academic freedom is about, by protecting freedoms for all—not just members of the academic community—to publish or otherwise make publicly available their research. Clause 9 means that the Secretary of State could not impose unreasonable controls on the process of making information generally available to the public or on the communication of information already available to the public, without seriously risking legal challenge. No government will want to risk seeing a court strike down aspects of their export control regime.
As I said, Universities UK sent us a list of scenarios that illustrated the kind of situation about which universities were concerned. We tested them against the dummy orders and the Bill, and I have placed the department's answers in the Library. I hope that everyone will see from those that the Bill protects academic freedom.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I have read the letter that the Minister sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe. One thing that worries me greatly about the department's answers is that, although they covered the case of, for example, a Pakistani student coming over and taking an MSc course in computer technology, they did not cover the case of a postgraduate student coming to work as a PhD student with a professor and participating simultaneously in the development of his research.
As the Minister knows, that happens frequently. In effect, PhD students act as research assistants to academics in developing their own work. That work is not in the public domain. Academics will not want to
526
put their ideas in the public domain before they have formulated them. There is concern in the academic community that the Bill would restrict relationships with postgraduate students in such an environment.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there is a question about how "public domain" is defined. I am convinced that there will be no problem for that kind of relationship. It would not be considered to be a communication of the sort for which there would have to be a licence. It would be regarded as being in the context of basic research, as that is defined in the regulations.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I do not like to interrupt the Minister hut, having heard his answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, I would like him to define what is in the public domain.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the question is what is defined in the clause. As long as the communication is not of secret information to another country, it will be considered to be within the public domain or generally available to the public.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, if the work is of an applied nature, it would not, under the terms of the European directive, be defined as basic research.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the point that I was making was that it would be within what is defined, in this case, as being publicly available. It will not be a secret communication and will not, therefore, be covered. That is why I think that the concerns of the academic community about that are unwarranted.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the question is pertinent to our debate. First, the research described by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, is not, by anybody's reckoning, in the public domain. We must ask the Minister for the Government's definition of the public domain. The Minister said that it depended on what was and what was not in the public domain. The research referred to would not be in the public domain.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the new orders relating to intangible assets that we propose to introduce will include an exemption for basic scientific research. The point is that there would be no difference for a PhD student working in the circumstances described by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, or a student being taught as in the examples that we gave. Both should be covered because the work should be publicly available. That is our legal advice.
I am prepared to go on testing the point and to consider any other scenarios that the noble Baroness or anyone else wants to raise. We will test them against Clause 9, and, if there is any doubt, we will examine the situation. However, it must be tested against what is set down. For all the scenarios that we gave, which are similar to those described by the noble Baroness, there is no problem.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister has tried hard to explain what he means, but I am as mystified now as I was at the start of the debate.

527
The Minister has not dealt with the example that was given by my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford. The professor may be engaged in applied, not basic, research and may be looking for a product process or method of operation—the definition of applied research. He may enlist the help of a PhD student with his research. The research is not in the public domain. The professor will have no intention that it should reach the public domain until he has reached a conclusion and published the results. While the research continues, it is private, as are communications between the professor and the PhD student. Will the Minister say whether that is one of the scenarios that has been considered? If not, will it be fed in?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we must be clear about it. There comes a point at which it is no longer the case that we want the process to be totally free. For example, in cases in which a student is working on a piece of applied research and there is no intention of making it publicly available, we would have to consider licences.
The Bill must cover a situation in which an academic is giving someone information that is not for the public domain. It must deal with the secret passing on of information about the sort of military technology that we need to cover. If the information is secret to start with and is not in the public domain and if the research is applied research that could be used for the sort of things with which the Bill is concerned, we would have a different situation.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again. Will the Minister consider that an academic carrying out research that will lead to publication—a paper for the journal of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, for example—will not, for the time during which the research is continuing, want other people to discover what he is up to, in case they pre-empt his results? The research is private and is between him and the research student for the time that it continues, until it gets to publication stage.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I hate to keep coming back to the point. If the aim is to put the research into the public domain, there will be no problem. If there is a doubt about a particular aspect of the research—when it will go into the public domain, for example—that cannot be covered by Clause 9, I am prepared to consider such a case. However, I am sure that such research will be perfectly all right, provided that the purpose is to put it into the public domain.
As I say, we are perfectly prepared to debate that issue because that is what we see to be the essence of academic freedom. But I repeat that if the aim is not to lead towards a paper, that is exactly the situation in which we have to draw the line. Otherwise, we fall into the mistake—which everyone now accepts to be a
528
mistake—of having a piece of legislation which puts all kinds of restrictions on companies not to transfer information, but promptly allows academics to do so.
I now return to the points I was making on the three amendments.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, will there be an opportunity to deal with these matters in the Commons?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, Lords amendments have to be considered by the Commons and I imagine that some Members will want to take the matter forward then.
I shall now try to explain why in essence Clause 4 takes the wrong approach and therefore why these amendments do not help. Subsection (1)(c) of Clause 4 would exempt any transfers in the normal course of academic teaching and research control. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has made exceptions for weapons of mass destruction and, in amendments under consideration today, for military technology. But the Bill provides the powers to impose controls on the transfer of non-military technology which could have serious consequences. For example, under the schedule, we can impose controls now on the export and transfer of technology capable of use in human rights abuses.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships a concrete example of the type of technology that we currently judge could have such a consequence. We control the export of certain paramilitary equipment and related technology. In particular, the Government announced in 1997 a ban on the export of equipment which we have evidence has been used in torture. That includes items such as electric shock belts and electric shock batons. The ban also applies to the export of the technology needed to develop, make or use these items and we intend similarly to ban its electronic transfer abroad under Clause 2 of the Bill when we have the powers to do so. It is the Government's view that it is quite unacceptable that anyone should he exempt from this ban for any reason whatever.
It can be argued, as the noble Baroness has argued, that it is not likely for the academic community to be engaged in research in this area. But, if I may say so, that is not the point. In the Government's view, it would simply be wrong in principle to have legislation under which such transfers could be carried out legally as of right.
It may well be asked, "Why not simply add the technology I have mentioned to the list of exceptions?". However, every time one makes such an attempt to close a loophole opened up by the clause, one gets closer to Clause 9. Clause 9 was carefully drafted to protect academic freedom on the face of the Bill, without opening up major loopholes in the Bill and then trying to close them up again. We consider it wrong to provide an absolute and immutable exemption in primary legislation for any and all academic research which could have the kind of consequences set out in the schedule. We therefore do

529
not believe that the defects of Clause 4 can be remedied without essentially redrafting it in the form of Clause 9.
Perhaps I may remind the House of one additional point. These amendments today do not restore what was formerly Clause 2(2)(c) and (2)(d) to the Bill which allowed for controls on transfers of technology within the UK where there was reason to expect this would be used abroad. These subsections are essential to the integrity of the Bill Without them, we will have a glaring loophole. As noble Lords are aware, we intend to introduce a requirement to obtain a licence if someone knows or is informed by the Government that a transfer of technology is or may be used in a weapons of mass destruction programme. Without these subsections, such a requirement could not apply if the communication of this technology took place in Britain.
Turning now to another issue, perhaps I may take this opportunity to reassure the House on a point raised by an earlier version of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, which they have now withdrawn. That would have inserted in Clause 4 a provision stating:
"No order under this Act shall make it an offence for any individual to leave the United Kingdom or otherwise restrict the liberty of any individual to do so".
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has informed me that site is now satisfied that the Bill will not allow such restrictions to be imposed, which is why the amendment has been withdrawn. However, she asked me whether I would reassure the House on that point and I am happy to do so. Let me now confirm that there is absolutely nothing in the Bill that would allow a government to make it an offence to leave this country or in any way to restrict someone's freedom to leave the country.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord have proposed to get rid of what is now Clause 4(4) and I am pleased that they have done so because that provision, as it currently stands in the Bill, would, among other things, have effectively disabled Clause 3, a clause which the Conservative Party has previously sought to expand. But I accept that that was not the intention.
The new subsection tabled to replace it would require the Government to issue licences under any directly applicable Community provision in such a way as to meet the requirements in Clause 4(1). I am afraid that such a measure would simply be incompatible with our obligations under the European dual-use regulations. It is true that that regulation provides that licensing of the controls contained within it is the responsibility of member states. But the regulation also makes clear that member states must make those licensing decisions on the basis of certain considerations, including the EU code of conduct on arms exports.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Jones: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. He mentioned controls and it
530
might help the House if he could say what was the annual value of Britain's exports of military equipment, technical or otherwise.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not have that figure to hand, but I shall be happy to write to the noble Lord and let him have it. In the discussion of the Bill, we have passed the point of debating whether we should have any controls on our exports. We are now considering the minutiae of that. However, if there are figures I can let the noble Lord have relating to the value of our exports, I shall be happy to provide them.
The new subsection tabled to replace Clause 4(4) would require the Government to issue licences under any directly applicable Community provision in such a way as to meet the requirements in Clause 4(1). I am afraid that such a measure would simply be incompatible with our obligations under the European dual-use regulation. It is true that this regulation provides that licensing of the controls contained within it is the responsibility of member states, but the regulation also makes clear that member states must make those licensing decisions on the basis of certain considerations, including the EU code of conduct on arms exports. Imposing a duty on the Secretary of State to grant certain licences in the interest of academic freedom would constitute a misuse of the licensing powers conferred by the regulations by using the powers for a collateral national purpose.
If I may conclude, it is for the noble Baroness to refine Clause 4 if she wishes. We will not oppose that. But these amendments do not make Clause 4 and a deletion of part of what was Clause 2 of the Bill acceptable. This House has done much to improve the Bill since it began its scrutiny of it in January. It was, before Report, a better Bill than when it left the other place. But in accepting Clause 4 and deleting part of Clause 2, this House has severely damaged the Bill. Therefore, the Government will have to look to the other place to put that right. As I said, we are prepared to continue the debate on Clause 9 and test any further scenarios against it, but we believe that there is no way that the defect of Clause 4 can sensibly be put right.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask about a matter which puzzles me. I apologise if he has already covered it. Is there an intended distinction between,
"information in the public domain",
in Clause 4 and,
"information generally available to the public".
in Clause 9? I should have thought that in reality the words used in Clause 9 are a definition of the public domain.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is correct to say that Clause 9 was drafted by legal advisers to the Government. The phrase "generally available to the public" is more commonly used in UK law to denote things that a member of the public, with reasonable diligence, could find and gain access to lawfully. That

531
is the distinction being made at that point. The noble Lord is right in that it takes us a long way towards defining what is meant.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the Minister has made various points and if I can I shall try to deal with them all.
First, I am glad that the Minister is confident that the House of Commons will have sufficient time to debate the points made by his noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. It is our experience that such debates are very short: one, two three, the debate is finished and the legislation comes back. I say that because this matter needs careful consideration. That is why we have tried, as it were, to put everything on the table today, even though we have done it before. We think that this matter is extremely important.
I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for coming right to the point of this. I think that the Minister has misunderstood what we are talking about here. It is all very well to say that ultimately the research may well be put into the public domain—which is the point he sought to make—but much research is undertaken before reaching that stage which is then abandoned and thus never reaches the public domain. Thus the point I seek to make is that research students working on these areas with professors in universities may find that they are breaking the law without even knowing that they are doing so. That is because no licence would have been obtained under the circumstances that the Minister has suggested.
Perhaps I may make one or two other points. The Minister referred again to cluster bombs, weapons of torture and so forth. I can only reiterate once more that the teaching of such technologies does not take place in the ordinary course of academic education. If anyone does become involved in this kind of thing, it is usually, or even always, done for a government department. It is undertaken with the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. If such technologies were to be sent where they should not go, then the Official Secrets Acts would come into play. That too is not appropriate.
I say the same to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in response to the point he raised. It is already covered. I should also like to say to the noble Lord—I hope that he will forgive me because outside this Chamber we are always extremely friendly—that I was not at all surprised at his intervention. At the start he supported what I had to say in Committee. He did not do so on Report. On another matter, that of sustainable development, he urged me to vote in favour, and on Report—when noble Lords are not supposed to intercept the Minister—he repeatedly begged his noble friend on the Front Bench to take heed. Then he did not vote for it anyway.
532
I think that the noble Lord likes to play a bit of a game across the Dispatch Boxes.
Lord Judd: My Lords, the noble Baroness is a very fair combatant in debate. She would also acknowledge that I did not support the Government on that occasion.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I certainly do acknowledge that and I said as much to the noble Lord in the corridor. However, he made a point of not opposing the Government. I suggest that might possibly be the reason why he has returned to the matter at this particular stage.
I hope that the Minister will not mind my saying that we did not have several meetings. We met once last Thursday, I with my adviser and the noble Lord with his. That meeting took place a long time after our deliberations on Report. It meant that both he and I had to work right up to the last minute on creating something suitable that could be brought before the House. I think that that is an enormous pity.
I also note his words about the letter he wrote to his noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe. I too have written to her to say that I do not think that the points made by the Minister actually hold water. That is an extremely important matter.
The noble Lord said that all this has been tested against the provisions of Clause 9. I do not wish to be ungenerous with regard to Clause 9, but it can be described, if you like, as only the lowest kind of whisper of a restriction. It states only that the,
"Secretary of State shall have regard—
if he has regard, then I support that he will have regard—
"to the need"
not to be unreasonable. Secretaries of State may not be unreasonable about anything; if they are, they are subject to judicial review. They cannot be unreasonable. Furthermore, the decision is still returned to the hands of the Minister. I was not very complimentary about Clause 9 before, and I am even less complimentary now that it has been returned yet again with the suggestion that it represents the end of our deliberations.
The Minister commented that if we do seek to put this wording in place, then the Government will not oppose it. Can the noble Lord tell me whether the Government are going to accept the amendments that I have tabled today?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I wish to make it quite clear that the Government will not seek to oppose the noble Baroness's amendments. If the noble Baroness wishes to amend the clause in this way, the Government will not stand in the way of the noble Baroness's attempt to make Clause 4 as good as she thinks it will become. If the noble Baroness wishes to put forward her amendments, we shall not oppose them because we do not seek to make things more

533
difficult. We think simply that Clause 4, even with the proposed amendments, is quite unacceptable in that it would leave a major hole in the Bill.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, in that case, despite the fact that I was very happy with Clause 4 as passed in this House with a huge majority, I shall put forward my amendments. I have done this to help the Minister.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendments Nos. 2 and 3:
Page 4, line 1, leave out "which otherwise affects" and insert "or (b)"
Page 4, line 13, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
"(4) Where any directly applicable Community provision imposes any controls on the transfer of technology or on participation in the provision of technical assistance, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to exercise such powers as he or she may have under that provision to grant such individual, global or general licences as may reasonably be required to secure that the activities excluded from control by subsection (1) may be carried out under one or more of such licences."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Joffemoved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
"TRADE CONTROLS: ACTS OUTSIDE THE LNITED KINGDOM
(1) This section applies if—

(a) a United Kingdom person or a person ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom or a body incorporated under the law of any part of the United Kingdom does anything in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, and

(b) the act would, if done in the United Kingdom, constitute a trade control offence (as defined below).

(2) In such a case—

(a) the act constitutes the offence concerned, and

(b) proceedings for the offence may be taken in the United Kingdom.

(3) For the purposes of this section, trade control offences are any unlicensed acquisition or disposal, the movement, or activities which facilitate or are otherwise connected with the acquisition, disposal or movement, of small arms and light weapons, and ammunition for small arms and light weapons.
(4) Other acts done outside the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man may also be defined as trade control offences, but only if they are done by a person who—

(a) is a United Kingdom person or a person ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom; or

(b) is acting under the control of a United Kingdom person or a person ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in our debate on Report on 18th April, I withdrew a similar amendment to this in order to give further consideration to the response of the Minister. Since then I have both written to and discussed the matter with him. Following on that, I have framed the amendment now before the House so as to take into account the concerns raised by the Minister in relation to what he considered the rigidity imposed in the earlier amendment in relation to trafficking in long-range missiles and instruments of torture. This has been
534
achieved by deleting a section in the previous amendment relating to missiles and torture equipment which in practice will be adequately controlled in the proposed secondary legislation, as set out in the dummy orders.
Noble Lords should note one further change from the amendment we debated on Report, in that the current amendment extends its application to persons ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom as well as to United Kingdom persons and corporate bodies.
The underlying reason for the amendment is to protect the countless innocent civilians, mainly women and children in the developing world, who otherwise would be exposed to death or injury as a result of the activities of United Kingdom small arms traffickers. The amendment would achieve this by applying controls to the extra-territorial trafficking of small arms, light weapons and ammunition.
I should emphasise that the amendment does not call for or seek to achieve an outright ban on the trafficking of such weapons. It simply seeks that the trafficking should be subject to licence. The proposed government legislation purports to introduce controls on the trafficking of arms, but then conveniently provides a loophole by limiting its application only to UK persons conducting some or all of their trafficking while in the United Kingdom. The curious result following that is that small arms and light weapons manufactured in the United Kingdom are subject to export controls, while goods manufactured outside the United Kingdom can be freely trafficked by UK nationals and residents provided only that they remove themselves from the United Kingdom for that purpose.
I do not propose to repeat the arguments—they were fully covered in the debate on Report—but I shall touch briefly on the reasons given by the Minister for opposing the amendment. As I have stated, the first objection relating to an undesirable degree of rigidity in relation to long-range missiles and instruments of torture has been met.
The second objection relates to concerns about enacting extra-territorial jurisdiction and the difficulties faced in the enforcement of such legislation. However, such concerns are impossible to reconcile with the Government's extra-territorial legislation earlier this year in relation to corruption and their intention to introduce extra-territorial controls in relation to long-range missiles and instruments of torture. Surely if the Government believe that they can enforce control of extraterritorial corruption and trafficking in long-range missiles, they can equally enforce the control of trafficking in small arms and light weapons—that is, of course, if they have the will and determination to seriously address the issue of small arms, which they apparently no longer have.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the willingness of the Government to legislate extra territorially on long-range missiles but not on small arms has less to do with the relative difficulties of

535
enforcement than the fact that missiles propose a threat to the United Kingdom whereas small arms do not.
The third objection is that the Government are apparently deeply concerned that ill-informed UK small arms dealers based overseas may be ignorant of the law and unwittingly transgress it. The Government seem to have forgotten the presumption in law that ignorance of the law is no defence. Furthermore, the Government are not obliged to prosecute if the circumstances do not justify it. Further, the Government are unaware of the approximate number of United Kingdom arms traffickers based overseas whom they are so anxious to protect. Surely concern for an unknown number of overseas-based UK arms traffickers does not justify opening up a gaping loophole for every arms trafficker based in the United Kingdom.
None of the Government's reasons for opposition to the amendment stands up to critical analysis. One cannot help suspecting that there are other reasons or pressures for such opposition. I hope that in his response the Minister will deal with these issues or reassure the House that such suspicions are unfounded. The clear message that the proposed legislation gives to UK arms traffickers, whether based in the United Kingdom or overseas, is, "Do not traffic in the United Kingdom. But, if you traffic outside the United Kingdom, as far as we, the United Kingdom Government, are concerned, you have nothing to fear". This is the approach of a government which stated in their election manifesto:
"We will legislate to modernize the regulation of arms exports, with a licensing system to control the activities of arms brokers and traffickers wherever they are located".
The amendment is important because in the developing world small arms trafficking by UK nationals and residents has been a critical factor in leading to the deaths of countless innocent civilians. If the amendment is agreed to, it will act as an important deterrent to United Kingdom arms traffickers and will signal to other countries that the United Kingdom, which has in the past taken a leading role in international attempts to control small arms, is willing to match its words with actions, and the lives of many potential victims of arms trafficking will be protected. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord, Joffe, which stands also in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Redesdale. Noble Lords who have followed the debate will know that this is the fourth time the arguments have been rehearsed. It is apparent—unless the Government make a concession today—that we have failed to persuade Her Majesty's Government of the strength of our arguments.
536
This amendment is of a more limited nature than the one that the noble Lord, my noble friend Lord Redesdale and I brought forward on Report. It seeks to limit the restriction on arms brokering on a world-wide basis to the small arms trade, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, indicated, is a serious international problem.
I have said before that I have some sympathy for the Minister on this issue. He is, to some extent, hoisted by the petard of his full disclosure. He could have come to the House and asked for the Bill to be passed in its current form without disclosing what the orders he proposes to bring forward under the Bill will contain. To some extent, the debate today is not about the form of the clause. We were comfortable with the clause as it was previously drafted but, armed with the knowledge contained in the dummy orders of what the Government propose to do, we are uncomfortable about not having on the face of the Bill the further restrictions suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe.
However, having listened to what the Minister has said on three occasions—no doubt he will say the same today—I remain unpersuaded as to why the Government are not prepared to move on this issue. Your Lordships' House is not a place to play party politics, but in their manifesto the Government stated that they would apply arms controls to UK citizens wherever arms trading activities were performed. I do not regard the dummy orders and the refusal to introduce controls over arms brokering on an extraterritorial basis as satisfying that manifesto commitment.
It is common ground on all sides that the requirement to impose extra-territorial controls for small arms dealing would meet at least five of the six Home Office criteria for extra-territorial legislation. It is simply a question of the Government's judgment that they do not feel it appropriate to impose restrictions on an extra-territorial basis on UK citizens living and working abroad.
I do not want to detain the House very long but I hope that the Minister will offer an explanation. On Report, he conjured up a picture of a UK citizen, living abroad and working as an employee of an arms manufacturing company, who would not be aware that UK legislation prohibited the actions he was taking on behalf of his company, which were perfectly legitimate under the law of the country in which he was resident. I say "he"; I suspect most dealers in arms are still "he's". It is a non-sexist world; nevertheless they undoubtedly would normally be "he's". The Government are concerned that such a person would not be aware of the restrictions imposed upon him—whether he was living in the United States, Australia or wherever—and would not understand that what was perfectly legitimate there was prohibited under the laws of the United Kingdom.
I find that argument difficult to accept when it is applied to dealers in small arms. I find it almost inconceivable that someone who wishes to retain all the advantages of UK citizenship while living in Australia, the United States or wherever, would be

537
unaware that there are requirements and restrictions on dealing in arms which are applicable to him while he is living in that country.
I ask the Minister to respond to the following point. We all know that in the trade of arms dealing commissions are paid. Commissions—
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. He will be aware of the exception to his rule; namely, Captain Spicer, who said that he was completely ignorant of the international embargo on arms sales to Sierra Leone when he proposed to supply weapons to that country.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his intervention. As regards the provision of arms, let us take the example of Captain Spicer's successor. I understand that under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act the Government propose to introduce full extra-territoriality on corruption offences. It is common ground on all sides of the House that the provision on corruption offences will apply to a UK citizen whether that person is resident inside or outside the United Kingdom.
In arms dealing very heavy commissions are often paid which, by most definitions, constitute corruption. So if Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to move on this issue, we shall have a situation whereby a UK citizen living and working for a company in Australia or in the United States will not be caught by any restrictions on brokering arms under the Export Control Bill; however, under the corruption provisions, he will be expected to know that he cannot engage in the practices in which he normally engages in selling arms to the third world. Is not that a foolish position for the Government to get themselves into?
Lord Judd: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, is to be congratulated on persisting with this amendment. It is crucial to the credibility of everything that we are trying to do.
There are other arguments besides those that have already been deployed. The Government have argued, for example, that it is difficult to justify drawing a distinction between small arms and light weapons on the one hand, and other weapons on the other. However, there are clear classifications on what constitutes small arms. For example, the "Joint Action on the European Union's contribution to combating the destabilising accumulation and spread of small arms and light weapons" of December 1998 treats small arms and light weapons as a special case, and its annex contains a list of items which are to be regarded as falling within this category. In addition, the fact that there has been a United Nations international conference on small arms and a UN firearms protocol surely more than adequately indicates the international importance given to them as an identifiable category and a special case.
I want to say something slightly difficult to my noble friend the Minister, whom I greatly respect. Inevitably, the longer the Government oppose this measure, the greater is the speculation as to what is really behind
538
such opposition. Some are already asking whether it could be that there is a convenient loophole here for governments. Perhaps it is envisaged, for example, that activity of a UK offshore broker might on some occasion be of help to government. There is a considerable grey area when considering the activity of brokers in conflict zones. Brokers can indeed be a temptation to governments. I think, for example, of the recent official report by the Dutch Government on the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, which was published last month. According to the evidence from the Netherlands, US intelligence agencies secretly broke a UN arms embargo during the 1991–95 war in the former Yugoslavia by channelling arms through Islamic Jihad groups which Washington is now hunting down across Europe and Asia.
I am not implying that the UK Government are in any way involved in such activities, but if the Government do not control British dealers overseas, cynics will inevitably ask whether this is a loophole of convenience and just how far the Government in reality want to regulate all such activities. Does my noble friend not see how that doubt can arise? Or could such a loophole be left to be unscrupulously exploited at some future date by Ministers not as honourable as my noble friend the Minister on the Front Bench?
As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, she is a good friend, but a stern critic. I have to say to my noble friend the Minister, and I hope that the noble Baroness is listening, that I believe that the amendment is central to the credibility and purposes of the Bill. If the Government insist on resisting the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, and if he decides to divide the House, I shall not be able to support the Government in their opposition to his amendment.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I want to reassure the Minister that the Government are not alone on the question of arms control, in case they are feeling isolated. There are humanitarian agencies all over the world whose members work on this issue every day. I can give examples to illustrate that in some parts of Africa—for example, in Ethiopia, where World Vision has conducted a valuable survey on the impact of small arms—the gun culture is being successfully confronted by NGOs, which are often working alongside government in conflict resolution and development programmes. So the NGOs are engaged, and accordingly expect corresponding advances at international level.
I take a slightly different approach to the amendment from that of my noble friend. I feel confident that the Government are moving steadily towards the extra-territorial control of small arms brokers and trafficking as stated in the 2001 manifesto. We, on behalf of many specialised organisations and concerned individuals welcome that. We should encourage, not criticise, Ministers who represent the Government and who therefore understandably have to move one step at a time.

