Sitting of 4 November 2002

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

    RAF Fairford
    Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: If he will make a statement on flights over Gloucester by military aircraft from RAF Fairford. [76685]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): Military aircraft using RAF Fairford would not normally fly over Gloucester.
    Mr. Dhanda: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reassurance on that matter. He may be aware of correspondence that I received from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence on 29 August that said that the military flights over Gloucester spotted by some of my constituents may have been connected to the royal international air tattoo held between 19 and 21 July this year. Will my right hon. Friend prevail on the authorities at RAF Fairford, RAF Brize Norton and
    2
    other air bases to ensure that hon. Members are informed when there is a possibility of flights over their constituencies as a result of air shows or tattoos?
    Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I am sorry if such notification was not given on that occasion. It is not always RAF Fairford that is affected; Brize Norton can also be involved, as he rightly said. I assure him that we shall seek to notify hon. Members in the circumstances that he set out.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Minister will be aware that many of the aircraft that participate in the RAF Fairford tattoo also take part in the Farnborough air show, which employs many of my constituents—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.

    Shipping Security
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: What plans he has to increase Royal Navy safeguards for British shipping; and if he will make a statement. [76694]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The Ministry of Defence works closely with other Government Departments on the protection of merchant shipping. The Royal Navy's worldwide maritime trade operations—known as MTO arrangements—enable it to offer a number of options to support merchant shipping. They range from the provision of routine advice and guidance to naval supervision of merchant vessels. Decisions about the timing and type of support offered are informed by the potential threat in any given region or area. For example, MTO arrangements in the Gulf have been enhanced since October last year. The threat to

    3
    merchant shipping is kept under constant review. If necessary, additional maritime trade operations measures can be implemented very quickly.
    Mr. O'Brien: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that shipping could be a soft target for terrorists in certain areas? The recent attack on the French tanker Limburg off the coast of Yemen was identified as a terrorist attack. Such incidents show the need for Royal Navy protection for British merchant ships in high-risk areas. He is aware that, following the new tax laws for British shipping, there has been a significant increase in British-registered merchant ships—more than 60 per cent. in the past few months—and a substantial increase in British operational interests. The need for the protection of the red ensign is, therefore, of paramount importance at all times. What protection, other than what he outlined in his reply, is the Royal Navy giving to our merchant shipping?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his concern on this important subject. I agree that we must keep the threat to shipping under close review. I am sure that he and other hon. Members will understand why I will not go into precise detail about that, but the MTO arrangements allow us to make a graduated response, giving the possibility of an appropriate and considered reaction to any increased threat. As I said earlier, the security arrangements for the Gulf region have been enhanced. Maritime trade operations remain under routine daily review by the Ministry of Defence, and can be changed very quickly in response to variations in the assessed threat level.
    Mr. John Redwood: Will the Secretary of State tell us how many naval vessels are not currently operational and on duty, and what action he is taking urgently to bring more ships back into use?
    Mr. Hoon: What I can tell the House is that the Royal Navy is in a position to carry out all the operations that it is required to, and to carry out the medium-scale war-fighting capability required under the defence planning assumptions. The right hon. Gentleman might like to know that Royal Navy vessels and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service are currently deployed in the Caribbean, the Gulf, the far east, the Mediterranean and the south Atlantic. In addition, they continue to undertake operational training.
    Mr. Gwyn Prosser: According to The Telegraph, the journal of the Merchant Navy officers' union NUMAST—the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers—there have been some 2,300 terrorist or pirate attacks on merchant ships over the past 10 years, in which 280 seafarers have been killed and more than 270 seriously injured. Taking into account this worldwide issue, and the fact that companies are cutting crews, will my right hon. Friend speak to his colleagues in other Departments about the whole issue of safe manning levels and the ability to mount safe patrols on the ships?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and I know how conscientiously he pursues merchant shipping matters. I assure him, as I assured the
    4
    House a few minutes ago, that the Ministry of Defence takes considerable interest in the matter, and we are in regular contact with other Departments to respond to any enhanced threat to merchant shipping, wherever it is in the world.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: But why would not the Secretary of State answer my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)? In the light of the recent threat to a Royal Navy ship in the straits of Gibraltar and the attack on a French tanker lying off Yemen mentioned by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), are not the Government gambling with Britain's maritime security by allowing half the fleet to remain out of action? Can the Secretary of State confirm weekend press reports that at least two front-line RAF Tornado interceptor squadrons are similarly out of action? Does not all that graphically show that there is no spare capacity and that the Government are simply not prepared for the unexpected?
    Mr. Hoon: It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman believes everything he reads in the weekend newspapers and, moreover, comes to the House with that material and chooses to run down the capability of the armed forces. Had he listened to my answer to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) more carefully than he apparently did, he would have noticed that the operational responsibilities of the Royal Navy remain unaffected. It is capable of carrying out the range of activities according to the defence planning assumptions. Therefore, the number is not strictly relevant at this stage. Provided that it can carry out the range of its requirements under the assumptions that are set down, that should be an end of the matter. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who claims to take an interest in matters military and the armed forces, should come to the House and run down this country's military capabilities.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: Has my right hon. Friend called for an assessment of the implications for the safety of British shipping caused by the delay in getting the Nimrod aircraft back in service? When does he expect it to return to service?
    Mr. Hoon: Obviously, there are concerns about the availability of Nimrod. That matter is, for the moment at any rate, the responsibility of BAE Systems. We have a very clear contract with it for the delivery of those aircraft. Obviously, this is a matter that we keep under constant review. I assure my hon. Friend that there is no extra threat to the safety and security of our shipping, because the protection afforded by existing aircraft is quite sufficient for the moment.

    Reservists (Call-up)
    Harry Cohen: What call-up of reservists he has (a) made recently and (b) plans to make and for what reasons; and if he will make a statement. [76696]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): A call-out order was made on 14 October 2002 in support of operations in Afghanistan and related operations against international terrorism. This was purely for the continuation of existing operations. In line with our policy since the strategic defence review, any substantial new operation would require support from reservists. That would be the subject of a separate call-out order at the appropriate time.
    Harry Cohen: Would not such a separate call-out order suggest that the Government are prepared to go on with a war against Iraq with little regard for international law or the United Nations process? Is not The Daily Telegraph correct today in saying that such a call-out is likely to he done by Queen's order, which was last used in the Korean war and would criminalise those who do not want to volunteer for such a call-out? Is the advice given by officials to my right hon. Friend, as quoted in The Daily Telegraph, correct—that there would not be sufficient volunteers if the call-up were voluntary? Would not such a call-up have a draconian effect on the national health service and on businesses and employers?
    Mr. Hoon: I have just warned Conservative Members about the dangers of believing what they read in the newspapers. According to this morning's edition of The Daily Telegraph, I am supposedly announcing the mobilisation of reserves today. I can tell the House, and The Daily Telegraph, if any of its correspondents have chosen to be here, that that is not true. No such order is being made today. Military action against Iraq is neither imminent nor inevitable. In those circumstances, I can reassure my hon. Friend, I hope, that if it is necessary to call out reserves, the House will be the first to know.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: I am grateful for the Secretary of State's final remarks, because I am sure that he agrees that such speculation affects the individuals concerned and their families. The best way to ensure that there is no such speculation is for him to reassure the House of Commons, as he has just done, that there will be a full statement or a full debate in the House before any reservists are called up, so that the announcement is made here, not in the press.
    Mr. Hoon: I am sure that that is absolutely right. The subject of the question was the call-out of reservists and the procedures that would be necessary. Obviously a call-out order would be necessary, and would have to he laid before the House in the normal way.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Did my right hon. Friend notice that, according to The Daily Telegraph, certain Labour Members were primed to ask this question? Had that been so, would he have chosen as his conduits my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) for Question 4 and me for Question 17?
    6
    If my right hon. Friend is going to do this, should it really be done through the royal prerogative? Perhaps the royal prerogative is not the right way in which to do it.
    Mr. Hoon: Let me come to the rescue of my hon. Friend's reputation, and indeed that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen). Neither would be regarded as the usual suspects in connection with the tabling of the sort of question on which The Daily Telegraph speculated—wrongly—this morning.
    As for the royal prerogative and the substance of my hon. Friend's question, as he knows much better than I—given his much longer experience of this place—that is the way in which these things are done in the United Kingdom. That has always been the case, and I anticipate that it always will be.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: Does the Secretary of State accept that one of the most overstretched, vulnerable and important parts of the reserve forces is the medical reserves—not least because many of them are extremely vulnerable in their civilian jobs, which are mostly in the national health service? What inquiry has been made into the recent disastrous decision to mobilise a large number of them compulsorily, and send them home shortly afterwards having found that they were not needed?
    Mr. Hoon: I do not accept that our medical reserves are overstretched, but I certainly accept that, as a result of the disastrous decisions of the last Government about medical support for our armed forces—[Interruption.] Opposition Members are gesticulating wildly, and one says, "Five years". I suggest that he ring his local medical school and find out how long it takes to train a doctor. He will find that it takes rather longer than five years, which is why direct responsibility for the shortage of doctors and other trained medical staff lies with the last Conservative Government, who affected the way in which we support our armed forces so disastrously.
    I am not at all content with the number of doctors and other medical support staff. We are taking urgent action to deal with that.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I recall that during the defence reviews of the 1990s, the Labour party complained that we had not cut enough. I should remind the Secretary of State of that.
    The right hon. Gentleman's body language suggests that nothing could be further from his mind than the suggestion that there might be a substantial call-out of reservists and the Territorial Army over the next few months. We all know that that likelihood must in fact be at the front of his mind. We have no doubt that the armed forces, the Territorial and the reserves will do all that they can to deliver a professional and excellent service to this country if such a call arises; but the impression that we continue to receive from the right hon. Gentleman's Department is that he is unprepared for the unexpected.

    7
    We already have reservists spread across the world, from Northern Ireland to the Balkans and Afghanistan. The strategic defence review went much further, cutting the core element of the reserve forces, the Territorial Army. Will the Secretary of State now admit that that was a mistake; and has he set a new, increased target for the TA?
    Mr. Hoon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman had to ramble through a series of observations before asking a specific question, but I will do my best to deal with his apparently unconnected remarks.
    Military action against Iraq is neither imminent nor inevitable. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as any other Member that any substantial military operation nowadays would require support from reservists, and our planning processes take that into account. As I have said, there has been no decision on that, and as soon as a decision is made the House will of course be informed in the normal way, following a call-out order.
    We have debated here, on a number of occasions, the appropriate number of reservists who might be required. He knows as well as the House does—it was set out in a White Paper and the House has debated the new chapter of the strategic defence review—that we propose adjustments in the number and organisation of our reservists. That will not come as any great surprise to him or any other Member.
    Mr. Jenkin: The answer is that the Secretary of State is still thinking about it and he has not got a policy. Does he recall the difficulties faced by his Department when it was suggested that we might have to mobilise reservists for the Kosovo conflict? The Select Committee report on the strategic defence review and the reserve forces stated:
    "If the MOD had had to mobilise up to 18,000 reservists it is hard to imagine that it would have been achievable in an orderly and efficient manner using present facilities and procedures."
    The deputy inspector general of the Territorial Army is quoted as saying:
    "The problem we had in planning was that we had to do a hell of a lot of work in a hell of a hurry."
    Have we learned the lessons of the Kosovo conflict or, if it becomes necessary to have such a call-out again, will we face the same problems?
    Mr. Hoon: I am slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman should choose Kosovo as an example. The British forces' action in Kosovo in the spring and summer of 1999 was a remarkable and successful operation. Given the date and circumstances of the operation, it is a dangerous example for a Front-Bench spokesman of the Conservative party to use, given that it was responsible for the organisation of reservists in 1997. I am sorry if he has to go back that far for his illustration. The reality is that we have a clear policy on reservists, which was set out in the strategic defence review and repeated again in the new chapter to that review. Both have been thoroughly and fully debated in the House.
    Mr. Jenkin: I simply asked what lessons have been learned from the preparations for a mobilisation four years ago. The Secretary of State did not suggest a single
    8
    one. I remind him that it took six months to mobilise the 3rd Military Intelligence Battalion before a single reservist was deployed on operations in the past 12 months. It is interesting that the Prime Minister said that the only orders laid have been routine ones, and brushed aside any suggestion of a call-up in the near future. Is the Secretary of State ruling out a major call-up of the reserves in the next few months? How much warning will reservists get? Preparations by the United States are already much in advance of ours.
    Mr. Hoon: Again, on both counts, the hon. Gentleman should look more carefully before he asks such questions. The United States has arrangements for the call-out of reservists very similar to ours. If he checked before asking those rather foolish questions, he would find that the United States has not taken any decision on reserves either. I answered his question a few moments ago when I said that any substantial military operation requires support from reservists, and all our planning processes take that into account. If it is necessary to call out reservists, we will do so.

    Recruitment
    Tony Cunningham: What measures the Ministry of Defence is taking to promote the armed forces to students in school. [76697]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): All three services have school presentation teams and careers advisers who, between them, last year undertook visits to over 4,600 schools. Their purpose is to raise awareness of, and provide information on, careers opportunities in the armed forces. In addition, a schools adviser team has been operating since November 2001, using a trial presentation to raise awareness among year 10 pupils of the role played by the armed forces and the Ministry of Defence at home and abroad.
    Tony Cunningham: As a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme linked with the RAF—I know that other hon. Members involved are also in their places—I am very aware of the tremendous role that the armed forces play. What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the Department for Education and Skills to ensure that the initiatives that he mentions are linked to the national curriculum?
    Mr. Ingram: As a graduate of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I am always pleased to hear it getting a plug. I encourage more right hon. and hon. Members to participate in that excellent scheme.
    My hon. Friend raises an important issue. It is important that our involvement in schools benefits both teachers and students. The schools presentation team has designed material to fit in around the national curriculum, using real-life experiences in the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces. We are developing that material with the DFES and its counterparts in Scotland and Wales, and working with teachers and schools to help ensure that it is useful and relevant to their needs. This is a very good example of Departments working

    9
    together at national and local level to ensure that students, teachers and the Ministry of Defence benefit from the work.
    David Burnside: Will the Minister give us his experience of any similarities or differences in promoting the armed forces to students in schools in Northern Ireland, especially during the period when Martin McGuinness was Minister of Education?
    Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to go back some time in my experience. I was not wholly conscious of such a process taking place in schools in Northern Ireland, but there is no reason why it should not. That would be a very good indication of the normalcy that we all hoped would apply in Northern Ireland. I shall consider the matter to see whether there are any differences in Northern Ireland and exactly what we are doing there.
    Mr. Adrian Bailey: In view of the significant under-representation of ethnic minorities in the armed forces, what special initiatives have been taken to recruit ethnic minority students into the armed forces, and what success has there been to date?
    Mr. Ingram: A number of important initiatives have been taken to address this key issue. We are beginning to achieve a measure of success, although we are not achieving the percentage that we had hoped for in the overall numbers of ethnic community members joining the armed forces. None the less, we are beginning to see an upward trend. That is based on using good exemplars in key areas in London and other parts of England to look at areas where we can draw from those communities. Members of ethnic communities who join the armed forces give top-class service and become good exemplars in their communities.

    A400M
    Mr. Andrew Turner: If he will make a statement on the A400M programme. [76698]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): We remain committed to purchasing 25 A400M aircraft. Belgium, France, Turkey and Spain also remain firmly committed to the programme. However, there is still uncertainty about the position of Portugal, and we still await resolution of the German funding issues. In the interim, we continue to work with all our partners to bring the signed contract into effect as soon as possible
    Mr. Turner: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. I am sure that he will be aware of the concern with which those in the aerospace industry view the A400M programme and the difficulties with our German partners. Can he confirm that there is a deadline for confirmation of this important programme, which will please so many of my constituents in East Cowes?
    Mr. Hoon: I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman and the House that the United Kingdom wants to see this programme move forward. The contract will enter into
    10
    force once Germany has the approval of the Bundestag for funding and can make its full commitment to the programme. Continued participation of other nations, including the United Kingdom, is subject to that German signature becoming effective without any qualifications. However, there is no specific deadline in the way that his question suggests.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Is not the truth that this programme was always more political than military, and that it does not represent good value for money compared with the alternatives available? Should not the Government try to get out of this contract as soon as possible?
    Mr. Hoon: I do not accept that for a moment. The A400M is the best deal for the Royal Air Force, the taxpayer and British industry. I am surprised to hear a senior and experienced Conservative Member make a suggestion that would clearly be extraordinarily detrimental to Britain's military capability and, crucially, to British jobs.

    BAE Systems
    Paul Farrelly: What role his Department has had in the promotion of arms sales by BAE Systems in the last two years, with particular reference to spare parts. [76699]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The Government are committed to encouraging and supporting legitimate United Kingdom defence exports. The Defence Export Services Organisation—DESO—within the Ministry of Defence is responsible for co-ordinating such support. In line with that policy, DESO has provided varied assistance to BAE Systems during the past two years, across a number of potential overseas defence requirements.
    Paul Farrelly: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. He will be aware of the United Nations panel report, issued a fortnight ago, into illegal exploitation of resources in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The report had wide press coverage and alleged, in particular, the busting of EU sanctions by Mr. John Bredenkamp, a Berkshire-based arms dealer. It stated that, earlier this year, that gentleman had brokered the delivery for the Zimbabwean air force, either directly or via a third country, of spare parts for Hawk jets made by British Aerospace. Will the Secretary of State undertake to investigate those serious allegations with the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry, review any relationships between his Department and Mr. Bredenkamp, as well as any role anywhere in the export of Hawk spares by British Aerospace; and report back on his conclusions and thereby play his part—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Secretary of State could manage an answer.
    Mr. Hoon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had got the message.

    11
    The Government certainly take seriously all credible reports of misuse or diversion of UK exported equipment. All our overseas missions have standing instructions to look into and report on any allegations of such misuse in the countries that they cover.
    As regards the specific allegations made by my hon. Friend, the Government are investigating the matter.
    Mr. George Osborne: The Secretary of State may remember that BAE Systems in Woodford, on the edge of my constituency, is a major employer of my constituents. Will he take this opportunity to remind the House that legitimate sales by BAE Systems are good for jobs and investment in this country?
    Mr. Hoon: I entirely agree with that observation. I only wish that the hon. Gentleman could have communicated that fact to his hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) a few minutes ago.
    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Can the Secretary of State tell us whether BAE Systems provided any parts or equipment for the grounded fleet of Apache helicopters? If so, will he tell the House what were the principal contributions made by British Aerospace?
    Mr. Hoon: Certainly, BAE Systems contributes to the Apache programme, but may I make it clear to my hon. Friend that the problems mentioned by the National Audit Office in no way relate to the viability of Apache as a piece of military equipment? Indeed, the report indicates that Apaches are being delivered broadly to time and to cost. The specific problem that we have to deal with arises from the difficulties of securing appropriate software for the training simulator—a problem that would have arisen in any event, but one that we are obviously seeking urgently to resolve.

    Wheeled Tanker Project
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: What criteria he will use to decide on the award of the contract for the wheeled tanker project. [76701]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The decision we reach will be based on ensuring the best capability for our armed forces at the best value for money, for defence and the British taxpayer. We will use a range of criteria to reach the decision for contract award, which will include technical and commercial compliance, through-life support and industrial participation.
    Mrs. Campbell: When my right hon. Friend considers the award of that contract, will he take into account superior British technology, long experience in serving the MOD and excellent British workmanship? All are available from Marshall Aerospace in my constituency.
    Mr. Ingram: We shall certainly take into account all those factors, whichever contractor bids for the project.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the prestigious company, Multidrive Ltd., in Thirsk in my constituency, which
    12
    can outshine any bid. When might a decision be announced, bearing it in mind that, wherever possible, if all the criteria are met, including quality, on-time delivery and value for money, the Government will choose British?
    Mr. Ingram: I cannot give the hon. Lady a precise month, but the decision is imminent. I suspect that is why there is so much public lobbying at present.