539
I have re-read the Minister's response on Report. It is arguable that he was, in fact, accepting the amendment and not rejecting it. He said:
"as I explained, the Bill would not preclude the introduction of controls along the lines of those proposed in the amendment. It would permit the Government to introduce extra-territorial controls on trafficking and brokering in small arms and light weapons should we consider that appropriate in the light of significant new developments—such as, for example, reaching international agreement to apply trade controls extra-territorially or to ban certain exports".—[Official Report, 18/4/02; col. 1145.]
When I re-read those remarks, I was much more confident than I had been the first time.
I must press the Minister again on the point on which I intervened then. Surely, if the Government are so close to recommending an extension of controls within an international agreement, it would be logical to reflect such an extension in this Bill. That would demonstrate renewed commitment to the manifesto and would he wholly consistent with the earlier response to public consultation on the White Paper, which was very favourable. It would also give a lead to the international community in line with its already prominent role in the UN programme of action and the new EU common position.
It is worth quoting the remarks of the former Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, on 27th July 1997, when the Government took unilateral action on torture equipment. He said:
"We have considered with our European partners how they might align themselves with this policy. While there is broad support for the idea of controlling equipment which evidence shows may be used in torture … not all our partners control the export of the same equipment".
In other words, this amendment could be a catalyst to the international agreement which the Minister seeks rather than a consequence of it. I appreciate that there are subtleties in arms negotiations, but I submit that Britain's hand would he strengthened.
I noted that the Minister made no comment on the precedents which were offered last time by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and others for extra-territorial controls in the areas of anti-terrorism, corruption, drugs, chemical weapons, sexual offences and landmines. The list is very long now.
Understandably, the Minister said that he was concerned about practicalities as well as about moral imperatives. However, on the question of enforcement, as controls will have to be in place for long-range missiles and torture equipment, we are talking of an extension of controls already in place. There is no need for a new definition of brokering, for example, or trafficking. In many countries, controls will already be in place. Taking the Minister's Australian example, if domestic jurisdiction is satisfactory, there may be no need for any further licensing.
Surely the Minister will agree that, difficult as enforcement will always be, in those other cases of corruption and so on, it was decided that practical difficulties should not stand in the way of legislation, so that UK traffickers and brokers, wherever they are,
540
should know exactly where they stand. I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, who has left the Chamber, that she has also spoken of residence in the UK, which would be another extension of this amendment. In time, we shall be able to persuade our EU and other partners, some of whom are ahead of us in this, that legislation is as important as co-operation.
In conclusion, I hope that the Minister will agree that this amendment merely continues a process that the Government have already accepted.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, in supporting this amendment, I know that I speak for my colleagues on this Bench, notably for my brother the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who is sitting beside me. I thought that he would be talking today and not me.
The arguments I wish to make have already been advanced and I shall not repeat them except to underline two points. First, the precedent for extraterritorial jurisdiction in pressing matters like this already exists. Secondly, I emphasise the humanitarian point: the terrible consequences of traffic in small arms and light weapons, particularly in Africa; and the cost not only to those populations but to other parts of the world, including this country. The oncosts of the use of small arms in civil conflicts is truly terrible and wasteful of every type of human resource. Every step should be taken to work effectively against it.
Lord Avebury: My Lords. I was not trying to undermine the argument of my noble friend Lord Razzall when I intervened in his remarks to point out that the case of Colonel Spicer—whom I inadvertently demoted to captain—provides an example of someone operating from the United Kingdom who set up a deal to procure weapons overseas and supply them to a third country. Colonel Spicer went to Vancouver, where he met a Thai businessman, and he arranged for the shipment of 10 million dollars-worth of light weapons to Sierra Leone in contravention of a UN embargo. Some noble Lords will remember that that led to inquiries by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in another place, to the commissioning of an inquiry by a distinguished High Court judge, and to the Government's getting a lot of egg on their face for allowing it to happen.
I also wanted to underline the fact that such transactions can readily be undertaken even now. I wonder whether the Minister watches the Mark Thomas show on television. I gather that he does not. I happened to attend a recent recording of the show, at the Bedford Arms, in south London, and I should like to describe what Mr Thomas put over in the hour that we were with him. He set up a dummy company with a fax machine, an e-mail address and a letterhead and he sought quotations from a subsidiary of BAE—Heckler & Koch, from Switzerland—to supply light arms to Zimbabwe and Algeria. He showed that it was quite easy to get the company to commit itself to one of those transactions. In the other case, however, the company suggested that it might be better if the dummy company went to Finland, where the company's associates might be able to fill the order.

541
So Mr Thomas talked to the people in Finland and found that there was no problem at all in acquiring the weapons either in Finland or in Switzerland to sell to these sensitive destinations—Zimbabwe, where there is an embargo, and Algeria, where there is a very high casualty rate in extra-judicial executions, as the Minister is undoubtedly aware. The point is that Mr Thomas did that with absolutely no resources at all. If someone like that—who, as he himself confessed, knows nothing about the arms trade—can enter into such a venture for the first time and have no difficulty procuring weapons for transfer to such sensitive destinations, then surely we do need legislation like this.
It is clear from examples that have been given that people have genuinely engaged in such transactions. As the pages of Africa Confidential reveal, people like John Bredenkamp do procure weapons from a secure base in the home counties for transfer to countries in Africa where they are used to kill people. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I think, has already remarked, light weapons kill a great many more people in Africa than do the heavier weapons that occupy so much of our attention. I therefore beg the Minister to take this amendment seriously. I hope that noble Lords will pass it. If we do not, there will be a very severe gap in the Bill which we shall live to regret.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, I should like to identify a fact that dictates the course of this amendment to this clause The fact is that, every year, 5 million people, including 2 million children, are killed by small arms. Bullets kill many more people than do bombs. That destruction, coupled with the incalculable numbers who are injured by firearms, should require any international legislature to consider its powers to prevent such carnage. Four considerations therefore arise if, acting as a civilised legislature, we wish to deal with such a problem. The first is that, surely in the United Kingdom, the unlawful brokering of small arms which creates such death should be forbidden. Whether the citizen of our country who is doing it is resident here or abroad, the morality is the same, whatever the geography.
Secondly, I said that dealing should be dealt with by a legislature if it was unlawful. As I understand it, Amendment No. 4 embraces a licensing system that someone living abroad could take advantage of just as he might if he were brokering in this country. The third consideration is that a person dealing in arms is doing so for profit. It is usually a consequence of business life that one learns the law that dictates how one can make that profit. The idea that a foreign resident UK broker cannot be proceeded against because he might not know the law borders on the absurd. The fourth consideration is extra-territoriality, which is a difficult problem. I acknowledge the problem, as evidenced in the remarks at Report stage of my noble friend the Minister. However, which is better—no action at all to meet a problem, or some action that involves difficulty? A civilised country would surely choose the latter.
542
Those four considerations to try to overcome that fact found Amendment No. 4. We on these Benches historically have taken a firm stance against illegal brokering in arms. I propose to maintain that stance.
It appears from what the Minister said on Report that there is a solution to this problem for our national legislature, which the Government foresee. I shall identify it and invite my noble friend the Minister to confirm it. Under Clause 6 of this Bill, there are general restrictions on control powers. In other words, the Government cannot control exports unless the provisions of Clause 6 are met. The principal provision of Clause 6 is that the powers can be exercised so as to permit this country to give effect to a provision of European Community law or to an international obligation. In other words, if Europe takes concerted action against the brokering of small arms, so may we. If the international community takes a similar course, we will join it. That solution is not a perfect one.
However, I invite the Minister to confirm that this clause, which refers to a schedule to the Bill that plainly involves controlling the brokering of small arms, will be vigilantly considered by the Government, and that in Europe they will pursue European action for the kind of control that the clause envisages, as I am sure they will do internationally.
My noble friend the Minister has a great intellectual capacity to speak clearly when the occasion requires it and not to retreat into the sometimes obscure verbiage of a Ministerial brief.
We on these Benches look forward to a clear, unmistakable commitment that, by the solution I have identified or others, the United Kingdom will through this legislature control arms brokering by any of our citizens anywhere, which is unlawful and contributes to the carnage that I have identified.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, at Report stage the Minister said that France, Germany, Belgium and Holland either had or were in the process of introducing legislation to control arms brokers. The arguments behind this amendment have been well rehearsed. However, it is unfortunate that this country is not taking a lead in introducing legislation in this field, but will be following and waiting for others to take the initiative.
As the right reverend Prelate and many noble Lords have pointed out, there is a moral argument for supporting this amendment. On hearing that an arms control Bill is being considered, many in this country would believe that this provision is essential to such a Bill becoming law.
If the Government do not accept it, I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, will press this amendment, and we on these Benches will support him.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I begin by assuring noble Lords that there is no other reason for our approach to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, than that we believe it to be

543
impractical. We are not looking to brokers to help us in some situations. We simply believe that the amendment is impractical.
Since the last debate, we have looked at the American situation. The American laws on extraterritorial brokering have been quoted a number of times. It is significant that not one prosecution has been mounted under US brokering law. That clearly confirms our feeling about the impracticality of this amendment, and I shall return to that point.
We greatly sympathise with the aims behind this amendment. However, we do not believe that it is a practical course of action; nor do we believe that it enhances our moral standing on this issue to pass a piece of legislation which cannot be practically enforced.
I turn to the question of ignorance of the law. Of course, subject to the Human Rights Act, ignorance is not a defence in UK law. That is why we use extraterritoriality very sparingly and only in areas subject to international condemnation, where any reasonable person should know that what he or she is doing is wrong.
The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, suggested that, unlike the anti-terrorism Act and the corruption measures under it, the Export Control Bill will not apply at all to a UK citizen in, for example, the United States or Australia. That is not correct. Under this Bill, a UK citizen living abroad will, under the dummy orders, be subject to controls if he trades in arms to any embargoed destination or trades in torture equipment or certain missiles.
I can tell the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that there is no international agreement in prospect either to ban trade in small arms or light weapons or to apply trafficking and brokering extra-territorially. For example, the dummy orders are fully consistent with the EU agreement referred to, and all the other examples that have been cited on bribery or corruption extra-territorially are associated with international agreements.
The noble Lord was quite right to assume that I do not watch the Mark Thomas programmes. However, having children who watch it, my attention is always drawn to occasions on which the Government are embarrassed by Mark Thomas, so I am aware of this particular incident. Of course, the point here is that had Mark Thomas been a real arms dealer or had the Bill been in force, as we understand it he would have committed an offence by what he did because, first, he was in the UK and, secondly, Zimbabwe is an embargoed destination. So it is perhaps as well that it was a television programme and not the real thing in this case.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, in that case, would it be perfectly in order for him to procure arms to be sold to Algeria?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: No, my Lords. He would have been caught because he was doing it in England, which would clearly have made it an offence.
544
I turn to the more substantive point raised by my noble friend Lord Brennan.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, if, however, he held a British passport but did it from Calais, which would have taken him no more than a couple of hours to reach, it would have been legal.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the point that is always worth remembering in these cases is that the concept that it is very easy to do this without any contact or the use of any measure in England is rather more difficult than people assume; and, of course, there is a list of embargoed destinations which covers the main areas that we want to see dealt with by this kind of legislation.
I turn to the key point made by my noble friend Lord Brennan. I want to answer his question as directly as he put it. I confirm that the Bill will allow the Government to implement any international agreement in arms trafficking and brokering, whether an EU agreement or an agreement in another forum. That is fundamental to the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, pointed out, we have put very transparently into the remit here the fact that at present we do not propose that the regulations should seek to control small arms brokering that takes place abroad, but this Bill gives us the power to do that. At this time we shall use it only for the three areas that I have mentioned.
The amendment proposed by the noble Lords is, of course, similar to the amendment tabled on this issue by the noble Lords, Lord Joffe and Lord Phillips, at Report stage. However, this amendment includes a new provision, allowing extra-territorial controls to be imposed on UK residents as well as UK persons. I shall in a moment return to that issue and the Government's concerns about its implications.
A further difference is that, in the light of the explanation that I gave on the specific point on Report, noble Lords have agreed to omit from the current amendment the outright statutory ban on trade in particular categories of equipment that was contained in the previous amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Joffe. I am grateful to noble Lords for recognising the Government's concern over that particular aspect of the Report stage amendment.
However, I am sorry that noble Lords remain unwilling to take on board the Government's even greater concerns about the implications arising from the central aim of the amendment; namely, to extend extra-territorial jurisdiction to trade in small arms, light weapons and ammunition. Before I expand on the nature of those concerns, I should like to remind the House that the issue before us is not a decision about doing something on arms brokering, or doing nothing. I believe, therefore, that it is wrong to present the amendment in such stark terms. It must not be forgotten that the Government are already committed to taking action on arms brokering that is truly ground-breaking. There will, for the first time, be comprehensive powers in new primary legislation that

545
allow controls to be imposed on all arms trafficking and brokering carried out both here and, in the case of UK citizens, abroad.
We have stated that we shall use the new powers in the Bill to prohibit any UK person, wherever he is located, from trafficking and brokering in arms to embargoed destinations or trafficking and brokering in torture equipment, or long-range missiles, to any destination whatever. At the same time, we are committed to using the powers under the Bill to control anyone in the UK—be he a resident or a UK national—who wishes to trade in any military equipment to any destination. This two-pronged approach will ensure that no one in the UK will be allowed to traffic or broker in arms without a licence, and will provide further that any UK person overseas who, without a licence, engages in trafficking and brokering to embargoed destinations, or in torture equipment or in long-range missiles, will he liable to prosecution if he sets foot again in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, cited the Government's manifesto commitment. I believe that the Government are clearly fulfilling their manifesto commitment on trafficking and brokering. The Bill provides for trafficking and brokering controls to be applied in the UK and abroad, and we are already committed to framing controls that will apply both here and overseas. I should remind the House that a small number only of other countries have so far managed to introduce any controls in this area. Therefore, the Government's commitment to legislate to control trafficking and brokering activities of UK persons both here and overseas puts this country in the front rank of nations that are prepared to take serious steps to combat the scourge of illicit trade in arms.
Consequently, it is beyond doubt that the Bill already allows tough and meaningful action to be taken against illicit arms brokering, and that the Government are already committed to taking such action in secondary legislation under the Bill. Instead, the question that needs to be asked is whether the amendment would enable the Government to tackle illicit brokering more effectively than our current proposals would allow. The Government's firm view is that not only would the amendment do little or nothing in practice to strengthen our ability to prevent the supply of arms to conflict zones, it would actually be likely also to undermine our efforts to target the serious activities that our proposed extra-territorial controls on trafficking and brokering already address. Perhaps I may explain why we hold that view.
Trafficking and brokering in arms to embargoed destinations, and trafficking and brokering in long-range missiles and torture equipment, are all activities that the Government would, in almost all cases, be seeking to prohibit in their entirety. They are all activities that are subject to widespread international condemnation. For these same reasons, we believe that any UK person, whether based in this country or settled overseas, could reasonably be expected to know that involvement in such activities would be likely to be an offence.
546
The same simply cannot be said of trade in small arms, light weapons and ammunition to non-embargoed destinations; nor can it be said of the wide range of activities that may facilitate such trade, such as insurance or marketing, which this amendment seeks also to control. The vast majority of such trade and services are entirely legitimate, and are carried out in full accordance with the laws of the exporting country. There is certainly no international agreement that there should be a presumption against allowing trade in small arms to responsible end–users to continue. Nevertheless, the amendment seeks to oblige the Government to assert extra–territorial control over entirely legitimate commercial transactions carried out in overseas countries. What would the effect of this be?
In the first place, it would make a criminal of any UK person settled and living overseas and involved in exports of small arms with the full blessing of his country of residence, who, for whatever reason, failed to apply also to the UK Government for a licence to go about his job. Perhaps I may give the House an example. It is slightly different from the one cited by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall: it relates to a UK national, who is settled in New Zealand, having lived there for 40 years. He has a contract to supply small arms ammunition to law enforcement authorities in Canada. He exports the ammunition to Canada in full compliance with New Zealand's laws on arms export control, and confidently believes that the business in which he is engaged is both of value and entirely legitimate. However, the instant that this amendment were to enter into force, his actions would be criminalised under UK law. He would then be subject to possible arrest and prosecution upon his return to the UK.
The same would apply in respect of a UK person settled overseas who provided insurance cover for an overseas export of small arms, without first obtaining licence to do so from the UK Government—
Lord Razzall: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene at this point. I do not believe that the Minister has dealt with our bigger concern. It is not the person living in New Zealand; we are concerned with the UK national, who is resident off-shore in a territory that is not regulated. On the Government's admission, such an individual would not be allowed to deal in secondhand torture equipment that he obtains from, say, the Chilean Government because they no longer use it. However, he would be allowed to deal in the small arms that the Chilean Government had used to shoot people after they had been tortured. That is our main worry.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, perhaps I may correct the noble Lord. The three prohibited categories are missiles, torture equipment and arms embargoes. Therefore, that person could not be dealing in such equipment.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, such an individual could not deal in torture equipment, but, under the

547
Government's legislation, he could deal in the small arms that were used to shoot people after they had been tortured.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord has not recognised that there is a very clear distinction here. I believe that I have made it clear in all the speeches that I have made thus far; indeed, I have already drawn attention to it in this response. There is a clear distinction to be made—the only one to be made in this area—between matters where there is international condemnation, which means that people will be aware of the situation, and areas where there is clearly no international condemnation involved. That is the distinction that applies in this case, and I believe it to be appropriate.
It is well to focus on such differences. These are the kind of people over whom we would be asserting extraterritorial control. Some might point out that the UK enforcement authorities could simply decide to take no action against such persons, and concentrate on prosecuting the more unsavoury types of arms brokers or suppliers who we can all readily bring to mind. However, that will not do; indeed, it would be irresponsible in the extreme for the Government to create a category of offences—namely, unlicensed trade in small arms, light weapons and ammunition—in the full knowledge that action would only be taken on such offences, when identified, in some circumstances, which would probably be unknowable to those concerned.
It would certainly be very difficult to take a decision to prosecute in the hypothetical case that I mentioned, but routinely to ignore such technical breaches of the law would damage the credibility of the new brokering controls across the board. We simply cannot make law that is destined to be enforced only on a "pick and choose" basis. The usual result of such an approach to enforcement of a particular law is that the law for all practical purposes quickly becomes unenforceable.
Another important factor that must be considered is the very considerable difficulty that would be involved in gathering evidence to prosecute UK persons for activities carried out in overseas countries that remain entirely legal there. Successful enforcement of extraterritorial controls depends to a very great extent on securing the full co-operation of the authorities of the overseas country where an offence under UK law by a UK person is alleged to have taken place, not least in helping or allowing UK investigators to gather evidence there. However, there would almost certainly be great difficulty in securing such co-operation in order to prosecute UK persons for actions that had been carried out in an overseas country in full compliance with that country's export control laws.
All these enforcement difficulties would be made even greater by the fact that the amendment also seeks to apply extra-territorial controls to UK residents as well as to UK nationals. The effect of that would be that a foreign national ordinarily resident in the UK who carried out in his country of nationality a small arms export in full accordance with his country's laws
548
would be subject to possible arrest and prosecution upon his return to this country. Such a sweeping assertion of extra-territorial jurisdiction on the part of the Government would be likely to attract exactly the kind of criticism that the UK has rightly directed at other countries which have extended extra-territorial controls to UK nationals for activities that do not constitute an offence in this country.
Suggestions that without the amendment the Government's response to these difficulties will be to do nothing on small arms are quite untrue. What these enforcement difficulties have done is to convince us that the course of action which is most likely to lead to successful eradication of illicit trafficking and brokering in arms is for the Government to press for international agreement. The Government are working to achieve international agreement to take action to regulate the activities of those engaged in brokering in accordance with the UN Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons agreed in July last year. And of course the EU Common Position recently agreed on trafficking and brokering has provided a basis for the framing of national legislation on trafficking and brokering across the whole EU.
I reiterate in this context the very important point that the Bill as drafted does not preclude the introduction of controls along the lines of those proposed in the amendment. Clause 5 as it stands would allow the introduction of extra-territorial controls on trafficking and brokering in small arms and light weapons and on any other equipment that falls into one or more of the categories set out in the schedule to the Bill. There is therefore no doubt that the UK would be able to implement—the noble Lord. Lord Brennan, asked about that—under the Bill extraterritorial controls on trade in small arms if changing international circumstances warranted that.
In support of the proposal to extend extra-territorial controls to legitimate trade in small arms as well as to prohibited activities, it has been argued that the United States already operates extra-territorial controls on trafficking and brokering in small arms and other military equipment, and that if the US can operate such a system the UK should be able to do so also. In this context I was interested to note recently a report on the US system of arms brokering controls published by the highly respected US nongovernmental organisation, The Fund for Peace, which actively campaigns for tougher controls on the arms trade. The report expresses great concerns over the ability of the US authorities to operate and enforce their very wide system of controls on arms brokering. It highlights the very telling fact that not one prosecution has ever been mounted under the US brokering law, either for brokering offences carried out within the United States or overseas. The report goes on to say that while the US law on paper is as comprehensive and far-reaching as it possibly could be, it will only ever be as good as its enforcement, and this the report finds to be "nil".
That demonstrates that there is a world of difference between framing very wide extra-territorial controls in legislation, which need little more than the sweep of a

549
pen, and trying to give such controls meaning and integrity through ongoing successful application and enforcement. Let me repeat that the Government are already committed to taking very real steps to control arms trafficking and brokering both here and abroad. Under the controls we have proposed it will be an offence for any UK person overseas to traffic or broker in small arms to embargoed destinations or to a third country in the knowledge that the arms are destined for an embargoed destination. Moreover, the proposed licensing regime for trafficking and brokering in all items on the UK's Military List, including small arms and light weapons, will apply where any relevant part of the transaction—be it a single fax or telephone call—takes place in the UK. And do not forget that the Bill already contains the powers that would allow the Government to extend extra-territorial controls to legitimate trade in small arms, for example in order to implement any international agreements reached on this matter.
We believe that all these measures, combined with the measures we are taking to encourage international co-operation on this issue, will be effective in combating illicit brokering of small arms by UK nationals. In contrast, the amendment would create a set of offences in primary legislation that would be unworkable in practice and would risk undermining the credibility of the whole control regime. In view of that, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Lord Joffe: My Lords. I thank noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment. The essence of the Minister's response is that it is impractical to impose the controls that we are discussing. However, he has not answered the question about which I wrote to him: namely, why is it practical to enforce controls on the trafficking of long-range missiles and instruments of torture but not on small arms? I have received no answer to that.
The Minister mentioned the USA and sought to gain great comfort for his case from the fact that there have been no prosecutions so far under the US brokering law. However, the test of good legislation is not the number of prosecutions which result from it but whether the activity which it seeks to address is affected. We have no information on that at all. If there was a determination on the part of the Government to impose controls on small arms and light weapons, they could enforce it. I speak from my experience as a human rights lawyer in South Africa where the government were determined to impose their will on their subjects and had no difficulty in prosecuting many of my clients who expressed their views in the United Kingdom where they were free to do so. That evidence was used in order to gain convictions in South Africa.
The Minister said that the legislation we are discussing aligns with the manifesto commitment to control small arms trafficking wherever it is carried out. That cannot be so. It covers a tiny proportion of arms, which are enumerated, but not with the most important of all from the point of view of innocent civilians in the developing world who will be exposed
550
to the dangers of injury and death through the trafficking of arms by UK nationals. It is extraordinary that in considering the relative importance of this handful of UK arms traffickers based overseas, the Government show no concern in balancing the importance of the legislation vis-à-vis the ultimate victims of that arms trafficking.
I am not persuaded by the reasons advanced by the Minister. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
4.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 129.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Lyell, L.

Addington, L.

McNally, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Maddock, B.

Ampthill, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Ashcroft, L.

Moynihan, L.

Attlee, E.

Newby, L.

Avebury, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Palmer, L.

Birmingham, Bp.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Blood, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Bowness, L.

Prior, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Razzall, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Redesdale, L. [Teller]

Brookeborough, V.

Rennard, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Roper, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Salisbury, Bp.

Clement-Jones, L.

Sandwich, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Selborne, E.

Dholakia, L.

Selsdon, L.

Elles, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Ezra, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Greengross, B.

Tenby, V.

Hamwee, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Holderness, L.

Vinson, L.

Hooper, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Hooson, L.

Walmsley, B.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Warnock, B.

Joffe, L. [Teller]

Watson of Richmond, L.

Laird, L.

Weatherill, L.

Laming, L.

Wigoder, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Borrie, L.

Ahmed, L.

Bragg, L.

Alli, L.

Brennan, L.

Amos, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Brookman, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Burlison, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Bach, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Barnett, L.

Christopher, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Berkeley, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Clinton-Davis. L.

Blackstone, B.

Cobbold, L.

Blease, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

551

David, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Davies of Coity, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Dixon, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Dormand of Easington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dubs, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Elder, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Mishcon, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Mitchell, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Nicol, B.

Filkin,L.

Parekh, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield.L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Gale, B.

Pendry, L.

Gilbert, L.

Peston, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Pitkeathley, B

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Goudie, B.

Puttnam, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Radice, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gregson, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Grocott, L.

Richard, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Role of Ipsden, L.

Harrison, L.

Rooker, L.

Haskel, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hayman, B.

Sawyer, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Serota, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Sheldon, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Simon, V.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Irvine of Lairg L (Lord Chancellor)

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Thornton, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Turnberg, L.

Jones, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jordan, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Whitty, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wilkins, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Williams or Elvel, L.

Lipsey, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Lockwood, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

[*The Tellers for the Contents reported 71 votes. The Clerks recorded 70 names.]
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Campbell-Savours Lord Campbell-Savours moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause
"DEFENCE EXPORTS SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
(1) There shall be a Committee, to be known as the Defence Exports Scrutiny Committee (in this section referred to as "the Committee") to examine United Kingdom defence export licence applications and the licensing process.
(2) The Committee shall consist of nine members—

(a) drawn both from the members of the House of Commons and from the members of the House of Lords; and

(b) none of whom shall be Ministers of the Crown.

(3) The members of the Committee shall be appointed by the Prime Minister after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, within the meaning of the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 (c. 27); and one of those members shall be so appointed as the chairman of the Committee.
(4) The Prime Minister may by order make provisions as to the tenure of office, members of, the procedure of and other matters relating to, the Committee.
(5) The Committee shall make an annual report on the discharge of their functions to the Prime Minister and may at any time report to him on any matter relating to the discharge of those functions.
(6) The Prime Minister shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of each report made by the Committee under subsection (5) together with a statement as to whether any matter has been excluded from that copy in pursuance of subsection (7).
(7) If it appears to the Prime Minister that it is evident that the publication of any matter was exempt under the Code of Practice to Government Information, the Prime Minister may exclude the matter from the copy of the report as laid before each House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Report—on 18th April—we debated an amendment that is similar to Amendment No. 5. Those who are following the progress of the debate on prior scrutiny will find relevant references at cols. 1185–97 of the Official Report.
The amendment would establish the defence exports scrutiny committee—known as the DESC—which is modelled on the Intelligence and Security Committee, which was set up under the Intelligence Services Act 1994. The role of the committee would be to advise Ministers; it would not have the power to decide, as was unfortunately reported in an article by Andy McSmith in this morning's Daily Telegraph. Its role would be only to advise government.
I do not intend to rehearse all of the arguments. They were dealt with in Committee and are set out at cols. 864–74. In that debate, we dealt with the question of tenure of office, committee procedures, access to information, definitions of sensitive information, the staging of notification of licence applications, measures for the avoidance of delay, conflict of interest issues and the details of secondary legislation.
However, circumstances have changed; I shall explain how. First, an Early-Day Motion tabled in the other place states:
"This House believes that specified defence export licence applications should be subject to prior scrutiny by a committee comprising honourable Members of Parliament".
It currently has the support of 310 elected Members of Parliament and in the next few weeks it will no doubt gain the support of a majority of the House of Commons.
Secondly, during a poll carried out by an organisation called Taylor Nelson Sofres, a sample of 1,023 adults were asked:
"How much do you agree or disagree that … the Government should give MPs the power to advise it on arms sales to sensitive regions before the weapons are exported?".
Sixty-four per cent of the general public agreed and only 17 per cent disagreed.
Thirdly, I understand that a national write-in campaign to Ministers is currently under way, organised by the lobby outside. Clearly there is a substantial amount of support both within and outside Parliament.
Following the many meetings that have taken place with Ministers over recent weeks since these matters were first raised during the Second Reading of the Bill, in my view only two issues remain outstanding. No doubt the Minister will deal with those this evening. One relates to the question of overlap with the Quadripartite Committee and the other relates to judicial review. I want to say a word or two about those.
On the question of overlap with the Quadripartite Committee, the final state of play—I use that term in the sense that these debates clearly take place all the time with the parties involved—is that the QSC will remain the only public face of accountability. We need to understand that the QSC is only a name given to describe the forum in which four Select Committees in the other place agree to meet jointly as against individually, thereby avoiding a duplication of effort. I refer to the Select Committees on Trade and Industry, International Development, Foreign Affairs and Defence.
Under the structure that we are setting out to establish this evening, the QSC would confine its remit to the assessment of the annual report on strategic exports and the issues of policy that flow from that. It is envisaged that it would meet three times a year in the period following publication of the annual report. The first session would be deliberative; the second would involve the examination of Ministers; and the third would deal with the approval of the QSC's report. That is hardly onerous for departments.
I mention that in relation to the activities of the QSC because it has been put to us that retaining the QSC in addition to the DESC may place too great an obligation and too much work on departments. That is clearly not the case, and I hope that my noble friend will be able to deal with that point this evening.
I turn to the question of judicial review. My noble friend on the Front Bench raised that issue with me during the most recent meeting that I had with him, and he and I both agreed that we would go away and do a little further homework. First, I want to refer my noble friend to the advice of Kate Cook of Matrix Chambers on these matters. I quote specifically from the paragraph in her report to outside lobbies which have taken an interest in these matters—in particular, Saferworld:
"The Government's apparent concern that provision for Parliamentary scrutiny would constitute unlawful sub-delegation is, on analysis, misplaced because … there would be no sub-delegation of the decision-making function, since Parliament would have only an advisory role; and … even if there were any sub-delegation, it would be lawful because it would have been authorised by Act of Parliament".
Reminding my noble friend of arguments that he has used during the course of our private discussions, I quote that in order to point out that it might be possible to establish this structure outside primary
554
legislation. Indeed, I understand that it may be possible to do so simply by a decision of Ministers. It is being argued here that, by the use of primary legislation, we reinforce the privilege of the committee that has been created.
I now wish to refer my noble friend to the advice that I was given as a member of the ISC. Of course, the ISC, characterised by a structure similar to the one that I am advocating for the DESC, has clearly had to consider these precise matters. In response to a specific question, the advice that I was given in my role as a member of that committee was the advice given by the ISC to the Prime Minister, as would happen in this case, rather than to the public. Therefore, the committee is not responsible for any publication or any report laid before Parliament. The Prime Minister's position is protected by the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840, which extends absolute privilege to any paper ordered to be printed by either House.
So far as concerns defamation—I place these matters on the record tonight because this discussion may be ongoing—there must be a good argument. I was told that the advice of the committee was protected by absolute privilege. The advice given by the committee to the Prime Minister is analogous to the advice given by the Secretary of State for India to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. I refer to the old case of Chatterton v. Secretary of State for India in Council 1895. Such advice involves communications between high officers of state on matters of public interest. Chatterton was referred to in the more recent Fayed case of 1998. If absolute privilege applied, then no action could be maintained, no matter how false or malicious the statement. I draw attention to that only because these matters will no doubt be considered by the department.
Finally, I refer back to the EDM. The Early-Day Motion in the other place is supported by almost half the Members of the House of Commons. It includes a large number of former Ministers of both this Government and a previous government. I understand that it includes the support of most of those who have, at one time or another, been chairmen of Select Committees of the House of Commons.
In so far as the House of Commons has almost spoken on the matter in the form of an EDM, I suggest to my noble friend that it might be wise to agree to this amendment this evening and then to test the opinion of the other place, particularly as this is only an enabling amendment. It does not set down in detail the rules that would apply to the operation of the DESC, as I set out in an amendment on Report. If it is an enabling amendment, nothing is lost. In the event that Ministers opposed what might have been carried on the nod by the Government tonight, the other place would be required to come to a decision.
I believe that I have made my case. I hope that my noble friend has listened intently to my argument because these issues will not go away. If we do not win

555
on the matter tonight, I understand that the Quadripartite Committee will persist in pressing the case in the future. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: My Lords, the whole House should be grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. He referred to the fact that the Early-Day Motion in the other place had attracted the signatures of a large number of Ministers. I hope that I am allowed to make a personal reference. My own experience, both as a Minister of State at the Foreign Office and as an Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Defence, albeit some time ago, leads me to see the importance and pertinence of this proposal.
It is far from self-evident why we can trust a committee of parliamentarians to scrutinise the intelligence services but cannot trust one to examine export licence applications. As my noble friend made clear, the cross-party Quadripartite Committee in the other place put forward a series of detailed proposals on how such a system could work. However, as he also made clear, so far the Government have objected to those, primarily on the grounds of constitutional impropriety, and on the grounds that the proposals would confuse the roles of Parliament and the Executive; damage commercial confidentiality; delay the licensing process and damage commercial competitiveness. The QSC has responded to those concerns comprehensively. Like many others, I can only come to the conclusion that the main obstacle is obviously a lack of political will.
The amendment provides an opportunity to show that that is not the case because the wording of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours could not be said to endanger any of the concerns I have just mentioned. It addresses the constitutional issues raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, and the Government by taking the precedent established by the Intelligence and Security Committee and using it as a template. Although the defence export services committee as proposed would not go quite as far as the recommendations of the QSC—I favour the most transparent system possible—the amendment is at least an important step towards effective prior oversight by parliamentarians of arms export licence applications and, therefore, is surely to be welcomed.
As my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours explained, it is essential to emphasise that it will he imperative to ensure that if the committee is established, it will work in parallel with the QSC and in no way as a substitute for it. The functions of the two committees will remain different and both roles are required. The defence export scrutiny committee will be a committee of parliamentarians which will provide advice to and raise concerns with the Prime Minister on specific licence applications before decisions are made.
The Quadripartite Select Committee will still perform the indispensable broader role of a full-blooded parliamentary committee in scrutinising government decisions; reviewing the annual reports of
556
strategic exports; taking evidence in public and making recommendations for changes in policy and law. The QSC is about parliamentary scrutiny. That key role will remain as important as it has obviously become.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, in opposing the amendment I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for the energy and work which has gone into its drafting and into its much longer earlier form, and for his dogged persistence in pursuing the subject throughout the passage of the Bill.
However— I intend no disrespect to the noble Lord—I believe that the whole concept of the amendment is misconceived. No doubt the Minister will tell us when he replies how many hundreds of applications for export licences are received every year. It must be a pretty vast number judging by the high percentage that cannot be processed within the target time. There is an overwhelming volume of work for the large number of civil servants within the Department of Trade and Industry which cannot be adequately reviewed by a committee of nine. Perhaps when he replies the Minister can tell us how many staff in his department are engaged in that activity apart from staff at the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and many other government departments which are involved in this licensing process.
There is then the problem of commercial and scientific confidentiality. It cannot be regarded as feasible that highly sensitive matters, such as those currently covered by export control, can be exposed to the scrutiny of a nominated Joint Committee of both Houses. Whether or not it is intended by the noble Lord—I am sure that it is not—the amendments could have the effect of introducing an element of political control early on; of imposing, perhaps, the political views of the members of the intended scrutiny committee on to the commercial and scientific applicants for licences, and the policy of the Government in granting or refusing them.
Such views have no place in the licensing procedure, in which the sole criterion of the Act and its 63 year-old predecessor is to guard against the "relevant consequences" set out in the schedule to the Bill: namely, as I remind your Lordships, to guard against adverse effects for the national security of the United Kingdom, its Armed Forces, and any other friendly state; adverse effects on peace, security and stability in any region of the world; the carrying out of acts facilitating production of weapons of mass destruction; and terrorism, crime and breaches of human rights.
In case noble Lords think that the idea that it could have some kind of political control is a fanciful fear, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, mentioned today the Early-Day Motion, in which several senior government Back-Benchers are seeking to set up the committee, not merely to oversee the licensing of arms export systems in the vague way that the amendment proposes but to approve or disapprove in advance the

557
grant of all arms export licences. The sort of wedge of which the amendment could be the thin end is clear to see.
It would he intolerable to have a nine-person appointed committee of placemen which could take over the whole of the foreign policy and defence of this country, even in disregard of our international obligations. The Government are already subject to oversight under the normal parliamentary process.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours said that the Minister stated on Report that he regarded the amendment as an enabling one. I do not think it is. It states that,
"(1) There shall be a Committee …
(2) The Committee shall consist of …
(3) The members of the Committee shall be appointed by the Prime Minister".
and so forth. That does not make it an enabling clause.
The Minister pointed out in the last debate that if it was felt that an oversight committee was desirable, the Government could appoint one without the sanction of this legislation. I feel sure that if it were proved to be necessary, the Government would do so.
However well meaning the amendments may be—I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, intends them to be—they are not practical, reasonable or even necessary. I imagine that they will continue to be opposed by the Government. Assuming that they are, I would find myself in the unusual position of supporting the Government. However, I am worried about saying that. As I said to the Minister in debates on the Employment Bill, whenever I supported an amendment tabled by one of his Back-Benchers, it was thrown out; and the ones that I opposed, the Minister accepted. Therefore, I do not know whether or not this is helpful.
I hope that the Minister will be able to persuade his noble friend to withdraw the amendment. The nature of the applications is so varied and the subjects so complex that I doubt whether nine polymaths could be found to qualify as the nine wise all-knowing persons that the noble Lord suggests the Prime Minister should appoint to the scrutiny committee, even with the benefit of consultation with the Leader of the Opposition.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I have a rather different view from that of the noble Baroness. I have listened to my noble friends Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Judd and have been impressed by the logical and detailed arguments they have used in supporting the amendment; not only that: they have pointed out that since Report stage, public and political opinion has changed in favour of having this committee.
I very much look forward to the reply by the Minister, since the committee proposed by the amendment appears to be both necessary and desirable. I thought that my noble friend covered the arguments against it in detail. However, I shall cover two points raised by the noble Baroness. She mentioned the large number of applications for licences. It is not proposed that the nine members of
558
the committee will personally go through every single application. There will he a unit answering to it who will be given instructions to filter out those which look sensitive and need a decision by the committee.
With regard to the question of whether or not the committee will tread on sensitive toes and may infringe confidential matters, we have the example—as pointed out by my noble friend—of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Its members are sworn to secrecy and confidentially. There has been no case in which they have breached that trust.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we, on these Benches, support the aims of the amendment. It is highly unlikely that the Government will accept it at this late stage. However, I am sure that the issue will be raised on many occasions in another place, especially by the Quadripartite Committee. I think that it is an issue to which this House will return at some stage.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the House will remember that at Report stage said to my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours that the Government have given his proposal careful consideration. I added that that consideration had served to demonstrate both some possible attractions of his proposal, hut also some significant problems.
As I promised on Report, the Government have continued to examine my noble friend's proposal. Moreover, I have met with my noble friend and heard more about his proposal, how he envisaged it might work and how he considered potential problems might be overcome. My noble friend has sought to provide reassurance to the Government on a number of points. I am most grateful to him for the care he has taken to address the issues that I raised on Report and subsequently at our meeting.
However, the Government remain concerned about several aspects of the proposal. We remain concerned about how a defence exports scrutiny committee (DESC) would interrelate with the Quadripartite Committee in another place. I was glad to learn at our meeting that it is now common ground between us that the membership of the Quadripartite Committee and a DESC should not overlap. However, in spite of what my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours has said today, the Government still remain concerned that the functions of the committees would overlap. As I said before, a DESC will almost certainly need and might well seek to take on major parts of what is now the role of the Quadripartite Committee. For example, a DESC would need to undertake a degree of retrospective scrutiny of both individual cases and strategic export licensing policy, if only to investigate and discuss why its advice was, or indeed was not, followed by the Government.
Moreover, in that context I point to subsection (1) of the proposed clause, where it states that a DESC will examine the licensing process in addition to examining licence applications. Examination of the licensing

559
process is currently a role of the Quadripartite Committee which it undertakes alongside its retrospective scrutiny function.
Leaving aside the merely practical problems which would be associated with a government being required to account for the same actions to two different committees, we have real concerns about the possibility that the two committees would give completely different advice to the Government on an identical issue.
I would not rule out the possibility that we may be able to resolve those concerns, but I detect in all the representations that the Government have received on this particular issue a similar degree of unease. Whenever we have received clear assurances that an individual or organisation believes that the two committees can work together without difficulty, those assurances have always been immediately followed by a stern assertion that the authors would totally oppose any diminution in the role of the Quadripartite Committee or in existing levels of transparency of the scrutiny process. That suggests to me that it would not be so easy to separate the different roles of the committees and that the creation of a defence exports scrutiny committee would indeed have real implications for the role of the Quadripartite Committee.
I add that the Government are also not as sanguine as my noble friend that the introduction of a DESC would not lead to increased delays and uncertainty in the export licensing process. I understand that the Defence Manufacturers Association has also expressed that concern. It has said that it is the "overwhelming view" of its members that the proposal for a DESC,
"would not be welcome, necessary or, in our view, workable in a way that did not increase delay and uncertainty in the licensing process".
I turn to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. We issue about 12,000 standard individual export licences a year. In terms of the number of civil servants engaged in export control, I can speak only for my department and say that we have a little over 100 officials who undertake work on export controls and non-proliferation related work. We reckon, however, that not all those 12,000 individual export licences would need to be looked at. But on the basis that has been put forward, we believe that some 4,000 licences would need to be looked at.
When I said that the Government are concerned about delays and uncertainty in the licensing process, I do not just have narrow issues of official resources in mind. The proposal has been that the DESC should consider licence applications in parallel with ministerial consideration to avoid risks of delay. Yet that runs the risk that the committee will consider applications before all information on a particular case has been gathered. Thus the Government face an unenviable alternative. If the committee considers cases in parallel, it may be forced to give advice on the basis of insufficient information. That increases the risk that the committee's advice will conflict with the
560
Secretary of State's final decisions and thus increase legal uncertainty and delay while issues raised by the conflicting advice are resolved. If, however, the committee considers applications consecutively, once all the facts have been gathered, it is very difficult to see how that will not lead to the likelihood of delay.
I have outlined in some detail some of the Government's concerns to the House today as I was concerned to demonstrate that these issues are not straightforward. Any decision taken by the Government in this area could have profound implications for industry, for Parliament in general and the Quadripartite Committee in particular and for the good conduct of the export licensing process. While our continued examination of the proposal for a DESC since the Report stage has allayed some of our fears, new issues have come to light, such as the concern that the advice of the committee is most unlikely to remain private were a company or another interested party to seek its disclosure in judicial review. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend, Lord Campbell-Savours, that it is a question really of disclosure and not of sub-delegation that we were concerned with in the issue. Our concern is not illegal sub-delegation of power; it is that the advice of the committee is most unlikely to remain private were a company or another interested party to seek its disclosure in judicial review.
It has been put to me that this amendment would be only an enabling power. But I would say in response that passing primary legislation is an effective commitment to take action. I appreciate the spirit in which my noble friend has proposed an amendment which allows detailed arrangements to be made in due course, but I am afraid that the Government cannot agree that acceptance of this amendment would be anything other than a commitment to introducing the committee.
I also do not think that it is right that we should approve the amendment tonight. The Government do not think it right that the Bill should be amended at this time in this way. Our unwillingness to reach a hasty conclusion on this proposal is reinforced by the fact that, as we have said before, we are clear that the Government, were they to decide to adopt this approach, would be able to set up a defence exports scrutiny committee, in all its essentials, without a requirement for new legislation. There is no need for primary legislation, so rushed consideration of these important issues is not only highly undesirable, it is clearly also unnecessary. Given the vital issues covered by the Bill, the Government do not want to see the Bill delayed still further. It is essential that we can start the process of consultation on the secondary legislation and thereafter implementation as soon as possible so that we can ensure the UK has the export controls it needs.
Therefore, for all those reasons, the Government consider that they are unable to support the amendment. However, I would like to assure my noble friend and others in this House and interested parties elsewhere that not amending the Bill does not in any way mean, as has been suggested to me, that the issue will consequently be left to moulder in the long grass.

561
Ministers intend examination of my noble friend's proposal to continue. It may prove possible to resolve all of our concerns. Moreover, the Government will also continue to work with the Quadripartite Committee to see whether we can take additional steps to achieve greater accountability and transparency in the export licensing process through greater cooperation with the committee. The Government are clear that the issue of how to improve the scrutiny of the export licensing process must be addressed, but we are not and cannot yet be convinced that the commitment to introduce a DESC represented by the amendment is the right or only way forward.
For all those reasons, and reminding my noble friend once again that primary legislation is not a prerequisite for the adoption of his proposal, I ask him to agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his response. Perhaps I may say one or two words before I withdraw the amendment.
The House should ask itself a simple question: why does the system work in the United States of America? Why do a number of countries throughout the world operate prior scrutiny systems on their defence contracts which work, which are internationally recognised as working, and which are supported by their respective defence industries?
I listened to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, with interest—especially her reference to what I suspect is an underlying suspicion of political processes and politicians' involvement in security matters. Throughout the late 1980s, I ran with the hounds in another place on the whole question of the Official Secrets Act and of abuses in which we believed government to be secretive. We rode the issue in the country; there may well be those outside or inside the House who would say that we exploited the issue. The reason that we could exploit it was that there was no structure in place to deal with the concerns of Members of Parliament. No sooner had the ISC been created than the debate effectively ended. Parliament was satisfied that while the committee was not a committee of Parliament—it was a committee of parliamentarians—at least a structure was in place to deal with the issues raised by Members of Parliament.
Defence contracts represent precisely the same case. There will be endless grandstanding in the House of Commons, exploitation of stories in the media, rumours and whatever, until we establish a structure capable of nipping the issue in the bud and dealing with the concerns of Members of Parliament. The moment that we create such a structure, we will find that much of the controversial public debate will disappear because Members of Parliament will know that there is a place to which they can go to raise their concerns—albeit in the confidential conditions inside the DESC, appointed as it would be by the Prime Minister and unable to report directly to the wider public or even to Parliament, because its reports would go to the Prime Minister and could be sidelined accordingly. There is no need for the suspicion
562
expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. The structure works and would defuse conflict within our parliamentary arrangements.
The noble Baroness and my noble friend referred to the issue of delays. We have dealt that issue before. As I witnessed in the ISC, if we sit a group of civil servants in a room with a bunch of politicians in conditions of confidentiality to discuss, debate and ultimately advise Ministers on particular matters—in this case, contracts that they have scrutinised—that committee will develop a culture of understanding whereby, over time, the number of cases referred to it will reduce. That is the inevitable consequence of the meeting of minds inside that forum, based as it is on confidentiality.
It is that meeting of minds between politicians of all political persuasions and civil servants that is essential if the debate on who is allowed to export what is to be influenced. The committee will make no decisions; it will only issue advice to help in the process of developing policy on particular countries. My guess is that, ultimately, when the structure is set up, as I expect that it will in the end, we will be surprised by how few cases have to go before the committee.
Finally, on the question of confidentiality, the ISC never leaked. The DESC would never leak. The party of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, will at some stage have influence on these matters in future. She should trust politicians in those conditions to be prepared to safeguard the interests of the state. There would he no abuse. My noble friend accepts that. I understand that confidentiality was not a matter that troubled Ministers, in the end, because they have learned from the operation of the ISC.
I regret what has happened tonight. The debate will continue. I thank all the Ministers who have listened to the debate as it has developed. As I told my noble friend, the Quadripartite Committee will take the matter forward. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
In the schedule:
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendment No. 6:
Page 11, line 28, leave out second "equipment" and insert "goods"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will remember that on Report the Government amended paragraph 1 of the schedule to ensure that it was as comprehensive as possible. Those changes included replacing a reference to the term "equipment" in paragraph 1(1)(c) with the more appropriate term "goods", which is used throughout the Bill. That change now requires a consequential amendment to be made to line 28 to ensure that when the section cross-refers to paragraph 1(1)(c), it refers to the new text, "goods", rather than the old text, "equipment". I hope that the House will agree that that minor amendment should be made and I invite the House to support it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, that the Bill do now pass.— (Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Security and Defence: EUC Report
5.47 p.m.
Lord Joplingrose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee on the European Policy on Security and Defence (11th Report, HL Paper 71).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the report of Sub-Committee C of the European Union Committee was presented to your Lordships' House in early February. I am glad—as, I am sure, are all members of the committee—that we now have the opportunity to debate it. Before we do so, I express thanks on behalf of the entire committee. First, I thank Dr Anthony Forster, of King's College London, who was our specialist adviser and who helpfully kept us on the right path and guided us most successfully. Secondly, I thank our Clerk, David Batt, who was helpful and constructive throughout in his assistance to us. Finally, I express my personal thanks to my colleagues on the committee, who have a vast range of experience in these matters and who were also extremely helpful throughout.
I should like to refer to one note of sadness. During our deliberations, Lord Shore of Stepney sadly died. Lord Shore gave us his typically pungent views about many matters—especially European matters. As an old friend of his who served for 10 years with him, together with the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, whom I see sitting in his place, on the Foreign Affairs Committee in another place, it was a particular sadness to us.
The report follows the sub-committee's previous report on the same subject, which was published in July 2000. At that time, the committee had as its chairmen, first, the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, and, then, the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon. They presided over the committee with great distinction.
The committee examined the reasons for setting up a European defence force. Although aspects of the existence of ESDP remain controversial in the eyes of some, the committee felt that it would not be constructive to go over it all again. We accepted that ESDP was with us and was being developed. We felt that it was right for the committee to embark on an inquiry into that development and the growing pains of ESDP, many of which are serious.
I shall put the sub-committee's views under five headings. First, there was a view that Europe must do more to be an effective peacekeeper and, later, peacemaker in our continent and beyond—perhaps not too far beyond. Secondly, if we are to do that, serious capability gaps must be filled. Thirdly, there
564
will have to be significant increases in defence budgets if those gaps are to be filled and the European force is to become a serious force. Fourthly, the current command and control uncertainties must be resolved, so that a clear relationship with NATO can be established and so that confusing duplication in issues such as contingency planning can be avoided. Fifthly, there is the matter of parliamentary oversight. I shall come to that later.
The first point was that Europe must do more. Since our last report, published in July 2000, important things have happened, particularly the events of 11th September and the Afghanistan campaign. It becomes apparent that. in certain circumstances, in spite of the activation of Article 5 of the NATO pact, the United States prefers to act independently of NATO. I was very struck by a speech made by General Hagglund, the Finnish chairman of the Military Committee of the European Union. On 3rd May, he talked about the structure of ESDP. The accompanying press release says that the general noted that,
"'in the field', the allies are getting to be more of a nuisance than a benefit to the Americans. He said that this is why the USA prefers to take military action on its own, while the support from allies is more political than military".
That is an important matter, and I shall return to it.
The decisions made about defence last week by the United States and the decision taken at the NATO meeting in Reykjavik to draw Russia closer to NATO are of historic importance. In the view of most, if not all, members of the committee, it is essential that NATO remains a strong and potent organisation. There was also an almost—if not totally—unanimous view that it was essential to keep the United States as closely involved as possible in defence matters. There will, of course, be cases in which the United States will not want to get involved in operations that the European Union wants to carry out. The European Union, therefore, must be better able to operate on its own.
The second theme was capability gaps. To fill those gaps, it is essential that we have better trained military manpower in Europe. Moves in European states such as Germany towards a volunteer army are timely and welcome. Even with that, there will be an urgent need for the force to start training as an integrated force as soon as possible. A parallel was made with the advantages to NATO of having its forces train together regularly to produce an effective force.
Paragraphs 54 and 55 of the report set out the specific capability gaps that were established and recognised at the end of 2001. Two have often been highlighted. There is a lack of heavy air and sea-lift capability in Europe. There have been several hiccups in the development of the A400M. I hope that the Minister will give us the up-to-date situation on the development of the A400M, in view of German anxiety and hesitation. Assembly of that aircraft is unlikely to start until 2006, so that gap will not be filled for a long time.
People often talk about the gaps in intelligence and communications. Those gaps demonstrate vividly the extent to which United States technical capabilities

565
have left those of Europe far behind. Those gaps must be filled through a fairly shared commitment from member states. That commitment must ensure that a state declining to join in an operation cannot be allowed to wreck the whole operation. It is no use if one state commits itself to making the tea and another commits itself to tending the wounded, while it is left to, let us say, the United Kingdom and France to fill the body bags. That will not do.
There is also the cost of Filling the gaps. All the evidence that we had led us to believe that ESDP could not become fully effective unless defence spending rose significantly across the European Union. We heard from governments—our own and others—the eternal refrain. They said that they could do it by reallocating defence resources. I think that that is nonsense, and there is a broad view among those who understand military matters that it is nonsense. It is a picture that I recall from days in government. The department may agree with the criticisms that are made, but the Treasury will not let them say it.
In paragraph 33 of t he report, we set out the changes in European states' defence spending in terms of constant United States dollars. We compare spending in 2000 with that for 2001. Those figures tell the story that only between 2000 and 2001 did Ireland and Greece increase defence spending by around 95 million dollars. However, as regards the really big players in Europe—the UK, France, Germany and Italy—in those two years defence spending reduced by more than 9 billion dollars. That says it all and that is perhaps the biggest anxiety one has about ESDP becoming really effective.
I turn to the next issue: command and control. We expressed concerns about that more than two years ago and those concerns remain. There is a great need to decide and agree the command and control arrangements both at headquarters level and in the field. The resolution of the problem is held up by the difficulty over Turkey and Greece because agreements have been reached with Turkey and the Greeks are blocking them. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us exactly the state of play in trying to reach agreement between the EU and our Turkish and Greek friends in respect of these matters.
I return to the remarks of General Hägglund made on 3rd May. He called for extensive changes to the European and United States common security system. He proposed that European Union and European parts of NATO should be linked up with each other. He suggests that:
"The organisational change in NATO would not mean an end to co-operation between Europe and the United States, the dismantlement of NATO, or giving up article 5 of the NATO charter".
Many of us would strongly agree with that aim.
He went on to ask:
"Is there any sense in maintaining two parallel crisis management organisations in the same area?",
pointing out that the enlargement of the EU and NATO will only increase the duplication of tasks.
566
Those are very important proposals by the man on the spot; the chairman of the Military Committee. I hope that in reply the Minister will tell us the Government's reaction to the general's comments. Will the Government review their earlier agreement to structure ESDP within the NATO roof rather than the way it is now; that is, semi-detached?
That brings me to the present state of play. ESDP has been declared operational but some say, unkindly, that the operations it can carry out will be confined to rescuing cats from trees. That is a little unkind. However, the ESDP is a long way from coping with difficult peacekeeping tasks, let alone the peacemaking tasks which come within its remit at the difficult end of the Petersberg spectrum. It was the view of the committee that there is no way that ESDP can look after the more difficult tasks before 2010.
A few weeks ago we heard stories about ESDP taking over in Kosovo. Some of us would need convincing that it would be sensible to take over such an operation for some time yet. The view of the committee is that it is vital that ESDP does not run before it can walk. If there were a failure in an operation of that kind, that would be a disaster for its credibility and for Europe's relations with the United States.
Finally, I want to comment briefly on parliamentary oversight. During the past year or so, various bids have been made on how national parliaments should carry out an oversight of the European Union defence arrangements. The WEU Assembly feels that it should have the responsibility, but Ministers in evidence to the committee said that they were opposed to it and even that they would block it. Secondly, the Belgium Senate has proposed that a new parliamentary body should be set up to deal with it. Many of us believe that that would be a step backwards. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and I have attended a number of meetings and between us and with others we have put a block on that proposal.
In the view of the committee, the Government put forward the best proposal. I quote from a letter dated 2nd November 2001 from the Security Policy Department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It stated that in the run-up to the Inter-Governmental Conference in 2004,
"all parliamentary assemblies directly involved in broader European security and defence issues, such as the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, the WEU Assembly and the OSCE Assembly"—
where there are parliamentarians who have a wide background knowledge of these matters—
"have a role to play in providing informal scrutiny of ESDP".
The committee believed that that Foreign Office proposal was a good one and hence included it in the report. But we were sad and surprised to find that in the Government's official response to the committee's report the proposal was brushed aside in paragraph 27. Our recommendation was a direct copy of the Government's own proposals and it was strange that it was not endorsed.