    SA80
    Phil Sawford: What action he has taken to ensure the reliability of the SA80 rifle used by British forces. [76702]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The SA80 modification programme has significantly improved the reliability and performance of the weapon. Extensive trials were carried out across all climatic conditions before the modified weapon was introduced. More recent trials and demonstrations in Afghanistan and Oman have established beyond doubt that the weapon is reliable and accurate and can be maintained in an operational environment.
    Phil Sawford: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. With much talk of a possible war with Iraq, many people, including my constituents, would wish to be reassured that our armed forces have reliable weapons, but will he tell the House who, if anyone, has accepted responsibility for the problems experienced with the SA80? Will he also tell the House who has paid the £80 million cost of the modifications to 300,000 rifles?
    Mr. Ingram: Well, the taxpayer pays for the modifications. As for who takes responsibility, when we modified the weapon, we put it through an intensive trial period and, because of some issues relating to the maintenance regime, it was discovered that it was not always functioning in the way that had been anticipated. That is why we then put it back through an even more detailed set of conditions in very extreme circumstances. An important key to this, of course, was that the actual practitioners—not officials and certainly not Ministers—decided whether the weapon was reliable, but I suppose that Ministers ultimately take responsibility for decisions.
    Patrick Mercer: I am delighted that the problems with at least one piece of equipment seem to be on the way to being solved, but would the Minister care to comment on replacing the British Army's combat helmet, which provides 40 per cent. less protection than any other helmet in NATO?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That question is far too wide.

    Afghanistan
    Mr. Chris Mullin: What recent discussions he has had with international

    13
    partners regarding extending the mandate of the intervention force in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [76703]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The United Kingdom currently contributes about 400 British troops to the international security assistance force, based in Kabul. I have regular discussions with international colleagues about ISAF, including on the continuing need for such a force after the expiry of its current United Nations authorisation on 20 December this year.
    Mr. Mullin: My I put it to my right hon. Friend that the situation in Afghanistan remains on a knife edge and that, unless ISAF's mandate is extended, there is a danger that Afghanistan will slide back into the sort of chaos that brought the Taliban to power in the first place? What discussions has he had with our allies about extending the mandate as a matter of urgency?
    Mr. Hoon: I accept my hon. Friend's observation that there are continuing concerns about security in Afghanistan. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said only in September:
    "I want to make it clear, once again, that we are entirely committed to its reconstruction. We will not desert the Afghan people. We will stick with them until the job …is done."—[Official Report, 24 September 2002; Vol. 390, c. 6.]
    That is why we are having detailed discussions, particularly with the United States, on planning how the coalition can further stabilise Afghanistan and, together with other allies, are looking at a range of different possibilities, but I have to tell my hon. Friend and the House that it is rather too early to say what that might involve at this stage.
    Mr. Keith Simpson: I am sure that all hon. Members will wish to praise the role of the British armed forces in Afghanistan under extremely difficult circumstances, but may I return the Secretary of State to the phrase "defence assumptions", which he used in answer to questions from my hon. Friend the Members for Aldershot (Mr Howarth) and for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin)? The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) made the very important point that the situation in Afghanistan is very delicate indeed. Can the right hon. Gentleman perhaps tell the House what contingency plans the Ministry of Defence has to reinforce British troops in Afghanistan if, unfortunately, the situation deteriorates, and whether that will have an adverse impact on the other preparations that the MOD is now making in relation to possible UN or other operations against Iraq?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations about British forces in Afghanistan, but it is only right that we should acknowledge the very considerable contribution made by other allies as well. Clearly, it is not simply for the United Kingdom to respond to any significant deterioration in the situation in Afghanistan. That would involve an effort by the international community, which is very well represented in Kabul and, indeed, in other operations in that country, so were there to be such a situation, we clearly have plans available that would allow the United
    14
    Kingdom to make a contribution further to secure the situation in Afghanistan. As of today, I am delighted to say that that is not necessary, but it is obviously a matter that we keep under constant review.
    David Cairns: Has my right hon. Friend seen reports that it is estimated that this year's poppy harvest in Afghanistan is something like 10 times larger than the harvest in the last year of the Taliban? Even if it is not larger to that degree but has none the less increased, will he assure me that the allied armed forces in Afghanistan are not in any way turning a blind eye to the cultivation of this crop as a quid pro quo for keeping warring factions together? He knows as well as I do that the crop will inevitably find its way on to the streets of his constituency and mine as heroin.
    Mr. Hoon: I certainly share my hon. Friend's concern about the poppy harvest. I am not an expert on poppy cultivation, but I anticipate that he is rather ahead of things as regards the harvest. I am aware of speculation about the prospects for this year's production, and I assure him that we and other members of the international community keep that under review and are discussing urgently the steps that can be taken to limit the amount that is produced in Afghanistan.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that last December he gave me a categorical assurance that British troops would only be stationed in Afghanistan for a very short period? When I expressed scepticism about that, and predicted that they would remain for a very much longer period, he was firm in telling me that I was wrong. Why has the policy been changed?
    Mr. Hoon: There has been no change in the policy. As I recall, the hon. Gentleman asked me about the duration of war-fighting operations, and I was able to tell him that those forces will be there for as long as necessary. We do not have significant numbers of British troops on the ground involved in war-fighting operations, and our contribution to the international security assistance force, as I explained to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, is significantly lower numerically than that of several other countries. That is why it is important that we recognise the contribution made by allies.
    Joan Ruddock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the United States has just withdrawn reconstruction aid from Masar-e-Sharif because it considers it too dangerous to allow its personnel to operate in that area? In view of that, can he explain to me what the coalition means by saying that it wishes to extend the ISAF effect outside Kabul?
    Mr. Hoon: That is simply shorthand for the kinds of discussions that I indicated are taking place, involving the United Kingdom and other allies, about how best to secure other parts of Afghanistan away from Kabul. The idea is to find means of working with the

    15
    transitional Administration to ensure that the difficulties that I know have been a recurrent feature of Maser are not repeated elsewhere.
    Bob Spink: May I take the Secretary of State back four questions, and confirm that the Opposition support the operations in Afghanistan? We believe that there should be more NATO involvement in the ISAF operations. What action is he taking to ensure greater involvement of NATO?
    Mr. Hoon: ISAF is a UN peacekeeping operation, and, for the moment, I do not anticipate that there need be NATO involvement. The countries that supply troops to the ISAF operation are, by and large, members of NATO, although not exclusively so. Provided that there is sufficient support from the international community to maintain ISAF in its present form up to 20 December—and beyond, should the UN consider it necessary—I am content that we would not need NATO support for that particular operation.

    Naval Bases
    Syd Rapson: If he will make a statement on partnering services at each naval base. [76704]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): New commercial partnering arrangements were introduced at the three naval bases at Devonport, Portsmouth and on the Clyde in September this year, under contracts awarded to Devonport Management Ltd., Fleet Support Ltd. and Babcock Naval Services. The new arrangements will deliver engineering support, waterfront services and logistics, estates and facilities management at each of the naval bases more efficiently and effectively, and at a lower cost to the taxpayer.
    Syd Rapson: I thank the Minister for the sensitive way in which he personally intervened in the Portsmouth partnering services scheme, which smoothed the way tremendously. May I ask a question about cross-platform partnering services? Will there be any adverse effects on those services when the Defence Logistics Organisation reverts from a provider to a decider?
    Mr. Ingram: I thank my hon. Friend for saying that I handled the matter sensitively—I will put that fact on my CV because it may come as a surprise to some people.
    My hon. Friend has alighted on an important change in the delivery of DLO services to the front line. The DLO will move from being a provider to a decider organisation, and the pace of that change will depend on a number of factors. We do not expect to take a "one size fits all" approach to complex logistics support requirements. Our decisions will be driven by sound reasoning about what is best overall, taking into account the impact of changing arrangements and the benefits to be gained in effectiveness and efficiency. The change will inevitably have an impact on the civilian work force, but as a responsible employer we will always
    16
    seek to look after the best interests of our civilian employees, just as we did when we made changes to naval base delivery.

    Firefighting Training
    Mr. Hugo Swire: How many service personnel have been trained for firefighting duties. [76705]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): This deployment involves more than 19,000 service personnel from all three services. About 3,000 Royal Navy personnel, 7,700 Army personnel and 2,300 RAF personnel have been trained. A further 6,500 personnel will be engaged in administrative, security, command-and-control and other duties, drawing on normal armed forces skills and training.
    Mr. Swire: Given the uncertain situation in Northern Ireland and the need to prepare for possible action in Iraq, as evidenced by the desertisation of two tank brigades in Germany, has the Minister assessed the loss of real training time caused by the need for firefighting training? How and when will that critical training be made up?
    Mr. Ingram: That is an impossible question because we do not know whether there will be a strike. I understand that a decision is pending, but talks continue, and we all hope that they will lead to a resolution of the dispute. All efforts should be made towards that. As to the numbers that we have deployed in anticipation of a dispute over the next few months, there must be a knock-on effect for the training regime, and the longer the strike runs, the greater the effect will be. We must constantly review the situation; over time it will create problems for effective delivery and for other missions in which we may be called on to participate.
    John Robertson: Will my right hon. Friend ignore Opposition calls for firefighters in the services to cross the Fire Brigades Union picket lines, and does he agree that if they did so it would only inflame an already serious situation?
    Mr. Ingram: At this stage, that is a wise judgment. As we move, hopefully, towards a negotiated settlement, it is better to try to keep down the temperature of the dispute. Again, however, the question is impossible because we do not know the shape, format and length of the dispute and, therefore, the nature of our response.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: We can all understand that while negotiations continue between the Government and the union, it is tactful not to give service personnel access to the latest firefighting equipment available in the fire stations. Does the Minister accept, however, that in the interests of public safety there will come a point at which service personnel must be given access to the best equipment?
    Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman makes an important recognition in saying that the decision is tactful, but, more than that, it is sensible. This is both a logistics issue and a training issue. I know that there is a

    17
    debate about how long it takes to train people, but we have committed large numbers of service personnel to the Green Goddess delivery system because of the short training required. If we decide to use sophisticated equipment for which longer training is needed, where will we get the personnel from? If we use the same pool of people, they will have to be taken out of service to be trained, so the logistics make it impractical to use that equipment. All these matters have to be kept under review, but there are no plans to do as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
    Bob Russell: Putting the fire dispute to one side, does the Minister agree that it would be in the national interest if one or two regiments of the British Army were trained to use the sophisticated modern fire appliances to create a reservoir of trained personnel for firefighting and other emergency duties in a national emergency?
    Mr. Ingram: No, I do not take the view that that is sensible because we do not want to appear as though we are always prepared, rather than forced, to participate. There is also the problem of skill fade. A sizeable number could be trained for an eventuality, but it is 25 years since the Green Goddesses were last called out. [Interruption.] I appreciate that we had to deploy them in regional strikes.
    We would have to consider where the regiments would be based. It would also be unfair on the personnel who were trained as permanent firefighters because that is not why they joined the armed forces, irrespective of which branch they represent. Nevertheless, in terms of emergency support for the community, we always stand ready to meet that immediate demand if and when it arises.
    Angus Robertson: The Minister will be aware that aid to the civil power role played by service personnel in areas with a large military presence, such as my own, is significant. What assessment has been made of the impact of firefighting duties on the operational role at bases including RAF Kinloss and RAF Lossiemouth? What assessment has the Ministry of Defence made of what would happen if the defence fire service is privatised should a similar problem or industrial action arise?
    Mr. Ingram: As my right hon. Friend muttered to me, "Or if Scotland becomes independent." Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should explore his policy on the armed forces—out of NATO, out of the United Kingdom and out of many international coalitions. In those circumstances, defence personnel may have more time to participate in that activity in Scotland, but they are not there to do that; they are there to defend the realm.
    There is an impact on operational capability as a consequence of firefighting duties. I have answered a number of parliamentary questions on that, including in response to the matter raised by the hon. Member for (Mr. Swire). I said that there is also an
    18
    impact on training. There is no point in hiding that reality, which we contrinue to assess as the situation develops.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that I agree with him about not inflaming the industrial situation while negotiations continue? The Tories say that we should allow someone else to use the appliances, but the strike is not continuous. The firefighters will want to use the same appliances, which will be impossible after their eight days have concluded. Not only would the Tory approach inflame the situation: it would be practical nonsense as well.
    Mr. Ingram: I tried to explain some of the practical difficulties that would arise from that approach. Hopefully my hon. Friend agrees with my assessment of that. I certainly tend to agree with his presentation of the problem.

    Missile Defence
    Richard Ottaway: What discussions he has had with the United States Administration on missile defence since July. [76706]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I last discussed missile defence issues with the United States Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, at our meeting in Washington on 11 September of this year.
    Richard Ottaway: The Secretary of State will be well aware of the huge amount of interest in the project and its relevance to our country's strategic defence. As his research is reaching an advanced stage, can he give an idea of which bases in the UK will be involved in the project and which of our European partners are on board?
    Mr. Hoon: I set out the Government's position—clearly, I hope—to the House on 17 October. I said that there was not yet a specific request for any particular bases in the UK and that the Government would agree to such a request only if we were satisfied that the overall security of the UK and the alliance would be enhanced. The hon. Gentleman's question is premature. As I said, we propose to set out for the benefit of hon. Members and others the necessary technical and policy considerations before returning to the House for a further discussion on that subject.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Will my right hon. Friend say whether, before British taxpayers' money is committed to that vastly expensive, technologically dubious protection against something that the MOD has assessed as a remote threat, Parliament will be permitted to debate and vote on the issue?
    Mr. Hoon: I said on 17 October that the House would have the opportunity to discuss the material I just mentioned, which is currently being prepared within the Ministry of Defence. That is as far as I am prepared to go at this stage.

    Army Weapons
    Mr. Gary Streeter: What recent assessment he has made of the reliability of British Army weapons. [76709]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): All weapons are continually assessed to ensure that they meet set reliability standards. If or when problems are reported, they are investigated immediately and action is taken as necessary.
    Mr. Streeter: I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that on recent exercises in Canada it was discovered that the Challenger 2 tank consistently broke down and there were difficulties with getting repairs and supplies, and that many of the men who rely on it for their lives have now lost confidence in that piece of equipment? What will he do about that, and will he assure the House that, before our tank regiments are sent into Iraq or anywhere else, they will have equipment on which they can rely?
    Mr. Ingram: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave a few moments ago. We have to learn the lessons that may emerge from any given training scenario. Saif Sareea is an example of an exercise on which we learned some extremely valuable lessons. That is the purpose of training exercises, followed by the search for solutions, and it is the best way to build confidence. The SA80 is a good example of the process: we discovered issues relating to the rifle that needed to be dealt with, and that is what we did. We will apply that across the board to all pieces of equipment that are crucial to our front-line activities.

    Reservists (Call-up)
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: If he will make a statement on his plans for call-up of reservists. [76710]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): As I said earlier today in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen), a call-out order was made on 14 October 2002 in support of operations in Afghanistan and related operations against international terrorism. That was purely for the continuation of existing operations. In line with our policy since the strategic defence review, any substantial new operation would require support from reservists. That would be the subject of a separate call-out order at the appropriate time.
    Mr. Dalyell: Given that this has been not exactly the most glorious week in the history of the royal prerogative, and given that for a precedent relating to my right hon. Friend's previous answer we have to go back to the Korean war, if there is to be a call-up of reservists would it not at least be wise to come to the House of Commons—regardless of the royal prerogative—to seek a substantive motion of agreement by the House to the call-up of reservists?
    Mr. Hoon: As I said earlier when asked the same question, there is a well-established procedure in the
    20
    House applying to the call-out of reserves, governed by an Act of Parliament. That requires the House to he informed in the usual way. My hon. Friend has long experience of the procedures of the House, so if he wants to debate the matter when the order is laid, he will, no doubt, find an opportunity to do so.
    Mr. John Gummer: I wonder whether the Secretary of State will think again about his response. There is considerable doubt and concern about the possible purpose of recalling the reservists. The House needs to be properly informed and to have every opportunity to discuss any issue that might involve reserve personnel. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to think again and to ensure that all of us have a proper chance to discuss that issue, which is not as open and closed as many in the past have been.
    Mr. Hoon: To the best of my knowledge, the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Cabinet when the relevant Act of Parliament passed through the House—off the top of my head, I believe it was in 1996. Existing procedures are therefore the responsibility not only of the current Government, but of that previous Government. That legislation, which builds on previous practice both of Governments and of the House, is something with which the right hon. Gentleman is entirely familiar. The procedure is well-established and does not require to be changed at this stage.

    Balkans
    Mr. John Randall: If he will make a statement on operations in the Balkans. [76711]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): In response to the improved security situation in the Balkans, NATO is implementing significant changes to its peacekeeping forces. The United Kingdom will continue to play a significant part in peacekeeping operations through its contribution, which will include a battle group in Bosnia and a light-role battalion in Kosovo.
    Mr. Randall: I thank the Minister for that reply.
    As our commitment in the Balkans seems to he winding down in respect of regular forces, is the Minister's plan to use some of the reservists in a peacekeeping role?
    Mr. Ingram: Already about 10 per cent. of those currently in use are reservists. The hon. Gentleman's question suggests that we are running down the numbers because of some other pressure point. That is not the case. It is sensible planning as we move the countries that make up the Balkans towards a more normal type of society. Clearly, the military presence would decline over time anyway, but use can be made of the Territorial Army in those circumstances. That is good for them and for the country.

Points of Order
David Winnick: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. Would it not be appropriate for the Solicitor-General to make a statement to the House about the case that collapsed last Friday? It is my view, shared by a number of colleagues, that there are relevant questions for Parliament to ask: why the case was started in the first place, why it collapsed and in what circumstances, and about all the costs involved. In all the circumstances, I should have hoped that the Solicitor-General would make a statement. I understand that the Prime Minister has answered questions outside Parliament. I do not criticise him for that, as he had a press conference. I hope, therefore, that the Solicitor-General will come to the House, if not today, then on Tuesday, to answer these relevant questions.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the case of Paul Burrell has collapsed, in view of the fact that the case should not have proceeded to court if certain people had opened their mouth a lot sooner—I refer to members of the royal family—and in view of the fact that it will cost £1.5 million, should not the Queen have to foot the bill?
Mr. Speaker: In answer to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), that is not a matter for me. On the point of order from the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick), the Solicitor-General is a Minister of the Crown, and she can choose to come to the House and make a statement if she so wishes.
Tim Loughton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are about to move joyfully on to the Adoption and Children Bill. When that Bill was introduced to the House about a year ago, the Secretary of State for Health stated on the front of the Bill that it was compatible with the European convention on human rights. That Bill made no attempt to change the status of people eligible to adopt. Last week, the Joint Committee on Human Rights produced a report on the Bill that is coming back from the Lords today in its amended form, which we are about to debate. That amended Bill returns the Bill to its original form—that is, the status quo of people eligible to adopt. However, the report states that the Bill is now incompatible with the European convention on human rights. The Secretary of State and the Joint Committee cannot both be right. That casts a legal doubt on the compatibility of the Bill. Do you have a ruling on the subject, before we get into the nitty-gritty of the clauses that we shall be debating?
Dr. Evan Harris: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. Since the Joint Committee first considered the Bill as presented by the Secretary of State to the House on Second Reading, there has been a case in South Africa and there has also been European Court jurisprudence in the Frette case, which was considered by the Joint Committee and which related to articles 8 and 14. If, following that jurisprudence, the Government now agree with the Joint Committee that the Bill in its current form is incompatible, is it not
22
appropriate that there should be a Government amendment on the amendment paper making it compatible with the Human Rights Act, rather than the amendment before us, which is right and proper but relies on Back-Bench Members and Opposition parties to put the Bill in a human rights-compatible form?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for giving me notice of his point of order. The House is indebted to him for drawing attention to this apparent conflict of opinion, but it is a matter for a debate and not one that I can resolve or rule on.
Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Defence questions, the Secretary of State referred to use of the royal prerogative for the call-out of reservists. Indeed, it might be used for military action as well. That has serious constitutional implications on which I ask you to reflect, especially with regard to whether we could have a debate on using the royal prerogative.
Mr. Speaker: It is not for the Speaker to worry about that.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In answer to the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the Secretary of State for Defence used the words "well-established procedure". May I, through you, ask the Clerks to identify that well-established procedure, because I suspect that it was used but once, at the time of the Korean war, by Herbert Morrison in trying to manipulate his colleagues? Could some research be done on the matter, because some of us think—[Interruption.] I did not refer to his grandson; I referred to Herbert Morrison. The sins of a grandfather should not be inflicted on a grandson. Perhaps the Clerks Department could do some research and find out what the well-established procedures actually are in relation to the royal prerogative and reservists.
Mr. John Gummer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me answer the Father of the House. I have noticed that he is a regular at getting advice from the Clerk of the House, so rather than me asking the Clerk for advice to give to him, perhaps he can go himself.
Mr. Gummer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman is right in what he just said, I hope that the Chair will reflect—although no doubt it cannot rule on this point—on the fact that it would make the whole of the answer that the Secretary of State gave to me totally otiose.
Mr. Speaker: We now come to the main business.

Points of Order

  ADOPTION AND CHILDREN BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 5)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order (28th June 2001),
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Adoption and Children Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 29th October 2001, 23rd January 2002, 20th March 2002 and 16th May 2002:

  ADOPTION AND CHILDREN BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 5)

    Consideration of Lords Amendments
    1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at today's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at Ten o'clock.
    2. Those proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table and each part of the proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at the time specified in the second column of the Table.

    Lords Amendments

    Time for conclusion of proceedings

    Nos. 26, 32 to 36 and 66

    8.30 p.m.

    Nos. 1 to 25, 27 to 31, 37 to 65 and 67 to 107

    10.00 p.m.

    Subsequent stages
    3. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put.
    4. Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) one hour after their commencement.
    —[Dan Norris.]
    Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Adoption and Children Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Mr. Speaker: I draw the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 1, 45 and 47, which are to be considered today. If the House agrees to these Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

  Adoption and Children Bill
    Clause 44

      SUITABILITY OF ADOPTERS
      Lords amendment:No. 26, in clause 44, page 27, line 38, after first "a" insert "married".
      3.38 pm
      Mr. David Hinchliffe: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 32 to 36 and 66 and motions to disagree thereto, and amendments (a) to (uu) in lieu thereof.
      Mr. Hinchliffe: It is no surprise that we have returned to the topic with which the amendments deal. We had a lengthy debate on Report and, having studied in some detail the debate that occurred in the House of Lords, I take the view that the purpose of the original amendment was fundamentally misunderstood and misrepresented in another place. I should like to address my concerns about that misrepresentation of the purposes of the original amendment agreed to by this House.
      I should like again to stress my personal strongly held belief in marriage. I do not want to cover ground that I covered in detail last time we debated the Bill, but I believe that if we had more marriage in society, we would have a much more stable society in which children are happier and perhaps stand a better chance in later life. Perhaps we as a society should spend more time considering how we support and promote marriage.
      I shall set out the key objectives of the amendments. I believe that they will strengthen what is, in my view, an extremely good Bill. I pay tribute to the Minister for the way in which she has steered the measure through its various stages. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is very much behind the proposed legislation and wishes to assist the many children within the care system.
      First, I want to see a good Bill strengthened so that more children within and from the care system are able to live in stable, permanent families. We know that about 5,000 children are in homes awaiting adoptive placements. I hope that the amendments will assist them in the process of obtaining a proper family life.
      Mr. Desnond Swayne: Has any estimte been made of the number of couples who will

      25
      come forward to adopt children as a consequence of the amendments but who are currently unwilling to adopt as individuals?
      Mr. Hinchliffe: There was an adoption week in 1999. I understand that about 10 per cent. of the inquiries were from unmarried couples who were excluded from the adoption process. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question in detail, as I suspect he anticipated, but I know that in the past, unmarried couples have expressed a significant interest in adoption. That is why many of us feel that a significant number of children and adolescents within the care system could be assisted as a consequence of amending the Bill.
      Ms Dari Taylor: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge the work of the Nottinghamshire Catholic Children's Society? It states in a note to me that recognition should be given to the potential family resource provided by unmarried couples. The society has worked in adoption for more than 25 years and has excellent experience. Will my hon. Friend acknowledge the veracity of the society's statement?
      Mr. Hinchliffe: I have not seen that information, but it is significant that the society should come forward with such a statement. Some people with a Catholic belief have concerns about the appropriateness of what we seek to do. Many of my friends are Catholics, and they are divided. Some are strongly in support of the amendments' aims and objectives. They understand that the supporters do not wish to undermine the institution of marriage. We are about strengthening children's ability to engage in family life and to benefit from it in the way that most of us in the Chamber have done.
      The amendments seek to widen the adoption pool. The available evidence shows that a significant number of people will be willing to come forward as unmarried partners to offer adoptive placements to children in the care system.
      I am less happy about making the point that we need to relate legislation to the world in which we live. Within the House and elsewhere in wider society, apparently more and more people choose to live in long-term stable relationships without going through the marriage ceremony. I do not defend that necessarily, but I respect the fact that people have the right to take that course if they so wish. Many of my colleagues will be aware of a number of Members who have that form of relationship and who bring up children in stable partnerships without going through the marriage ceremony.
      3.45 pm
      Ms Meg Munn: Is not it true that, generally, adoption law is made every 25 years? Therefore, the measures that we put in place today need to reflect not only current society but how it will change and develop in the next 25 years. It is important to recognise changes in society now.
      Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend is right. I cited figures in our previous debate to show that in 25 years, approximately 20 per cent. of couples will live together without going through a marriage ceremony. I do not defend that trend, but we must live in the real world and
      26
      understand that, simply because people are not married, it does not mean that they cannot bring up children appropriately in stable relationships. If unmarried parents automatically meant instability, the child welfare organisations and social services would be more involved in removing children from such relationships.
      Andrew Selous: What is the hon. Gentleman's response to the statistic that 83 per cent. of cohabitations that do not become marriages break up in 10 years, whereas 60 per cent. of marriages last for life?
      Mr. Hinchliffe: I do not want to argue about that figure. Unmarried applicants will go through a rigorous process to ensure that their relationship is stable. As I said in our previous debate, I have a background in adoption and guardian ad litem work. I know of cases of married couples who adopted children and whose marriages subsequently broke down. In many instances, that cannot be predicted. However, the adoption agencies and services have a good track record in examining the strengths or weaknesses of relationships. I shall return to that point, because it was raised in the Lords.
      Michael Fabricant: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that a loving, stable relationship is required. Does he realise that, under current law, an individual could adopt, but that if that individual was in a stable relationship and, God forbid, one of the partners died, the child could be removed from the other adoptive parent? Is not that the cruellest aspect?
      Mr. Hinchliffe: That is an important point, which several hon. Members made in our previous debate. In many cases, sometimes of same-sex couples but more frequently of unmarried heterosexual couples, one partner adopts the child. When the adoptive partner dies, the child is legally in a vulnerable position. That was discussed at length in our previous debate. It is an anomaly in the current law and we must bear it in mind, as the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) made clear.
      The amendments to the Lords amendments secure the best interests of children by acknowledging that in some circumstances, they may be served by adoption by unmarried partners. Since 1989, the welfare principle has been at the heart of our legislation on child welfare. There will be general agreement in the House that it has served our children well. In any decision about their well-being, the prime objective must be their best interests throughout their lifetimes. In my view, the Bill as amended in the Lords will not ensure that those best interests are properly covered in specific circumstances.
      I want to consider the main themes of the Lords' anxieties about the amendment that we passed some time ago. I hope that hon. Members have studied the relevant Hansard reports of the Lords proceedings. I do not like to say so, but one theme underpinned the debates: scarcely concealed, crude homophobia. I find that rather sad and worrying in this day and age.
      On Report, my speech on the relevant amendment covered six columns of Hansard. Just two paragraphs of my speech dealt with same-sex adoption, because I believe that the main thrust of our concern should be child welfare, which is where the law has got it wrong.
      Jonathan Shaw: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Hinchliffe: May I make a bit more progress?
      Having read the Hansard reports, I am puzzled about why so-called gay adoptions dominated their lordships' concerns. It seemed that, for them, the issue boiled down to that one central element. I am reminded of a conversation that I had earlier this year with a recently ennobled Labour peer who entered the House of Lords after the last general election. He told me one evening that, over the year that he had been there, the entire place had seemed to be completely obsessed with sex. As far as he could see, all they ever talked about in the other place was sex. I do not want to go into why that might be so, but it seemed to underpin those debates and to divert attention from more important issues.
      Mr. Robert Walter: I think that the hon. Gentleman and I agree on a lot in respect of this aspect of the Bill. Does he acknowledge, however, that the Bill would be more acceptable, both in the other place and in the wider country, if we separated the concepts of unmarried couples of different sexes and couples of the same sex? We might thereby get greater acceptance for what we are trying to achieve.
      Mr. Hinchliffe: It might be easier for Conservative Members to deal with the matter in that way. I very much respect the hon. Gentleman's position on this issue. We discussed the broad issues when he was on the Health Select Committee, and he was party to the Committee's inquiry into looked-after children, which reinforced the concerns about adoption. Politically, it might be helpful for the Conservatives to separate those two concepts, but I do not think that the distinctions are as clear as he suggests. The way forward is to accept the fact that we are dealing with unmarried partners, who may be heterosexual, homosexual or lesbian.
      Another concern is that people automatically assume that same-sex adoptions will involve homosexuals or lesbians. I know people of the same sex who live together in long-term relationships and who would be offended if they were called homosexuals or lesbians.
      Angela Watkinson: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that a child who is brought up by a couple of the same sex would automatically be denied either a father or a mother?
      Mr. Hinchliffe: Perhaps I misheard the hon. Lady's question. There are many ideals in society. I worry that some of the people who end up in this place see society as being an ideal, and see their own background as one that applies to everyone else in society. Sadly, that is not the case. I know for a fact that vast numbers of children in the care system would find these debates irrelevant; all that they want is a loving home. It would not matter if the adopters were same-sex, mixed-sex, black, blue or green; those children want a loving family environment. That is where we must start from.
      I was struck by some of the evidence advanced in defence of the Lords' concerns in their debate on same-sex adoptions. One peer referred to an opinion poll that
      28
      had been carried out in a Labour constituency. The question that had been put to people—a fairly loaded one—was:
      "If you died would you like your children to be adopted by two homosexual men?" [Official Report, House of Lords, 16 October 2002; Vol. 639, c. 884.]
      In response, 81 per cent. of Tory voters, 71 per cent. of Labour voters, and 65 per cent. of Liberal Democrat voters said no. I wonder what the result would have been if the alternative had been proposed—of the children remaining in institutional care for the remainder of their childhood and adolescence, with numerous transient carers and, arguably, a far greater chance of abuse—because that, frankly, is the reality.
      Jonathan Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that at least those Tory voters in that constituency had a chance to say what they really feel?
      Mr. Hinchliffe: I want to stick to the issues, not be drawn into what may or may not be happening on the other side of the Chamber.
      Mr. Julian Brazier: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is generous in giving way again. Surely the point that he has just made goes to the heart of the matter. He says that the vast majority of cases involve heterosexual couples. All of them already have the power to adopt, and to adopt jointly, simply by getting married.
      Mr. Hinchliffe: I very much respect the hon. Gentleman's commitment to adoption and the work that he has done. He deserves a great deal of credit for the efforts that he has put into this complex area and for pushing the Government on a number of fronts where there was a need for change. I credit him with a lot of achievement, but I disagree with him. When I met my wife, we determined to marry; we both chose to marry. I respect the fact that others may not choose the same course of action—
      Jonathan Shaw: To marry you?
      Mr. Hinchliffe: Okay, I shall have a word with my hon. Friend outside later.
      The Lords' concern over same-sex relationships seems to be underpinned by the idea, which was not mentioned, that same-sex couples somehow present a greater risk of sexual abuse to children than heterosexuals. Having worked in social services for many years, I honestly am not sure that that is how it works out. That is not my experience as one who had to deal with—on few occasions, fortunately—children who had been abused in children's homes. By and large, that abuse was heterosexual. Certain myths are doing the rounds in the other place that perhaps underpin their lordships' misunderstanding of what we, I hope, will propose in the Commons.
      The second area that concerns me, and which concerned me about the debate in the Chamber and in respect of the Lords in particular, is the general lack of knowledge of the thorough and skilled processes that are in place to deal with people who apply to adopt.

      29
      The peers do not seem to understand that there is an extremely thorough and complex process that leads to a large number of applicants being rooted out.
      Angela Watkinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hinchliffe: No, I have already given way to the hon. Lady.
      Sometimes, applicants are very concerned about being deemed unsuitable to adopt—that happens.
      I give an example that, in one sense, illustrates the ignorance involved. Interestingly, one peer referred to a British study that found that the incidence of child abuse is 33 times higher among children living with the mother and her boyfriend than it is among those living with biological married parents. How can anyone seriously translate and apply such findings on families with fleeting live-in boyfriends to the long-term stable relationships of unmarried partners, which will be strictly required of adoption applicants? I genuinely feel that the Lords fundamentally misunderstood the processes that occur before people are allowed to adopt.
      The other area that came over loud and clear is political correctness.
      Mr. Graham Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hinchliffe: No, I have given way several times, and many Members want to speak. I must make progress.
      A great deal of reference was made to the Commons amendments being motivated by political correctness, and I addressed that point when we discussed the matter on Report. The Lords seem to have swallowed hook, line and sinker all the tabloid tales of so-called politically correct social work decisions in adoptions. I have looked at a number of those decisions and I have talked to directors of social services about particular examples that were brought to light by the tabloids. As those directors always say, confidentiality prevents agencies such as theirs from saying why particular applicants are turned down.
      I give an example. Can the House imagine a director of social services telling The Sun, "No, Mr. X was turned down not as a Tory-voting smoker, but because medical reports from his GP show that he is being treated at a local genitourinary medicine clinic for syphilis, which was picked up in his relationships with various sexual partners, unknown to his wife."?
      That is the sort of stuff that occasionally emerges. Then we read in the tabloids that a person was turned down because he or she was a smoker, was too fat or was a Tory voter. We read all these stories, and sadly we may not be able to establish the truth; but it is not often to do with political correctness. Sound reasoning lies behind some of the decisions. I suspect that their lordships have fundamentally misunderstood the difficulties that may be involved in defending those decisions.
      4 pm
      Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman made a distinction between a succession of transient live-in boyfriends and a long-term cohabiting couple. Would he care to go a
      30
      little further, and say when he thinks a relationship should he deemed long-term? That is not in the amendments.
      Mr. Hinchliffe: The Department of Health has issued fairly detailed guidance. "Two years" comes to mind, although the Minister is more familiar with the guidelines than I am. There is certainly a clear requirement in relation to the stability and longevity of relationships, which is why I believe that the existing system is strong enough to ensure that the amendments will work and will benefit children.
      Another theme that came over loud and clear in the House of Lords was the suggestion that the House of Commons was engaging in social engineering in relation to gay relationships and unmarried partners. On 16 October, one peer said that my amendment would
      "result in married couples losing their priority". —[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 October 2002; Vol. 639, c. 896.]
      Who is involved in social engineering? Should it not be the child about whom we are concerned? It seems to me that the House of Lords was focusing on the adoptive applicants rather than the children and their rights.
      Their lordships also feared that our amendments would undermine Church-based adoption agencies. I was interested by what my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) said about the Catholic Society in support of the amendments.
      Liz Blackman: After the Nottinghamshire Catholic Society sent its letter, it gave evidence to the Select Committee; I think my hon. Friend was present. The woman giving evidence said that the society was actively reviewing the issue. It has clearly completed its review, as it has now stated that it does not think that the Bill ought to remain in its present state—as amended by the Lords—and that it should recognise the paramouncy of the needs of the children.
      Mr. Hinchliffe: I recall that evidence. The Committee on which we both served heard significant evidence from other agencies suggesting that the Bill should be amended. There was broad support for the Bill, but there was concern about the whole issue of unmarried applicants.
      I felt that the Lords failed completely to take seriously the welfare principle underpinning the Bill. That principle is, I think, the key to an understanding of why so many of us feel that our amendment must be restored. Their lordships presumably had other preoccupations; they did not appear to recognise that if their proposal were accepted, the best interests of a certain number of children—I will not say a significant number, but a certain number—would not be fulfilled.
      I wonder how many of their lordships sat down with children in the care system and asked their views. I have done that, as have several other Members who are present now. Those children fully support the opportunities that would be given to them, and to many other children in care in the future, by our amendment.
      Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: The founding principle of the Bill is that the child should be of paramount importance in the adoption process—not the parents or the adoptive parents, be they married, not

      31
      married, heterosexual or, indeed, homosexual. I believe that the proposals to allow adoption by unmarried parents give the wrong answer to the basic question of how we can ensure that more children in need of adoption are adopted.
      Kevin Brennan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Djanogly: No, I am not going to give way yet. I shall give way later.
      There are more than 50,000 children in care in our country. The problem is not the type of person who can adopt, but our culture of adoption. It is a question not of discrimination against unmarried couples, be they opposite or, indeed, same sex, but of what is best for the child. What will give the child the best chance in the society of today—not the society of the future or the society that some hon. Members would like to see—in which the child will be brought up?
      Michael Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend aware that today more than half of all couples under the age of 40 who live together are—rightly or wrongly—not married?
      Mr. Djanogly: I appreciate that, but the incidence of adoption by such people is relatively small. Is the family with married parents still the most appropriate?
      Jonathan Shaw: The hon. Gentleman mentions the evidence that was put before the Special Standing Committee, of which he and I were both members. Of the 30 organisations that presented evidence, 29 approved of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). What evidence does the hon. Gentleman want? Is that not enough?
      Mr. Djanogly: I am sure that all hon. Members present have received an enormous amount of documentation from any number of organisations that maintains that marriage is the best state for adoptive parents. However, I do not necessarily take the advice of professionals working in adoption as the be all and end all of what is right for society as a whole.
      From my experience, I admit that sometimes personal circumstances—perhaps if a strong foster or other relationship already exists—can mean that it is correct that a person, whether single or gay, or an unmarried couple, should be entitled to adopt. That is what the existing law allows.
      Ms Munn: The present adoption law does not entitle anybody to adopt: it entitles people to apply to adopt. The whole point is the need for a rigorous process to ensure that people are fit to be adoptive parents, regardless of their marital status.
      Mr. Djanogly: The hon. Lady has hit on one of the problems with the system and I shall return to it later.
      Some 95 per cent. of adopted children are placed with married couples, because of the way in which the law operates at present. We need to appreciate that the vast majority of adopted children are not adopted as babies.
      32
      Even if it were acceptable that non-marrieds should regularly be able to adopt—which I do not accept—most adopted children will know, by reason of their age, that children normally have parents who are married and not of the same sex. Indeed, only 0.1 per cent. of households are same-sex households.
      Dr. Evan Harris: The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) made the point that half of all young couples are not married. Is the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) saying that in some way they are weird and that their children should be considered abnormal?
      Mr. Djanogly: I certainly am not, and for the hon. Gentleman to make that suggestion is outrageous. [Interruption.] Indeed, it is weird.
      Encouragement of non-married adoption will, according to many surveys that right hon. and hon. Members have received, increase the instability of an adopted child and create a stigma.
      Mr. Hilton Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Djanogly: No, I am going to move on.
      Surveys have proved that in such cases children will often keep the identity of their parents a secret, both at school and from their peers. Furthermore, as has been mentioned, couples who cohabit out of marriage are statistically almost twice as likely to separate as those who are married.
      We must appreciate that different parts of the country will or may have different attitudes. That is reflected in the current system, in which most adoptions take place through local authorities. That means that elected, accountable representatives can dictate policy in the area of adoption.
      Mr. Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend's point about various parts of the country is important. Under the current arrangements, Cambridgeshire social services—my hon. Friend and I are both Cambridgeshire Members of Parliament—reports:
      "There remains a shortage of applicants interested and able to provide placements for older children and/or those children with special needs."
      My worry is that I have not heard my hon. Friend say yet how he proposes that the system should change positively for the 25 children in the area who are waiting to find adoptive parents.
      Mr. Djanogly: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point and I will come to it shortly. However, our allowing unmarried people and homosexual couples to adopt will not necessarily address his point. Just because homosexual couples can adopt, it does not follow that more people will want to adopt older children. My hon. Friend's point is valid but not particularly connected.
      Some 85 per cent. of the population are against same-sex couples adopting, and 95 per cent. of children are adopted by married parents. To a great extent, that means that the current system represents what people want. The supporters of the motion to disagree with the