567
I informally told the noble Baroness that I intended to raise that matter. I hope that in reply she is able to tell us that the original Foreign Office proposal made last November will be carried out and that those parliamentary bodies will be invited to carry out the parliamentary oversight in an informal way between now and the Inter-Governmental Conference. With those words, I beg to move Motion.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee on the European Policy on Security and Defence (11th Report, HL Paper 71).—(Lord Jopling.)
6.8 p.m.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, first, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, that I inadvertently missed the first couple of minutes of his remarks. Having heard 90 per cent of what he said, I am additionally sorry because I found his comments extremely instructive. Furthermore, he expressed many sentiments with which I agree wholeheartedly. I am sure that the whole House will join me in thanking him and his committee for producing the report and in thanking him personally for introducing today's debate.
The noble Lord made some profound statements—we have known them for some time but that does not make them any less profound—about the need for a massive increase in defence expenditure by the EU members of NATO if the ESDP is ever going to be effective and, even more importantly, if the European rapid reaction force is ever going to come into effect.
I shall surprise no one by saying that I have no expectation whatever that those additional defence expenditures will be forthcoming. I have no anticipation of that whatever, particularly with respect to the Continentals. I am not sure that we in this country are doing as much as we should and that has been my view of governments of different political colours over many years. As for the others, they are largely engaged in gesture politics. The matter has not arisen recently or since last September; it has been around for many years. Those governments have no intention whatever of producing the resources because that does not accord with their priorities. They are perfectly entitled to take that view, but if we base our policies on the anticipation that additional defence resources and the sums of money mentioned in this report will he forthcoming, I think that we are deluding ourselves.
I was extremely interested in the quotations cited by the noble Lord from the writings of General Hägglund. I found myself in total agreement with them. In fact, it has been made clear for quite some time that already we are in a situation with respect to the European members of NATO such that it is impossible for them to communicate with other Allied forces, in particular with American forces, in the battle-space. It is absolutely impossible, and the gap is growing bigger by the day. Even if we were to institute an immediate, massive and sustained increase in the
568
resources given to command and control, intelligence and communications, it would be most unlikely that we could close the gap in any time horizon that would make sense for policy-making purposes. We have already passed the point of no return.
The Americans recognise this. Personally, I have detected a sea change in American attitudes towards European contributions to defence expenditure. Last month I attended a conference in Washington at which people from the very highest levels from both the Pentagon and the State Department were speaking. It was made perfectly clear to me that the Pentagon no longer has the slightest interest in having the Europeans spend more on defence. It has given up on them and thinks that they are a damned nuisance. That came through clearly in some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, in quoting from General Hägglund.
One could hardly be given a more vivid illustration of this than what has happened since Kosovo. In Kosovo, the Americans flew 85 per cent of the attack missions themselves, some from Diego Garcia and some from the continental mainland of the United States. In Afghanistan, which is even further away from the United States than Kosovo, the United States flew 100 per cent of the missions and had not the slightest interest in accepting any European contribution towards attack missions or that aspect of affairs. In fact, when noble Lords have seen, as I have, Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell stand up and congratulate with straight faces the Europeans on their marvellous contribution of four AWACs aeroplanes—not over Afghanistan, God forbid, but in the skies over the United States in order to protect America from incursions from, I do not know, the Mexican or the North Korean air forces—I think that they will agree that both of those gentlemen have promising careers ahead of them as stand-up comedians when they have finished their present responsibilities.
I wish to make one other point with respect to the report. I wish to discuss the A-400M aircraft. It is a subject on which the other day I disagreed rather vigorously with the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond, on the Floor of this House. I hope that he will acquit me of any discourtesy when I exploded after his remarks. I shall not say that any noble Lord ever talks rubbish, but I shall say that I thought the noble Lord less than fully informed on the matter.
The present situation as far as concerns the Royal Air Force is that it has two transport aircraft: the workhorse, tactical aircraft, the C-130K, to be replaced by the C-130J, commonly known as the Hercules. The C-130K has done marvellous work for many years. Until recently it was the backbone of our air transport fleet. It is to be replaced by the C-130J. My noble friend on the Front Bench who is to wind up our debate is as fully aware as I am of what I am about to discuss.
We had some problems with the C-130J. There were difficulties with icing, with vibration and so forth. Those have largely been eliminated and the C-130J is

569
to come into service to replace the C-130K. We have also acquired from the United States four C-17s, aeroplanes made by Boeing; very expensive and absolutely magnificent aircraft. I have had the good fortune to be able to fly in one myself. The aeroplanes meet all the strategic transport needs of the United States. It therefore follows that this aircraft could meet the strategic transport needs of any air force.
In this country we are constantly being surprised at what can be done with a C-17. Very recently and to our pleasant surprise we discovered that it is possible to squeeze a Tornado inside the aircraft and then fly it down to the Falkland Islands for roulement purposes, with only one landing on Ascension Island, and no refuelling along the way. I have tabled a Question for the Government asking how much they expect to be able to save just from that operation. It was an unanticipated benefit.
The C-17 will carry every major piece of military equipment that this country has. We have leased four aircraft. The United States has something over 120 aircraft and will procure up to between 170 and 180. As far as I know, no other country in the world has a C-17 or has any plans to try to acquire that capability.
Now we come to the A-400M, which at present exists only on paper. It fits, as it were, in between the C-130 in respect of its carrying capability, range and speed, and the C-17. By way of a Parliamentary Question I have asked the Ministry of Defence to give me a list of the British military equipment that can be carried in a C-17, but would not be able to be carried in an A-400M. The ministry is being a little coy about giving me the Answer to that Question, but I shall get it before I am through. In any case, I have here a list of the German military equipment which cannot be carried in an A-400M, but which can be carried in a C-17.
I would not worry so much about the procurement of the A-400M were it not for the fact that an Answer is on record in Hansard for this House to the effect that, when the seven-year lease has run its course, it is the intention of the Ministry of Defence to hand back to Boeing the four C-17s, thus losing the capability we currently have, and go back to a fleet of only A-400Ms and C-130s. That is the decision to which I object most vigorously.
If I can have an assurance from the Government that that will not be the case, and that our future fleet will be composed of C-17s and A-400Ms, I can assure noble Lords that they will not hear another word of complaint from me about the A-400M. That aircraft can do certain things that the C-17 does not do. For myself, I do not think that it has quite such a good short-fuel capability; nevertheless I would settle for it. However, it is suggested that in six years' time—we are already through almost a year of the seven-year lease—we shall abandon the capability that we now have in order to take on the dubious capability of the A-400M—combined with the C-130J—which I consider absolutely preposterous.
Noble Lords might like to have an idea of quite how preposterous is this proposal. I mentioned a few days ago when I rose to speak after the noble Lord,
570
Lord Watson, that the engines in the A-400M have had to be changed. It has suddenly been discovered that the engines designed for the aircraft, which still exists only on paper, are not good enough. That will add to the cost and no one even knows what the new engines are going to be. No one knows what will be the capability of the aircraft once it is fitted with its new engines. I see that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is shaking his head in dissent. We are being asked to buy a pig in a poke.
I can assure my noble friend on the Front Bench that I do not criticise Ministers for getting themselves into such an appalling position with the A-400M. We have been in similar situations with many other aircraft in the past. It is not my purpose in this debate to go through horror stories of procurement at the British Ministry of Defence. No doubt in my time I have been responsible for contributing to some of those stories over the years. However, it is a point of fact that the A-400M was designed for European operations. It was not designed to fly, for example, from Europe to Afghanistan. It can carry quite heavy kit, although not the heaviest pieces because it has difficulties with size; but when seriously heavy pieces are loaded into it, the range of the aircraft is hugely diminished because the heavier the kit on board, the less fuel it is able to carry. It was designed for the German air force to operate in eastern Europe.
I am informed that most modern defence logistics missions require a range of around 3.000 to 3,200 nautical miles. At that range, the A-400M is restricted to a payload of 25,000 kilograms. That is why I said to the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that I cannot believe that he has been fully informed on these matters. What on earth is the use of an aircraft which is supposed to satisfy the heavy lift strategic capability of the Royal Air Force when it can carry a payload of only 25,000 kilograms over the kinds of ranges necessary? It is an absurd idea. I am sure that I will have no difficulty in carrying your Lordships with me on that.
Another concern about the A-400M is its cost. It is difficult to get the facts—obviously some figures are commercial in confidence—but one can have a fairly good stab at what the plane is likely to cost. The Italians had an order for 20 and cancelled the lot. The Germans had an order for 73 and decided that they could probably afford only 40 in this year's budget and that they might be able to sign up for another 33 in next year's budget. But, anyway, they would rather someone else funded the development costs for them—which is very decent of them—so we will be expected to fund Germany's share of the development costs of the A-400M. There must be additional costs because we are having to go back to the drawing board for new engines for the plane.
I was told by very senior people in the British aeronautical industry that Germany could not conceivably afford two aircraft. It is very doubtful that it can afford one. It will be paying its share, I hope, for the Typhoon Eurofighter, although I shall he very surprised if it ultimately takes as many as it originally asked for. If at the end of Germany's budgetary difficulties—and let us assume the best; let us assume

571
that the noble Lord, Lord Watson, gets what he wants—we get the A-400M, and Germany pays for it, there is bound to be a serious, if not catastrophic, knock-on effect with respect to other very important NATO procurement requirements as a result of Germany's budgetary problems.
The one most at risk is the Meteor, a missile which is supposed to arm both the Typhoon, the Swedish Gripen and the French Rafael. If, ultimately, the Germans go ahead with their share of funding for 73 A-400Ms, I have serious doubts as to whether they will be able to meet their share of the costs of the Meteor missile, which is much more important for this country's defence than is the transport aircraft.
The transport aircraft is low-tech basically. The C-17 is a brilliant piece of kit but it is just like an Airbus; it is a thing that you put people into; there is no brilliant technology involved. The Meteor missile is extremely hi-tech, extremely important to this country's defences, and could generate a great many defence sales.
The only assurance I hope to get from the Minister today—I am sure that I shall not get it, but it is worth asking—is that, ultimately, the Government will look again at their announced intention of sacrificing the C-17, and of going back to a situation where we do not have commonality with the Americans and have a transport fleet composed of only the A-400M and the C-130J.
This is not exclusively a defence matter. The capability of the C-17 is of extreme importance in overseas aid missions where there is a sense of urgency. A couple of years ago there were two cases where we had to get helicopters down to, in one case, West Africa and, in the other case, East Africa in a hurry.
In the case of West Africa, the planes had to be flown down—not to Sierra Leone but to the Congo, if my memory serves me right, although it may have been Sierra Leone. That must have involved half a dozen landing sites on the way and must have taken four or five days. The crews would have been exhausted and the planes would have needed immediate heavy servicing before they could he used again.
At the time of the floods in Mozambique, there was an urgent need to get helicopters there very quickly. In that case, the planes had to have their rotors taken off and they had to be flown down "bare hulled", as it were. It took quite some time to dismantle them and to put them back together at the other end. Precious time was lost—probably a day at each end. In both cases, the planes could have been flown down to meet those emergencies—one a security emergency and one a civil emergency—in a C-17. In neither case would an A-400M have been any use whatever.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Jopling and his committee on producing an excellent report. I take pleasure in speaking after my old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, who spoke with enormous authority.
572
I wish to make three points. The first point strikes a different note. If the ESDP did not exist, I would not now want to invent it. I believe that it will not add by its existence to the military capability of Europe, and its relationship with NATO is full of difficulty. As my noble friend mentioned, duplication is only one of the problems.
Nevertheless, we have to make it work. We can do that if we give the task enough priority. It would be no good to contemplate turning back now because that would give the impression of an even greater lack of will than already exists to provide effective armed forces from European resources. It would not lead to the Europeans making a greater contribution to NATO.
My second point concerns our relations with the United States. As has already been said, it is one of the most important aspects before us. I take the view that what is needed to keep strong links between the United States and Europe in defence is for Europe to make a very much greater effort. There are plenty of reasons why the defence effort of the United States could be redirected towards other parts of the world—there are many temptations in Asia and elsewhere—and the best way to keep American efforts directed towards helping Europe is for us to make a much better effort than we have been making so far.
The best guide to the American attitude towards the ESDP is the statement attributed to President George W. Bush in answer to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Powell of Bayswater. In the minutes of evidence at question 62, the President is quoted as saying:
"The US would welcome a capable European force, properly integrated with NATO, that provided new options for handling crises when NATO chooses not to lead".
I find it difficult to judge how the machinery of the ESDP will work, on what kind of occasion the United States is likely to decide to take part and when it will decide not to take part. It seems to me that the United States is becoming reluctant to be involved in peacekeeping or humanitarian activities, but would be more inclined to take part in peace-making or antiterrorist roles. As has been said, the US is becoming choosy about its partners. It has learnt from Kosovo that if other countries are in partnership with it they may be rather too ready to disagree with American actions. But the most important factor in relations between Europe and the United States—and one cannot say this too often—is European defence spending and the effectiveness of European forces. It is to be noted that President Bush referred to a "capable" European force in the passage that I quoted.
It is dangerous and shameful that Europe, with its wealth and its vast population, cannot make a better contribution to its own defence. The most important battles that the European countries have to fight are with their own finance Ministers. I do not exclude our own Chancellor of the Exchequer from that remark. He does not display much of an inkling of the fact that, in an age of terrorism, defence and security spending, including home security, is at least as important as spending on social services and health.

573
My third point relates to the tasks that the rapid reaction force will face. On page 10 of the report, the Secretary of State for Defence is quoted as saying:
"the EU must develop a full military force able to project power around the world"
and the participating governments have committed themselves to the proposition that the ESDP is,
"designed not for territorial defence but for international operations".
After the end of the Cold War—which seems a long time ago now—we were led to believe that there would be a new world order. That was taken to mean relative peace. The opposite has happened, and was happening well before 11th September last year. I want to mention seven factors which have led to this situation, which I believe will continue to be relevant in the coming years, and which could lead to calls for the participation of the ESDP.
The first factor is the end of the Cold War. During the Cold War, turbulence was limited by the dominance and rivalry of the two super-powers. Smaller countries felt that, if they started small wars, those might turn into big wars. Yugoslavia is a good example. It is astonishing that Yugoslavia stayed together as one country for so long—with six different nations, and with many different languages, religions and cultures. It was kept together not only by President Tito, who died many years before Yugoslavia started to break up. It started to break up because the Cold War had ended.
The second factor is the end of empires. That has left Africa in particular in a turbulent state. It is to the credit of African countries that they have not attempted to redraw their borders. Many African borders are straight lines—the straight line indicating a colonial border, a line drawn to suit the wishes of the colonial territory, not a natural border between different tribes, for example. To the credit of the African countries, they have resisted that temptation. I hope that they will not surrender to it in the future. That would be very dangerous indeed. However, what is now taking place in a number of African countries is a scramble for riches—mineral riches, timber and so on. They have surrendered to tribal rivalries—I refer, for example, to Zimbabwe and Rwanda—and they have produced some failed states, Somalia being one example. So there is plenty of turbulence there.
The third factor which may lead to a demand for the presence of the ESDP is that peacekeeping forces tend to stay for much longer than they are expected to be needed. One reason is that the disputes that they have been sent to help relieve tend to continue longer as reassurance is given by the presence of the peacekeeping force. Cyprus is a good example. British troops have been in Cyprus since 1964. Bosnia is a more recent case.
Another factor which will lead to a demand for forces such as the ESDP is the explosion in the number of states in the world which are now independent. When the United Nations was formed, it had 50 members. There are now 190, and many of those are very small. I remember that, about 20 years ago, a
574
study was made in the Foreign Office of the minimum population size necessary to enable a state to survive independently. The conclusion was that a population of 1 million was the minimum. For 20 years now, there has been a small independent territory in the Pacific with a population of 10,000. It recently became a member of the United Nations. I refer to Tuvalu. There are many other independent countries with populations of less than 1 million. These examples have given fuel to the Scottish Nationalists and to people in Quebec who want independence, and will continue to have an effect.
The fifth point is that many countries have separatist movements; for example, Iraq, Turkey, Georgia (I refer to Stalin's Georgia, not to Jimmy Carter's) and, in the Pacific, Kiribati and Vanuatu, which are tiny little countries with populations of no more than 200,000. They have independent movements in some of their islands. Similarly, a serious war has been going on in the Solomon Islands. I do not mention these specific cases as ones in which I expect the ESDP to be involved; that would be going rather a long way geographically—but they are examples of the sort of tendency that we have to expect in many parts of the world. The western Sahara is another example of an area which has an independence movement. It is a good deal closer to home and could possibly become relevant to European forces one day.
Sixthly, there is the factor of world-wide terrorism, which has been encouraged by the speed and ease of communication. It is a problem of which we are very much aware and which will certainly continue for quite a long time.
Seventhly, I want to end with a question to the noble Baroness who will reply to the debate. It relates to a Written Answer given by her predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, on 2nd May last year, which is headed:
"Humanitarian Crisis: Proposals for International Action".
The noble Baroness said:
"We firmly believe that we have shared responsibility to respond when confronted with massive violations of international humanitarian law and crimes against humanity … We have spent the past year trying to build the broadest possible consensus around a set of ideas on the conditions and circumstances that make international action appropriate … The key elements of our ideas are … when faced with an immediate humanitarian catastrophe and a government that has demonstrated itself unwilling or unable to halt or prevent it. the international community should take action … Our consultations will continue".—[Official Report, 2/5/01; col. WA 279.]
That seems to me to be a big potential expansion of the responsibilities that the democratic world would be taking on if we followed that route. Can the Minister indicate the results of the consultations referred to a year ago? It seems to me that the kind of task foreshadowed in that reply would be relevant to the ESDP.
To sum up, it is unlikely that there will be any shortage of situations over the years leading to ESDP involvement. What I find surprising is that in this situation the Prime Minister, who was one of the inventors of the ESDP, is giving so little prominence to European defence.
6.39 p.m.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, it has been exhilarating and fascinating to serve on the sub-committee. Several things happened during its consideration of the issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, will remember, our first evidence was taken on 26th April, when we heard from lain Duncan Smith, who was then shadow Secretary of State for Defence. His role has changed since then and I hope that, in this matter at least, perhaps some of his views have changed, too. As the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, has said, the late Lord Shore of Stepney was a member of our sub-committee. Those of us who sat in the committee when he was participating will long recall how robust and pertinent many of his questions were. For those of a European persuasion, such as myself, his questions were also sometimes extremely challenging.
Then in September came the terrorist attacks against New York and Washington, which have led to a radically changed situation. As has already been said, Article 5 of the NATO treaty was activated but not used. As a direct consequence of September 11th, there has been a significant change in the relative positions of Russia and the United States and the areas of agreement between then. The vast gap between United States and European military capability has been vividly demonstrated. It is worth considering for a moment that if the two attacks of September 11th had not been against New York or Washington, but had been against Canary Wharf, the business skyline of Frankfurt am Main or La Défense in Paris, what would or could have been the European response?
The events of September 11th greatly influenced the report, serving as a warning against dancing on the head of a pin. There is a fondness for theological nicety about the alleged Atlanticist or communautaire tonality of ESDP. That is surely much less important than the stark reality of European under-investment in defence and the European inability to produce real capability from what we spend. The figures have often been given in this House. Europe has approximately 15 to 20 per cent of the American capability from an expenditure of around 60 per cent of US levels.
In that regard, I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, dismissed with a wave of the hand the contribution of the continentals. While I in no way condone the percentages of GDP being given to defence in the European Union, it is worth noting, as the report does, that France's contribution as a percentage of GDP, even in 2000, was 2.6 per cent, as against the United Kingdom's contribution of 2.4 per cent. Neither percentage is acceptable, but it is important to achieve a proper perspective. In real terms, the French have been spending somewhat more than we have. We must be careful, particularly on grounds of anxiety about Anglo-American relations, not to be dismissive of what is happening on continental Europe, because we are also greatly dependent on that.
576
In the light of September 11th and the warnings only yesterday from the American Government of possible horrors to come, the Helsinki goal of 60,000 troops able to be committed within two months and sustained for 12 months hardly seems excessive. I shall not try to argue the case for the A-400M, nor did I feel that the noble Lord was in any way discourteous; simply that perhaps that he had not heard my questions as accurately as I had hoped, but there we are.
The ESDP proposals are exceedingly modest. Ensuring that we deliver the percentage of GDP spending that is necessary to make a reality of those very modest objectives is clearly an overriding priority.
I have two observations to share. First, ESDP is intergovernmental and the positions of three governments are critical. Paragraph 27 of our report recognises that
"The driving forces behind the ESDP have been Britain and France and it was the Anglo-French declaration at St Mato in December 1998 that made possible the launch of the ESDP at Helsinki one year later".
A little further on, in paragraph 32, the report judges that,
"Decisions in Berlin will be central to the overall success of the ESDP initiative".
In the conclusions, in paragraph 88, the report regrets that,
"meeting the headline goal is disproportionately dependent on Britain, France and, in the future, Germany".
It may be a disproportionate contribution and that may be regrettable, but it is a fact. It is important that we look at that disproportionate dependence against the history of European post-war co-operation and subsequent integration.
We all recognise that Franco-German reconciliation was at the heart of the building of the European construction. The basis of that Franco-German reconciliation was the mutual realisation in both countries that nothing less than the merger of the coal and steel industries—which was the start of the whole operation—would be sufficient, not to meet the challenges of the future, but to overcome the past. That was the crucial insight that triggered the entire process. Today, nothing less than a new and profound accommodation of interests between Great Britain and France and Germany will enable us to deal not with the past, but with the future.
Such an accommodation of interests does not exclude the interests of others, including the applicant states. Important in that context are the interests and perspective of Turkey. Without a firm basis of shared and common interests by Britain, France and Germany, I fear that each of the three will become footloose in Europe, attracting alliances of the willing and the unwilling in the diplomacy of European integration. That prospect would be hugely damaging. Its effects on the development of European defence capability would be at best disruptive and at worst disastrous. We do not want the big three footloose in subsidiary alliances within the European construction.

577
To provide Europe with the lead that has so long been historically furnished by Franco-German reconciliation would not be arrogant on the part of the three; it would be the acceptance of an historic obligation.
My second observation is that the historical differences in attitudes to the transatlantic relationship taken by France and the UK are rooted in part in their different experiences of the Second World War. However, they are also based to some extent on different conclusions that were drawn in France and the United Kingdom on the Suez misadventure. In the United Kingdom, there was a conclusion that never again should we stray too far from US endorsement. In France, there was a conclusion that never again should the country be so dependent on United States agreement, acquiescence and support. Neither conclusion is any longer relevant.
There are no colonial issues for Britain or France to pursue either with or in the face of American interests or opinion. The need rather is for Europe to demonstrate that we are willing and able to bear the costs, and that we possess the competence to look after our own backyard and—if need be, collectively as well as individually—to participate in the United States-led tasks of protecting and projecting the interests of democracy worldwide. It cannot be in the long-term interests of Europe that our relationship with the United States beyond Europe is entirely on a bilateral basis and on the basis of choice and initiative from the American side but not ours.
The Prime Minister's assertion that we are—I think I quote him correctly—not a superpower but a pivotal partner has been much discussed. The real imperative is perhaps not that Europe should seek in any way to be a military superpower—clearly there is no prospect of that, and it is not the aim of ESDP, which as I said is extremely modest in what it proposes—but that Europe should indeed be a pivotal partner. When giving evidence to our Select Committee, General Naumann put it in a very striking way. His phrase was that,
"We must make Europe the indispensable partner for the indispensable nation",
the indispensable nation being the United States of America, and Europe being the indispensable partner.
Indispensable is a critical adjective. It is an adjective that currently does not attach to our position. Make it attach and we are in a different situation. For that to happen, Germany must deliver—I think that this view was taken quite strongly in the Select Committee—on its commitment to a rapid reaction force of 150,000 troops, all volunteers, able and equipped for deployment on Petersberg tasks by 2007. Noble Lords who are aware of' the structure of the German armed forces will know that the creation of a rapid reaction force of 150,000 volunteers, not call-ups, specifically for that task would be the single biggest change in the German defence structure. I believe that it is an essential building block, much more important than the A-400M, in building the credibility of the proposed initiative.
578
If such a change were to happen, the relationship with the United States also would change. Our report concluded that,
"It would he extremely damaging to the EU/US relationship if … ESDP … simply created new institutions, from which the US were excluded, with no real development of new European military capabilities".
Quite so; however, the report went on to say that,
"US governments cannot expect"—
or demand—
"increases in European defence expenditure and simultaneously resent the implications of this".
ESDP will progressively give rise to a new and changed agenda between the EU and the US. That is well overdue. September 11th has not only changed the context of this report, which it clearly has; it has created a situation in which Europe and the United States have to share more equally both power and cost.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, this report and the debate we are holding on it are timely. Europe's fledgling security and defence policy remains a crucial piece of unfinished business, a part of the jigsaw without which the Union's efforts to develop a common foreign policy will be gravely weakened. In recent months, the policy has seemed somehow becalmed, with problems facing it both on the military front—the crucial issue of capabilities on which this report throws some welcome if justifiably critical light—and on the diplomatic front, where the problem with Turkey has been replaced by one with Greece. It is time then to take stock and look at the way ahead.
The first point worth making is that the basic case for equipping the European Union with the capacity, both institutional and military, to undertake the range of peace operations known as the Petersberg tasks has, if anything, strengthened as time has passed. It is only too clear now that Europe, already the main player in the different Balkan peace operations—in Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia—is going to have to bear even more of that burden in the future. The United States is increasingly heavily occupied elsewhere. It is equally clear that the countries of the Balkans, whose instability and turmoil disfigured the 1990s, are as yet far from able to complete the transition from war and ethnic strife without the assistance of an international military presence. Meanwhile, elsewhere in the world, we are being reminded again and again that peacekeeping operations are an essential part of post-conflict action by the international community.
It would be good to say that, as the case for ESDP has strengthened, so have the capabilities to carry it out. However, as this report makes clear, that would be only a modest part of the truth. As the 2003 deadline for readiness comes closer, the damage to the credibility of the force from the continuing shortfalls in capabilities increases. There are of course reasons, perhaps more rightly called excuses, for such shortfalls, such as the world recession and the cycle of elections in many of the main European Union countries. By the second half of this year, these excuses

579
and alibis should be a matter of the past. It will then be of the greatest importance and urgency to fill the remaining gaps and to move ahead with the tasks to achieve continuing readiness. It will be equally important to iron out the remaining obstacles to achieving a seamless co-operation between the European Union and NATO. The cost of failure to move ahead in this way will be severe, whether in terms of the European Union being unable to pull its weight in the next phase of Balkan peace consolidation, in Macedonia, or in terms of the failure of the European Union's common foreign policy to be seen to project power, not just words.
There is a brief reference in the report—to which the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, referred—perhaps a slightly cursory one, to the key matter of democratic accountability for Europe's security and defence policy. Neglect of this aspect, complex and sensitive though it is, would be most unwise. If troops are to be put at risk, then there must be a proper democratic underpinning back at home to give their actions full and unstinting support. To do otherwise would be to programme a disaster. It is not surprising that the European Parliament is putting itself forward for this role. However, even if it should play some part in achieving democratic accountability for ESDP, it cannot on its own do it all. ESDP has, rightly, a strongly intergovernmental structure, and decisions to commit troops will be taken by the individual national governments. These governments are of course answerable for their actions not to the European Parliament but to national parliaments.
So what is needed, I would suggest, is a hybrid solution which brings together representatives of national parliaments with those of the European Parliament. Such a body could either be a more sharply focused form of the proposal for a second chamber of the European Parliament, or it could perhaps be something a bit less ambitious—a sort of European Union committee for foreign and security policy. It could either be limited to ESDP, or it could range more widely over the whole field of Europe's common foreign policy, where the issue of democratic accountability is every bit as pressing as it is for ESDP. The convention on Europe, now meeting in Brussels, is surely the ideal place to air such proposals and to ensure that, when the 2004 intergovernmental conference does meet, the ground has been properly prepared. It would be good to hear from the Minister, in her reply, some reaction to the suggestions I have just made.
In conclusion, I should like to say a few words about the broader political context of ESDP. I noted in the report an exchange between my noble friend Lord Powell of Bayswater and the Secretary of State for Defence, in which the former asked whether it may not eventually be necessary to reconsider and to decide that ESDP had not been a very good initiative. We should be under no illusion about the damage that such a course would cause, not only to the British
580
Government, which, laudably in my view, have been a driving force in ESDP from the outset, but to the European Union as a whole and also to NATO.
The latter point may at first seem surprising. However, I believe that it is true. How would NATO be strengthened, if a dozen of its members turned back with their tails between their legs and admitted openly that they had been unable to muster the relatively limited capabilities required for ESDP? Does anyone seriously believe that those countries would then be able to remedy those deficiencies on behalf of NATO, when they had just failed to do so for the European Union, or that their governments and parliaments would vote for the funds to strengthen NATO, which they had withheld from the European Union? Of course they would not. Is not the most likely outcome a weakening of the European pillar of NATO and an exacerbation of transatlantic tensions over burden sharing? If that analysis is correct, a great deal rides on the success of this venture. The hard fact is that we are rather more than halfway across the river on ESDP. To turn back now would be an act of folly.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, as a member of the sub-committee, as our deliberations continued I found myself asking whether we were really talking about defence. We were certainly talking about security, and the Government's response mentioned security. However, I was always under the impression—emphasised by all the witnesses whom we heard—that the defence of the territorial integrity of most European Union countries who are members of NATO was assured by NATO. Therefore, defence, in that sense of the word, is not presently on the agenda.
I recognise, and some of our witnesses said, that without a European defence policy, we could not have a common European foreign policy. If we consider what a defence policy (in the sense of replacing NATO) would mean for the European Union, I am sure that every Chancellor of the Exchequer or every Finance Minister in Europe would throw up his hands in horror and say, "There is absolutely no way in which we can reproduce NATO as a European venture". That, therefore, is the point from which we start. As the noble Lord, Lord Watson, quite rightly said, ESDP, such as it is constructed, is a very modest venture; but it comes to the relations between the European Union and other NATO members and the US within the NATO concept.
I understand what noble Lords and many of our witnesses have said; namely, that the United States, particularly after 11th September, became rather disinterested in NATO and the technological gap in warfare, the planning, the administration, the logistics. As General Hägglund—quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling—said, "We are just a nuisance rather than being a help". It is quite remarkable that after the NATO Council took the decision to invoke Article 5 following the events of 11th September, the United States said, "Thank you very much, but we are