      33
      Lords' amendment would have us believe that, as the hon. Member for Wakefield said, non-married adoption is necessary to encourage adoptive parents to come forward and broaden the adoption pool. It could be argued that the proposals are the opposite of what is needed. Statistics show that there is no shortage of people who want to adopt. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) made the important point that it is a question not of who wants to adopt but of who is acceptable to the professionals.
      Ms Munn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Djanogly: I shall just finish my point, if the hon. Lady will allow me.
      Last year, only 4,000 children were adopted in this country, of whom only 3,100 came from the 50,000 children in care. The hon. Member for Wakefield said that 5,000 children out of that pool of 50,000 were waiting for adoption. I suggest that the figure should he much higher than 10 per cent.
      4.15 pm
      I further suggest that accepting the proposals will not widen the pool. We need a new culture of adoption. We need a culture that insists on clinics for adoption as much as on clinics for abortion; that does not discriminate against white parents adopting black children; that stops patronising and blocking the efforts of decent prospective parents; and that does not force them through a system that often demeans and intimidates them and delays applications.
      When the BBC ran a programme on adoption, there were 19,000 inquiries during its first year and 24,000 in the second year. What happened to all those people? Initial research by the BBC showed that most of them seemed to have been put off by local authorities.
      To those people who hold the interests of the child paramount, I say that the proposals to allow same-sex and non-married couples to adopt are misguided. They will not work in the best interests of the child and, importantly, they will miss the root cause of the problem that faces us.
      Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: We must not allow the prejudice of those, however well-meaning, who oppose adoption by same-sex and unmarried couples to spoil the life chances of so many young people. We must always remember that the issue is not about the rights of potential parents but about the rights of young people languishing in care to be parented.
      I acknowledge that the best option for bringing up children may be a man and a woman in a committed relationship, which will often mean marriage, but to suggest that marriage is the only relationship that will provide a satisfactory outcome is patent nonsense. I was brought up by my mother alone and although a father figure in the household might have been desirable—my mother always thought so—it is for others to judge whether she made a success of the venture.
      In respect of the proposals, however, there is clearly prejudice against homosexuality, with the suggestion that same-sex couples are somehow damaging to the
      34
      charges whom they seek to adopt. There is only one basis for such a belief. It is certainly not of the making of the individuals involved; it relates only to the prejudice created in society by some of those who oppose the provision—the homophobia that is so obvious in the other place.
      Andrew Selous: Like the hon. Gentleman, I wholly abhor any form of homophobia; I want no truck with that. However, a Department of Health-funded study found that the average length of a close homosexual relationship is only 21 months. Is not that deeply worrying as regards the lifetime of commitment needed for a damaged child?
      Mr. Foster: That is precisely why such couples are unlikely to succeed in an application. Surely, we must have some confidence in the professionals who make such judgments. It is not for us as Members of Parliament to take on that responsibility, but we must offer options. That is what the proposals do.
      Mr. Brazier: The hon. Gentleman says that we should trust the professionals, but the whole reason for the framing of the Government's initiative—part of which is formed by the Bill—was because professional practice in a large number of local authorities was so completely dismal. Many of them failed to achieve even a 1 per cent. adoption rate for children in care.
      Mr. Foster: That depends on the particular area. The record of my county, East Sussex, is relatively good. As hon. Members have pointed out, we do not know about the reasons for the refusal of adoption applications. There may be—and usually are—good reasons, but without knowing the facts, we cannot tell. I certainly do not agree that only adopters from the same ethnic background and so on should be considered, but that is a separate issue from the one that we are debating.
      The bigotry against homosexuality and against couples who want to provide for young children has permeated throughout society because of what is being said. That has created prejudice that attaches not only to couples but to the charges whom they might want to take on.
      It is true that many opponents acknowledge the right of individuals to live as they wish, but they simply consider that placing the precious lives of children in such a situation is wrong. I would go so far as to accept that, although this is not necessarily the case, the best chance of a successful adoption may be with a married couple including a mother and a father. That is in the main nature's way and, therefore, must have the greatest chance of success.
      My wife Rosemary and I have two adopted sons, Damien and Luke, who have been a great joy to us. I hope that we have provided the stability in their lives that stereotype adopters can perhaps best and most easily provide. However, the issue is not who are the best adopters; this is not a competition, but a market. It is a fact that there are young people, many with disabilities and other challenges, who are not easily adoptable in terms of the stereotype husband and wife family, so if there are others who do feel the responsibility to take on more challenging youngsters, why should not the youngsters be given that opportunity?

      35
      We really must not allow the perceived best to become the enemy of the good. We all know that young people who spend their lives in residential care suffer significantly greater challenges in their adult life than others who are brought up in their natural homes or in adoptive relationships. The figures speak for themselves.
      Of course it is not surprising that youngsters whom society has rejected, at least to the extent that no one wanted them as part of their families, reject society in turn. I ask those who oppose this humanitarian piece of legislation to search their conscience as to the reasons why they oppose it.
      I understand the deep-seated religious conviction of some of my constituents, who have written to me about their belief that homosexuality and relationships outside wedlock are wrong, but, even if that is their belief, I would ask them two questions. Do they in all honesty believe that the damage to a child in being brought up in what is still today a non-orthodox family is more damaging than being brought up in residential care? Is being in a family that is not the norm more damaging than not being in a family at all?
      We may be right or wrong that the wife-husband married partnership is the best option for the placement of a child in most circumstances, but, again, that is not the issue. The issue is, as I say, choosing between an orthodox family perhaps and none at all.
      I do however believe that some of those who have written to me make the very good point—it was made a moment ago by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier)—that, sometimes, children are denied the opportunity to join families because families from their ethnic or religious backgrounds cannot be found. That is wrong. I would tell the adoption authorities that exercise that sort of policy that they, like those who oppose the provision today, need to put the children first. In my view, the ability to love and nurture a child has little to do with one's colour, creed or, for that matter, sexual orientation.
      In conclusion, I would add that the present provisions do not prevent children from being brought up in homosexual relationships, as has been stated already. A single person who is already permitted to adopt may well have a hidden same-sex or unmarried partner or acquire one subsequently and, even if discovered, that would not be grounds for unravelling an adoption or removing the child from the parent's care. The changes that I support simply provide for an open and honest assessment of the suitability of the individuals to adopt rather than a judgment of the individual's sexual orientation or marital preferences.
      Tim Loughton: We are at the eleventh hour on what is a really good Bill. We all want it to become law, and it must become law in the interests of many thousands of damaged children throughout our constituencies.
      I very much appreciate the opening comments made in moving the motion by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). We may disagree about the motion, but he has always had a close interest in the Bill and given it very strong support in Committee, and I
      36
      believe that he and I want the same result in the interests of many children. It is the means by which we reach that result on which we may differ, but no one should doubt our sincerity in jointly wanting to achieve it.
      I also want to congratulate the Minister, particularly on many of the improvements that have been made in another place with Government support. Many of us and many people in the adoption world have long fought for the improvements on the retrospective disclosure of information, on fast-tracking for young babies, on advocacy services and on inter-country adoption. All those things have happened in the other place and have greatly improved the Bill, again, with cross-party support. The Minister is to be congratulated on the work that has been done to support that in this place and in the upper House. Many Members have worked very hard since October last year on this Bill, and for long before that on its forerunners. I am very proud of the part played by my team on the Committee, and I am grateful for the responsiveness of the Minister. The Bill has been improved by the proper processes of Parliament: through the good work and expertise of members of the Special Standing Committee, and through the expertise—and especially the legal input—of noble colleagues in another place.
      The improvements that we achieved in the Bill gave greater emphasis to resources for adoption support services, which is essential, and I shall return to that later. It was improved, too, in terms of disclosure of information issues, proper monitoring of inter-country adoptions, the creation of special guardianship orders, Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service support and overhauling the entire appeal system and court procedures on placement. The fact is, however, that the amendments under discussion are neither relevant to nor contingent on any of the improvements that have been added to the Bill, yet we are in danger of getting hung up on the single ancillary issue of unmarried adoption, which now threatens to wreck the Bill or even lead to losing it. What a disservice that will be to thousands of children who are desperately looking for homes.
      This is a contentious issue—none of us would deny that. Whatever our side of the argument, we can all admit that the unmarried status issue is contentious, yet it is not fundamental to the Bill. It was not in the original Bill on Second Reading, the Prime Minister's adoption review, the White Paper on adoption or a Government manifesto commitment.
      Kevin Brennan: If the amendment is not fundamental to the Bill, and if it is a contentious issue—and for many Members an issue of conscience—why is a three-line Whip being imposed on the Opposition?
      Tim Loughton: I will explain why we need to separate these issues, because, as far as we are concerned—as I said just now—the whole Bill is about the welfare of the child and the rights of the child. It is not about the rights of adopters of any shape or size—
      Ms Munn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Tim Loughton: If the hon. Lady will allow me, I shall answer one intervention at a time.

      37
      We are in danger of confusing the two issues—I have referred previously to the provision being hijacked—and it is in the interests of pushing the Bill through, with all the good additions to it in the interests of children, that they are kept separate. That is why we are pushing for the three-line Whip to oppose the objections to the amendments.
      Ms Munn: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that far too many children who are currently waiting for adopters are unlikely to be able to be placed with adopters? If so, will he tell the House what other clauses in the Bill will significantly increase the number of prospective adopters who are interested in taking on children who desperately need homes?
      Tim Loughton: I shall address precisely that point. These amendments, of course, do not necessarily add prospective adopters—indeed, new prospective adopters may be vying for the very same prospective adoptee children.
      Jonathan Shaw rose—
      Tim Loughton: I shall give way once more, and then I would like to make some progress, as, otherwise, we may be here for a long time.
      Jonathan Shaw: The hon. Gentleman said that the amendment was not in the original Bill, but does he agree that one of the purposes of having a Special Standing Committee is to weigh up all the evidence and listen to all those involved in the adoption process? As I said previously, 29 of the 30 agencies, which are of different persuasions, agreed with the proposals. The hon. Gentleman uttered not one word on the issue during the debate in Standing Committee.
      4.30 pm
      Tim Loughton: If the purpose of the Special Standing Committee was to inform the debate, which it essentially was, and if the evidence in one direction was so overwhelming, one can ask why the Government have not adopted the recommendations and why the amendments, which are again having to be moved by Back Benchers, are not Government amendments. The Government do not have a line on this policy, so the hon. Gentleman could direct his question to his Front-Bench colleagues.
      Mr. Michael Portillo: I want to press my hon. Friend on this point because he began his speech by referring to the sincerity of Members who have contributed to the debate. I thought that sincerity shone out of the speeches by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), and that is what makes this a remarkable debate and a great House of Commons occasion. Does my hon. Friend remember, on the last day of the Conservative party conference, hearing a speech that included the statement:
      "We must first understand the way life in Britain is lived today, and not the way it was lived twenty years ago"?
      38
      Given that sentiment and the range of sincere opinions, will my hon. Friend return to the reason for the three-line whip?
      Tim Loughton: I do not disagree with my right hon. Friend's remarks. If he will give me the opportunity to shine out, I will tell him exactly why we are separating the subjects of debate and why the line that we are taking is centred exclusively on the welfare of children, not on the supposed rights of potential adopters of any description.
      I ask the House, in the interests of the Bill, to put to one side the issue of unmarried adopters, with the prospect of having plenty of ways to revisit it and debate it on its merits in other legislation, perhaps as part of a review of civil registration of relationships, to which I shall return in a moment.
      Let me set down some markers. We have all agreed that we want the Bill, and we want to increase the number of people who come forward as potential adopters and the number of those who become adoptive parents. There is some confusion about the figures, but I believe that 3,100 looked-after children were adopted last year. This year, the figure is likely to increase to 3,800, and we seem to be well on the way to hitting the target of 5,000 and to achieving the increase of at least 40 per cent. which was requested by the Government and to which we all agreed.
      We all—perhaps, given his comments on Report, with the exception of the Liberal Democrat health spokesman—accept that in an ideal world a mother and father figure is best, although not always achievable and not always entirely appropriate when dealing with certain very damaged children. We need to pay special attention to ensure that adoptive placements have as high a chance as possible of being a stable environment to give damaged children a second chance. The state usually makes a poor parent, but it has an obligation to make sure that looked-after children have the best chance of a stable upbringing.
      No one is suggesting that we should move backwards from the status quo of married and single people qualifying for adoption, as set down in the 1967 convention to which we are still a signatory and the Adoption Act 1976. It is already permissible for single people, regardless of their sexuality or partnership arrangements, to adopt where they are deemed suitable on their own merits.
      Mr. Dawson: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument and I respect his commitment to the needs of children, but how can he argue that it is desirable for one member of a couple to adopt a child but not two members of that partnership? How can that be in the interests of stability or the best future for children?
      Tim Loughton: I am not going over the figures on stability again, but as it stands unmarried couples do not have a legal entity. The thrust of my argument is that we are pre-empting a debate on, and changes to, legislation that gives them a degree of legal entity. That is a strong point to consider.
      Clause I sets out that the interests and the welfare of the child are paramount. The only rights we are talking about are those of damaged children to expect a decent

      39
      opportunity for a second chance of growing up in a decent and stable family environment, and those of birth parents to expect proper due processes under the law. That was the intention and detail of the Bill first proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) when she introduced her Adoption Bill in the last Parliament. As I think we have all agreed, however, there is no such thing as a right to adopt. I would gladly participate in a debate on the status of unmarried people, but that is for another day and another piece of legislation.
      Liz Blackman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Tim Loughton: I want to make a little progress first because I have given way many times.
      Conservatives subscribe to all the above and have supported the Bill throughout. I remind the House that we are here because of a vote in another place by Conservative peers with the cross-party alliance of 23 Labour peers, 46 Cross-Benchers, two Ulster Unionists, two bishops and three others. A total of 196 peers voted for the amendments with just seven Conservative peers voting against.
      Regardless of their views, however, Members of the upper House had other reasons for which they were even more entitled to object to the legislation. The measure was not in the original Bill. It was changed by Back-Bench amendments and the Government have not yet shown their hand, although on past form Health Ministers have voted to back the amendments. Those amendments contravene the 1967 convention on adoption. The Government have given no sign that they want to rescind our membership of that or renegotiate its terms for everyone. We have all been labouring under the misconception that the Government are reviewing civil partnership law, including related adoption issues, and that nothing will be done to prejudge or circumvent that. In essence, the Lords voted to return the Bill to the status quo, which the Government had not said it was their intention to change.
      Much rubbish has been spouted in the press about the Bill, none more so, perhaps, than a highly ill-informed piece in The Times last month by Mary Ann Sieghart which lambasted Conservatives for opposing the expansion of the right to adopt. That article fundamentally misunderstood the nature of adoption. There is no such thing as a right to adopt. I have no right under any article of European convention or any personal moral code to expect to take over responsibility and control of another human being's life in the same way that I can expect to exercise my right to vote or to have my private and family life respected. It is not a matter of opposing the change out of a bizarre wish to condemn more children to languish in care in the name of family values, as Ms Sieghart absurdly puts it. But to suggest in isolation that simply not enough prospective adopters are coming forward and that the only way to expand the pool enormously is to change the main criteria, is patently to ignore reality and the facts.
      I want to address the real issues that arose from deliberations in this House and another place on the status of unmarried adopters. I want to consider
      40
      widening the pool, the current obstructions to adoption inherent in the system and the legal implications of moving from marriage as a benchmark in law to a system of flat equality. That will lead me on to the Joint Committee on Human Rights before dealing with the interesting point raised by the noble Lord Alli in another place.
      Kevin Brennan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is being generous in giving way. Does he accept that there is agreement throughout the House that the issue has nothing to do with the right to adopt, but that his position has everything to do with denying certain individuals the right to apply to adopt?
      Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman knows that people already have the right to apply; it is the form of assessment that is to be debated.
      To return to the categories I have just outlined, I do not want to get bogged down in trading statistics and dubious research. I start from the premise that although marriage is not a dead cert, by all accounts it offers the best probability of a stable home for an adopted child. Adoption can often be worse than care if it breaks down—we are not dealing with a one-way street. Furthermore, my remarks are based on the rough premise presented by the figures from the Office for National Statistics: that cohabiting couples are more likely—by whatever margin we care to state—to split up.
      I agree with the words spoken by the current Foreign Secretary when he was Home Secretary":
      Children in my judgment, and I think it's the judgment of almost everyone including single parents, are best brought up where you have two natural parents in a stable relationship."
      The Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), said in the Special Standing Committee:
      "The adoption law review, when considering this issue, concluded that joint adoption should remain limited to married couples on the grounds that adoption by a married couple was more likely to provide the stability and security that the child needed because married couples have made a joint, publicly recognised, legal commitment to each other … There is no provision in law to protect the child's interests when unmarried couples separate."— [Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 29 November 2001; c. 383.]
      Mr. Lansley: On the question of the stability of an adoption placement, I should like to put the following point to my hon. Friend. Although I do not disagree with him about the general proposition that married circumstances offer children a better home, success depends on the individual decisions on placement and the characteristics of the home. Given that 95 per cent. of current adoption placements are with married couples, 20 per cent., on average, will end in disruption. What is critical is the ability to find lasting, permanent, loving homes for children.
      Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. No adoption relationship can be guaranteed to be perfect, whether the adoption is made by a married couple or by a single person who is in some form of unmarried relationship. Nothing is foolproof. What we