581
really not terribly interested in having any European contribution to certainly the planning, or possibly even at later stages".
I may be wrong, but I detect that since that time there has been a slight change of emphasis. We now have the proposed agreements with Russia and NATO, which I believe have begun to change the US interest in NATO. It seems to me—I advance this proposition and many noble Lords may wish to correct me—-that the United States has started to take an interest in NATO, not as a defence organisation but as a political organisation that involves Russia. The way to involve Russia is to bind it into the international community, and binding Russia into the international community would be a way of selling the abandonment of the ABM Treaty and the national missile defence programme, and indeed ensuring only a muted protest over possible action in Iraq. Therefore, if NATO is becoming a political organisation rather than a defence organisation, and if that is what the United States wants, we need in some way to strike a balance between NATO's Article 5 responsibility for the defence of territorial integrity and the political community's responsibility that now seems to arise from it.
There is still no doubt that the United States would like European countries to make a greater contribution to crisis management or whatever crisis the world may meet. There is no doubt that Europe in its present state, however defined, has a very limited capability for doing so, and the report pointed that out. Equally, there is no doubt that however great the expenditure on defence in European countries, there will be no closing of the technological gap between European countries and the United States of America—not a chance.
Europe therefore has a rather difficult game to play—it is a difficult hand: to do more, and yet to ensure that the US does not lose interest in the whole enterprise. To develop the Hägglund proposal, which would separate the European Union and NATO from, as it were, US NATO, would in my view be precisely to go down the wrong track. As our report indicated, institutions in Europe that were to be created without US participation would greatly upset the US and would, in my opinion, make the US less committed to the main principle of NATO. Therefore, I am not in favour of General Hägglund's proposals, as I read them, but we shall no doubt hear more about them.
With this difficult hand to play, what can Europe do? Clearly, the United States will not want to do certain things. The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, instanced a number: humanitarian projects; a spill over of old colonial problems; many crisis management areas in respect of which we do not need heavy lift, missiles or the whole panoply of US technology. The US may say, "In that case, we are not interested. You get on and do it yourself".
We obviously had some difficulty defining what the Petersberg tasks were, because it is rather difficult to predict what may come in the future. Nevertheless, we took the view that when the ESDP was declared
582
operational at Laeken, it was in respect only of certain humanitarian tasks that we could carry out possibly now, but had nothing to do with peacekeeping or even peacemaking in the future, without US help.
There is another category of operation in respect of which I believe the European Union and its associated allies may make themselves not indispensable, in General Naumann's terms, but valuable to the US: that is, the Afghanistan situation, where the US has all the missile technology and capability required to drop bombs on anyone on a sixpence. What the US does not like to do is put troops on the ground. There are all sorts of historical reasons for that; indeed. I shall not go into the Vietnam situation. We are quite happy to put troops on the ground. According to my latest intelligence from Washington, some of the US troops who were on the ground in Afghanistan were not entirely up to the job. In fact, both our troops and the French troops are extremely good at that sort of job.
There is a sort of interim area where the US takes command of a peacekeeping operation and where we can provide the necessary troops on the ground, with the right mentality to get in and ensure that all the bombs that have been rained on the place do not go to waste. That is another dimension, which I do not believe the committee mentioned in its report. However, it is something that is worth taking into account.
Can Europe do any of this? At present, the answer is: not very easily. Noble Lords have described what is required; for example, a greater defence expenditure, and so on. From some of the evidence that the committee heard, I would argue that the fundamental requirement is inter-operability within our defence forces in the European Union, and beyond. If you have inter-operability, you can at least get a number of troops on the ground if they are trained properly—inter-operable. You can get troops on the ground in support of operations, be they led by the European Union or by the United States.
I would also argue that the whole concept of Russia and NATO has slightly changed the political dimension. We should be thinking about Russia as a possible partner in some of these operations. Up until now, the Russians have played a limited role. However, if there is really to be a 20 rather than a 19 plus one in NATO, Russia could contribute very seriously to the operations that we have in mind.
I believe that our report defines a very broad agenda. It is one that is for ever moving; indeed, only last week more elements emerged that would move that agenda. How that agenda is even met is also moving. All I can say is that our report, under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, illustrated some of the problems that we may meet. It also pointed to some of the ways towards what might be a successful conclusion.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, this is the first report that I have completed as a member of the EU Sub-Committee on common foreign and security policy.

583
I am fortunate to be serving on that committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Jopling, who so comprehensively introduced this debate on the report. I am most grateful to my fellow members of the committee for their tolerance of a new member, especially as they have very distinguished records in the fields of defence and foreign affairs. I only hope that that tolerance will be extended by other distinguished noble Lords this evening.
However, there is one point that I wish to make in this debate. I would not wish the debate to pass without referring to the need, in my opinion, to ensure that all members of the European Union—present and future; and both large and small—feel that they have a genuine part to play in the European policy on security and defence. I do not intend to enter into further argument as to whether it should be done through NATO or the European Union. As the report makes clear, the existence of the SDP is acknowledged and recognised, and is no longer a matter of debate—at least in this report.
Suffice it to say, I am firmly on the side of those who argue that it is appropriate for the European Union to seek to have a capability to carry out the suggested tasks. Indeed, I suggest that some of the nations may feel more comfortable within the European Union than in NATO, and more inclined in that structure to increase and meet the necessary expenditure.
The report makes it clear that the burden of the increased contribution falls disproportionately on Britain, France, and, perhaps in the future, Germany. But that increased contribution will not be achieved if we give the impression that our fellow members of the European Union have no forces worth considering; for example, if they are of doubtful reliability, and fit only for guarding palaces. I share the view of my noble friend Lord Jopling that the burden should be fairly spread, but I doubt whether the smaller nations, and, indeed, some of the larger ones, will ever match the contribution of the United Kingdom and of France. Indeed, I do not believe that they will ever have the resources nor—dare I say it?—the ambition to be in a position to stand shoulder to shoulder with the big players in the big operations. They are willing to contribute, although perhaps only in humanitarian tasks and as peacekeepers. But after any conflict the latter will be an essential role to fulfil as it will release forces from other nations, enabling them to be used for other purposes.
I suggest that there is some evidence of a willingness by nations to make this kind of contribution. Staff from the Library of the House were kind enough to give me some information in this respect. In the Gulf War, five European Union nations participated, the smallest of these was Belgium, which provided a frigate, two minesweepers, two landing ships, and six C-130 planes. A number of what are now applicant states also participated by providing a medical unit, a hospital ship, and chemical warfare experts. In Bosnia, the Bosnian forces had contributions from all European Union states, except Denmark and Luxembourg. Again, applicant states made
584
contributions, even with small numbers. For whatever reason, figures for Kosovo do not appear to be available. However, in the Afghanistan operations, 12 European Union states are contributing to peacekeeping operations, together with at least one applicant state. These have been, and are, valuable efforts, however large or small. I believe that they should be encouraged and not in any way demeaned.
The problems of ESDP are identified in the committee's report. Clearly, they need to be addressed; they are considerable. Of course, I support the report's recommendation and conclusions, because I wish to see the initiative succeed.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, it is time for us to go on the attack about defence, in particular about the scepticism directed towards the European security and defence policy of developing a rapid reaction force. But in that attack, perhaps I may start, first, at home with the role of the House of Lords.
In what I believe to be an excellent 11th report in so far as it goes, we in Sub-Committee C, so ably led by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, call for an improvement in parliamentary scrutiny of ESDP at both national and European levels. The inadequacies of the working practices of this House mean that many EU reports fail to find proper debating time in this Chamber. Indeed, we are debating today, in May, what we thought at Christmas. Therefore, I strongly support the call to be made in tomorrow's debate on the working practices of the House that the reports of Select Committees should be tabled on time, and in time to make a difference. If we are to be an active and influential legislature, we must speak early and often.
I move to my second point of attack. Our July 2000 report welcomed the common European security and defence policy in general, and, in particular, the initiative of creating an EU rapid reaction force. Moreover, we noted that,
"the CESDP does not envisage the creation of a European army".
Despite this, when the matter became a political hot potato in the autumn of 2000, the chippier and cheaper end of the press, as well as the broadsheets, failed to recall our pronouncements. Doubtless that was partly our fault in failing effectively to communicate our report to the press, but worse was to follow.
Instead of exploring some of the real challenges and opportunities presented by the RRP initiative, the press embarked upon a campaign of misrepresentation and obfuscation talking of little else than this mythic European army. Can we ever hope for the day when the press might at least read the arguments prepared painstakingly by a public body such as your Lordships' Select Committee on EU defence and security policy? And am I alone in believing that ill-informed rhetoric of the kind that depicts the RRF as a European army under the control of Brussels bureaucrats not only distorts reality but actually detracts from Britain's and Europe's best interests?

585
Thirdly, I repudiate the view, peddled well beyond the red-neck press by some political and defence commentators, that in terms of defence matters NATO is a sleek greyhound at peak fitness while the EU is a mongrel of doubtful descent and malignant motive, that we should uncritically accept the one while cavilling at the other—NATO good, Europe had. To counter that misconception of NATO being in little need of reform, I am encouraged that our noble colleague Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, in his role as NATO chief, is actively seeking to cut by one half the current complement of 400 committees poring over paperwork today at NATO headquarters in Brussels—an attack on bureaucracy normally reserved for the other end of Belgium's capital city. But my more material point is this: in the common defence of European and western interests there is no need to choose between NATO and the EU, between, as it were, Washington and Brussels. As a nation Britain should studiously court both sets of allies. Those who seek to divorce us from our European friends and encourage us to elope with our American friends fail to understand that in matters of defence and security bigamy is the better policy.
Fourthly, in that marriage of true defence and security minds which we conduct with our American cousins, we should not hold back from the occasional plain speaking when we think that our friends are wrong. In paragraph 90 of our report we rightly advise that ESDP requires a new agenda to be forged between the USA and the European Union. We go on to warn that it would he damaging if new institutions were formed under the ESDP which excluded the United States, thereby imperilling our current relationship. But—and this is my point—we also assert that,
"US governments cannot expect increases in European defence expenditure and simultaneously resent the implications of this".
In other words, it is for the US to put up or shut up. It should clearly state whether it approves and supports the rapid reaction force or whether it does not. And if, as our report passionately demands, all EU countries do increase defence expenditure, our American cousins must recognise that the quid pro quo is for the EU to be treated as an equal partner. EU Military Committee chairman General Hägglund's observation that,
"The EU allies are getting to be more of a nuisance than a benefit to the Americans in the field"
should give us all pause to think about the future nature of the transatlantic relationship and the proper balance of duties and resources that each may bring to the mess table. Europe must spend more money on defence and America must spend more time on consulting.
That brings me to my fifth and final point. Our report rightly supports increased defence expenditure by Britain and the European Union if we are indeed to fulfil the ambitions of the ESDP initiative and its headline goals. That is a sine qua non. I congratulate this British administration on being the first government for many years, however slenderly, to increase defence spending. But that assertion for increased spending is prefaced by an important
586
passage in paragraph 87 of our report where we demand more effective use of defence expenditure in the various EU states. We call for greater specialisation of roles and improved inter-operability, and improved procurement practices to ensure t hat the ESDP is properly resourced. These thoughts arise from contributions from several of our witnesses, including the Secretary of State himself, but they are best elaborated in the written submissions presented by Sir Michael Alexander, Sir Timothy Garden and by Professor Keith Hartley. The latter, for instance, declares that the EU's armed forces are characterised by massive duplication of defence ministries, by duplicate armies, navies and air forces together with duplication of their training, support services and bases. As a result Europe fails to maximise opportunities from developing economies of scale.
Professor Hartley also identifies the EU's defence industries, which typically comprise too many firms developing too many similar weapons which are produced at too small a scale of output to make viable national markets. He cites combat aircraft as an example. The Swedish Gripen, the French Rafale and the four-nation Eurofighter add up to wasteful duplication. If all six nations combined their efforts, there would be considerable savings in R and D and production costs associated with an order, say, for 1,000 aircraft. That in turn would begin to approach the US scales of output where, in the case of the joint strike Fighter, the US total planned requirement is 2,852 units. Like the United States, we in Europe should think big.
In addition, there are enormous opportunities to make further savings which could then be directly converted to additional defence expenditure if the European Union collectively adopted policies of developing a single European market in defence equipment; expanding OCCAR into a fully blown EU procurement agency; encouraging individual nations to specialise; and, say, for the RRF, if we collectively fund new weapons and force structures in such areas as satellite communication, surveillance systems, nuclear deterrence and ballistic missile defences.
If we do not embark upon such reforms, Messrs Alexander and Garden point out that in 15 years' time, with constant defence expenditure, frontline services will be only half the size they are today. Thus, they propose a pro rata European defence funding arrangement, whose beneficial effects would include exposing those countries which are currently free-riding as well as encouraging each EU country to prefer to improve their own military capability rather than contribute money which boosts jobs and industries in other EU states. Alexander and Garden also animadvert to the distinctly low key incentives that have hitherto characterised NATO's push for greater intra-NATO co- operation—another example of the failure of NATO to embrace reform.
The crunch has come. I am wedded to t he need for real additional defence spending. I acknowledge the very considerable political difficulties associated with the remedies I am advocating. Nor do I fail to foresee the fevered reaction that these ideas will provoke

587
among some of the media and among some commentators. But now is the time for hard answers to difficult questions. If we really believe in strengthening Europe within NATO, gaining parity of esteem with our American colleagues and providing for Britain, Europe and the West armed forces fit for the differing challenges of a post-9/11 world in the 21st century, we have to embark upon a long march of change and modernisation now—our enemies will not wait.
7.29 p.m.
Lord Owen: My Lords, to face the challenge of international terrorism it is absolutely vital that the European Union nations recognise that spending on defence has been insufficient over the past five or six years, that we should take steps to increase it, and that we should follow the lead given by the American Congress and secure a substantial increase in defence expenditure. It is also part of our democratic responsibility in this Parliament that if we are to maintain—I believe that it is vital that we do—that defence within the European Union is part of the intergovernmental pillar, we scrutinise at all stages all aspects of European defence and security policy.
It is in that light that I welcome the report and congratulate those members of the Select Committee who brought it to the House. It contains a great deal of extremely interesting and important information, particularly in the body of evidence.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Hannay that this is no time to abandon the hope of realising a sensible European security and defence policy. I still have profound anxieties about some important aspects of it, but I take some comfort from the fact that it is not yet set in stone. Since the Nice negotiations, there have been continued discussions within the European Union and NATO and there is not yet agreement in either body.
The noble Lord referred to the considerable anxiety about the continued disagreement between Turkey and Greece. I hoped that he would go on to talk about the problem of the Cyprus negotiations, on which he is a considerable expert. It is extremely worrying that there is still disagreement in that important flank of NATO and Europe. It was always going to be one of the vexed and difficult problems. Let us hope that it will be resolved.
The most important issue that is still not yet resolved relates to the planning functions between the European Union and NATO. The Prime Minister, when visiting President George W Bush at Camp David on 23rd February, had to convince the new President and his Administration that the new policy was not going to damage NATO's interests. The new President rather cleverly quoted back the Prime Minister's interpretation publicly at their joint press conference. He said of the Prime Minister:
"He also assured me that the European defense would no way undermine NATO. He also assured me that there would be a joint command, that planning would take place within NATO, and that should all NATO not wish to go on a mission, that would then serve as a catalyst for the defense forces moving on their own".
588
That interpretation, unfortunately, is not what was agreed at Nice, although I hope that it will be agreed in the negotiations that are taking place.
However, the facts remain and the true picture was revealed by President Clinton's former head of the CIA, James Woolsey, speaking in Washington after the Nice negotiations, when he discussed its consequences. He said:
"The one and only thing that the United States asked of our European friends was not to establish a separate and independent military planning capability. And, of course, that is precisely what they did".
The Select Committee took evidence on 13th December from General Klaus Naumann, a German who has a very distinguished record as head of the military committee of NATO. He said:
"In my view, it would be wrong to establish under the auspices of the European Union a new and independent planning capability. That would be a duplication of effort. You should find arrangements between NATO and the European Union so that the European Union could avail itself of the existing capabilities within the NATO command structure. That should be possible, in my view. That is the most appropriate way to do business".
And so it is. Until that issue is resolved, European security and defence policy should not come fully into effect.
I offer counsel on prematurely deploying a rapid reaction force. General Naumann and others referred in evidence to the fact that the rapid reaction force will not reach its full capability by the promised date of 2003. Indeed, he went on to warn that it could take until 2010 before it had reached its full capability. We are aware of a discussion between the Secretary of Defense and the Foreign Secretary because documents on their exchange of views were leaked. The Secretary of Defense earlier this year was very concerned that we should change from a NATO deployment in Macedonia to an EU deployment. The Foreign Secretary, despite sharing his anxieties in that regard and believing that the approach did not make any military sense, nevertheless urged that if we got into a situation of isolation and only we were opposing that approach, we should sit on our anxieties, stomach our feelings and go along with it. I do not think that that is the way to proceed, although I know that the Foreign Office often feels that that is the way forward in the European Union. However, to deploy a rapid reaction force before it is properly equipped and sustainable could do great damage to European security and defence policy. It could even result in what the Secretary of Defense feared: NATO having to come in and rescue it.
The Macedonian situation is still very fragile. As I understand it, the Americans are not arguing for NATO to come out of Macedonia; they wish it to stay there. They wish—understandably and for very good reasons—for the European countries to take a bigger load in terms of SFOR in Bosnia and KFOR in Kosovo and Macedonia. They do not wish to change the arrangement by which NATO operates in all three countries. Frankly, the approach makes no sense; they did not oppose the European force—Germans and French—coming in to play the major role in KFOR. However, it is a fact that they are relying on a large

589
amount of NATO intelligence and NATO computer capabilities, and on many other aspects of NATO. It is extremely foolish to allow political ideology to ratchet up deployment. There is too much political rhetoric and not enough military realism already in many of the discussions about European security and defence policy. We must be very careful in that regard.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, I believe that it is perfectly possible to bring together the contributions of the European Union and the United States on defence. It is perfectly possible to build a serious relationship between the European Union and NATO.
I am clear on one thing: at no stage is it in the European interest to alienate the United States and in particular the young future leaders of the American armed services. I detect a growing anxiety among serious American military leaders of the rank of colonel, or thereabouts, about NATO. They do not feel that it is being taken seriously. They are worried about the tendency for political pressures to decide the pace of enlargement. They were worried by the extent of political interference, with the NATO targeting strategy, over Kosovo. They are now extremely concerned that some people in Europe seem to think that it is possible to build a defence force that would somehow work in opposition to American foreign policy or to conduct foreign policy with defence support against the national interests of the United States. There is no doubt that one has to choose; one cannot have an alliance of the depth and magnitude of NATO and keep open one's option in some circumstances to operate independently. The two are interlocked and intermingled.
I turn to the subject of the Galileo project. The European Union will now spend billions of euros in putting up satellites in order to run a GSP system. I am like a number of people. My own little sailing boat operates a system for which I do not pay other than for the gadget. I do not pay each time I tap into the American satellites overhead which position my boat remarkably accurately. I am aware of the fact that the system does not provide total accuracy because the Americans do not wish someone else to have that capacity. But it serves a useful and commercial function.
Yet we are now embarking on a course of duplication. What is the reason for that? The French argue that the Americans might suddenly opt out of the whole system, leaving us with nothing in a dire emergency. But if we follow the logic of that argument, we would not buy any American equipment in the future and would opt out of all aspects of interoperability within NATO.
That French attitude, which underpinned too many of the negotiations in the few months immediately prior to Nice, must he challenged by the British Government. No other government will do it. Prior to Nice, considerable anxieties about what was coming out in relation to planning were expressed by the Dutch and Germans and by senior European officers
590
in NATO. Somehow those doubts and anxieties were swept aside, yet their predictions were completely fulfilled.
Noble Lords may be interested in a speech which General Sir Rupert Smith made recently in Parliament. He indicated that in present circumstances even a rapid reaction force risks being deployed in dangerous circumstances in which one must operate with a much higher level of sophistication than some people seem to imagine. Peacekeeping is not only a soft option; one needs sophisticated equipment. We suffered in Bosnia for nearly two-and-a-half years through being unable to deploy even artillery because that was considered too strong an armament for the UN forces to have at their disposal.
We need to recognise that a rapid reaction force exposed in a situation such as one might encounter in Macedonia might be under considerable threat. We owe it to the servicemen who might serve in those forces to ensure that they are properly equipped, that they have full and total back-up, and that they do not in any way risk their lives for a politically motivated position.
I return to the value of NATO. Its real value is that over 50 years we have learnt to work together and plan together on military operations. We have reached a degree of trust among young officers which is built up in the early years and is then passed on when they become senior officers and reach staff rank and the rank of general.
We have transposed that decision-making structure to other parts of the world. Essentially, it was a NATO structure that went into the war against Iraq when it invaded Kuwait. Of course, a NATO structure was involved in Kosovo, but it was one that underpinned many of the UN efforts in the former Yugoslavia; and it could still do so. In my view, it may provide a useful way of ensuring a Middle East settlement: NATO could be deployed into the Middle East in order to arrange for a two-state solution between Palestine and Israel.
Perhaps only American forces would be involved in such a deployment. As was the case in Afghanistan, the Americans would not want—at least, in the initial stages—the involvement of too many other countries. In that way, they would be freer to make their command and control procedures. But we should consider the value of a NATO force in which Turkey would be represented in a deployment in Palestine, ensuring no counter-insurgency across the borders and no long-term threat of invasion. We have only to consider the value of what we have already seen in the Balkans, where NATO was deployed, first, in IFOR, then in SFOR and then in KFOR. On each occasion, Russian troops were present, working within the framework and command structures of NATO.
I believe that this debate will be only the first of many on the vexed question of a European security and defence policy. We do not have it right at present. There are profound anxieties in the Pentagon about the current situation. They are not to be dismissed lightly and they are not to be dismissed purely as

591
indicating a belief that Europe can act by itself. We know, and have been taught by history, that twice in two world wars United States forces have had to come into Europe. They stayed from 1947 onwards. It is a remarkable tribute to successive presidents and leaders of the American armed forces that they have stayed for that length of time.
Now NATO faces new challenges, and that is rightly pointed out in the Select Committee report. But let us remember all those who, following the fall of the Berlin Wall, wrote in 1989 and 1990 that there was no need for NATO. What have the past 10 years shown us? They have shown the absolute, essential necessity of NATO, and not only in an aggressive way but as the bridge across to eastern European countries and, above all, to Russia.
Were I to have to choose, I know exactly what I would opt for. I would maintain NATO and not the European defence attempt at creating a security and defence force. I believe that it is possible to marry them, but we need to be cautious and careful. We need to proceed with due speed and due deliberation. Let us stop the political rhetoric. Let us match our words with financial action and with careful military advice.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, it is always a considerable challenge to follow a noble Lord with the eminence and experience of the noble Lord, Lord Owen. On many occasions this House has benefited constructively and thoroughly as a result of his contributions.
I have been interested in European Community affairs since about 1970. On occasion, I have found myself in argument with people from all kinds of political parties—sometimes from the Conservative Party and sometimes from my own. However, I have noticed that when I have ventured to criticise policies concerned with the enlargement of Community trade or the machinery by which that is accomplished, I am always answered by the same observation. I am told, "Look, we have had peace in Europe ever since the last war. Therefore, there cannot be very much wrong with the way in which we have managed to achieve that, however controversially it may have been done". On a number of occasions I have dissented from that argument for a number of specific reasons, some of which I have ventured to inflict upon your Lordships.
However, I now say that, before we can pass a definitive judgment on the very grave matters dealt with in the report, we need to be a little more introspective. We have to begin to challenge the way in which we have thought and the way in which we have arrived at our conclusions. In particular, in this House there is a necessity for querying the whole basis upon which we have accepted many of the arguments. We assume that the generalities, which have been mainly harmless so far, are correct without probing behind the way in which policies are put forward, put into operation and monitored. Often, we have forgotten the human factor, which is the personal factor in
592
politics. It does not take abstract arguments in papers but active thinking by individuals who work on certain fixed assumptions; at least they appear to be fixed attitudes.
I refer in particular to today's debate, which has its real origins around the time of Maastricht when, for the first time—not in italics but in small and modest type— there was put forward a proposition that Europe should have a "security and defence policy". However, "defence" was in rather smaller type than the rest of the words. Since that time, policies have been put forward in order to achieve a greater degree of unanimity and co-operation between member states without pausing to think whether that is the right way to go forward and without taking into account the personal attitudes, fortunes and conditions of work of those civil servants who are supposed to implement such policies. The attitude of a civil servant, particularly if he is in a fairly close colony, as most of them are in Brussels, has a profound effect upon his ordinary output. There is a tendency to regard the establishment of a committee, its appropriate financing, correct provision for its welfare, entertainment, housing and children's education as factors to be taken into account, as, for example, in the existing defence policy.
The existing defence policy largely originated with Jacques Delors and is based on the supposition that such policies can be determined by the organisation rather than by the countries or representatives involved. It is thought that, if at the end of two or more hours, with appropriate refreshments, a committee arrives at a conclusion, progress has been achieved. Overshadowing such matters in the European Commission, for example, is the logical desire, about which I make no particular criticism, to become the government of Europe.
The extent to which the documents produced by the Commission and various other bureaucrats are influenced by subjective matters we shall not know. However, we should not assume that they do not exist, as, for example, in the establishment of a common security and defence policy. One knows that the defence policy of any country must be determined not necessarily in collaboration with many other people but by the government of the country concerned, sustained—it is hoped in a democracy—by the people that vote it into office.
To what extent does the European Commission believe that its own future interests will be advanced towards its eventual centralisation as the government of Europe by the policies, for example, which it recommends to others in regard to the development of defence? The report is an example of that. If I were to comment on it in detail, I would probably want to commend to noble Lords a detailed reading of the speech that fell from the lips of my noble friend Lord Gilbert which brought us down with some unpleasant bumps.
We have received reports from Select Committees which have heard evidence from people who are here for a few hours and whose qualifications and knowledge may be subject to question. We have

593
tended more and more to become committee people. To reach agreement in committee and to publish an intelligible report is reckoned to be a real achievement. I am sure that those who take part in such exercises are convinced, as for example in the current case, the 11th report, that they are a valuable adjunct to the defence of Europe. They are nothing of the kind.
Some of the speeches we have heard today—most, in my estimation, have been very good—have endeavoured to survey the real scene as seen independently, and which differs considerably one from the other. I have been here throughout the debate and have observed that the influence of China has not yet apparently been taken into account. While we were busy doing the tour d'horizon of the United States and Russia we somewhat neglected the question of China. Yet China will have a considerable influence on the development of our affairs over the next 10, 20 or even 30 years.
In short, there has to be an initial reappraisal by all of us, including myself. We must re-examine the state of affairs and the likely developments on the basis of what is happening in the real world as distinct from the world we have deluded ourselves we are in to our advantage.
I sincerely hope that the report will provoke considerable argument and discussion. If it does that, it will have performed a valuable service to the country as a whole. Nothing is more necessary at this time than that we should reappraise the attitudes we have hitherto taken. When we examine all the surrounding circumstances we shall come to the conclusion that, just because a committee meets, publishes reports and associates with and spawns other committees—all human activities—it does not necessarily mean that the right decisions have been made.
The right decisions have been made in the field of defence, except in more recent years when expenditure on armaments has become unpopular. I am quite convinced that we must bring ourselves up to a standard that is more consistent with the obligations that have largely been thrust upon us by our history, which, I remind your Lordships, has so far been remarkably successful.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am rarely surprised in your Lordships' House. However, today has, on a number of occasions, been an exception. But before I proceed to state why, I should also like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Jopling on introducing this important debate and to take the opportunity to congratulate all noble Lords who served on the Select Committee and who have produced this comprehensive and insightful report.
The further development of a European security and defence policy (ESDP) and the establishment of a European rapid reaction force is a matter which has potentially far-reaching implications for NATO, for the transatlantic relationship and for our long-term security as a whole. That relationship must consistently be scrutinised. It is therefore vital that we
594
have as many opportunities as possible to consider and to question the Government on the direction which the ESDP is taking.
On both sides of the Atlantic we are agreed that, over the longer term, a rebalancing of the security burden through improved European defence capabilities is essential if we are to preserve the transatlantic partnership, and be able to address real security challenges in the 21st century. For that reason, I have for many years supported greater European defence capability and greater European defence cooperation, but with one critical proviso: it should be within NATO, not outside it.
However, the ESDP's trajectory is proving far from smooth in that respect. There, if I am not mistaken, some of your Lordships may be developing the argument that so long as the role is circumscribed and de minimis we need pay only passing attention to the delicate relationship between ESDP and NATO. It is still not apparent to me whether this latest generation of greater European defence co-operation in the incarnation of the European rapid reaction force is simply another milestone down this well-trodden path, or whether it is headed in another direction altogether. A tricky balancing act has evolved between the need to keep in check a suspected agenda to create a defence capability independent of NATO and to weaken transatlantic ties, while encouraging improved European defence capabilities that will serve as a bridge and not as a barrier to closer relations between the EU and NATO.
There remain real concerns that these proposals will undermine NATO in spite of the Government's promises to the contrary. There are genuine fears that this yet may prove, as the noble Lord, Lord Owen, stated, to be a political initiative rather than a military one. I am sure that the Minister will agree that this is a deeply complex subject. There is little doubt that if it is handled ineptly it could impact disastrously on NATO. As the Select Committee pointed out in its report:
"To succeed, the ESDP will require a new agenda between the European Union and the United States. The responsibility for such an agenda rests with both sides. Further enlargement will transform both NATO and the EU and if mishandled this may adversely affect the future development of ESDP and tine EU's relationship with the United States".
The US has consistently called for a number of critical conditions. While it supports the concept of the European strategic defence initiative (ESDI), it has made it clear that the development of this capacity must, "complement and strengthen NATO", and must not emerge at the expense of the transatlantic link. The US has long argued against EU autonomous force planning structures, making it clear that the rapid reaction force should be pursued as much as possible through the established NATO defence planning and Partnership for Peace mechanisms, meshed fully with the Defence Capabilities Initiative and, since St Maio, it has issued a number of warnings about the dangers of the pursuit of autonomy for its own sake.
However, the messages coming out of Europe remain very confused indeed. In Britain, we are told that European defence is firmly anchored in NATO.