      41
      have to explore is how to make the whole system more likely to work. That is what the Bill is really about, but it is being ignored because of the side issue.
      On the question of how to widen the pool, there is some confusion about whether enough people are coming forward to adopt, as the numbers of those applying to become adoptive parents are slanted towards the shiny babies—the relatively problem-free young children, rather than the older, problem children. There is no evidence that non-married couples are better equipped to take on children with complex problems. In any case, as the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) said in previous debates, there is no queue of unmarried couples waiting to become adoptive parents. Our first objective should be to steer existing applicants toward more challenging problem children.
      Ms Munn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Tim Loughton: I have given way a lot, and I want to make progress, so I will not give way to the hon. Lady; otherwise, people will complain that they were unable to speak in the debate.
      The people most likely to adopt problem children are surely those who are already putting themselves forward as prospective adopters. Our second objective must be to recruit prospective adopters from under-represented groups, especially ethnic minorities, from whom far more prospective adopters are needed. Our third and biggest objective must be to expand the pool from those who are currently able to adopt—married couples.
      Ms Munn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      4.45 pm
      Tim Loughton: I shall not give way. I will make some progress and give way later.
      Currently, about 3,100 children a year are adopted. It is said that at least 5,000 children a year need to be adopted, so there is a shortfall—these are very rough figures—of 1,900. If more children have been adopted this year, that figure will be lower. In this country at the moment there are 11 million married couples. So we need 1,900 couples to adopt one of those children each. Even if there is a rejection rate on the ground of suitability of something like 90 per cent., one in 10 people who come forward will end up adopting a child. I do not believe that the rejection rate is anything like that, but even if it were, we would need 19,000 married couples to offer to adopt. That represents 0.17 per cent. of the entire married couples pool in the country at the moment. Indeed, we are not short of new raw material, as 268,000 marriages occurred last year and for once we are seeing a slight increase in the number of people marrying.
      One of the largest increases in a group of the population has been in the number of single people living alone. There are forecasts of increases in the number of single men from 7.1 million to 8.5 million, and in the number of single women from 5.8 million to 7 million over the next 10 years. So there is no potential for a numbers problem. There may be such potential in the numbers coming through at the moment, but the pool is vast enough as it is.
      42
      Are we seriously saying that we cannot widen the pool of potential adopters across the spectrum, from shiny new babies to behaviourally challenged teenagers, and that we are not confident enough of improving the strike rate of 99.83 per cent. of married couples who do not end up adopting without changing the qualifications criteria to open up the pool to unmarried couples? Does that not suggest that we have completely and utterly wasted our time on this Bill over the past year? Are we really saying that improvements in adoption support services, special guardianship orders, the adopted children register, the streamlining of court procedures on placements and the overhauling of the appeals system count for nothing? I do not believe that for a minute. I have rather more faith in this Bill than Labour Members appear to suggest by concentrating on just this one item.
      Mr. Brazier: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point by listing those measures. It is a shame, though, that there is not one more measure, which he proposed but which, sadly, was voted down by the Government: to water down the still very strong requirement for an ethnic match, which is one of the strongest barriers to adoption.
      Tim Loughton: I will not be churlish by saying what is not in the Bill, because we have an awful lot. However, there are many things on which we still need improvement, as my hon. Friend has said.
      I want to consider obstructions to adoption and why more people are not coming forward and ending up as adoptive parents. Despite some improvements, it is clear, as Lord Hunt said in another place, that
      "Many of the problems that we currently face with the shortage of adoptive parents stem from the number of hurdles that they have to go through, which can lead them to becoming discouraged and finding the process very off-putting."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 December 0200; Vol. 620, c. 843.]
      I agree.
      The evaluation carried out by the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering during adoption week in 1999 stated:
      "The most frequently asked question was about the length of time it takes to be approved. Many expressed concern and fears about the process taking many years and being very gruelling, highly intrusive and upsetting."
      BAAF identified a need for reassurance from agencies and for ease of contacting such agencies and getting information. It indicated a lack of responsiveness from some social services departments, and staff shortages that led to the closure of waiting lists for assessments.
      The evaluation also noted a big differential in adoption rates around the country—ranging from 2 per cent. to 10 per cent. in different local authorities. It is clear that adoption is a relatively small-scale activity in many social services departments. Hopefully, the adoption register and better provision for funding trans-authority placements and support services should help to diminish those geographical disparities.
      There has also been a big drop-out rate owing to problems in coping with the possibility of contact arrangements between children and birth families. Again, there are measures in the Bill to alleviate that problem. The BAAF also identified a shortage of

      43
      personnel for home study assessments, which can drag on for years, and poor administration and non-availability of police checks. We all know about the current problems with the Criminal Records Bureau.
      "Be My Parent" is the paper produced by the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, and features children available for adoption. When we see that there have been no inquiries about some of the children, we start to ask why. I pick out one or two examples from this publication. The details provided about the children include details of their ethnic descent. I have no objection to that, but under the heading "family needed", ethnic requirements are specified as well. In the case of a young boy, we read that the ethnic descent is white English, and that the family needed is a white adoptive family. In another case, the child is described as being of Afro-Caribbean Jamaican ethnic descent, and needing a black adoptive family. In a further example, the ethnic descent is given as Afro-Caribbean, and the family needed is described as an Afro-Caribbean two-parent adoptive family. Under "Contacts", the paper states that direct contact is planned with the maternal grandmother and half-sister, as well as letterbox contact with the birth parents.
      It strikes me that some of those requirements, set down by I know not whom, are extremely prescriptive and make it very difficult for the right potential adopters to apply or signal an interest in such children. That is part of the problems and obstructions.
      Ms Munn: Is it not right that people trying to find adoptive homes for children should seek out the best home that they can, as has been argued? It is right to try to match a child's ethnicity, but it is not right to hold out for a long time for the correct match. To try to meet the child's need in the best way first is absolutely the right thing to do.
      Tim Loughton: But on what grounds can the hon. Lady judge that she or I are not equally suitable to adopt one of those young children who are described as requiring somebody of Afro-Caribbean descent to adopt them? It is yet another obstruction.
      Ms Munn rose
      Tim Loughton: No. I shall make progress. Clearly, many attitudes and stereotypes of matching parents with children need to change. Hopefully, that will change under the terms of the Bill.
      I shall deal now with the legal minefield. In November last year, the Minister said in Committee:
      "Adoption by unmarried couples would raise several complex legal questions … It would be difficult and inappropriate to preempt the conclusions of the review" [Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 29 November 2001; c. 38–5.]
      —that is, the civil partnerships review. We all agreed with that. In Committee, she offered to refer adoptions to the Cabinet Office-led review of civil partnerships, which she did. That committee has not reported yet.
      44
      In a statement in another place two weeks ago, Lord Hunt said:
      "Work is going on in government to carry out an investigation into the implications of establishing a partnership registration scheme. It is presently comprised of cross-departmental work. The Cabinet Office is leading in tenns of following up the issues identified. I cannot give a date as regards the conclusions of the review, but work is under way."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 October 2002; Vol. 639, c. 917.]
      It seems that confusion reigns. As my parliamentary question on the progress of the review revealed last week, it has been transferred from the Cabinet Office to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, so it is unclear who is leading the review. Amendments to the Bill would mean that adoption has been singled out to be fast-tracked and would circumvent the civil partnerships review.
      With reference to the 24th report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which was published last week, I said earlier that the Joint Committee and the Secretary of State could not both be right about the human rights compatibility of the status quo, whereby adoption is available only to married couples and single people. It is odd that the ninth report of that Committee stated that the original Bill—the form to which the Lords have returned the present Bill—is compatible.
      There is great legal confusion. The Bill did not raise questions relating to human rights that require to be drawn to the attention of each House. That is what the Committee said on 17 December 2001. What has changed in the meantime? Certainly, the membership of the Committee has not changed. The point is that its 24th report is only an opinion. It will carry no weight in law until it is challenged by the courts, yet the status quo before the Bill's introduction was not challenged in the UK courts.
      Dr. Evan Harris: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. His first question requires answering. The answer given in the report is that, after the publication of the earlier report, the case of Frette was dealt with by the European Court of Human Rights. The court found by a majority of four to three that articles 8 and 14 of the European convention on human rights were engaged by the question of the right of unmarried couples to adopt. The further judgment went the other way, but the key point is that there is now jurisprudence to show for the first time that the Human Rights Act 1998 is engaged on the question. In addition, a case arose in South Africa—it also did so between the publication of the two reports—that is relevant to our interpretation of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child.
      Tim Loughton: If the hon. Gentleman is patient, I shall mention briefly both the case of Frette and the de Vos case in South Africa.
      People can take many different legal opinions on the report, which is not helped by factual errors. It dismisses the Frette v. France case in fairly curt terms. Page 10 refers to a lesbian couple who were refused their challenge to adopt. In fact, Philippe Frette, the applicant, was a homosexual man who was refused an

      45
      application for authorisation to adopt by the Paris social services department in May 1993 on the grounds that the applicant
      "had no stable maternal role model"
      to offer, and had
      "difficulties in envisaging the practical consequences of the upheaval occasioned by the arrival of a child."
      I shall make no comment on that ruling, other than that the finding was upheld by the European Court of Human Rights as recently as February 2002. The court held that there was no right to adopt, and that, accordingly, the state was entitled to draw distinctions between homosexuals and others in the adoption process. Without venturing an opinion, I remind the House that the convention specifically allows state interference in private and family life for moral reasons. The issue of morals falls squarely within the UK's margin of appreciation and democratic process, which both domestic and international courts will respect.
      The report also sets great store by a recent South African case that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) mentioned—that of du Toit and de Vos v. the Minister for Welfare in South Africa. First, however, South Africa has a vastly bigger problem in terms of a shortage of adopters to match the many orphan children. Secondly, I am led to believe that homosexual rights are specifically enshrined in the South African constitution. The case therefore comes from a very different base, so it is offered at best as a piece of persuasive authority; but I feel that too much of the report reads as advocacy for a cause rather than objective interpretation. It also makes no mention of the European convention on the adoption of children, which was agreed to in 1967 and to which we are still a signatory. Article 6 of that convention limits application to married couples and single people. Have the Government initiated a renegotiation of the terms of the 1967 convention, or are they looking to rescind membership?
      Finally, on the legal process, I should like to mention Lord Alli's interesting and thoughtful intervention in the House of Lords. At column874, he said:
      "I happily agree with many noble Lords that married couples should have priority over unmarried couples. I also agree that unmarried couples should have priority over gay couples."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 October 2002; Vol. 639, c. 874.]
      Many hon. Members will have sympathy with that view, yet Lord Hunt specifically ruled out such a possibility in July 2002. In any case, legal opinion suggests that such an approach would certainly fall foul of the Human Rights Act 1998 in the UK courts, rather than in ;Strasbourg. Once marriage is removed as the benchmark for adoption, there will be no midway compromise.
      I remind hon. Members that marriage is defined in the European convention on human rights as marriage between a male and a female. Lord Hooson made an interesting contribution to the debate on the report, in which he referred to the
      "danger of the Bill creating a platform of legal equivalents".
      He went on to say:
      "There is a serious problem if it is not spelled out in the Bill that we in this House and indeed elsewhere in the country do not regard these concepts as legal equivalents."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 October 2002; Vol. 639, c. 899.]
      46
      That came from someone who sympathises with adoption by unmarried couples but realises that the proposals, if added to the Bill, would risk a great deal of future trouble. If the amendments are passed, there can be no middle way and no preferences.
      5 pm
      Some will say that everything can be sorted out, in the shape of the adopter assessments on which there is now consultation. We do not know, because the Government started the consultation process only last month on what the assessment procedures should look like. There is no basis on which to take reassurance from the unknown outcome. How will an enduring unmarried relationship be defined? Enduring means something less than life long. If the relationship were any longer, those involved would surely be dead. It is also not clear from the consultation exercise whether the forms to be completed for applying to become adoptive parents even contain a question about marital status.
      There are views in some quarters that the proposed change could lead to a postcode lottery in adoption, with some adoption services operating a proactive equality policy and actively looking for unmarried couples to make up the numbers, rather than relying solely on individual merits. Under the Bill, with these proposals, it would not be open to a mother to object to proposed adopters on the ground that they were unmarried. More interestingly, there is another potential source of challenge to the proposed legislation from an unlikely source— children themselves. There is a legal view that it is arguable that article 8 implies the right for a child to have a mother and a father, and that right may be violated if an adoption order is granted to two parents of the same sex.
      Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is to be congratulated because he has made a truly excellent speech, and that is because he speaks in line with his conscience. I ask him to consider for a moment what the position would be if he found himself in a minority in his party. Would he feel happy if, to vote with his conscience, he had to give up his Front-Bench position? How would he feel about that?
      Tim Loughton: I am trying to deal with the substance of the issues that we are debating. I have tried to separate entirely the issue of the child's welfare. I have spent the past 12 months concentrating on the Bill with colleagues, who appeared at every sitting of the Committee and on every occasion when we have debated the measure in this place. We have shown an interest on all aspects of the 140-odd clauses in the Bill.
      Liz Blackman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Tim Loughton: I am trying to answer the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo).
      If I thought that there was a middle way in some instances, I might want to entertain the idea of giving someone a preference, or whatever. However, as I have laid out clearly, there is no middle way. In the interests

      47
      of children and in the interests of avoiding all the legal wrangles, it is right that we promote our objections to the amendments.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Tim Loughton: No. I shall finish so that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber can have their say.
      This is not a straightforward matter. There are differing personal views about the suitability of who adopts, and the proposed changes are a legal minefield, with differing legal opinions based on differing and inconclusive research. Yet all this is completely incidental and academic as regards the fundamental reforms to, and improvements of, adoption that are represented by an excellent Bill. Failure to disengage from the arguments and to put them on one side for another day threatens the safe passage of the Bill, thereby sacrificing the chances of thousands of damaged children having a second chance.
      The proposals to reject the amendments are uncertain in law. They would pre-empt the review of civil relationship registration. They would go against the 1967 convention, without any proposals to reform or rescind it. They would pre-empt the adoption assessment process consultation, which has only just started. They would ignore the progress that has already been made, which will be boosted substantially by the bulk of the Bill's provisions in encouraging more than 11 million married couples to come forward.
      We are not considering Government amendments; there is therefore no shame in or problem with the Government's declining to support them, especially in view of all the reviews. We are looking only to return to the status quo of the Government's original Bill.
      Another day should be allocated for sympathetic debates about the rights of unmarried couples, gay or otherwise, and many Conservative Members will want to participate enthusiastically in them. However, today is the day for promoting the rights of damaged children to a decent second chance in life. We must concentrate on genuinely putting the welfare and interests of children at the heart of the Bill. I therefore call on all hon. Members, whatever their personal views, to reject, in the interests of the Bill, the proposal to disagree with the Lords amendments.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I call Jonathan Shaw.
      Jonathan Shaw: Thank you, Mrs.—
      Mr. Chris Bryant (Rhondda): Thank you, Mrs.?
      Jonathan Shaw: Oh dear, I shall have to put that in my diary. I am sorry; I meant to say, "Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker".
      The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) described the subject of our discussion as a side issue. He characterised widening the pool as a side issue. If so, why are Opposition Front-Bench
      48
      spokesmen resigning? Why are other members of the shadow Cabinet being given leave of absence so that they do not have to vote on the matter? Why are former contenders for the Conservative party leadership attacking the fact that the party is not allowing a free vote? If it is a side issue, goodness help the hon. Gentleman when a genuine issue jumps up and bites him.
      We are considering a genuine issue that affects children: widening the pool and providing greater opportunities for children who languish in care. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham accused other hon. Members of bandying statistics and proceeded to bandy many statistics himself. He mentioned the 1,900 people who need to come forward. In discussing widening the pool, we need to consider the sort of children for whom they are required come forward. They are not the shining babies to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but older children, who are often boys.
      The British Association for Fostering and Adoption today released figures that show that 1,255 inquiries were made for 430 children in the March 2002 issue of Be My Parent. However, for 129 children, there was not a single inquirer. Those children were boys. When we talk about getting more people to adopt children, we must recognise that those children are difficult boys, who have been physically and sexually abused, and manifest difficult behaviour that requires special people to deal with it.
      An unmarried foster couple might be looking after one of those damaged, abused boys. The amendment would deny them the ability to apply to adopt jointly. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham and the Lords would deny such children the opportunity for a loving, stable relationship.
      Mr. Brazier: The hon. Gentleman speaks with passion and knowledge, as always. However, the issue is surely not the right to adopt but the best interests of the child. All that the law asks in the best interests of the child is that the couple get married before they adopt.
      Jonathan Shaw: Gay people cannot marry. We are not considering the right to adopt. Surely it is right that the institutions and Parliament do everything possible to ensure children's right to an opportunity for a loving family. No Labour Member who supports my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) claims that people have the right to adopt. We are considering the child's right to the best possible opportunity because the child's needs are paramount. That principle underpins all child care legislation. Those who support the amendments are arguing for that.
      Liz Blackman: If we consider the welfare of the child to be paramount, should not a child's right to have a legal relationship with both adoptive parents be central to that welfare?
      Jonathan Shaw: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That point was also made earlier by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). If a child is adopted

      49
      by an unmarried couple, and the adoptive parent dies, the child has to go through the whole process again. Is that in the interests of the child? Of course it is not.
      Ms Dari Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; he is very generous. Would he say that my loving, caring commitment to my child is a consequence of my marriage vows, or that it comes from my being naturally loving and caring, and has nothing to do with those vows at all?
      Jonathan Shaw: My hon. Friend is indeed a loving and caring person. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am doing well at the moment. I have called Madam Deputy Speaker "Mrs." and now I have described my hon. Friend as loving and caring.

      My hon. Friend would have been assessed on her ability to provide a stable relationship for her children. That is the basis on which all people are assessed. We cannot be the adoption panel. We should not talk about generalities. We need to talk about specifics, such as those difficult-to-place boys. The adoption panel makes the decisions in those cases, through rigorous assessment.
      Mr. Djanogly: No one here queries the statistics that say that the rate of divorce among unmarried couples is significantly—two or three times—higher than among married couples. That being the case, why should not one parent in an unmarried couple have to take responsibility?
      Jonathan Shaw: The hon. Gentleman sat through the proceedings in Committee, as did I. As I said earlier, 29 out of the 30 agencies that gave evidence to us—
      Mr. Djanogly: Are we going back to that again?
      Jonathan Shaw: We are going back to that again. Those agencies came from right across the child care spectrum. They were not all left-wing child care agencies. We asked them time and again whether these measures would widen the pool, and whether they supported the idea of unmarried couples being able jointly to adopt. And they did. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham quoted the Minister, prior to the amendments previously tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield. My hon. Friend listened to the debate, and was persuaded by the arguments. That is Parliament's role, and Back Benchers have tabled amendments because we believe that the case presented to us was correct. Does not that enhance the Bill and the House of Commons? Of course it does. A charge often levelled by the Conservatives is that the Government ignore the Commons. Now, when Back Benchers have an opportunity to table amendments, which the Government support, they attack my hon. Friend.
      Kevin Brennan: Hansard will no doubt record the intervention of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), in which he asserted that the rate of divorce among unmarried couples—think about that for a moment—was higher than among married couples. Does not that show the terminal confusion of the hon. Gentleman in relation to this whole issue?
      5.15 pm
      Jonathan Shaw: I suspect that it is one of the better points that the hon. Gentleman made.
      Ms Munn: Did not Professor Tresiliotis, who is probably the foremost adoption expert in this country, make the point very clear when he appeared before the Committee by saying that the marital status of the person adopting has absolutely nothing to do with their suitability to provide a home for a child?
      Jonathan Shaw: My hon. Friend has made her point.
      Children do not choose their parents, but many find themselves in such circumstances that they have a life in care. I worked with children, as I was a social worker for 10 years.
      Tim Loughton: Not that one again.
      Jonathan Shaw: That one again—absolutely.
      I recall attending numerous placement meetings where children were waiting for prospective adopters, but one has to say that, too often, no one had come forward or made inquiries about becoming their parent, because the children were those to whom I referred earlier—the older children who were abused and who manifested behaviour problems. We have a once in a generation opportunity to change the law. We began the process in October last year, and we have that opportunity to get it right. I have no problem with the delay, as long as we get it right.
      I support all the agencies that gave evidence before our Special Standing Committee, which was one of the most stimulating processes in which I have been involved in my five years in the House of Commons. It was indeed a learning exercise, and we can reach only one conclusion: we need to widen the pool and provide more opportunity for the children I have spoken about to have a loving family. Whether that is provided by a married couple, unmarried people or people of the same or of different sex, we should not be the judge. We cannot be the adoption panel, as the adoption panels in our constituencies have that specific remit. It is for them to judge whether a particular couple meet the needs of the child, and the child's needs are paramount.
      Dr. Evan Harris: It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate in support of the amendment tabled and, indeed, championed by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). We have already debated the matter, although I fear that we shall rehearse many of the arguments. I am pleased, however, that the three that I set out in May still hold true.
      There are three reasons to ensure that the amendment is passed. First, it is not in the child's best interests when both members of a couple play an equal part in his or her life for only one person to have legal responsibility. The other parent is downgraded to a second-class parent without the power to make vital as well as casual decisions in the child's life that call for a legal guardian. That also poses problems when the adopter is ill or dies, as it leaves no legal relationship between the child and the second and second-class parent. This is especially the case because any residency orders are valid only until the age of 16 or 18 years, depending on the circumstances.