595
But elsewhere in Europe, they are told that it is to be independent and autonomous. In Britain, we have long been told:
"The idea that this will be an independent standing force set aside from NATO is nonsense".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/12/00; col. 365.]
We have been told that,
"European defence cannot be a rival to NATO, it has to be a complement to it and this is exactly what happened".
And we have been told that,
"provided that the force is not an independent military planning capability and a rival to NATO, its establishment is in America's interest".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/12/00; col. 365.]
But the view from elsewhere in Europe is very different. Across the Channel, it has been openly acknowledged that the creation of a European rapid reaction force is part of a bigger, political picture. Javier Solana, the EU's High Representative, too has called for an EU defence policy that includes,
"an autonomous capability, independent of the Atlantic Alliance".
Faced with this cacophony of confusion from Europe, what conclusion should our partners in NATO, most particularly America, reach? The noble Lord, Lord Owen, was right: the Nice Presidency Conclusions in December 2000, together with its many annexes, is still the most accurate compass we have to guide us. But the direction it points to is far from clear.
Annex 7, the standing arrangements for consultation and co-operation between the EU and NATO, declares that there must be "full respect" for the "autonomy of EU decision-making", that each organisation will be,
"dealing with the other on an equal footing",
and that,
"the entire chain of command must remain under the political control and strategic direction of the EU throughout the operation, after [it adds] consultation between the two organisations".
That clearly indicates that the European military structures set up under the ESDP are completely separate and autonomous from NATO. NATO has no right of refusal on EU defence operations; there are no formal and binding ties between the EU and NATO; and no control by NATO at any point. The Government have been warned of that time and time again, not least by your Lordships in their report which we are considering today. The report stated that it would be,
"extremely damaging to the EU/US relationship if the ESDP initiative created new institutions from which the US were excluded, with no real development of new European military capabilities".
I hope that the Minister will outline what action the Government are taking to prevent that and what her interpretation is of Annex 7, which—I repeat—states that,
"the entire chain of command must remain under the political control and strategic direction of the EU throughout the operation".
596
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that this is not the voice of an indispensable partner to the indispensable nation. At the end of the day, every nation has but one defence budget and one set of forces. There is only one pool of resources from which NATO and the EU can draw in future military operations. This initiative risks asset stripping the one to clothe the other.
The objective for the ESDP should be to improve our collective capability and to increase the range of options for solving European security problems; and to reinforce the complex web of interlocking relationships and partnerships that define the architecture of European security in the 21st century. That means more capabilities for NATO operations, a more effective EU ability to manage crises where NATO is not engaged, and a more balanced partnership between the US and Europe.
Honesty and clear-headedness are absolutely necessary with regard to the aims and motives behind the European rapid reaction force. A political case with a potential hidden agenda—a challenge to American dominance of NATO; the establishment of a rival power bloc; and the move to what the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, has habitually called the European army—is to be strongly resisted. Political project or military, in either case the rapid reaction force can be no more than a paper tiger if Europe's leaders do not put their money where their mouths are.
NATO's Secretary-General, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, has emphatically rejected suggestions that NATO has been marginalised and that its future is in doubt. But he has acknowledged that without action to close the credibility gap, NATO faces the future as a two-tiered alliance, with Europe the pygmy to America's well-armed behemoth. Europe is still a long way from bearing anything like its fair share of the cost of its defence, let alone an effective independent defence capability.
What indications are there that our European partners are prepared to expend the necessary resources to increase defence spending to a level at which it can create a credible 50,000 strong rapid reaction force that is not disproportionately dependent on three out of 15 countries to be dispatched to conflict zones in which the United States declines to take part? I hope that when she winds up the debate, the Minister will tell us what progress has been made in that respect, without which greater defence burden sharing simply will not be possible, which in itself poses a threat to the transatlantic relationship.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, like others, I should like unreservedly to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, on the report and the manner in which he introduced it tonight. When he joined us in the House, I had the privilege of speaking immediately after his maiden speech and I said that I knew that we were in for interesting times. The report is a good indication

597
that I was right. I should also like to thank all the other members of the committee, who have obviously been having an interesting time together considering some profoundly important matters.
At the outset, I make what seems to me to be a self-evident point. I have never understood how it is possible to envisage having a common European foreign policy unless security and defence are taken equally seriously, because they are part and parcel of the same task.
I have read the report with great interest and in some ways have been even more intrigued to listen to members of the committee reflecting on their own deliberations this evening. I hope that it is not arrogant if I suggest that from those deliberations and the reflections this evening, certain priorities will deserve the continued attention of the House.
First, the absolutely basic point that has been emphatically made is that if we will the ends, we must will the means. If the endeavour is serious, the resources must be available and the disciplines must be present. It would be a strange paradox if in going down the road of closer co-operation in the European context we were inadvertently to undermine the effectiveness of British, French and German forces. They are the standard to which the others must work. Commitment must be real.
If I were to pick one practical suggestion that may have disproportionate practical significance for the future of that work together, it is that it is high time that we envisaged the establishment of some kind of European staff college, so that people could together develop the disciplines to lead, work and manage operations together—not simply that they concede some co-operation from the strength of their own national positions, but how professionally they are thinking together about how they make a success of the task.
The second point that has come across clearly and is profoundly significant is the importance of this development for our relationship with the United States and, indeed, with NATO. It is difficult to separate the two issues, but perhaps I may first comment on the dimension that concerns relationships with the United States. In a powerful speech that brought back a lot of memories from when I had the excitement of working with him as his Minister of State, the noble Lord, Lord Owen, talked about the strength of the experience of committed co-operation in NATO over the years. If he were with us—he is unable to be at present—I should have told him that that was true, but that that occurred in the context of an intellectual reality concerning what NATO was about, what was the purpose of NATO, what were the priorities of NATO as an organisation, what NATO was defending and what were the threats to NATO.
It is almost dangerous to talk about the need to continue that discipline of the relationship if we are ducking the issue of redefining, in the new realities, what is the purpose, the task, the threats, why it matters and what we are defending. In that sense, there is a real intellectual—I apologise for using that word
598
again; it is not often used in this place and not always smiled upon when it is—dimension to the strength of that relationship. We in Europe should not be reticent in advancing our interpretation of the world in which we live—not in antagonism to the United States but in order to try to build a really strong relationship for the century ahead.
If I were to pick just one mega-issue that deserves our attention, it would be our difference of emphasis. Our American cousins, faced with the new realities of international terrorism, are arguing that the priority is to organise militarily to secure the global situation militarily against existing threats. It is clear that in Europe there is anxiety that that position is oversimplified. There is anxiety in Europe, with all our experience, that if all that is to be achieved, it must be built; it cannot be imposed. It is a process of winning people to a commitment to order and co-operation, not of telling them what must he the order, what is required of them and what form the co-operation must take. We must build that experience together. I would go further and say that I find little evidence—if any—in history of any case in which imposed order has not eventually fractured at considerable expense. The lesson of history is that we must build order together.
That is just one issue about which it is terribly important to talk honestly with our cousins in the United States. But if we are to carry credibility, it must be clear that we are not just gassing about it but prepared to provide the muscle for whatever is necessary ourselves. Of course the noble Lord, Lord Owen, was right to draw attention to the fact that in two world wars the United States came to Europe's rescue; and, much more recently, all of us in Europe bear some shame that we were unable to deal with some issues in our own backyard until the Americans committed themselves and challenged us to do it properly. Even then, we were able to do so only with considerable American input. There is a tremendous challenge. It is not either/or, hut there are two sides to the relationship, and that is important.
I get a little worried sometimes that there seems to be a requirement for intellectual reticence. It seems that we must not speak out because we will threaten everything. That forces us towards an unhealthy situation in which any kind of commitment—genuine analysis and identification of real priorities— may appear to be antagonism because things can be put only in a confrontational way. We are not working together at the processes of exchange and deliberation. That is the first point that I wanted to make.
With regard to NATO and the emphasis to be put on it in the overall situation, I make no apologies for again making a point that I have made several times in the House. In the old days of the Cold War we knew what we were defending and what the threat was, as we perceived it. When we talk about NATO now, we must be careful that we know what we are defending.
I am genuinely ambivalent about this myself, but I am sure that one of' the highest priorities is to win Russia round into a position of responsibility and partnership in managing world affairs and that it is

599
sheer stupidity to try to sideline her. The challenge is to bring Russia on board and make her central to the management of world affairs. In doing that, however, we must not duck the issues. I have been exposed to the realities of Chechnya. It is not just that what Russia is doing and the way in which she is doing it are unacceptable in the context of what NATO exists to defend; it is counter-productive because it provokes the thing that we say we want to protect ourselves against. It plays into the hands of the extremists. In welcoming Russia and encouraging her to come on board, we must be candid about what is unacceptable and not simply put out the hand of friendship unquestioningly. In international affairs, as in personal affairs, real friendship is based on candour.
Two other issues have come out strongly from the report. One is Europe beyond the European Union. As a member of the delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union, I know how much it matters to parliamentarians in countries outside the European Union. If we are to have security in the European theatre, it will depend on more than the members of the European Union. I have argued that we cannot impose order; we must win it. We must co-operate with those outside the European Union. That issue has not been fully resolved. We are at a bit of an impasse as to what the role of those countries will be. We must give it serious attention.
There is also the democratic deficit, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, and others referred. I agree with him that it is a crucial matter. If defence and security are to be handled by governments, much of the accountability will be in the parliaments of member states. That is not enough. If we are considering a collective endeavour, it is important that parliamentarians from different member states can come together in some meaningful and effective forum and deliberate together on the implications of what is proposed, what is necessary and how we should respond.
There is one other issue. It has been conspicuous by its absence from our deliberations this evening. How does all this relate to the role of the United Nations and the Security Council? I may be old-fashioned about it, although sometimes I think that I am avant-garde. If we are to build a world order in the way in which I have suggested—by winning it, not imposing it—any action must, whenever possible, have the authority of the global community as a whole. That is why the UN Security Council is so important. It must not be perceived that there are a few nations trying to manage the world—that would cause great resentment—or impose their priorities on the rest of the world. There must be deliberations in which—as far as is possible, for we cannot be stupidly idealistic—most of the world's population is involved. We need an expression of global authority for any action that is undertaken.
Lastly, I shall pick up a point made by my noble—and good—friend Lord Williams of Elvel. He opened up a debate on security. One thing that has been brought home to us this evening is that security is not
600
just about military spheres. It is about economic policy, social policy, trade policy and environmental policy. It is about a range of policy matters in which the European Union already plays a significant role. It would be disastrous if we considered the military dimensions in a separate, watertight compartment from the rest of the global challenges to which the European Union is endeavouring to respond. The important thing is to ensure that they are part of a common analysis and a common understanding of the challenges.
8.26 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I felt honoured to serve on the committee. We were extremely fortunate in both our chairmen, our Clerk and our advisers.
One of the wisest of the many distinguished people who gave evidence to the committee was General Klaus Naumann of Germany. I noticed that he was, unsurprisingly, quoted by several noble Lords in the debate. In our report of July 2000, it is recorded that he said
"What we need in Europe are capabilities and not new institutions".
He was concerned that,
"expectations had been created for which we could not pay the bill".
That concern was borne out by the Government's recent response to our latest report. It says:
"The emphasis must be on clever spending rather than just greater spending".
In the report now under review, some 18 months later—after the events of 11th September—General Naumann said:
"If we really want to think through the consequences of 11th September, we should try to identify European component force elements which could really supplement American capabilities so that the European contribution to a contingency operation would really become indispensable to the Americans. With that, I think, we could establish a link which could really strengthen the connection between Europe and the United States of America".
He thus identified three of the major issues that had concerned the committee for the past two years: capabilities, rather than proliferating committees and infrastructures; the will to pay for defence; and the need to ensure that what is done strengthens rather than severs ties between the United States and Europe. A fourth matter of deep concern is how to ensure the parliamentary accountability of the ESDP. That remains an unresolved issue, all the more important when we compare the statement made at Laeken in 2001 that the EU was now,
"through the strengthening of its capabilities, both civil and military, able to conduct some crisis management operations"
with the knowledge that the considerable increases needed in defence budgets are still lacking, to say nothing of the necessary command and control infrastructure, training and so forth. At Laeken, the EU was confident that it would be,
"in a position to take on progressively more demanding operations as the assets and capabilities at its disposal continue to develop".

601
With regard to planning structure, we are told that there is plenty of action, with no fewer than 40 ECAP groups working to remedy military capability shortfalls. The difficulty is that although 104 of the 144 targets have been met they are the easy ones; the 21 most difficult and most militarily significant remain unmet. The Government's rather ingenuous response to the committee's proposal that capability targets should be prioritised was that,
"A more detailed system of prioritisation might risk improvement in other areas being delayed or deferred indefinitely".
That echoes the statement made in respect of whether each country could meet its share of the headline goal for the provision of enough troops to sustain an action. We were told that nations were not required to specify how many of the troops would be conscripts and, therefore, of limited value, given their training, experience and availability. There is thus a certain unreality even about the preliminary theoretical definition of resources. Britain and France, and eventually Germany, will be the only serious contributors. Without them it is difficult to envisage any military operation being mounted. However, until those governments have faced the need not merely to spend their present defence budgets wisely but to increase them, neither an EU nor any possible NATO operational task seems likely to be met, since we have only one set of assets whether for NATO, the EU or the UN. It is not reassuring to be told, as we have been in the latest government response, that,
"quantitatively, while EU defence spending has not risen, the slide in EU defence spending has stopped".
The committee is further concerned about the training and the military command and control infrastructure, as distinct from the many committees and working groups, without which no serious EU operation, however limited, could effectively be undertaken. We look forward to hearing the outcome of the crisis management exercise due to be held this month and in due course those planned for 2002, though neither exercise will involve troop movements, which may be just as well for our own hard-pressed forces. Moreover, we are told that,
"training to ensure the readiness of personnel for operations will remain the responsibility of member states",
which seems an unpromising way of producing a cohesive and effective force. I hope these exercises will make plain where the Navy and the Air Force, as well as the troops, fit in. Their role remains, I believe, unclear to them.
However, there have been sea changes in the European climate since the events of 11th September which will, I believe, require Europe to rethink the ESDP —not necessarily to abandon it but certainly to rethink it. The threat of terrorism and of asymmetric warfare initially placed NATO and Article 5 in the forefront of European thinking and the relationship with America was given special value as a defence issue.
However, Europe's response quickly moved to counter-terrorism measures under the justice pillar, an enhanced role for Europol and, sadly, not least to such
602
precipitate and ill-thought-out measures as the European arrest and extradition warrant. In the Government's response to our first report of July 2000, they had stressed that while the aim was for the EU to have a strengthened capacity for military crisis management, the EU also had,
"the ability to deploy a range of tools in crisis management—diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions and visa ban lists. The Political and Security Committee … will play a key role in co-ordinating the range of the EU's crisis management activity".
I have to say that it has scarcely distinguished itself so far as concerns the use of such sanctions against Zimbabwe.
Two major developments may result in a change of direction and even of agenda in the field of crisis management by the EU. The first, as mentioned by other noble Lords, is the new relationship between Russia and America, the proposed partnership in missile defence and a much more positive association of Russia with NATO. For a while at least—though not for ever, since Russia's long-term strategy must always be to try to become the dominant power in Europe—Russia may use her European links more to promote her economic interests than to drive a wedge between Europe and America, as she has been trying to do with Mr Solana's quiet support for a long time.
There is plenty to he done in the fields of economic development, the environment and social justice, and indeed in such civil aspects of counter-terrorism and frontier controls which will continue to justify a close European relationship with Russia while leaving arms proliferation and control and defence against the common enemy of asymmetric terrorism to new US-Russian and NATO-Russian working partnerships. I do not exclude the possibility that Russia might provide troops for limited European operations in due course, as it did in Kosovo and elsewhere. I hope that Russia's agenda will no longer be, as it has been for the past two years, helping the French to weaken US links with Europe through NATO and creating an autonomous force for that purpose.
The other development, evidently enjoying the tacit support of Mr Solana, is a remarkable proposal, reported on 3rd May and mentioned at some length by our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, of the Finnish chairman of the Military Committee of the EU for a new EU-NATO partnership,
"to deal with crisis management and terrorist activities in Europe and nearby areas, and … to take part in long-term peace-keeping operations and humanitarian operations outside Europe".
However, this would, in General Hägglund's plan, include only the European members of NATO, thus at a stroke excluding the US and Canada and, for the foreseeable future Turkey, a vital element not only because of its military strength but because it is an Islamic state.
Despite the general's statement that this would not mean an end to co-operation between the US and Europe, or the dismantling of NATO, or giving up Article 5, it seems to me only too likely to have the potential to drive the US into isolation just when we should be strengthening relations, and just when there is a real hope through the new US-Russia relationship

603
and Russia's new status in NATO of moving to greater stability in Europe. While it has always made sense, given the limited capability of most of the EU allies and the general reluctance to spend money on defence, to use NATO's infrastructure and expertise rather than creating more and more new institutions, there is much to be said for stopping to think about the operation of the ESDP and where and how it might be truly effective before any further probably unreal commitments are made.
Stopping to think requires not only scrutiny—and scrutiny has revealed the serious lack of resources and of proper command and control—but democratic accountability to national parliaments. That is a real problem. It is a vital area of the national interest and it is still conspicuously lacking. We must clearly recognise, as does our report, that though the ESDP could eventually, if properly resourced, do some genuinely useful things, it must be discouraged from claiming a greater role too soon, and it must strengthen, not weaken, NATO.
Finally, in any re-evaluation of the situation which may take place, I think we need to remember that the continued existence of a strong NATO is vital. It, too, needs reform since much of its machinery has become cumbersome, but as a recent report by European Sub-Committee A on the role of EU aid in the Balkans states trenchantly:
"NATO is the key institution in the maintenance of regional security in south eastern Europe. Its vital role as guarantor of peace and guardian of regional treaty obligations is a consequence both of its military capability and the deterrent effect that this has on squabbling in the region".
The report goes on to quote the EU Aid Strategy, as elucidated by Commissioner Patten in July 2001. He said:
"An ambitious vision like ours also requires close partnerships with other key players—with NATO, whose military commitment will be crucial for many years to ensure the security necessary for peace to take a strong hold".
8.38 p.m.
Lord Inge: My Lords, perhaps I may first state how much I enjoyed being a member of Sub-Committee C. I thank the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and my fellow committee members for making it such fun.
The ESDP and the ESDP initiative should be a key ingredient of any serious debate on defence policy and defence spending. I welcome the report's statement that Europe should do more to develop a credible and serious—I stress "credible and serious"—military capability. It has been said many times that not only is the military gap between America and Europe already very wide, but it is almost getting wider by the day. If the tempo of operations increases—there are signs that it will—we must try to reduce that gap.
I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Evil. I am sorry, not "Evil"—but perhaps that was a Freudian slip! I apologise for that error. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that we will never catch them up. At present, Europe
604
is not capable of operations in its own backyard, let alone in the fight against international terrorism. Until we improve our military capability, it is unlikely that we will influence American policy and thinking.
There is a danger that the European Union seems to be devoting more time to structures and organisations rather than trying to give greater clarity to the operational challenges which our forces might face in the future. That has become increasingly important since the events of 11th September and the ongoing fight against international terrorism. We ought to develop what the threat scenarios might be— I know that it is difficult to pin those down—and then look at what we will need in terms of capability and command and control arrangements to match those threats.
As the report makes clear, progress has been made towards developing elements—I stress the word "elements"—of the EU reaction force of some 60,000 troops, capable of deployment within 60 days and sustainable for one year. The trouble is that 60 days is probably too long; one year is probably too short. Furthermore, those 60,000 troops earmarked by the European nations do not take into account the numbers that the European nations have already deployed on operations.
I also have some reservations about Europe's ability to turn those headline numbers into a cohesive and capable force able to take on serious, complex and dangerous military operations. Others have already made the point that it would be a serious mistake if the political desire to be seen to be good Europeans led us to believe that Europe had a serious military capability. As the noble Lord, Lord Owen, made clear, there is a danger that rhetoric and reality are not marching in step. It would be disastrous if we had a premature deployment.
Certainly we need greater clarity about what is meant by the Petersberg tasks. It is clear from the evidence given to the committee that they mean different things to different people. That may be all right for grand talk in Foreign Offices—I hope that the Minister will forgive me for those words. However, I also have to say that I thought the Foreign Office response to the report was very disappointing. If we do not define more accurately the type of task that Europe is capable of undertaking, we could risk operational failure.
In addition, we need to think through the implications for the ESDP of the dramatic events of 11th September. The fact that since then the ESDP appears to have gone on to radio silence means, I assume, that governments are giving themselves over to serious rethinking—or certainly I should like to think so.
The report rightly brought out the importance of making more effective use of defence expenditure. It highlighted the possible greater role for specialisation, improved interoperability and improved procurement practices. I sense that there may be some scope for role specialisation, but it would be dangerous to go too far down that path. If a nation decided not to take part in a

605
particular operation, as the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, made clear, we could end up with an operational capability gap, which could be a serious one.
One area in which I believe that the report makes an important point is that we ought to make a determined effort to improve interoperability. Eventually huge savings could be made if, for example, we were able to use the same artillery ammunition; use the same air-to-air refuelling and, where possible, some common vehicles. The more that we can reduce the need for European nations to rely solely on national operational logistic support, the greater will be the savings. Furthermore, it could lead to greater operational efficiency. However, the difficulties in achieving this are that different nations re-equip their forces at different times; the need to support national defence industries, and that any reorganisation always first requires huge sums of money.
I strongly endorse what the report has to say about command and control arrangements. The desire to establish a European military capability must not allow the shortcomings of the proposed arrangement to be swept under the carpet. The more complex and dangerous a military operation, the more important is the need for an effective, responsive and robust command and control structure. We should not forget that two of the major lessons of Bosnia were, first, the West's lack of political will to deploy early enough and, secondly, that the UN is not capable of commanding complex, fast-moving and dangerous military operations. At the moment, the only organisation that has in place a proper, geo-political structure that starts at the top level, moving down from the geo-political level through to the military operational levels of command and then on to the military tactical levels of command and thus to the soldiers in the field, is NATO. One would get rid of that, I believe, at one's peril. It would be ironic if the ESDP initiative helped to undermine NATO and further encouraged US unilateralism.
Reference has been made to the comments of General Hagglund. I have to say that I have not read the whole transcript and I am not quite sure about some of his suggestions. However, he has certainly made some eye-catching remarks. He said that he saw extensive changes to the EU/American common security system; that the EU/European parts of NATO should be linked up; that the US would become responsible for the defence of North America and world-wide crisis management, as well as rooting out international terrorism at its source. The last is a pretty demanding task in itself. He saw too a reduction in the need for military alliances and their usefulness. Perhaps I may make one or two comments on those.
First, the original idea was that the European pillar of defence should be within NATO. The European ESDP initiative has set up an EU military committee hut, as the report makes clear, getting that relationship right is enormously important. I hope that General Hagglund was not suggesting that NATO has reached the end of its usefulness. Of course it needs to improve in certain areas; certainly it has to become more responsive and it needs to learn not to micro-manage.
606
The Europeans are probably more guilty of this than are the Americans. Micro-managed military operations, once the military plans are in place, are not to be encouraged. Furthermore, NATO has the only really effective pot/mil structure; it has considerable assets in terms of its planning and operational staff and its members have been working together for a number of years. That could not have been more clearly demonstrated than when, as other noble Lords have pointed out, its members worked together during the Gulf War and, more recently, in the air war in Kosovo. So I hope that General Hagglund's remarks will be studied carefully because at this stage I think that we need to be cautious about saying whether or not they are sensible.
The report rightly mentions the need to recognise that there is a wide gulf in the standards of training, operational effectiveness and working practices between the European nations which might contribute to the ESDP. I have to say that I disagree with those who suggest that the Americans could do it from the air while we, the Europeans, should do it on the ground. That would he disastrous and would lead to great tensions in any relationship between NATO, within NATO, or elsewhere.
I return to the point about differing standards of training, operational effectiveness and working practices. Those do not matter too much when working at the lower end of the spectrum of conflict, but if the going gets tough and we commit our Armed Forces to fight alongside forces that are not competent, I suggest that we would he making a bad political and national mistake. I recognise the great sensitivity of this issue, but it is not one that should be swept under the carpet.
In all that I have said I have tried to stick to the military aspects of the ESDP. I remain a very strong supporter of the trans-Atlantic link and I recognise that for too long, even during the time of the Cold War, Europe has hidden behind the military capability of the United States. I strongly support the concept that Europe, in a military sense, should do more. But if Europe is going to do more, it has to recognise the military mountain which it has to climb and, not least, the need to increase defence expenditure and all that that will mean. I only hope that the European Union has the political will to take that step. What would be awful is if the ESDP turns out to be a damp squib lacking any military muscle, and as a result does great damage to NATO, thus weakening the United States/ United Kingdom relationship.
8.49 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Jopling and all those on his committee for the comprehensive and excellent report that they have produced. I agree that the European nations must do more to contribute to peace and security, but there are many matters still to be resolved before it can be assessed whether the current proposals will ensure that the ESDP becomes an effective policy. I agree with General Naumann, to whom I always pay particular attention, when he says that Europe needs