      51
      Secondly, the amendment is important because the current restriction deters many suitable unmarried couples from even applying to adopt, which is bad news for the tens of thousands of children in care who are waiting for suitable adoptive families. Indeed, it is a pleasure, if not a relief, that there is now a human rights opinion that supports that argument. The Joint Committee on Human Rights report says that Earl Howe's amendment
      "was advocated at least partly on the ground that one could reliably say, as a general proposition, that children's long-term interests would always be better served by being adopted by a married couple rather than by an unmarried couple, because of the greater stability of married relationships. This argument seems to presuppose that the choice in every case is between those two options. In reality, the choice may be less straightforward … For example, one might have to choose between the child being adopted by an unmarried couple, being adopted by a single person, or not being adopted at all. Without a view of the range of options in an individual case, it is hard to say which option would best advance the child's long-term interests. Earl Howe's amendment prevents decision-makers from making that assessment, by cutting out some potentially useful options from the outset. We are therefore not convinced that this will always be the best way of securing the long-term best interests of individual children".
      The amendment
      "does not seem to make the best interests of the child the paramount consideration, as required by article 21"
      of the convention on the rights of the child.
      The third reason for returning these amendments to the Bill is the need to end discrimination against unmarried and same-sex couples. Given the stringent application process and the rigorous assessments that are made on a case-by-case basis, there is no justification for disqualifying a couple from adopting jointly simply because they do not possess a marriage certificate, if they clearly possess all the characteristics that the agency would expect of suitable adoptive parents. The Joint Committee says that it is reasonable for people to be able to apply in those circumstances.
      We have heard arguments about the Fretté case. The court held that although there was a judgment to be made under the European Court of Human Rights, the French authorities were within their margin of appreciation. There were Conservatives on the Joint Committee, and there is no indication that they demurred from that view. Paragraph 24 of the report says
      "Although the judgment in Fretté suggests that it might not always be necessary to base a refusal to accept a same-sex couple as adopters on evidence related to an assessment of that particular couple's suitability to adopt, the view of the French authorities in that case (which the Court accepted as within their 'margin of appreciation') was based on doubts about the desirability of same-sex parenting. However, the case provides no support for the view—reflected in Earl Howe's amendment—that it could legitimately be regarded as necessary and proportionate to the aim of protecting the best interests of the child to prevent all unmarried couples, including mixed-sex couples, from being eligible to adopt, regardless of the merits of the individual case."
      Paragraph 25 states
      "That being so, in our view a blanket ban on unmarried couples being eligible to adopt children would amount to unjustifiable discrimination on the ground of marital status, violating article 14 combined with article 8."
      Mr. Robert Walter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his references to both the Committee's
      52
      report and the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, but does he acknowledge that most European states that recognise same-sex relationships also prohibit same-sex adoption, and that the practice in Europe is to oppose it?
      Dr. Harris: An interesting aspect of the recent judgment is that this was the first time that such a law had been challenged, or at any rate the first time that the European Court had argued that article 8, on the right to a private life, and article 14, on the right to live without discrimination, taken with another article of the convention, were relevant. Although the judgment was adverse in this case, it is likely that the court will be asked to reconsider, because the judgment was in a sense controversial. I understand that the British judge supported the minority view, of three rather than four, that the action was not proportionate. I think that the subject will be revisited; the Select Committee that we charge with advising us has expressed a clear view.
      People have been deterred from applying to adopt by the existing law, and unhappiness has been engendered by those who have adopted under that law. Only yesterday, The Independent on Sunday cited an opposite-sex couple, Ken Mason and Helga Petzel, who live in Norwich with their adopted son Michael, who is 11. Michael came to live with them when he was seven and was formally adopted by Mr. Mason in May 2000. Mr. Mason is quoted as saying:
      "We never had any desire to parent a small baby and we felt confident that we could offer a home to a child who had not had all the advantages that we had. Marriage had never been an issue for us: we are not religious and felt it would be hypocritical to make vows before a god we didn't believe in and we also felt that we didn't need the state to ratify our relationship. When we were told that we couldn't jointly adopt, we considered getting married but, in the end, I felt sure that we had what it took without needing to.
      It was clear from the outset that it would make more sense for me to be the legal parent as my work is flexible and Helga is the main breadwinner. But Helga is a fully involved parent and she should have the same rights as I have.
      We have explained the difference in our legal status to Michael and we also said that if marriage was a big issue for him then we would consider it, but he is such a happy and secure child that there has been no need.
      I know there are many unmarried couples who would make great parents but they won't come forward until the law changes."
      Ms Munn: The hon. Gentleman is making the crucial point that trust is at the heart of the assessment process for prospective adopters. To suggest that people who do not believe in marriage should marry and, therefore, be hypocritical—as in the example the hon. Gentleman cites—would fundamentally undermine the trust relationship at the beginning of the process. That is not in anybody's interest.
      Dr. Harris: I see the point that the hon. Lady makes. One cannot claim to be supporting marriage by forcing people into it for other motives, whatever our views on the value of marriage.
      The newspaper gave another example, of a same-sex couple—Sarah Halpern, aged 45 and a teacher, Christine Lee, aged 44 and a housing officer, who live in Manchester as a couple with their adopted daughters,

      53
      sisters Rachel and Nicola, aged 16 and 14. They were adopted when they were seven and six by Sarah, the single legal parent. Sarah is quoted as saying:
      "We had been together for five years when we decided we wanted a family. The decision about who was going to be the parent had to be made right at the start and it was really upsetting. We arranged our working hours so that we could be completely equal parents and it was horrible to have to choose between us.
      In the end, it was decided that I would be the adopter because my mother lives much closer."
      That is how people are forced to choose. Sarah continued:
      "We have had to explain to the girls that Christine had different legal status from me and Nicola was upset to start with because, as she said, 'You're both my mums,' but she understands it now.
      This law has to change—we entered into this together, and the girls are clear that we are both their parents. They had a very difficult start in life and the least they can expect is to have two legal parents and to feel as secure as possible."
      Mr. Simon Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman recall the poll tax, when the Conservative party introduced the concept of joint and several liability for cohabiting and unmarried couples? Does he agree that it is curious, if not hypocritical, to argue that when it comes to paying money to the state, unmarried couples are the same as married couples, but when it comes to making a contribution to society by adopting a child, unmarried couples are second-class citizens compared to married couples? Is not that the ultimate hypocrisy? It shows that the heart of the Conservative party lies with money and not with caring for those in need in society.
      Dr. Harris: That certainly applies to the Conservative party, but the present law is peculiar. When it is a question of assessment for benefits, the present law—presumably supported by the Government, in the absence of a civil partnerships register—means that people are considered married if cohabiting, but are not accorded an equal status with marriage when it comes to the many advantages of, for example, public sector pension schemes. Unmarried couples who live together lose out in both ways.
      The arguments against the amendment have been put mainly by the Conservatives. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), who is unfortunately no longer in his place, tried to reassure us by saying that he had been the chair of a social services committee. Given what he said, that was not much reassurance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) pointed out. He said that 83 per cent. of couples who were not married went on to break up compared with only 40 per cent. of married couples.
      The first point to make, which has been made clear by statisticians and others who have done research in this area, is that we are not comparing like with like. People who do not believe that they will remain with their partner for a lifetime are more likely to be in the group of those who do not get married, because marriage involves a public commitment of some kind. That does not mean that all the people in the unmarried group do not have the same commitment as many of those in the married group. We are, by the hon. Gentleman's own definition, precluding those 17 per cent. of couples from
      54
      applying to adopt when we allow the 40 per cent. of married couples who go on to break up to apply. That does not seem a rational approach.
      5.30 pm
      Andrew Selous: What does the hon. Gentleman have to say about the British household panel survey data, which show that the average length of cohabitation is only two years? Surely that is very relevant. It is not only about the numbers of couples who break up, but about how long they are together, which is not long enough to commit to a lifetime of care for a child.
      Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman is talking in averages, and that is the problem. We are talking about particular children with particular needs. I shall come in a moment to the dangers of generalisation.
      To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Huntingdon, what if more marriages than unmarried alliances split up as a proportion? I hope that that does not happen. Would he then change his view and disbar married couples from applying to adopt on that basis? It is clearly a reductio ad absurdum, which can happen with arguments put by Conservative Members. That is why it is important not to generalise—otherwise one finds oneself heading towards logical conclusions that I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to draw.
      The dangers of generalisation are clear. Let us suppose—although I am not suggesting for one moment that this is the case—that a sociologist came along with the supposition that parents from a particular ethnic minority group were more likely, marginally or significantly, to separate than those from the majority ethnic group in this country. On that basis, would it be reasonable to say that because, on average, they do not do as well in terms of stability, no one from that group should be allowed to apply? I think that we would abhor such a discriminatory arrangement based on a generalisation and I am sure that many, if not all, Conservative Members would be repelled by such a prospect. However, that is exactly the same logic that is being applied to a group of people—unmarried couples—who are not allowed to apply.
      The hon. Member for Huntingdon also made the rather strange point that 95 per cent. of children are currently adopted by married couples and only 5 per cent. by people who are not married—that is, single people. I think that he was saying that there was therefore no need to change the law, a point that was returned to in more depth by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). Surely, however, that is the point. We rely overwhelmingly on a single group of applicants—married couples. If there were a bar on single people applying, the hon. Member for Huntingdon would, according to his logic, have an even stronger argument because he could say that 100 per cent. of children are already adopted by married couples. The situation is peculiar.
      It has been argued that expanding the pool of applicants will not lead to more people seeking to adopt. On that basis, the opponents to the Bill's proposal can relax; if such a change in the law will not bring about a significant increase in the number of adoptions by people who are not married, they can rest assured. If it

      55
      does, and those people are judged suitable by the assessment, they should rejoice that more children will be found a place. They are in a no-win situation.
      Tim Loughton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to admit that all this hypothesis is not based on any evidence. However, the natural conclusion of his argument is that the 99.83 per cent. of the 11 million married couples in this country who do not end up adopting are less able or likely to be less able to make adoptive parents, particularly for problem children, than those unmarried couples of whatever description who currently do not come forward. On what evidence does the hon. Gentleman think that unmarried couples could better cope with those problem children than the 99.83 per cent. of the 11 million couples who do not currently come forward and should be encouraged to do so?
      Dr. Harris: That is not what I said. It is not a competition. I have never suggested that unmarried couples would make better adopters than married couples. I was pointing out that those who passed the assessment process could be equally good.
      The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) referred to research that was published today—I shall be more than happy to pass it to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham—which showed that of 430 children, there was not even one inquiry about 129. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford did not have time to mention that the only inquiries received for 20 children—harder-to-place children—came from single people; and that eight children received inquiries, which, sadly, were futile, only from unmarried or same-sex couples. That suggests that there is, to use a Conservative term, "a market" for harder-to-adopt children among couples who are currently banned even from applying. The evidence that I was sent today is clear on that point.
      Mr. Brazier: The proposals will not extend the possibility for adoption to any household anywhere in the country; they will only make it possible for two people in a household to be adopters rather than one. They will not create one more place.
      Dr. Harris: I think that they will, because currently people may be deterred from applying as they are not allowed to adopt jointly. The hon. Gentleman might argue that a child needs two parents rather than only one—although I accept that he might not argue that in the case of same-sex couples—so at present heterosexual unmarried couples who shared his view might be deterred from applying to adopt. For example, if the hon. Gentleman were not married, he might find it difficult to apply, although I have no doubt that he would make a most suitable adoptive parent. I hope that I have addressed that point.
      The hon. Member for Huntingdon argued, on the basis of an opinion poll, that a majority of people oppose the proposals. The most recent polling data that I can find are from MORI in September 2002. They show that 44 per cent. of people supported the right of same-sex couples to apply—the hardest case as regards
      56
      popular opinion—while only 36 per cent. opposed that right. I have never held the view that we should go by popular opinion in matters to do with human rights —[Interruption.] I am grateful for the sympathy expressed by Labour Members for the necessity of that virtue.
      People who pray in aid the fact that there is no public support for the proposals should look more carefully at the evidence from reputable organisations such as MORI rather than from partial organisations—that is the politest description—such as the Christian Institute.
      The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham made some important points and offered a more considered view of the alternative approach than we had heard previously. We should deal with that approach. He argued that the changes would not really expand the pool—a point that was echoed by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). I do not doubt the strong commitment of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham to adoption or to the Bill. That has been shown by his contributions to the debates. However, that does not mean that he cannot be wrong about something. Even without the evidence that I have just cited from BAAF, produced today, we must ultimately make a judgment as to whether the measure will improve things.
      On one side of the argument are the National Organisation for Counselling Adoptees and Parents, the Fostering Network, the National Foster Care Association, the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, Barnardo's, the NSPCC, NCH Action for Children, the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Local Government Association, the Children's Society, A Voice for the Child in Care, After Adoption, and so on. Ranged against them only a small number of organisations are persuaded by the views of the hon. Gentleman. That may not be conclusive evidence, but it is certainly persuasive of the fact that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in his estimation of the impact of the proposals.
      I want to make two more points about the merits of this matter. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham argued that too many people were put off by the rigors of the assessment process, but, in fact, research done for BAAF in 1999. by Dr. Gilles Ivaldi, who examined applications for approval as adopters that were considered by adoption panels and voluntary adoption agencies, shows that 94 per cent. of those applications were approved as suitable. So there are many reasons why people do not pursue their initial inquiries, but it is not right to say that the assessment process is too harsh. Obviously, a balance has to be struck.
      In an intervention, the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) cited the figure, to which Earl Howe referred, from the Christian Institute, which stated that the average length of a closed gay relationship was only 21 months. That figure has to be rebutted. My information suggests that that figure is an inaccurate portrayal of the findings of a survey carried out in 1992. The survey stated that the lengths of same-sex couples' relationships varied between very short and very long—up to 38 years. The mean average length of a relationship was, in fact, almost four times that suggested by Earl Howe. A follow-up study carried out by the same research team in 1998 found that the

      57
      average length of gay relationship was almost six years and that, again, many couples were in considerably longer relationships.
      The 2001 United Kingdom lesbian and gay census, carried out by ID Research, found that 28 per cent. of gay male couples and 22 per cent. of lesbian couples were in partnerships that had been ongoing for between five and 20 years. ID Research surveyed 10,500 lesbians and gay men nationwide—a far larger sample than the 1992 study cited by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire. If we were to use averages of faithful, stable relationships, hon. Members would find it difficult to qualify for assessment, and I include the relationships of those in his own party. We must at all times avoid the temptation to generalise, because that way lie despair and destruction.

      I should like to deal with the reason that we are discussing this issue yet again. I have made this point before, but it is worth rehearsing: it is unfortunate that we have to debate this issue again. The House of Lords rejected proposals similar to the amendments in lieu of the Lords amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Wakefield and supported by the Liberal Democrat party and hon. Member on both sides of the House. Those proposals were rejected not simply because of the Conservative party in the House of Lords. The Conservatives as a parliamentary force are not conclusive in that House and some would say that, although their discussions on this issue are diverting, they are not in the end relevant. To a certain extent, the problem was the hang-ups that the Labour party and, in particular, the Government have about the measure, because no Whip was placed on Labour peers.
      Kevin Brennan: Rightly so.
      Dr. Harris: I question whether that was right because, if we believe that this is a matter of human rights—particularly those of the child, but also those of potential adopters not to be discriminated against—we should expect parties to state their view so that people can be held to account on the party line. In that respect, the Conservatives have a point about imposing a Whip, but they are inversely wrong by 100 per cent. However, to say that this is somehow a matter of conscience and that the best interests of children should be left to the whim of individuals, without people being able to know what the party line is, appears to let the party off the hook.
      If we in the Liberal Democrat party believe that something is in the best interests of children, we say that it is our party's policy, we put it in our manifesto and we impose a Whip. If Liberal Democrat Members decide that they cannot support that line, they vote against the Whip and, although no dreadful punishment goes their way, they are forced to go against the party's view. Had the Government imposed a Whip, however mild, in the House of Lords, 23 Labour peers would not have voted against an amendment similar to that supported by so many Labour Back Benchers in the House and there would not have been a miserable turnout of only 49 per cent. of the mass of Labour peers in support. There are certainly Liberal Democrat peers who are unsure about the measure. By imposing a Whip, however, we were able to secure a 63 per cent. turnout in support, and no votes against. If the Government agree with the Joint Committee on Human Rights and believe in the merits
      58
      of the case, will they consider staking their reputation and honour on the matter and do the same with regard to the Labour party?
      5.45 pm
      Kevin Brennan: The hon. Gentleman displays yet again his childish attitude to the subject, which he displayed with regard to his amendment the last time that we discussed the matter. Clearly, whether or not a Whip on the Liberal Democrat side involves tickling Members rather than whipping them, there are issues of conscience in relation to this matter on both sides of the House. If he cannot recognise that, he is clearly a member of the Stalinist wing of his party.
      Dr. Harris: There are issues of conscience on every matter considered by the House. If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that every time the Government put a Whip on there is no issue of conscience, many of the less slavishly loyal Labour Members will have words to say to him. It is not a question of whether there are issues of conscience and of people having sincerely held views; it is whether the Government are slipping and sliding away from taking responsibility for supporting the measure. The Minister did a fantastic job of defending herself against Jeremy Paxman on "Newsnight"—eight times—on the issue, but people were still left asking why, if the Government want this change, they will not ask their supporters to vote along party lines in this House and in the other place.
      Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman is being as disingenuous as usual. He has claimed several times that the Liberal Democrats are wonderful because they have allowed a free vote, although it is Liberal Democrat policy to open up adoption. More than a third of Liberal Democrat peers did not support the measure, however, and many of them were present for the vote and actively abstained. The Liberal Democrat leader in the House of Lords, Baroness Williams, has said:
      "Providing there are sufficient married couples to adopt eligible children, I believe they should be preferred over the unmarried."
      She, along with more than a third of Liberal Democrat peers, did not vote in line with what the hon. Gentleman claims is his party's policy.
      Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman makes the point that I have just made—there will be people who have differences of opinion. Had the Labour party put a Whip on, and 63 per cent. or nearly two thirds—the figures that he gave are right—turned out in favour of the amendment, we would not be having this debate now, he would not have had to cobble together the defence of his position that we heard earlier, and the measure would be put on the statute book more quickly. The measure needs to get on the statute book—in the form, I hope, amended by this group of amendments—for the best interests of children and in the interests of non-discrimination. I hope that the Government will refute the suggestion in The Independent today that senior Whitehall sources argue that if the other place does not back down, the Government will drop the measure. Those kinds of hints, which allegedly come from the Government, send the wrong signals to opponents of the measure in another place. I hope that the Minister will be very clear in her reply that the

      59
      Government are committed to ensuring that the will of this House can override that of the other place, in this Session, before we prorogue.
      Mr. David Borrow: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he is prepared, between now and Prorogation, to see the whole of the Bill lost because the other place may not accept the amendment? We can play ping-pong for several days, but if the Lords do not accept the proposal, the whole Bill may be lost.
      Dr. Harris: Interventions such as that make me worry more than rumours in the newspapers about the Government's intent. I hope that the Bill will be passed as amended, and the Government should make it absolutely clear that, if it is rejected in another place, they will send it back again—even that would be something. This debate is about the rights of the child, and opportunities such as this Bill come along only once every 25 years, so the Government ought to be clear about their willingness, at the appropriate time, to use other parliamentary procedures to ensure that the Bill becomes law, in its correct form and as soon as possible.
      I return to the main proposition: the Bill needs amendments (a) to (uu). I hope that there is a maximum turnout from each party for the votes, and I pay particular tribute to Conservative Members who are prepared to defy the Whip to make it clear that the rights of the child and the right not to be discriminated against come first.
      Ms Munn: It is a shocking fact that a boy over the age of five is unlikely to be adopted even though he is waiting for an adoptive home. Let us think about that for a moment. Let us think about children whom we know, perhaps a son aged seven or eight, a nephew, a next-door neighbour or a child who lives in our street. I repeat: a boy over the age of five is unlikely to find someone to offer him a permanent home.
      We have heard it said many times, rightly, that this debate is not about anybody's right to adopt. Nobody has the right to adopt, and that is as it should be. I believe strongly, however, that every adult who is able to offer a loving home to a child should be allowed to do so, regardless of their situation. If they have been assessed as suitable to adopt, they should have the right to apply. If they are deemed to be suitable for a particular child, that child could have a loving home that they might not otherwise find.
      As a society that values children, we should ensure that every child has the right to a loving, permanent home. We do not achieve that at the moment. Adoption is fundamentally about children; it is not about the way in which we, as adults, live our lives. It is not about our homes, our party positions or the way in which our party wants us to vote. Those are not the issues today.
      I am holding in my hand "Be My Parent" magazine, which has already been referred to. It is a monthly magazine produced by the British Association for Adoption and Fostering. I could have looked at it every month when I worked in social services, but I have to tell
      60
      the House that I did not. I will not get into the bidding war that we had in Committee about who has been in social services the longest—
      Mr. Dawson: Because you won.
      Ms Munn: Yes, I won. One would think that people who had spent so many years in social services dealing with these issues would have become immune to them. However, I could not look, every month, at the faces of the children in this magazine because every child smiling out from a photo is included not because someone wants to adopt them but because there is already a shortage of adopters in their local authority. Most children in most local authorities are matched with parents who have gone through the process in that area or who have made an arrangement with another local authority. Children appear in this magazine only when they are hard to place.
      Hon. Members should look at the thickness of the magazine and think about how many children are included. Let us consider a few of them. The magazine says:
      "Ricky is a lively, active boy who loves reading, swimming, watching TV and playing computer games."
      Ricky is nine. I make it clear for the record that Ricky is not the child's real name. Joel and Joseph are brothers aged two and four. Thomas, six, appears with his sister, Crystal, aged five. Sapphire, aged nine, is shown with her sister Lauren, seven. Now we move on to the children who are very hard to place, not necessarily because they are difficult but because they are siblings and need to be placed together. Adam, aged 11, is featured with Tamara, nine, and Damien, seven. Finally, a lovely group of boys, aged four to 12, smile out at us—Leonard, Thomas, Jamie and William. For 30 seconds I look at them and think, "Wouldn't it be great to take those four boys home?" If my husband is listening, he will be panicking by now.
      The children look nice and are smiling out from their photos, but they have all had a difficult start in life. They have experienced rejection and they have behavioural difficulties. They will test the patience of the most loving, caring and resilient person, not because they are bad children or because they want to behave like that, but because of their experiences.
      Mr. Brazier: The hon. Lady speaks with feeling, as always, and I strongly agree with the point that she just made. Surely, however, because of the ghastly experiences that most of those children have had in their birth families, it follows that the hard and fast requirement in many of the advertisements for a great deal of contact with the birth family is bound to put off potential adopters.
      Ms Munn: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. One lesson we have learned over the years is that if children have an awareness of their identity and an understanding of who they are, it helps the stability of the adoptive placement. For every child, but particularly for older children, a thorough assessment is needed of what, if any, contact is in the interests of the child. For some children, the right decision is that there should be no contact, ever. That may be the case for children who have been subjected to multiple familial abuse.

      61
      For many other children, whose parents have simply been unable to provide the necessary care and support, letterbox contact may be appropriate. It may be important for older children to know that they will see grandma, for example, every six weeks, every six months or once a year. That may help them to settle. It may help a child to know that although he is not seeing his mum and dad or his older brother, they are still all right. We cannot make blanket decisions about contact because it is important not only to consider the needs of the child but—and this is where the hon. Gentleman had a valid point—to consider realistically what prospective adoptive parents can cope with. Those are the two sides of the argument.
      Unfortunately, we often end up talking about poor practice and about local authorities that are not doing a good job. When we do that, we do an incredible disservice to children, to hard-working social workers and to the local authorities that are doing a good job. It is always the bad cases that hit the press, but there is a lot of good work, and we need to ensure that all local authorities have good practice and achieve high standards.
      Mr. Brazier: I certainly agree with the hon. Lady that we need to emphasise the spectrum of quality and try to raise the standards of all local authorities as high as the best. She acknowledged that it is crucial to take into account the needs of adoptive parents if we want to get them on board. That is precisely why it seems to me so wrong to predetermine the details about optimum contact without taking into account the wishes of prospective adopters. We should let adopters get further down the line before those details are set.
      Ms Munn: I shall come on to the detail of the process shortly. Contact details are included in the magazine to give an indication of what is required. Some prospective adopters would say that they could not cope with having contact with the parents, so there would be no point in them even inquiring about certain children. Others would say that they were not sure about contact, so the issue would have to be negotiated.
      It is clearly nonsense to suggest that many unmarried parents do not bring up their children in a stable relationship: they clearly do. So why do we want to rule out the possibility of unmarried couples applying to be adopters for some of the children who are waiting for a home? This is not about statistics. It is not about the number of relationships that break down or the number of people who live in gay relationships and how long they have been together. It is about matching children to homes. For that reason, I want to cover the process of applying in detail.
      6 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) exploded some of the myths employed in the debate in the House of Lords. Similarly, I want to explode some of the myths mentioned today, especially those raised by the hon. Members for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). Local authorities are trying to get more people to adopt. I wish that it was as easy as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham
      62
      suggested. He said that we have a specific number of married couples, and that even if only a proportion of them come forward as adopters there will be homes for all the children. If it were that easy, we probably would not be having this debate, but the fact is that more children are waiting for adoptive homes than there are prospective adopters.
      The local authority advertises for more adopters, perhaps for children aged four to seven, and it invites people who phone up to inquire to an open evening. At that stage, some people will decide that it is not for them. Others, however, might think that adoption is for them as a couple, but that they are not ready for it. They might have discovered that they cannot have children of their own and want to go down the route of IVF before returning in two, three or four years' time. Others might think, "Whoops. This is a big life-changing experience. Let's go away and think about it." That explains the drop-out figure. It is a serious and major decision. That might be seen as an obstacle, but I think that it is right that people properly consider whether they should proceed with an adoption.
      The next process is training, where people hear more about the children. Most people do not know the background of the children who appear in "Be My Parent" or even those who are up for more straightforward adoption. They learn about the importance of identity and the adoption process. Some people at that point will decide that adoption is not for them. It might not be what they thought it would be or they might decide that they want to have a baby. That is not an obstacle; it is the natural process of people making a decision about a serious matter in their life.

      People then have individual assessments with their social worker. We heard much about how social workers put people off, but most of them spend time talking to people about why they want to adopt. They consider their experiences and what they have to offer. At that stage, some people will he counselled out, as we referred to it professionally, perhaps because they have not come to terms with the fact that they cannot have their own child. That could be seen as another obstacle, but I think it is right that people properly consider whether adoption is right for them.
      At the end of the process, the social worker tells the adoption panel whether a couple or single person should be approved to adopt. That follows a long discussion on what sort of child is right for them. For some people, it is an issue of gender; perhaps they have boys in their family and want to adopt a girl. For others, it is an issue of age; if they already have children, they will want the right age gap. Those details are considered. We do not have blanket approval of adoptive parents. The idea that we will end up with lots of couples vying for the same child is nonsense. People come into the process with different abilities and skills, which they offer to adopted children.
      Providing everything goes smoothly, 94 per cent. of people who are presented to adoption panels are approved, which has already been mentioned. In my five years of chairing an adoption panel and being a decision maker, I think we turned down one person. Local authorities are not in the business of putting up artificial barriers to stop people adopting. There are children who need to be adopted. The social workers know them and

      63
      are heartbroken because they cannot find them homes. Local authorities are not in the business of turning people away for spurious reasons.
      Tim Loughton: I am listening closely. Of course the decision should be down to people on the ground, but only if they are not constrained by preconceptions. How does the hon. Lady explain the enormous disparity between the number of successful applications in different social services areas, ranging from 2 to 10 per cent? I do not know the figure for Sheffield now or in her time there, but surely those areas where the application rate is much less successful can learn from the more successful areas. That is one thing that we want.
      Ms Munn: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I said that there is good practice, better practice and poor practice. I am not defending poor practice. Those areas that are demonstrating poor practice need to be examined and to improve. I have no quibble with that.
      What happens next to prospective adopters? Social workers have children who need placements. They tell the adoption team about them and a matching process takes place. If a social worker is lucky, she might have two or three couples or sets of people from which to choose. It is more likely that there will be one choice or the team might say that it has someone in the pipeline. It is nonsense to suggest that a social worker says, "I'm politically correct and I want a gay couple for this child." That does not happen. Social workers are desperate for families and want a couple who meet a child's needs.
      In my experience social workers are more conservative—perhaps that is not in their defence—than most hon. Members. For good reasons, most of them want two parents: a mother and a father. They prefer the mum to stay at home because the children—there might be two or three of them—have such demanding needs. They will not specify the mum, but at least one parent needs to have time to spend with the children. Social workers consider each case from the point of view of the child. It would be wrong to place a young girl who has been badly sexually abused and who has a range of needs in a household where there is a man. She could not deal with that. I am not saying that all men are a risk to that child, but it might he right for that child to have two women—two mothers—to provide care and support. It is important to match the needs of the child with a family.
      On specifying the ethnicity of a child, I strongly believe that most children grow up best in circumstances that reflect their identity. They do that because those parents will naturally understand that child's background, but it must not be a given. A child should not languish in care because there is no exact match. As chair of the adoption panel, I faced a proposal to match a child from a Muslim background with a family in which one parent was a Hindu. My first reaction was, "My goodness, that is a difficult match," but when we investigated the case, looking into the child's background and the ability of the couple with whom we were placing the child to respect the child's religious background, we realised that it was absolutely the right
      64
      thing to do—right for the child, because it was the best match we could get. The child was mixed race, as was the family to whom it was going.
      Mr. Brazier: The hon. Lady is talking about good practice, but she will remember from the Standing Committee the case of Natalie, who was in care as a baby and therefore in by far the easiest category to place. She was refused to a single mother—a woman who had the means to support her and who, like Natalie, was of middle eastern-European origin—on the ground that the lady was Christian, whereas the baby's origins were Islamic. The good practice that she describes is simply not happening across the spectrum.
      Ms Munn: The hon. Gentleman rightly highlights an example of poor practice. I am not here to defend poor practice. The Bill is about continuing to promote good practice. Since their election in 1997, the Labour Government have set out to improve adoption practice and have put in substantial additional resources. That is right, but we should set our standards high and do our best for the children, and the best thing that we can do for those children is to widen the pool. Yes, we should get more married couples to come forward to adopt—we should all talk adoption up.
      Julie Morgan: My hon. Friend is aware that many children cannot be placed by local authorities and are referred to voluntary bodies. Before becoming a Member of Parliament, I worked for Barnardo's trying to place some of the most damaged children in the area in which I worked. I support my hon. Friend's point that there is a severe shortage of prospective adoptive parents to take damaged children, whether the children are physically disabled—we placed children from hospitals who physically could do hardly anything—or behaviourally disturbed, which presents a major problem—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Lady has made her point.
      Ms Munn: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which goes to the heart of our debate. There are many children out there who need homes. If there were more adopters than children waiting for adoption, there might be some merit in the arguments that we have heard, but there are 5,000 children waiting for adoptive homes—not 5,000 families who want to adopt. How can we, in all conscience, deny any of those children a home?
      The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) referred to eight children in respect of whom only single parents had inquired. Look into the faces of those eight children and tell them that the person making the inquiry cannot be considered for providing them with a permanent home because he or she is not married. I am not prepared to do that, and I hope that Conservative Members are not prepared to do so either.
      Mr. John Bercow: I rise to support the motion to disagree and a number of the grouped amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), which stand in the name of several hon. Members.

      65
      At the outset, I pay tribute both to the hon. Gentleman's work and to his words on previous occasions and today. I am aware, after taking a cursory glance at his biographical details, that he married in 1982. He has considerable experience and was able to knock sideways those who cavilled at his motivation—especially people involved in parts of the media, who might suggest that he had some sort of politically correct agenda. Manifestly, he has nothing of the sort in mind. He is a champion of marriage and he is practising his commitment to it.
      I, too, believe in marriage. I am—I hope, God willing—soon to demonstrate my commitment to marriage, when in 33 days' time, here in the House of Commons, I get married. I look forward to the joys of marriage, and I ought to have the humility to put on record my extreme gratitude that I have been lucky enough to find a gracious future wife who has, rather generously, agreed to slow down the process of my inevitable deterioration. That said, and fan of marriage though I am, I do not think that that institution is or should be the centrepiece or defining feature of the debate about adoption. It certainly should not be.
      6.15 pm
      Several hon. Members have referred to the key statistics that lie at the heart of today's debate. Let the point be underlined: approximately 5,000 children are adopted each year; a similar number again have been decreed suitable to be adopted, but still await willing adoptive families, and those kids are languishing principally in institutional care.
      I found extremely powerful the research conducted by British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering. In particular I focused on the research relating to March this year—it has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw)—concerning the group of 430 children who were potentially available for and suited to adoption. It was striking that although overall there were more than 1,200—1,255, I think—inquiries about those children, no fewer than 129 of the 430 were children in respect of whom no inquiries were made. That is a serious situation which no democratically elected politician has the right to dismiss or ignore. That is an extremely challenging state of affairs for legislators.
      Alongside those bald statistics, we have to consider the obvious and, I suspect, increasing phenomenon of people coming forward who are not married, but who are cohabiting, and who have, not merely an interest in, but a passion to realise their ambition to have a child. Often, they are people who tried to have children but were unsuccessful, and they want to adopt a child.
      It is in that context that the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Wakefield have to be considered. As has been said many times, the objective of those who have tabled the amendments is to widen or extend the pool of potential adopters, and I believe that we should judge the arguments on their merits and not seek to impugn the good motives or personal integrity of those who have put their names to the amendments. Let us examine first the argument about extending the pool—a point to which I am sympathetic and which I have discussed with several people over a period of months.
      66

      A week or two ago, in the context of making what I thought was an important argument in relation to the Bill, a senior Conservative, who is himself strongly opposed to adoption by unmarried couples, said to me, "This issue is not about gay rights." It so happens that, in the course of the remarks that excited that response, I had made absolutely no reference to gay rights, but there you go. On the point of fact, I agreed with that individual: this issue is not about the rights of gay people, or of heterosexual people, or of married people, or of unmarried people—frankly, it is not about the rights of adults at all. It is about the rights, welfare and futures of some of the most vulnerable children in our society today.
      In contemplating this issue and preparing for the debate, I have had a number of conversations with the county adoption adviser in Buckinghamshire, Elaine Dibben. I am happy to say that I learned a lot from those conversations; they were extremely instructive for me. Elaine Dibben told me of a number of harrowing cases and personal tragedies of people in the county of Buckinghamshire who have been judged suitable for adoption but who are the great unwanted, discarded, forgotten children in our society.
      I think, for example, of the seven-year-old boy in Buckinghamshire who has been waiting for adoption since July 2000. He is vulnerable and he needs help now. I think of the 10-year-old boy who has been waiting for adoption since January 2000. He is vulnerable and he needs help now. I think, for example, of the brother and sister respectively aged four and six years who come from mixed parentage and who waited for adoption from January 2000 until July 2001, at which point they were taken on by an adoptive family. Sadly, despite best efforts and no doubt good intentions on both sides, that arrangement did not work. Within two months, by September 2001, that brother and sister were back in institutional care, where I am sorry to say they have languished for the succeeding 14 months.
      I think, for example, of the sisters aged eight and nine who have been waiting for adoption for the past 12 months. Those sisters are judged and described as hard to place on the ground—surprise, surprise, in common with a great many other siblings—that they want to stay together. They have not yet been placed. Those sisters are vulnerable and they need help now.
      I think of the 18-month-old boy who has been waiting for adoption for 12 months, since he was six months old. His situation is the more serious because in addition to the institutionalised care that he has been obliged to endure, he faces threats to himself and the possible retardation of his development for the simple and sad reason that his mother was a drug addict. These are the vulnerable children in our society who are not interested in a theory or an idealisation, but in practical help, demonstrable compassion, effective assistance now.
      It is generally true and acknowledged—to try to cut through some of the statistical table tennis in this debate—that there are two valid propositions. First, on the whole, there is frequently a surplus of would-be adoptive parents, but that surplus is of would-be adoptive parents who want to adopt young, healthy, female—for that read generally less difficult—and white children.

      67
      The second correct proposition is that there is in many cases a shortage of would-be adoptive parents who are willing, as many hon. Members have said, to take on and give a loving home to children in a different category. Those children might—this is often true—be older; they may very well be boys. In particular, those hard-to-place children are very likely to be those with behavioural problems, who suffer from learning difficulties, or who are afflicted by mental or physical disabilities. We have a duty to address their plight and to see what we can do about their situation.
      Mr. Brazier: My hon. Friend is making a passionate and eloquent speech. Those of us who have campaigned for this Bill for many years want the matters that he is raising and the tragic cases—some of which he has listed—addressed, but does he not realise that the proposal would not open one extra home? All that it would stipulate is that, if a child is to be taken into a home and adopted jointly rather than adopted by one adult in the home, that couple would need to get married.
      Mr. Bercow: I respect my hon. Friend's sincerity, but I utterly reject the point that he has made, and I am happy to tell him and the House why I do so. If the existing arrangements are manifestly discriminatory, send out a signal of hostility and purposely create categories of adopters—one category of which is made up of first-class citizens and the other of second-class citizens—it is scarcely surprising when some who might otherwise be interested in coming forward and adopting jointly on a basis of equality of esteem choose to give up the unequal struggle against such ludicrous arrangements which continue to obtain. I say in all sincerity to my hon. Friend that I know that he believes in his position with conviction, but the idea that one can simply lecture people and say, "You get married and then you'll be all right, acceptable and we'll approve of you" is simply not acceptable in the century in which I think I now live.
      I must emphasise that we are talking about abused, neglected and bereft children who need to be brought up physically, emotionally and spiritually in a family, headed preferably by two parents who are jointly and legally responsible for them. That does not seem to be an unreasonable request. Very often, there is not a great choice. I find it extraordinary that people talk as though the question is simply one of finding the ideal married couple. We should not view this debate in terms of two options that are juxtaposed and rivals to each other. The option of the "ideal" married couple on the one hand and of the "flawed" and, by definition therefore, inferior unmarried and cohabiting couple on the other seems to be a wrong way to look at the matter.
      The truth is that in a number of cases, as is demonstrably proven by the evidence of those who continue to languish either in institutional care or in serial and unstable fostering arrangements, the choice is different. The choice in many cases, and the choice in future as cohabitation grows, will be between the offer of a decent, loving, stable and committed home headed by two people who are not married, and the alternative
      68
      which, despite the best efforts of those who provide the care, is not infrequently the living hell of institutional care or serial fostering arrangements.
      Let us consider some of the arguments about whether unmarried couples should adopt. The thesis has been advanced many a time and oft, including in several speeches this afternoon, that cohabiting partners have inherently more unstable relationships. I must say to those who argue that case that we ought to remember our own political and to some extent intellectual mentor in the Conservative party, Disraeli, who, it was said, talked of
      "lies, damned lies and statistics".
      It may well be valid as a general proposition, as the statistical evidence adduced would appear to suggest, that married couples' relationships are longer lasting and more stable than those of unmarried couples. However, it seems a non sequitur to generalise from those statistics when we are dealing, and when we know that we are dealing, in the context of a debate about adoption, with a specific and self-selecting group of cohabiting people who have a thirst for adoption and are coming forward in the hope that that thirst will be satisfied. That is a different category. In many cases the individuals concerned are older, and they have frequently, as I mentioned earlier, tried to have children and not been successful, which is why they have come forward and taken an interest in the adoption process. Simply to smear them as unsuitable or lesser beings is unwarranted and, in terms of attracting people to adopt, extremely counterproductive.
      6.30 pm
      Right hon. and hon. Members are duty bound to take account of the nature of the process by which those who initially select themselves as potential adoptive parents come ultimately to be selected or not to be selected, as the case may be, by others. It is important, as other hon. Members have done, to focus on the specifics, the facts and the detail of the process. The way some people speak about it, anyone would think that the adoption process was the parenting equivalent of service in a fast-food restaurant. It simply is not like that.
      As evidence in our various constituencies around the country conclusively shows, the process is thorough, rigorous and exacting. It is right and proper that that should be so. When people come forward, they have to go through the entire process. If, for example, they are part of a thoroughly unstable relationship, they are extraordinarily unlikely to get through the process. I want to attend to the detail, because I am concerned about the way in which generalised arguments and—dare I say it?—occasionally deliberate or inadvertent prejudices are tossed around in the course of these debates.
      What can we say about the process? There might be an initial inquiry by telephone or letter. Information would then be sent out, with details of an information session. The person or couple would have to attend the information session, there would be an interview with a social worker, and a series of statutory checks would be made. There would be attendance at a preparation group, and following that, interviews with two social workers. An assessment would be started with a social worker, on the principle of home visits, of which