607
capabilities not new institutions, a point mentioned by my noble friend Baroness Park. NATO is still an effective organisation and it is therefore essential that the ESDP creates capabilities to strengthen and not to rival the Atlantic alliance.
Although Laeken announced that the EU were operationally ready to cover the full spectrum of the Petersberg tasks, that is clearly not the case in relation to defence spending and commitment to improve capabilities. Although some progress has been made by some countries, including the United Kingdom, there is still a lack of will in Europe to resolve the identified weaknesses in the shortfall of essential equipment; the requirements for command, control and intelligence; establishing geographic limitations; defining the Petersberg tasks in an unambiguous way; and the lack of training, field and command post exercises, which has been mentioned by so many noble Lords.
The EU objective to take over from NATO the peace-keeping mission of Amber Fox in Macedonia is considered unrealistic among the military from both NATO and the EU. The Secretary of State has said that our commitments are already placing severe strain on our Armed Forces. We would not therefore be able to contribute troops to any operation in Macedonia. At this stage, it is inconceivable to think that an EU operation can take place in the Balkans otherwise than in close co-operation with NATO and resorting to its assets. There is minimal co-operation between the EU and NATO, and the EU as an independent force has neither access to nor a communication channel with NATO. Until all these aspects are resolved, it would be most unwise to deploy the EU for military operations.
Defence spending has fallen in 12 EU countries, including the United Kingdom. Only three countries—Germany, Greece and the Netherlands—have shown a marginal increase. It is an inevitable fact that without increased expenditure there can be no improvements to capabilities; and without the improved required capabilities there can be no viable EU military force. There is no sign at all that EU countries are willing to produce the money, and at a meeting of Foreign Ministers at Reykjavik last Tuesday there was no agreement given to providing more money.
In November last year at the Capabilities Conference it was agreed that there remained 40 capability shortfalls. Some of this shortfall of equipment is in the areas of air-to-air refuelling, sea and air heavy lift, secure communications, suppression of enemy air defences and intelligence, all of which are essential if an EU military force is to function efficiently.
Many of the capability shortfalls require long procurement cycles and there is little doubt that, even if decisions were taken this year, the equipment would not come into service before 2012. Buying off the shelf is one way to speed up the introduction of this equipment. For example, EU countries could rent the US C-17s, as we have done, to provide the heavy air
608
lift. The A-400M is years away and, as the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, said, is there any need for it when the C-17 is already in service?
All air forces need modernisation and many of them lack an all-weather, day and night attack capability. There is a need for more modern, stand-off and precision-guided ammunition.
The EU has no effective command and control systems and the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance equipment is under-developed. There is a requirement for unmanned aerial vehicles such as Global Hawk and there is a shortage of electronic warfare systems.
Command of the EU military force should be exercised by DSACEUR. For smaller missions, the command and control could be vested in the lead nation concept, with one EU nation providing a national headquarters augmented by other nations, as has been set up for ISAF. Any suggestion of establishing an EU headquarters would be disastrous and would lead to an integrated European command structure which would compete with NATO. None of us could afford to have two competing command structures, especially as this would alienate the United States of America. In any event, NATO is the organisation that has everything to offer and would be involved in major operations. There is no doubt in my mind that the NATO planning staff should be used and the command and control organisation should come from NATO if we are not to aggravate the US by doing what it specifically asked us to avoid—that is, the setting up of duplicate systems.
Finally, I turn to recent developments by Russia and the chairman of the EU Military Committee, General Hagglund. As I understand it, his view is that the EU and the European parts of NATO would he linked up with each other and the new organisation would deal with crisis management and anti-terrorist activities in Europe and nearby areas. The new EU-NATO would take part in long-term peacekeeping operations and humanitarian missions outside Europe. However, the United States, for its part, would be responsible for the defence of Northern America and world-wide crisis management missions, as well as rooting out terrorism at the source. I believe that this would be a disastrous step and would be the end of NATO.
A NATO-Russian council will be inaugurated at a special summit in Rome later this month in which Moscow will be an equal partner with the allies on such issues as terrorism, arms control and crisis management. Russia has not given up wishing to be a major power in Europe and this could be a step towards its long-term aim of creating a pan-European security structure, thus weakening the link between Washington and alliance members on this side of the Atlantic.
In conclusion, the only country that stands in the way of Russia becoming a major power in Europe is the United States. To weaken the American dominance in Europe seems to me to remain a feature of Russian policy. One expression of American influence in Europe is NATO. For that reason, I believe it will continue to find ways to weaken NATO.

609
If things continue as they are, transatlantic ties will further slip and a greatly expanded NATO will change from a cohesive military alliance into a loose political alliance stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals. ESDP will place an additional commitment on our already over-committed forces. Without increased expenditure, without the allocation of essential and improved equipment, and without agreement to include NATO planning staffs and command structures. ESDP, in my opinion, will not be successful.
8.57 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I welcome this very timely report. It has produced a clear commentary from the Government and I am happy to support their response. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will forgive me if I put my own headline on their response: Rome was not built in a day.
Paragraph 5 on page 2 of the Government's response points out that in Laeken the EU declared that,
"the EU is now able to conduct some crisis management operations",
and that,
"the Union will be in a position to take on progressively more demanding operations, as the assets and capabilities at its disposal continue to develop".
Is that not precisely what the chairman of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, was asking for when he used the phrase that we should walk before we run? There is some correspondence there.
Another example is contained in paragraph 33 of the Government's response in relation to Bosnia. It states:
"The Government is pleased that the Bosnia Peace Implementation Council Steering Board on 28 February accepted the EU proposal to take over from the UN-led International Police Task Force in Bosnia, whose mandate expires at the end of December. This will be the first civilian ESDP operation".
This is one of the reasons why I wished to make a short contribution to the debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Park, mentioned, Sub-Committee A has made some relevant comments about the history of the Balkans and the challenge for the future.
As my noble friend Lord Judd mentioned, there is a great deal of overlap between security, economics, social development, good governance, the police, immigration, the Mafia, and so on. The Petersberg tasks are: humanitarian assistance, peacekeeping, crisis management and so on. Within the stability pact for the Balkans there are also the other pillars of economic and social infrastructure and the whole range of developments that are termed "good governance".
The report contains some interesting figures which are relevant to the debate. The EU countries—that is, not the EU per se, but EU plus bilateral—spend 1 billion euros a year on aid to the West Balkans. They spend 5 billion euros a year on security expenditures, which are defined as expenditures on military needs, as I understand it, over and above the units based at
610
Aldershot—I believe that that is how they do the arithmetic. There is an interesting Catch-22 relationship between those two figures. Not only is it relevant to this debate; it requires a little more exploration in this context.
If it were possible to put out bush fires before they became dangerous, clearly we should be spending less taxpayers' money. One of the issues in Europe which has not been strongly highlighted is its attempt to develop joined-up thinking about what kind of EU road map embraces the security, the police, the good governance, the economic and social infrastructure and so on. I believe everyone would agree that—whether it is a matter of smart money, clever money or whatever money was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Park—we shall not make any progress if we simply think of it as "more money". That was the noble Baroness's point. I might go in a slightly different direction in terms of being a strong: supporter of these European developments, but the need to integrate them in joined-up government is an important perception.
The Catch-22 situation must somehow be broken down. We cannot begin to contemplate running down security expenditures until there is progress on the socio-economic front; and we shall not make such progress unless we retain security expenditures. That is why, for the foreseeable future—"foreseeable" is the correct adjective—we must collectively keep our forces in Bosnia and Kosovo, and no doubt pro tem in Macedonia. That is against a background of important political settlements, such as the reluctant acceptance of the constitution in Macedonia. If I may be so bold as to suggest this, in the context of the Balkans, if we revisit any of the boundaries, we shall go right back to square one with demands for a greater Serbia, a greater Albania or a greater something or other. That will put us in the fire all over again.
There is scope for the report to have been somewhat more upbeat about the substantial progress that has been made in the architecture of the ESDP since the historic breakthrough at St Malo in December 1998. I do not know whether there is a school of thought in this House that we somehow regret any rapprochement between Britain and France on the grounds that we have been fighting each other for 1,000 years. I was a member of the Franco-British Council for about 10 years. I remember that we were always trying to get the military of Britain and France to come together. It was very difficult—almost as difficult as it was to bring the two countries together on agricultural matters; in fact, it was slightly easier in relation to military matters. But a great historic moment was reached when, at St Malo, Britain and France put their names to a joint document. Why can we not welcome that? It may provoke the noble Lord on the Bench opposite to suggest that all of this is too "top down". But in terms of realpolitik, building on some basis with France— and with Germany—is historically important.
I remind myself of what was said in 1952 when the idea of Europe began. We said: "It will not work. It is far too ambitious. Let's wait for them to fall flat on their face, and then they will realise that the Brits were

611
right after all". I think that we have learnt a little since then on other matters. We should welcome what lies behind this—even though I do not think that France has been mentioned in the debate without the implication that it is "perfidious France", to mix my country caricatures.
One of the new developments is summed up in paragraph 39 of the report. It states:
"new USA geo-political priorities suggest EU governments can no longer assume American military support when US interests are not directly engaged".
That is a chilling comment. If that is not an incentive for European governments to "get real", I do not know what is. The comment cuts both ways. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, will correct me if I am wrong, but it is endorsed in the report in the sense that it is stated as self-evident as one of the new developments, possibly in connection with the events of 11th September but as a fact of life. If it is a fact of life, we must ask ourselves whether it is totally reconcilable with the statement that has been added at the end of the report in paragraph 90:
"To succeed, the ESDP needs American political and practical support. This should never be forgotten".
Is that so? Is there not a sense that we are on the cusp of change in the transatlantic relationship because of the statement made in paragraph 39?
In any event, going along with the United States in the next 20 years or so cannot be simply one-way traffic militarily any more than it has been economically. That is not only because of the reason that I have cited. In addition, Europe can look forward to a bigger GDP than the United States—far bigger than any other nation or grouping—and can have a greater sense of its own weight and influence. To use a familiar metaphor, that will be a change from the time when we had simply to hang on to the apron strings of the United States. The logic goes both ways. We need to get some of the other countries up to at least 2 per cent of GDP on defence expenditure precisely because we cannot just rely on hanging on to the apron strings of the United States.
I do not know what the political architecture has to be to achieve that 2 per cent. The report refers to a defence council of the European Council of Ministers. I do not know what the pros and cons of that are, but we need some focus in the Council of Ministers to lobby for that 2 per cent and to monitor how far it is coming along. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister has something to say about that.
Many Labour Members of this House and the other House would not, until recently, have been making too many speeches in favour of increasing defence expenditure. Of course, we are taking advantage of the report, which emphasises that these increases are very much for the other European countries, but it is clear from out debate last week, in which I took part, that tremendous overstretch is on the agenda here.
Perhaps we need to clarify our terms on the remark by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, about all the money coming out of the same pot. Security and aid
612
expenditure comes out of the taxpayers' pot. In what sense should we be making the point about European countries—
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I ought to explain that I said that our military assets are common to the NATO tasks, the ESDP tasks and the UN tasks. I do not think that I said anything about a common money pot. I should be delighted to have a common money pot, but I did not say that.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her clarification. I must not have a dialogue with her, but I should like to know about the doctrine of one set of assets being committed to NATO and it not being permissible to say that those assets can simultaneously be used for ERRF without double counting—I hope that that is not paraphrasing. Does not that doctrine apply equally to the United States? The Pentagon does that all the time. It has assets that can be NATO assets and can be other assets. I do not see why we should not use the same doctrine as the Pentagon.
My concluding point on enlargement concerns the important section of the report on Turkey, which relates to resources as well. I comment partly in the light of a parliamentary visit to Ankara that I participated in a couple of weeks ago. Turkey is of immense strategic importance, but of equally great importance as a relatively successful secular society with an Islamic tradition. From the Balkans to Afghanistan, the relevance and role of the Turks is unquestionable and I trust that there will be some progress on the matters that have been referred to. Am I not right that the issue concerning Turkey is no longer about ESDP but the fact that the Greeks tend to overplay their hand in the Council of Ministers on these matters? It would be a good idea if the EU could progress with its discussions with Turkey not only on this matter but eventually towards EU membership. I regret the statement made in London last week by Mr Stoiber, a candidate for Chancellor of Germany, who seemed to question whether Turkey was qualified on more general grounds to be a member of the EU.
9.13 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I begin by reminding the House that I have a peripheral interest in the topic. I also thank my noble friend Lord Jopling for introducing this debate and his chairmanship of the committee. The noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, talked about military relations with France. He may be interested to hear that my former TA battalion is spending its annual camp in France this summer.
Many noble Lords have raised the issue of inadequate EU defence expenditure. In the Cold War, we met almost all technical threats. We could afford to do so because we had a superior economy. Now, of course, thankfully, there is no direct threat to our territorial integrity. So we must now decide how much we can afford to spend and then live within that budget. Unfortunately, we are trying to do just a little

613
bit more, and that causes all the pain. Additionally, we have the 3 per cent year-on-year cost savings on top of the excellent Strategic Defence Review.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, quite properly compared French and UK defence expenditure. He was absolutely correct in that. However, in NATO and the EU, only French and United States defence expenditure are comparable with that of the UK. I am not convinced that we in the UK should increase our defence expenditure. I believe that we already spend more than our fair share. I also believe that the SDR is the answer to our defence requirements; the plan just needs to be properly funded. The report also reminds us that US defence expenditure is nearly twice that of the EU states put together. Worse than that, however, as many noble Lords have remarked, is the fact that EU nations' capability is generally pathetic compared with that of the US.
What is the reason for that? As the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, observed, we waste money and resources. We duplicate research and designs. We have, for example, the Leclerc main battle tank, the Leopard main battle tank and the Challenger main battle tank. We also duplicate capability and favour indigenous manufacturers. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, mentioned the problem of interoperability, a problem that has been around a long time, even in NATO days. Each country tends, for example, to develop and manufacture its own range of logistics vehicles.
In the NATO context, however, the UK Government are showing the way by buying the Oshkosh tank transporter, which is built in the US. The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, will have had a great part to play in that. I think that she is very courageous, and that it is the right way of going. The US is building 1,000 of the vehicles, and we want slightly fewer than 100. What is the point of developing our own tank transporter when the Americans are themselves building 1,000 of them? We shall also gain the benefit of their logistic tail, without having to create one for a very specialised piece of equipment.
Anything we do in the EU must complement and not duplicate NATO and US efforts. The report recognises the deficiencies in strategic heavy airlift. Currently, the UK cannot airlift a Warrior armoured infantry fighting vehicle except by means of the C-17. The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, in his powerful and significant speech, talked about strategic heavy lift and mentioned the limit of 25,000 kilos over 3,000 miles for an A-400M. Of course, 25,000 kilos is about the weight of a Warrior. However, the NATO inventory already has a strategic heavy airlift—the C-17. They are in service with the RAF, as the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, has told us, and the RAF loves them. The noble Lord described the C-17's utility, and the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, is now vigorously nodding in relation to the point.
The C-17 is much bigger than a C-130. Indeed, the loading ramp on a C-17 will carry the entire load of a C-130. The two aircraft also have a similar runway requirement. We can be sure that the Boeing Aircraft
614
Company spent an awful lot of money developing the C-17. The EU is to repeat this development programme. As noble Lords are aware, the Airbus company is to develop and build about 190 A-400M aircraft. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, pointed out, we shall also have to develop within the EU a new turboprop engine, because none exists in the EU. We could probably get one from the US. However, is not developing a turboprop engine for just 200 aircraft a rather high-risk project? Will the Minister say whether she is confident that the engine can be manufactured within Europe?
The UK has one of the widest ranges of overseas operations, and yet our staff determine that we need only 25 A-400M. The French, however, say that they need 75; the Germans say about 74, but their Parliament is very wobbly to say the least; and smaller countries are having two or three each. I understand that the cost of an A-400M is supposed to he about 80 million dollars and the cost of a C-17 about 200 million dollars. I stand to he corrected. For a variety of reasons, I am not absolutely sure about the figures. I believe that those are ball park figures. Surely, the Boeing Aircraft Company would offer the EU a very competitive price on their C-17 project in order to capture the market. Of course, the Boeing Aircraft Company will have covered all its development costs, which will be fully amortised on the US spend.
I confess that I am not an expert in aviation. I am more experienced in land-based logistics. If I had to buy a fleet of trucks and had a choice between Mercedes, offering me a vehicle that was ill service, and some other manufacturer who said that he had a vehicle on paper, which he could develop for half the price, but that he did not have an engine for it, I would be a wincy bit suspicious. Does the Boeing Aircraft Company know something that we do not know? But why does the EU need about 190 of these large aircraft at a total cost of about 16 billion dollars? I hope that that is not just a numerical figure that would cover the development costs.
The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, referred to the utility of the strategic airlift, particularly the C-17. If we in the EU went down the C-17 route, the in-service date for a capability would be mid-2004, rather than, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, told me in a Written Answer, "around the end of the decade" for the A-400M.
I would be rather more convinced about the ESDP itself if it had, say, 50 C-17s in a European strategic airlift organisation, based in mainland EU. The cost would be only about 10 billion dollars, compared with 16 billion dollars, because we would not be buying so many aircraft to cover the development costs. The utilisation of those aircraft would be much higher, rather more like an airline utilisation rate than an air force utilisation rate, and what operation would require more than 50 C-17s to support it?
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, referred to an operation capability gap if an EU state decided not to take part. But that would not be a problem for a European strategic airlift organization, since the

615
ESDP organisation would rely only on a few personnel from each country. It would not stop the ESDP having that strategic airlift capability. I believe that if we went down the C-17 route, we could quickly tick off another capability shortfall. Incidentally, in case any noble Lord is worried, I have never knowingly been briefed by Boeing on the C-17 or the A-400M.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, also mentioned possible contributions from Russia. If 50 C-17s were not enough to support an operation, the Antonov AN124 is a very large transport aircraft, bigger than a C-17, and if we had a relationship with the Russians on heavy airlift, that could be quite fruitful for them as well.
In conclusion, I believe that the A-400M is being built for all the wrong reasons. It duplicates and wastes defence expenditure and effort, and ultimately it will cost at least as much as the C-17. I am sure that the Minister, as Minister of State for Defence and Procurement, was heavily involved in this project, and, as she is double-hatted—FCO and DTI—I suspect that she still has a finger in the pie.
It is possible for our Government to stop the project at this point. However, I do not believe that they will, because it would damage their EU credibility.
9.24 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I was a member of the committee when it produced this valuable report. I thoroughly enjoyed the experience. We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate this evening, with a great deal of talk about the A-400 and the C-17. If we really need some heavy-lift capability quickly, we should do what the Germans did to get their forces to Afghanistan; namely, hire an Antonov. Re-engined Antonovs could be made available much more quickly, but there are all sorts of political inhibitions about all of these procurement issues.
When the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, referred to "Lord Williams of Evil", I regretted that he did not go all the way and refer to the noble Lord as "Lord Axis of Evil", which would have been better. All these phrases trip so readily off the tongue, very often in slightly misleading ways, so that we are never quite sure which axis of evil we are talking about; indeed, noble Lords may have seen the wonderful American email that referred to other available axes such as the, "axis of the not terribly evil, but not very good", and so on.
The subject of our debate is extremely significant. The danger for the British Government, as well as for other European governments, that we risk missing the headline goals to which the European governments committed themselves in December 1999 to meet by January 2003, is real. There is no questioning the fact that the United States Government and the US media will provide some very dispeptic comment on a severe failure to miss that goal. There is a remarkable lack of any sense of urgency across the European Union on the issue, which I much regret.
616
I therefore believe this report and this committee to be significant. There is a range of significant and important subjects for this sub-committee to address. The common foreign and security policy is now one of the most active areas of European co-operation. European Union governments are co-operating on a whole range of issues, more or less effectively—for example, Russia, Turkey, Africa, Cyprus, and the Middle East.
The question of parliamentary accountability was raised by a number of noble Lords. One problem we face is that there are few available alternatives to national parliamentary scrutiny. The WEU Assembly is not really very appropriate. Some sort of joint committee between the European Parliament and national parliaments may take that one step forward, but all noble Lords who have been involved in COSAC (the Conference of European Affairs Committees) may echo what one noble Lord said to me just the other day, after having just returned from a COSAC meeting, "It was awful". Clearly, for the time being, we need to rely on our own national parliamentary scrutiny committees, working as far as we can with others, because that is the best that we have.
However, there is a limited capability for parliaments to focus public debate in this area, unless governments also stimulate such debate. I much regret that the British Government, who were the prime mover in the San Malo initiative, have since then failed to maintain the lead that they then took. My party actively welcomed the San Malo initiative. We regret that the British Government—our Prime Minister, our Secretary of State for Defence and our Foreign Secretary—have not maintained the pressure on our partners and allies across the Channel to ensure that they do fulfil the promises that they made.
Britain is the obvious country to lead in this respect. As several noble Lords have observed, there is an underlying American suspicion of French motives. Britain sees itself as maintaining the bridge between the United States and Western Europe. There is an obvious British approach that one could adopt here. Tony Blair launched the Lisbon process on economic co-ordination, which by publishing economic statistics was to be a form of ensuring that we bench-mark each other's performance; that we each follow best practice; and that we name and shame those who fail to follow best practice. It seems to me that that is the approach that the British Government should be taking here.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, observed, it is very difficult to obtain proper figures on which countries contributed what to the conflicts in Kosovo, in Bosnia or in Afghanistan. The figures that I have on Afghanistan are slightly different from those obtained by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. I have 13 member states contributing with at least a few troops, and three candidate countries. However, I am sure that that is not very different. Incidentally, when looking at the Afghanistan figures, the Danes come out remarkably well—a large contingent of special forces as well as a contingent in ISAF. It is the Belgians, who most wanted to declare that ESDP was operational, and the Italians, the Spanish and the Portuguese who are the

617
laggards in that respect. I should love to hear a Minister of the British Government remark to Mr Berlusconi that there is no such thing as a free dinner. If you want to be invited to a dinner at No. 10 to talk seriously about European defence, you are supposed to have a budget and a level of military effectiveness which comprise a ticket for entry.
I should like to see the British Government publish the relevant figures as far as possible. Then we shall be able to see who is making most progress. In some areas there is clearly considerable progress being made. Some noble Lords may have seen the report of the discussion between Rudolph Scharping and senior German officers about overstretch within the German armed forces now that they have over 12,000 troops outside the country. That is a radical change and a radical improvement. It suggests that at least in some members of the European Union matters are moving fast. Of course, as a number of noble Lords have said, the shortfall arises in equipment, above all in the kit which gets the troops to their destination, the weapons systems needed to ensure superiority and the communications networks to hold the forces together.
A number of noble Lords have mentioned transatlantic relations and implications for transatlantic relations. I did not entirely recognise the picture which some noble Lords gave of the current state of transatlantic relations. First, we have to recognise the long-term trends. American priorities are now, in foreign policy and military terms, outside Europe. It is much more important to be in Central Command than in SHAPE. Many noble Lords who have read Wesley Clark's book or have heard him talk will understand that when he was stationed in Brussels at SHAPE he felt himself to be very much outside the Pentagon loop. The noble Lord, Lord Owen, referred to the junior officers whom it is important for us to cultivate. There are, however, many fewer of them in Europe than there were 10 years ago. That is part of our problem in maintaining links with the US armed forces.
NATO has become much less popular in the Pentagon partly because of the latter's perceptions of what happened in Kosovo, which are often rather different from those of British officers who were involved, but also because of the sense that NATO stands for consultation whereas coalitions of the willing are American led. We should all be a little concerned about the current mood in Washington towards unilateralism and, indeed, about the current mood of anti-Europeanism which one sees in the American media, which we also need to be actively concerned to argue against. I follow what the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, said about the importance of approaching the transatlantic relationship as an active dialogue, in which we have to make our case a great deal more effectively. But we should not assume that we have to follow the current American administration wherever it may lead us, even necessarily into Iraq.
The case for an increase in defence spending has to be made. It is not easy to make it across Europe to the European public. I note that the British Conservative
618
Party does not at the moment propose an increase in British defence spending. That shows how difficult it is to make a very difficult case. In 1990–91, General Naumann was particularly active in that regard because he felt—as I recall him saying on one occasion—that unless he defined a new role for the German armed forces their budget would fall entirely through the floor. I remember that a senior Belgian diplomat said some years later that the reason the Belgians wanted to be included in any collaborative operation that was going was that otherwise they could not justify spending money on defence when no one threatened Belgium except through 10 other countries on the way.
The rationale for an increase in European defence spending has not yet been made. If a greater defence effort were just to contribute to US defined operations, the incentives would not be strong. There is no direct threat to the European region. The question is: what contribution should European governments make separately or collectively to the indirect threats from outside Europe? Questions of state collapse are involved. We have already been engaged in that regard in south-eastern Europe, but what about beyond, in Africa or the Caucasus? The Americans have adopted a role in Georgia and Armenia, but perhaps the European states should be more actively involved in those regions. What long-term role is there in military terms for European governments in Asia and, most sensitively of all, the Middle East? What role is possible for European governments in the Middle East, given that the United States wishes to define western policy towards the Middle East, and European governments—and, even more, European publics—are not entirely happy with that?
We must recognise that there are real tensions in transatlantic relations. They concern the preference for air power among the American forces as opposed to occupying the ground; the use of weapons for intervention and an exit strategy as opposed to the British approach, which involves staying the course and being involved in nation-building; and the preference for military power as opposed to financial assistance. In an interesting article in the Washington Post last week, Fred Bergsten discussed the need for the United States to understand that American burden-sharing also required the United States to spend more on development assistance and state reconstruction. The United States currently spends one-third of what the European Union spends, and most of its development assistance goes to strategic countries, such as Israel, Egypt and Turkey.
We need a European rationale and a transatlantic dialogue, which may have to be vigorous at times. Clearly, considerable improvements are needed. The British Government should suggest—-no one else will do so—that a floor must be put under European defence spending and that pressure must be brought to bear on those who are lowest to begin to raise their spending from that floor.
However, given that there is no public support for much of an increase in defence spending, we must get greater effectiveness through closer integration. That

619
is what Air Marshal Sir Timothy Garden and Sir Michael Alexander have been powerfully arguing. We therefore need shared training, shared bases and new initiatives on support and joint forces. Again, Her Majesty's Government could be doing a great deal more in that regard and they could be advancing many more initiatives. For example, I refer to integrating the logistical chain for expeditionary forces of the sort that we now have in Afghanistan; to shared facilities for air-to-air refuelling, on which the British Government are currently going it alone; and to the Police Action Plan—I hope that the sub-committee will turn its attention to that and I point out that the British Government have a useful record in terms of the number of police whom we have been able to second to the forces, although we have some way to go.
The underlying question is: what do we want those forces for? What sort of threats do we believe we are facing? The noble Lord, Lord Judd, was almost the only noble Lord who suggested that the wider framework is the one that counts. I suggest that, above all, we need the force for the higher level Petersberg tasks. We need to look at Africa and some parts of Asia, where weak states are threatened with collapse. Where we have relevant skills, we need to help to prevent state collapse and to begin to rebuild. That also means that we should campaign much more actively against the sale of arms to those regions. The initiative, "Anything but arms", was an excellent way forward. Part of what is mistaken about the current American thrust towards greater high technology is that American arms companies also want to sell those weapons abroad. The last thing that one should currently wish to do is to encourage the proliferation of advanced western weapons in unstable regions of the world, although they are the regions that want to buy them.
The European security and defence policy was above all a British initiative. Our interests and our prestige are at stake. The impact on transatlantic relations of a failure to meet the headline goals next year will be severe. If Her Majesty's Government do not take the lead in reminding our continental partners of how important this issue is, who will?
9.39 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, like many others in this debate, I congratulate the sub-committee on producing an excellent and stimulating report under the skilled chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Jopling. Indeed, I am proud that I had a passing association with the earlier work of this very well informed and expert committee.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Owen, I particularly welcome the reference to, and emphasis on, scrutiny by, and accountability to, national Parliaments and the need for that to be toughened not only in the area of defence decisions but in other decisions as well. It seems to me that the report is itself an example of the need to bring back to national Parliaments the thinking behind intergovernmental decisions—indeed, of all the decisions—taken in the name of the
620
European Union. I believe that that is the right way to go. National Parliaments are the sole source of legitimacy for the Union and its structures, and I hope that we hear no more nonsense about remote second Chambers. Indeed, the debate in your Lordships' House should have put paid to that. Another Select Committee demonstrated all the fallacies and weaknesses of such an idea.
For me, European security and defence policy is more of a journey than a clear policy. It has been, and continues to be, a zigzag journey at that, with no very clear destination. If there were clear destinations before 11th September last, they certainly are not clear now. At a very high-powered conference at Chatham House last autumn, where all the leading players in the European defence scene spoke or were present. I was struck by the important conclusion that was reached. They said:
"The EU seems at present to lack an overall strategic concept".
They went on to comment:
"The number of senior European military appointments made recently give rise to possible confusions over unity of command".
I shall come to that point later. But there can be no doubt that, in terms of where we are heading and what the goals are, the clarity is lacking.
Perhaps I may make it absolutely clear that, from this side, we have always supported a stronger European wing, branch or end of NATO. Indeed, the NATO initiative was called a "European strategic defence initiative"—ESDI. We have always supported that. As the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, said in a moment of candour, from way back, when the Labour Party was singing a quite different tune, we were arguing for a very strong European pillar of NATO. We give full support, as we have done all along, to NATO's defence capability initiative, which is intended to do what everyone in this debate has said it should do. It should develop European defence in the six crucial areas of deployability and mobility, logistics, effective engagement, command and control, survivability and, perhaps above all, interoperability. Those things are necessary. We back them totally. There has never been any doubt about that except in the mouths of some of our critics. I should not like any doubt about that to be perpetuated in this debate.
But the real issues today are the questions of defence spending in Europe and how that will he raised to at least the levels of those of Britain and France, or something approximating that level, rather than limping along at the present, much lower levels. I see that the Government's reply says that the slide has stopped. I wonder whether it has. It would certainly be interesting to hear a little more support for that contention from the noble Baroness when she replies. Therefore, the first issue is defence spending in Europe and questions of cash and resources.
The second issue is the reform of NATO. It must he reformed in the new conditions that we face. But the question arises as to how it can be enlarged without weakening it, which is obviously a danger that concerns the Americans. I believe that we shall hear more from President Bush about that next week.

621
Above all, there is the question of further integration, not so much of the EU but of NATO, based on the type of trust to which the noble Lord, Lord Owen, referred and on a vastly expanded basis of so-called "soft security". That means, of course, the intelligence, communications and knowledge input which lies behind all modern warfare. That is the task: to create, as my noble friend Lady Park said, an integrated ESDP which supplements and reinforces the NATO system and in no way appears to weaken it or to go on a separate track. Those are the two tasks upon which all our energies should be focused.
Against that background, what are we to make of the rapid reaction force, if that is what ESDP now means? People see it in different ways. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Harrison, who said that it is a modest affair; it is very modest indeed. At best it is modest; it will almost certainly take a long time properly to get on the road. As indicated by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, and by the report, that may take several years. That is at best. At worst, one could fairly and objectively say that it has already created and is creating a number of new problems which, possibly, we could have avoided if we had concentrated on the two major tasks I have mentioned.
It has caused many problems with Turkey being out of the EU but right at the heart of NATO, as instanced in paragraph 42 of the report in a telling series of comments. It could he argued that it has caused problems in Ireland, where the Nice Treaty was voted down in a referendum—largely, it appears, because it did not want to be involved in military arrangements which would involve the sullying of Ireland's neutrality. It has created a whole class of would-be insiders and outsiders. It leaves out Canada, which has hardly been mentioned in the debate. Imagine leaving out Canada, the country which came to save Europe at Vimy Ridge in the First World War and has played a central part in post-war security. Yet somehow we have to rearrange matters to ensure that Canada is not left out of this project. It has created a whole range of immature and bitter criticisms from the gentry, the grandees of Brussels. It has generated, as none of us can deny, a strong and continuing aroma of anti-Americanism.
General Hägglund has been much quoted in this debate for his interesting comments. I do not agree with all he said. However, we must ask with him whether there is any sense in maintaining two parallel crisis management organisations. That is from the man who is, indeed, chairman of the EU Military Committee. The rapid reaction force—this modest affair— has certainly created new institutions, which have proliferated. We have a plethora of committees. We have the Political and Security Committee; the EU Military Committee; the EU military staff committee; and there are suggestions—not in the report—and references to the fact that others are calling for still more committees. There are many pledges and much rhetoric. However, there have been no new forces or capabilities brought forward as a result of all those efforts. Yet that is what Europe needs if we are to see a strong European pillar.
622
On the contrary, as noble Lords with far greater expertise than I have remarked, the technology gap with the United States grows wider all the time because of the fantastic coincidence of a whole range of new technologies, available world-wide but used in the United States, being brought together to carry forward concepts of weaponry and warfare to entirely new and unfamiliar levels. That has left critical shortfalls which the much quoted, forthright and sensible General Naumann tells the committee at paragraph 56 are not being addressed and are unlikely to be addressed. They will remain yawning wide. One cannot exclude from that the state of the United Kingdom's Armed Forces, with their underequipment and overstretch. As my noble friends Lord Vivian and Lord Attlee and the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, have pointed out, there are serious deficiencies. So we are not immune in that regard either.
Much stronger defences are needed in order to build up that NATO pillar and to build up our homeland defence in the new conditions where—here I disagree with some noble Lords—there is a direct territorial threat to this nation and to all European land masses. Together with these thoughts is the St Malo commitment—which I still regret as the noble Lord forecast I would—by the Government which was for,
"a capacity for autonomous action",
as a step towards European unification. That was a distraction from the urgent tasks which, as almost all noble Lords have recognised, are essential. Along with that distraction there has been much talk of the Petersberg tasks. What are they? Paragraph 48 of the excellent report states that they are all things to all people. It quotes one witness as saying that they are unrealistically vague. The truth is that after September 11th (9/11) those well-meaning tasks enunciated at Petersberg are completely out of date.
Everyone knows that all serious military tasks from now on—indeed from 9/11 onwards—will be increasingly complex and linked through global connections with globalised terrorism. The terrorists networks do not say, "Well, that is someone else's war; we shall not turn up there"; they are to be found in the midst of Chechnya, right down in Rwanda, and everywhere where evil, civil war or killing is at work. The infection of globalised terrorism will be there and will need to be addressed by the same kind of equipment and forces. One cannot go around with a little pair of scissors cutting out the minor tasks and saying, "We will look after those ones and someone else will deal with the big stuff". That is a totally wrong approach.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, may I just be sure that I understand the noble Lord? Was he suggesting that Al'Qaeda has some role in Rwanda?
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I said that terrorism with an international linkage is evident in the central African area, certainly in the DRC, but also in Rwanda and other parts of Africa. Yes, I was saying that it is everywhere. It would be hard to find a place where this infection has not been caught in local crises.

623
There is the argument that 9/11 has driven the United States to a preference for going it alone. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, warned us about his impression of what is being said in Washington. Therefore, the argument goes, there must be an EU alternative which must also go it alone. I regard that whole line of thinking as a spurious fantasy. First, even the United States, with its 13 carrier forces and its budget increase this year the size of the whole of our defence budget and so on, cannot go it alone against world terrorism because world terrorism is an internal issue which needs intimate understanding of the internal political workings of a whole range of societies, cultures and religions. For that it needs the help of many nations, large and small.
Secondly, the European Union is incapable—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel—of meeting the United States' capacities and technology. Anyway, there is no need; it would be ridiculous duplication to do so. We would indeed be going along the path which the noble Lord, Lord Owen, mentioned with regard to the Galileo project and unnecessary and expensive duplication instead of integrating and building up a coherent NATO system which can meet all the modern challenges.
If there is US despair at the moment, it is not because of a lack of autonomous European defence but because the rapid reaction force with all its political trappings and rhetoric is taking Europe's eye off the ball. We all know that this is a dangerous new world which requires new thinking. Mr Cheney has said that the next hit by terrorists is not a question of "if" but of "when". He said that it would be in the United States; but it is just as likely to be in the United Kingdom. We are just as likely to be the next target.
Against that chilling background, the military tasks are clear. Indeed, they are set out well in the MoD's New Chapter, which argues that we now need forces that prevent, deter, coerce, disrupt and destroy. Clearly—this is my argument, not that of the MoD document—for that, we need a strong European end of NATO and strong homeland defences. We need NATO to reinvent its own structure and to embrace all the resources that we can mobilise in Europe.
The RRF contribution to either of those aims is questionable and its goals are obscure and political. The sooner that the Government return to the real tasks, the better. As Marc Grossman, the US Under-Secretary in the State Department, said the other day, for Europe, it all comes down to cash and hard choices. The Government must now make those hard choices. Unless they do, these dangerous times will come to be seen not as the time of seizing opportunities and preparing for the dangers ahead, but as the years that the locusts ate.
9.56 p.m.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, for introducing this debate and all the members of his committee for the hard work and
624
professionalism that they dedicated to their task. I also thank all of your Lordships who participated in the debate for their contributions. Of course, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, said about our sad loss in not having my late noble friend Lord Shore with us this evening.
A number of your Lordships remarked that the terrible events of September 11th last year have made us all more aware of how vulnerable we are to challenges to our security and of the role that crisis management can play in providing the bedrock for that security. The European security and defence policy is about crisis management and security issues. Crisis management is about bringing stability, and stability is essential to allow people to get on with their lives and to build their societies and economies. Stable societies offer people the chance to look to the future with hope and, on the whole, are less likely to be breeding grounds for terrorism. I applaud my noble friend Lord Judd for placing our debate in that context.
I remind your Lordships that recent missions in Sierra Leone, East Timor, Bosnia and Kosovo have all shown that peacekeeping is possible and can be effective. The recent independence of East Timor and elections in Sierra Leone have demonstrated the fruits of such operations. But of course, as a global player, it is right that the EU should share responsibility for such activity. As many of your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, remarked, the past decade has shown that successful crisis management demands different tools, capabilities, strategies and tactics at different times.
So my noble friend Lord Judd was right: at the strategic level, the ESDP will complement existing EU tools—humanitarian and development aid, diplomacy, and trade. They must all be deployed. But at the operational level, ESDP has the unique potential to draw on military and civilian crisis management capabilities—policemen alongside peacekeepers—under the political control of a single body.
The Government welcome your Lordships' report on the European security and defence policy and we share the overriding priorities reflected in it. I assure the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, that we are still listening to a number of points that were raised.
I turn first to the issue of military capabilities. Your Lordships' report reiterates that military capabilities count most, not structures—a point made forcefully by my noble friend Lord Gilbert and the noble Lord, Lord Vivian. The Government agree emphatically with that. Without enhancing European military capabilities, military structures lack meaning. I strongly agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said. General Naumann's points were right in that respect.
To many outside your Lordships' House, military capabilities are perhaps a less interesting aspect of the European security and defence policy. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, implied, capability is the fundamental building block. The Government continue to believe that, without harnessing the EU's economic strength to create a pool of military

625
capabilities, the EU's ability to contribute to global security will remain limited. For example, as the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and my noble friend Lord Gilbert said, EU nations lack enough heavy-lift aircraft to transport troops and equipment to a crisis quickly. Although there is no shortage of European troops, we still do not have ways of getting them into theatre quickly enough. That hampers our ability as Europeans to play our role in international crisis management.
While the UK and others wait for the Airbus A400M aircraft to be delivered to fill that shortfall, we are leading the way to fill the heavy airlift shortfalls in the interim by leasing the four C17 aircraft to which my noble friend referred. Others in the EU are following by seeking to lease the Antonov AN124 aircraft from the Ukraine. However, we must take into account the ability of that aircraft to land and be maintained and its manoeuvrability in any theatre. I remind the noble Earl. Lord Attlee, about those points.
That is an example of the way in which the UK works with EU partners to provide the nuts and bolts needed for military crisis management. I agree with my noble friend. Lord Gilbert, that it is not yet enough, but I remind him that every plane and every military project has, at some point, been what he described as a paper project. We both know that from our former roles as Minister for Defence Procurement. I also remind my noble friend and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that there are break clauses in our arrangements for the A400M. If we do not reach the targets for delivery dates and capability, the UK can exercise its option to seek alternatives.
To stimulate the kind of military capability to which so many noble Lords referred, the EU set itself an ambitious goal in 1999. That goal was not as modest as the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond, or my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel suggested. The Helsinki headline goal is important. It means that, by 2003, EU member states should be able to deploy collectively up to 60,000 troops within 60 days and keep that number in theatre for at least a year. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that we already have enough troops; what we need to work on is heavy lift capability and several of our strategic weapon systems. Those matters are being addressed, and I am assured that we are on track.
I listened carefully to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, who said that 60 days was too long and one year was too short. For some projects, that will be true, but it is important that, nonetheless, we have a goal in place towards which we are working as a valuable launchpad for what we are trying to do.
We agree with the Select Committee's assessment that reaching the headline goal by 2003 is a challenging target. The goal needed to be challenging to motivate the kind of change in spending priorities required to enhance European military capabilities. My noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington was right: it is not committees that count, it is real capabilities. Like my noble friend, Her Majesty's Government want to see
626
real improvements. The EU has made some progress in enhancing military capabilities. By last November's capabilities improvement conference, EU member states had met 104 of the 144 capability target areas listed in the headline goal.
I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, said about how we had done the easy ones first and left the difficult ones for later, but I do not believe that the targets are modest. They are realistic, and we are working steadily towards them. They will be difficult to meet. I make no bones about that. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond, and my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, not to think that we have a modest challenge ahead of us. Of those 40 shortfall areas, about half are significant. Work is in hand to address all 40 but the EU has agreed a European capabilities action plan to be implemented by panels of national experts. Eighteen of those panels are already active. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, in a very thoughtful contribution, that an effort is being made to improve European capability on those issues.
As the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, said, the committee asked whether the hulk of the burden for capabilities improvement continues to fall disproportionately on the United Kingdom and France. That point was reiterated by the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond. I am pleased to be able to report to your Lordships, and in particular to my noble friend Lord Gilbert, that the imbalance to which your Lordships point is gradually shifting. I acknowledge that it is a gradual shift, but it is none the less discernible. For example, the Dutch are spending an additional 136 million euros on European capability upgrades. They have announced up to 952 million euros-worth anew programmes between 2002 and 2011 to achieve the headline goal. Likewise, Finland invested some 67 million euros extra in equipment specifically for use in crisis management operations. Those are tangible investments.
That leads me to correct a widely held misconception. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harrison for his remarks about the notion of a European army. We have discussed the matter on many occasions, but your Lordships' report often refers to the European rapid reaction force whereas no such force exists. It is the capability that we are trying to secure, not a standing force. It is more than mere semantics because there is no desire for a standing EU force of command structure. The EU will use existing NATO or national capabilities. EU member states and third countries will decide nationally whether to make available their national capabilities for operation under ESDP—just as they do at present for NATO, for the UN or for a coalition of the willing.
Many of your Lordships led by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and well supported by the noble Lords, Lord Howell of Guildford, Lord Harrison, Lord Owen and Lord Vivian, argued eloquently and robustly that we need to increase and sustain our defence spending to fulfil these capability shortfalls.

627
I noted the notable and cogent points put by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, which were not quite on the same side of the argument.
European defence spending has levelled out in the past year. We, the UK, are actively engaging other EU partners diplomatically to maintain and in some cases to increase defence spending. NATO figures show a different picture from that painted in the committee's report and I would like to write particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who concentrated his remarks in that area, and to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, giving details of that matter and to place a copy in the Library of the House.
We believe that the UK has done its part in keeping European defence spending buoyant. Not only is it true that we have stopped the decline in defence spending which took place under our predecessors, but we are now spending more. Between 2000–01 and 2003–04, UK defence spending will have risen in real terms for the first time in more than a decade.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, is it also true that as a percentage of GNP it has fallen from 2.8 to 2.4 per cent?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that is of course because we are improving GNP, or GDP, which I am happy to acknowledge. The fact is that in real terms the Armed Forces have more to spend than they used to have. The point which the noble Earl was trying to make is that spending more is not enough. EU member states need to spend more on the right things; for example, more on equipment and less on conscript forces.
Moreover, we need to spend smarter, to use the jargonistic phrase. But we are doing that. We are spending more on equipment; for example, in two key capability target areas we have increased our spending. We have increased it in response to the airlift capacity, which has increased by some 60 per cent since the Strategic Defence Review, and we are buying four further roll-on roll-off ships to increase our heavy sea-lift capacity by around 2,000 per cent.
However, defence spending does not always deliver quick results. My noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall was right in saying that making defence spending go further is always a slow process. Even in the United States it is a slow process. Many noble Lords have pointed out that the United States is increasing its defence expenditure. Thus the defence budget will increase, but not necessarily in the sense of providing additional resources.
Of course we have had to make some difficult choices about how we spend the available money. Now other EU member states are also looking at the way in which they are utilising their finances. Defence reviews under way in Germany, the Netherlands. Belgium, Sweden and Finland are recommending more deployable, mobile and flexible forces. Italian and Greek reviews are also in progress. France and Spain will have completely professional armed forces by the end of this
628
year. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, reminded us that that will be the case in Germany. In addition, Italy, Greece and Portugal are reducing the number of conscripts in relation to their professional personnel. The Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg have already completed the professional aspect of their armed forces.
My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel was quite right to point out that we in Europe have a difficult hand to play. But to use my noble friend's analogy a little further, the question we have to ask is this: what can we do to improve the quality of our cards and to play our hand more effectively? We are not the only country looking at this aspect. EU nations are examining new ways of using their existing resources far more effectively, pooling and improving the interoperability of our forces and equipment. We believe that that will achieve economies of scale. I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend Lord Williams, and, indeed, with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, on the importance of interoperability. For example, Germany and the Netherlands have announced that they will collaborate to provide some existing German aircraft with air-to-air refuelling capability. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, made clear, it is a difficult task to achieve, but it is one to which we must dedicate a great deal of time and thought.
We look also to collaborative procurement initiatives, which we have seen taken forward in OCCAR. I agree with many noble Lords who have wondered whether OCCAR is going to be truly effective, but better procurement and cutting down duplication, time and costs are absolutely vital, a point stressed by my noble friend Lord Harrison. Although OCCAR is still in its early days, it does provide us with a means of moving forward on those important procurement issues.
I turn now to whether the ESDP is really now up and running. There have been some improvements in capability, but are those improvements adequate to allow the ESDP to claim that it is now operational? I think that the answer to the question is a qualified "yes", but within clear limits. The EU has recognised that capability shortfalls will have an impact on what the ESDP can do in the short term.
The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, raised the question of consultation and when action on humanitarian issues would be appropriate. In December 2001 at Laeken, the EU declared that, through the continuing development of the ESDP and the strengthening of its capabilities, both civil and military, and the creation of the appropriate EU structures, the EU is now able to conduct some crisis management operations. However, at this initial stage of the development of the ESDP, the European Council at Laeken also made it clear that the Union will be in a position to take on progressively more demanding operations as the assets and capabilities at its disposal continue to develop. If the noble Lord were to ask me whether that was the only forum within which these issues are being addressed, I would say of course it is not. They are also being addressed in NATO and the UN.

629
I wish to address an issue on which many noble Lords concentrated; that is the relationship between the ES DP and NATO. The relationship with NATO is absolutely crucial. That point was raised by almost all noble Lords who participated in our debate. All pointed out that the links between NATO and the EU are integral to ensuring that the EU does not duplicate NATO planning structures and that rivalry does not ensue.
Noble Lords will have heard on many occasions Ministers come to the Dispatch Box and make the point, but I shall make it again this evening. The ESDP is designed to complement NATO; NATO will remain the cornerstone of our territorial and defence security. I listened carefully to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, but I genuinely do not believe that we shall have to choose between NATO and the ESDP. The whole point is that they should be complementary. However, I do agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. The relationship must not be taken for granted. It needs to be fostered and constantly reinforced and I believe that working relationships between the MoD and the Pentagon do exactly that. NATO will also continue to have a role in crisis management, but ESDP will offer the international community a further option and will act when NATO as whole is not engaged.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers in Reykjavik last week. NATO remains alive to the same issues as ESDP. I agree with my noble friend Lord Williams that we saw a number of UK objectives met in three key areas— NATO-Russia relations, NATO enlargement and reform of NATO. Like my noble friend Lord Harrison, the Government very strongly support the plans of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, for a modernised NATO, with improved command, force and headquarters structures. This will be essential if an enlarged NATO is to continue to be an effective military alliance.
Equally, NATO will benefit from ESDP. Nations have one set of forces, and improvements in national capability can and must benefit both the ESDP and NATO.
My noble friends Lord Judd and Lord Williams referred to the NATO-Russia council. The points which were agreed in Reykjavik on 14th May were very important. Given the shortage of time, perhaps I may write to my noble friends on the important points that were made about the future of the relationship and place a copy of my letter in the Library.
Let me now say something about the EU-NATO links, the Berlin Plus and the whole axis of arguments about what is happening between Turkey and Greece at the moment. Of course there are complex angles to the EU-NATO relationship. It is not a straightforward issue, as many noble Lords pointed out. At the Barcelona European Council, the EU Heads of Government and State announced that the EU would be available to take over the NATO mission in the former Republic of Macedonia. But two conditions were applied: first, that such a force would be needed;
630
and, secondly and crucially, that the EU-NATO links would have to be in place. That was a vital condition in relation to the points made by the noble Lord. Lord Owen, and, to a lesser extent, by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I stress that that was a crucial point in the conditionality placed on that issue.
As the House will know, EU-NATO links— or Berlin Plus in shorthand—are necessary to give the EU assured access to NATO planning and presumed access to NATO's assets and capabilities. Without these, the ESDP will not be able to take on the more demanding crisis-management operations.
The Government share your Lordships' concerns over the difficulties that we have faced in securing the Berlin Plus arrangements referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, but commitment to Berlin Plus in both the EU and NATO remains overwhelming. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, concentrated most of his remarks on this point, hut I can say to him that we remain confident that both organisations will be able to meet the concerns of Turkey and Greece to their mutual satisfaction. The United Kingdom will certainly be working hard with the Governments of both countries to try to help them to resolve their differences. I hope that gives some assurance to the noble Lord.
A number of points were raised by the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Owen, on the question of the command and control of EU crisis-management operations. We must remember that we are talking here about Petersberg tasks. They are not—I repeat not—issues surrounding Article 5 of NATO. At the top level the picture is clear. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is right: the EU Council has political control, delegated when appropriate to the Political and Security Committee. The ELI crisis-management exercise in 2003 will help to clarify the way in which the Committee of Contributing Nations will interact with the Political and Security Committee to run an operation.
The argument in relation to this issue is: what happens at operational level? At that level, the command and control takes two forms. Because the EU does not have its own operational command structure, it can use either NATO, in the form of SHAPE, or it can use an EU nation's own structures. In short, either the EU will ask NATO to plan and command an operation or it will ask a framework nation, such as the United Kingdom, to use its operational headquarters to do so. I say to both noble Lords that there is no decision to create an independent military operational planning capability. Either NATO is used, or one of the countries involved in the operation. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford—we have discussed this matter many times previously—that European capability kicks in only when NATO as a whole is not engaged.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, raised questions on monitoring and training which ought to be touched upon. He has particular expertise given his history in this area. It has been agreed that in the earliest stages of EU force development the training of

631
troops would be conducted by nations and by NATO. We fully anticipate that in due course NATO will want to adapt its major exercises to enable EU nations to work to prove headline goal interoperability. I hope that that is of some comfort to the noble and gallant Lord.
Finally, perhaps I may address the points about how ESDP might be held to account to supra-national legislatures—a point on which the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, concentrated a large part of his remarks. Nations are individually responsible for decisions about the deployment of national military personnel and assets. It is right, therefore, that the principal form of parliamentary accountability should remain with national parliaments. We believe that this is the right course in fulfilling the commitment to accountability, and it is important to consider how this is then taken forward into the future.
As I am sure the noble Lord is well aware, the question will be dealt with under the convention on the future of Europe and its subsequent intergovernmental conference in 2004. It would be premature to speculate on the outcome of that. I strongly agree with the remark by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, that to take such a decision now would indeed be premature. I am sure that many noble Lords believe that it could possibly pre-empt the decisions that are being taken at the moment on the future of Europe.
In the mean time, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and other noble Lords who raised the point, that the European Parliament, the WEU Assembly and other relevant bodies will continue to fulfil their current functions.
I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, about the points that he raised on Canada. I thought that he was entirely wrong. It has not been left out, but perhaps I may write to him on the point.
In conclusion, I have listened carefully to what has been a wide-ranging and, as so often on this subject, an enormously well-informed debate. I am very grateful to your Lordships for the comments and suggestions that you have made. I believe that the Government will want to take much of this on board as the ESDP develops. What is clear, however, from the debate is that the ESDP is a necessary tool as part of the foreign policy apparatus of the United Kingdom within the EU and a much-needed tool within the international community when we turn to crisis management.
632
The Government thank the committee for its report and commend it to the House.
10.23 p.m.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, a few moments ago, my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, sent me a note which said:
"The debate has been interesting enough for you to make a full wind-up".
In view of the lateness of the hour, I shall resist that temptation to become a parliamentary windbag. However, I should like to thank all those who have spoken, and in particular the Minister for an outstanding reply. She covered a huge amount of ground in a relatively short time. I make only one comment to her. I should have liked to hear a little more about the Government's reactions to General Hägglund's remarks two weeks ago, but perhaps at some stage we can pursue that a little further.
All members of the committee will be grateful for the generally warm welcome that our report has received. I have heard no serious criticism. I want to refer to only one query, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall. He said that he felt that there was some incompatibility between paragraphs 39 and 90. Frankly, I am not able to recognise that incompatibility. Paragraph 39 says that the European Union must do more and must do it better, because the United States may not always be involved in various tasks. Paragraph 90 says that on some occasions ESDP may well need United States political and perhaps practical support, whether through advice or intelligence back-up—that is relevant remembering the Falklands campaign—or on contingency planning in the event of an operation going through a degree of escalation or serious extension of the crisis that is being dealt with. I am afraid that I therefore do not recognise the incompatibility referred to by the noble Lord, but maybe we can discuss that on another occasion.
I have detected wide support in the debate for the conclusions of the report. My old friend the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said at the end of his remarks that he felt that the House would return to the issue. I believe that the committee and the House most certainly will return to it from time to time.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past ten o'clock.

  Camp X-Ray: UK Detainees
  Camp X-Ray: UK Detainees
  Poor Countries: Debt Relief
  Poor Countries: Debt Relief
  Immigration Removal Centres Insurance
  Immigration Removal Centres Insurance
  Northern Ireland: Illegal Importation of Fuel
  Northern Ireland: Illegal Importation of Fuel
  Northern Ireland: Illegal Distilling of Liquor
  Northern Ireland: Illegal Distilling of Liquor
  Sex Discrimination Act 1975
  Sex Discrimination Act 1975
  Turkey
  Turkey
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Iraq
  Iraq
  WTO: Dispute Settlement Understanding
  WTO: Dispute Settlement Understanding
  Broadband Services
  Broadband Services
  Furniture Fire Safety Regulations: Manchester
  Furniture Fire Safety Regulations: Manchester
  Animal Health Bill
  Animal Health Bill
  Illegal Meat Imports
  Illegal Meat Imports
  Hunting with Dogs
  Hunting with Dogs
  Private Abortion Clinics: Advertising
  Private Abortion Clinics: Advertising
  Strategic Health Authorities
  Strategic Health Authorities
  National Specialist Commissioning Advisory Group
  National Specialist Commissioning Advisory Group