      69
      typically there would be six or eight, conducted over a period of three months or so. Follow-up workshops would be held.
      There would be referees to be visited by the social worker, there would be the crucial form F report to be completed, and there would be a second opinion visit by a second social worker. The applicants would have the opportunity to read and comment on form F. The social worker would present the report to the adoption panel, the adoption panel would make a recommendation to the adoption agency, and the adoption agency would make a decision. If, after that recitation, right hon. and hon. Members and others attending to our proceedings elsewhere are not already exhausted, I have to tell them that that is not the end of the process.
      An agency decision might be made that a child would be put into a willing adoptive family, but as we all recognise, that is a trial arrangement. In due course, an assessment of the success or otherwise of that trial would be made. The assessment would be made by a judge in a family or county court. That is an extremely important safeguard. Throughout the rigorous, thorough and exacting process that I have described, certain criteria are to the fore—the stability of the couple's relationship, the extent of the networks of support available, the details of the family histories involved, and the capacity or, as it may transpire, the incapacity of the would-be adoptive parents to create space, in the widest sense of that term, for the entry of a new child into the family. It is an extremely rigorous, highly valuable and very serious process. To cavil at it or to appear to dismiss its significance or quality is cruelly unfair to those who labour long and hard in pursuit of the interests of children.
      That leads me to what happens now. I pay tribute to the many right hon. and hon. Members who know a lot more about the subject than I do. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), with whom I have had some productive conversations on the subject, and a number of whose contributions to debate I have read. My hon. Friend, in the best Conservative tradition, is focused on the practicalities—the here and now, the reality of what happens in the society in which we live.
      As we know, couples who are cohabiting already adopt. That is true not only of heterosexual couples, but of gay couples. However, they do not adopt jointly, so they face the peculiarly unenviable dilemma of deciding which of them is to have the status of the adoptive parent, and which of them is to accept the lesser role of second-class citizen whose fate and limitation it is, perhaps, to acquire a residence order which will lapse when the child involved reaches the age of 16 or 18.
      I hope that it will command general assent to say that, quite apart from the fact that such a discriminatory arrangement within the family creates injustice, inequality, instability and possibly unhappiness in the mind of the child, who will naturally view both partners as his or her parents, there are also damaging practical consequences that flow from that peculiarly anomalous legal arrangement. For example, if the adoptive parent dies, the adoptive parent's partner—that is to say, from the vantage point of the child, his or her other parent—will not have an automatic right to become the adoptive parent. He or she will have to go through the whole process, with all the attendant uncertainty and stress,
      70
      and the possibility of a sad culmination of events. If, for example, the adoptive parent's partner dies, there can be many instances in which the child does not have a right to inherit the estate of his or her other parent. If the couple split up, the partner who is not the adoptive parent currently has no responsibility in law to contribute to the cost of maintaining the child.
      Those are significant downsides and injustices, about which we should not be complacent. If, on the other hand, we go for reform, tidy up the law and practise the principle of equity, the situation could be a great deal better. Under child support legislation and under the relevant schedule of the Children Act 1975, the interests of the child will be safeguarded and promoted, in terms of the opportunity to make maintenance orders, and in terms of the transfer and settlement of property. Those are important considerations.
      I shall focus now on the consensus in support of reform, which is a powerful consideration. The hon. Members for Chatham and Aylesford and for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) have, in the course of the debates, made much of the organisations that support reform, and they have been right to do so. I simply pose the question, and I admit that I pose it in particular to some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, whether it is entirely wise to ignore or disregard the fact that 29 of the 30 organisations that gave evidence and made representations to the Special Standing Committee on the Bill argued in favour of these particular amendments or, at any rate, the principle that underlies them. I think that that is an extremely relevant consideration. I do not say that it is conclusive of itself, but it is a material consideration. Simply to dismiss as the politically correct social worker brigade the organisations whose daily responsibility and privilege it is to cater for the interests of children betrays a degree of arrogance and ignorance that is unworthy of a serious debate on these important subjects. The people in those organisations know what they are talking about.
      Andrew Selous: I am listening with great interest to my hon. Friend, who is clearly speaking with great passion and conviction in dealing with a matter about which he feels very strongly. On the number of organisations that support a particular argument, he will recall when 264 economists, I think, wrote to The Times to say that the policies of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Geoffrey Howe, were incorrect. Lord Howe ignored that advice and was later proved to have been right in doing so.
      Mr. Bercow: I must admit that I do not think that a powerful argument. However, I shall do my best to improve it. With characteristic self-effacement, my hon. Friend understated what I confess I believe to be a poor case. He referred to 264 economists, but in fact, of course, 364 economists excoriated my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven and her colleagues for pursuing those economic policies. I say to him that economics is a notoriously inexact science. If one meets any three economists, one will unfailingly hear at least five opinions, so it does not seem to me that we should be too influenced by that consideration.
      What we are talking about are people in professional practice dealing not with theories and isolated models such as those in the discipline of economics, but with the

      71
      practice of social work, care for children, human understanding, interpersonal relations and societal development. Those are very important differences.
      Jonathan Shaw: May I assist the hon. Gentleman in strengthening his argument in respect of the 29 agencies that gave evidence to the Special Standing Committee? Members of the Committee had the opportunity to cross-examine those agencies and put questions to them. Their submissions were not merely letters in a newspaper; we had the opportunity to put questions and test their arguments.
      Mr. Bercow: I agree. I should add that it seems a poor line of argument merely to say that, as the amendments were not proposed at the outset and arose only at a later stage, they cannot be of much significance. What is the point of having a number of different stages in the passage of a Bill, including pre-legislative scrutiny, as now favoured by the Government, and the opportunity for specialist representations to be made, if one simply dismisses them out of hand when they happen to conflict with one's preconceptions? I was influenced by what happened and I took the trouble to read the evidence.
      I should like to conclude with reference to the parliamentary management of this issue. There has been a good deal of discussion in the past few days, as people may have noticed, about the way in which the subject has been handled, especially on the Opposition Benches. The judgment was made to impose a three-line Whip—that is to say, to instruct Conservative Members of Parliament to vote against the amendments. I must emphasise that this is the second occasion on which that has been done. It was done last May and it has been done again.
      I do not mind saying to the House that in May this year, after much soul searching, and with a heavy heart and, frankly, a guilty conscience, I did what is not customary for me and stayed away. I did not take part. If I remember rightly, I sat instead in my office. I had on this occasion to ask myself how I should react to the situation that has been presented to me and which other hon. Members will have to address. Of course, there is never any shortage of well intentioned and often friendly people who will say, "Don't go to the wall over it; it's not worth having a big fight. After all, it is only one issue, and"—wait for it—"it's the Government's problem to get their Bill; and if they lose it, that's their tough luck." That would be the easy way out. I think that it would be a cop-out, a get-out and a sell-out for somebody who feels as strongly as I do on this matter to take that course of action. I concluded that I was not prepared to convict myself of that abdication of responsibility.
      6.45 pm
      I think that the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Wakefield and supported by others are sound. They offer hope and could make the situation better. I believe that what we need in this debate is less prejudice and more fairness. We should aspire to govern Britain as she is, not Britain as she was. We should govern on the basis of enduring principles adapted for
      72
      proper application to the circumstances of the time. What we need are open minds, generosity of spirit and a readiness to understand the point of view of others. For goodness' sake, let us try to think outside the box—the way in which we, our party members or others who think or live like us, would naturally react. I am concerned about those damaged, bereft, neglected and vulnerable children, and I am not prepared to pass up any practical opportunity that might enable us to make their lives better.
      It has been a privilege to serve in the shadow Cabinet over the past 14 months under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith). I am grateful to him for the opportunities that he has given to me. I hope that I have made some very modest contribution, and I look forward to supporting him and my party in the Lobbies and on these Benches in the weeks, months and years ahead.
      I conclude simply by thanking my hon. and right hon. Friends for the courtesy and understanding that they have shown me on the occasion of the decision that I have felt compelled to make.
      Liz Blackman: I commend the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) for his fine speech. At any event, my speech was going to be very short and to the point, but I have since revised it to being extremely brief. By this stage of the debate, the main points will have been aired, but I want to emphasise a couple of points that are worth either the repeating or the sharing.
      Although it sounds extremely crude to say so, I believe that the issue is about supply and demand. It is about demand for good-quality parents to come forward. Currently, the supply of such parents does not match the demand of children: notably those who are languishing in local children's homes, as the hon. Member for Buckingham said. That must be at the forefront of our minds. It has been suggested that 5,000 children are in care. That number could even be slightly higher, but every one of those children is a child without a safe, secure and loving context. The longer those children stay in children's homes, the longer they will have to learn as a norm the worst ways of children who are older than them, who got into the system before them, and who are even more abused and rejected than the younger ones who are coming through.
      That is the issue; it is about encouraging good-quality parents to come forward and offer those children hope. That is what the children try to cling to. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) spoke movingly about children who never saw anybody come forward and make an offer to adopt them or even express interest in them so as to raise a little hope or start the process.
      There are two main reasons why supply and demand do not match one another. One of them is the profile of the children, about which I and many other hon. Members have talked. They are not cuddly babies any more, but challenging children, many of whom have special needs. The other factor that has not helped is the legislation under which we are currently working, which is 25 years old. Any legislation that is 25 years old has difficulties keeping up with the pace of change. Adoption legislation is no exception. The Bill is an

      73
      excellent piece of legislation, but the issue about unmarried parents and same-sex couples is not a bolt-on concept. It is not something that can be ignored while the rest of the Bill sails through, everything being all right and supply meeting demand.
      It is crucial to attract more good-quality parents and to widen the pool. Failing that, we are talking a good talk but we are not solving the problem. If we do not adopt that approach, we shall find in two years' time after this wonderful debate that there are the same statistics. That is not what we should be about.
      If we do not accept the amendments, we shall be saying to the child, "You are not entitled or allowed to have a legal relationship with both the adults in your life who provide you with a loving, caring home. You are allowed only one." I think back quite a long way. If I had been in that situation as a teenager—perhaps a damaged teenager or a stroppy teenager—I would have exploited it to the maximum. At the same time, I would have felt insecure. The message that is given to adults who are coming forward to offer their parenting skills—this applies especially to the one who is not adopting the child—is that they are not quite up to the mark. They feel that they are being told, "You are not quite up to the mark. We do not value you in the same way as we value your partner."
      Adults go through a rigorous selection process. We marvel and are delighted when such parents produce wonderful, secure and loving homes for children through adoption. However, the basic message is, "Carry on as you were doing and as you are doing, but we ain't going to recognise you." That is not only a matter of equality. Indeed, it is a practical matter. It is one that sends a wrong signal and will not result in more parents coming forward. It is the reason why few parents have come forward who are in an unmarried relationship or who are part of a single-sex couple.
      Opposition Members, especially those who are against the amendments, have said that about 90 to 95 per cent. of couples who are adopting are married. That is not surprising. One of the main messages being given out by current legislation—I hope that future legislation will not do so—is, "You are not quite valued in the same way as your married neighbours." The situation is wrong from a practical point of view as well as in terms of equity.
      I was extremely concerned by the veiled threat of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench—in fact, there was not much veiled about it—when he suggested that there is a severe danger that the proposed legislation, as a package, will not pass through Parliament if things go wrong for him tonight. I hope that I have misinterpreted his remarks. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be saying, "If we do not get a resolution that goes our way, the Bill will be in danger of collapsing." Obviously we are faced with prorogation. I hope that what the hon. Gentleman suggests is not the case.
      The Bill is a fine piece of proposed legislation. With others on both sides of the Chamber, I have been heavily involved with it. However, it will be a fine piece of legislation only if it is implemented in full and if we can get additional prospective caring and loving parents into the system that offers many damaged children a real opportunity and a real chance.
      Mr. Brazier: It is a privilege to have the opportunity again to speak on adoption. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman), who has been closely concerned with the Bill throughout its consideration.
      I shall start with two general points. First, I support all those on both sides of the Chamber who have said that it is an excellent Bill. I have been campaigning for six years for the adoption of children who are in care. I have looked with horror at the extraordinary spectrum. When the campaign started, fewer than 1 per cent. of children in care in many local authorities were adopted. Some of the best authorities were achieving an adoption rate of more than 12 per cent. Behind these bleak statistics there are many horrifying cases.
      The measures in the Bill have been ably listed by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton). They range from the introduction of the national register to the provisions to speed up the current desperately slow court procedure. So many lawyers are calling for a faster process. There are also the guidelines for social workers and adoption panels. There is so much positive material in the Bill that will improve the chances of children in care being adopted.
      Secondly, I shall draw the interest of the House to a case that may be of use in developing regulations. An especially horrifying case was put before the all-party group on adoption, the details of which I have sent to the Secretary of State, which concerned an adoption that had broken down. By chance, it involved one of the right hon. Gentleman's constituents, and I received a most courteous reply about it. The father who adopted the child was a social worker and was familiar with working with children. The case illustrates the extreme importance of psychiatric assessments in cases where allegations are made against parents. In the instance to which I am referring, the allegations were made by a deeply damaged girl after 10 years of successful adoption. She made terrible allegations that were proved to be entirely false. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for agreeing to examine the case. In considering the Bill on a broad spectrum, we never discussed proper psychological assessments after, tragically, adoption has started to break down.
      Members on both sides of the House—not least my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), in his powerful speech—have acknowledged that we are talking not about the rights of adults. Instead, the issue is about the interests of the child. I was privileged to serve on the Special Standing Committee under the extremely able chairmanship of the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who managed to combine impartiality for most of the time while making his own powerful points when he wanted to do so. I believe that there was only one organisation that argued against the provision that the rights of the child should be paramount. That was the British Association for Adoption and Fostering, which wanted to enter a caveat. Basically, however, almost all organisations accepted that children's rights should be paramount. I think that every Member who has contributed to the debate agrees that that is common ground.
      We are dealing in many instances with desperately damaged children. There is one case from my constituency surgery that involves two little boys, which

      75
      illustrates the baggage that children bring with them. The two children were unconnected except that they had the same adoptive parents. From memory, they were aged six and seven when they were adopted. One child had been pushed out into the cold so often that he suffered severe frostbite in his feet. He had to be treated for gangrene and came close to amputation. The other child had been kept locked in a cellar for so long that he had no speech skills.
      It is against that background that we must ask how we can best help such children. No one in the Chamber has any doubt that those of us who accept the argument that I am advancing on the Opposition Benches feel every bit as strongly about doing well for these children as those who oppose the argument.
      7 pm
      In principle, the proposed change provides no extra placement anywhere in the country.
      Mr. Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Brazier: If I may finish the point, I shall be delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I did that many times in Committee, and he often returned the favour.
      Under current law, anybody, in principle, can apply to adopt, but if two people want legal ties to the child, they must have legal ties to each other. [Interruption.] I think we have a view from the Gallery.
      Mr. Dawson: Why not?
      Mr. Brazier: Absolutely. As a Catholic, I am used to hearing exasperated priests preaching through babies' noises. That is what it is all about.
      Current law does not exclude anyone. It provides simply that two people who want to adopt jointly and to have legal ties to the child should have legal ties to each other. Several speakers, including my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, pointed out some administrative problems. The principal one is the death of the adopting party. When a child comes into a relationship, it has no idea about the paperwork. It is important that the child feels secure and has progressed in a new home. I cannot believe that, in cases of death, the courts would frequently refuse the surviving partner the right to adopt. We are considering damaged children who require our closest attention, and the problems that afflict them are much broader and more likely to arise than the death of the adopting individual.
      Nobody would argue that every marriage is perfect. From time to time, my good lady reminds me that my marriage is imperfect. I pay tribute to my wife, who has done 18 years' service—six more than it took me to get my Territorial decoration—for putting up with me. Nobody argues that there are no stable relationships outside marriage. However, the burden of the statistics is overwhelmingly on the side of marriage. A survey that the Office for National Statistics conducted in 1997 says it all for me.
      The survey showed that a child born 10 years earlier, in 1987, whose parents were married had an 81 per cent. chance of being with parents who remained married
      76
      in 1997. A child born into an allegedly stable relationship in 1987, whose parents did not get married almost immediately afterwards, had only a 15 per cent. chance of being with parents who remained in a stable relationship 10 years later.
      Jonathan Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Brazier: In a moment. We hear time and again about social workers' assessments. However, appalling assessments from so many social workers, albeit not from across the board, but in many local authorities, led me to start a campaign on the subject. The idea that the views of a specific social worker on a relationship are so powerful that such statistics can be brushed aside in the best interests of the child is unconvincing.
      Mr. Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Brazier: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I promised to give way to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) first.
      Mr. Dawson: It is kind of the hon. Gentleman. We have moved a long way from the point about which I wanted to intervene. As someone who is steeped in the subject and has a tremendous record of concern and commitment on the issue, does he agree that if we deny the opportunity to unmarried couples to adopt jointly, we may turn away people who have something to offer to deeply damaged children? At the very least, we could undermine the basis on which a good, secure relationship could be founded with those children. Surely the hon. Gentleman does not want to do that.
      Mr. Brazier: I have never argued for discrimination. We have civil law marriages in this country and, as the hon. Member for Wakefield said, the vast majority of cases involve heterosexual couples. We simply ask, if both individuals want to have legal ties to the child, is it so much to expect them to make a binding legal tie to each other? A civil marriage contract is simply that.
      Mr. Bercow: If my hon. Friend had a free hand and was starting from scratch, would he prefer to prohibit individual gays adopting? If not, and acknowledging that there are many successful gay adoptions, although they form a minute proportion of the total, why is he opposed to gay couples adopting jointly to the extent of supporting a three-line Whip, which many of us believe sad and ill judged?
      Mr. Brazier: Let me deal with my hon. Friend's principal point. A moment ago, I gave the statistics for heterosexual couples. I also said that, when they split, there was a problem similar to that in divorce cases, but that there was a much greater likelihood of a split between unmarried couples and that the affected children had already been badly damaged. The argument that I applied to heterosexual couples applies in spades to homosexual couples. Their partnerships last a much shorter time than those of heterosexual couples. Before my hon. Friend says that he can point to individual cases of long-lasting relationships, I accept that there are a few. However, we are dealing with a relatively small pool about which not many statistics are available.

      77
      In heterosexual relationships, couples tend to marry or break up in a year or two after the child arrives. When the pool is large enough to consider, I suspect that that will apply to homosexuals. I understand my hon. Friend's point but I do not agree with it. My point is about splitting up rather than homosexual adoption.
      Mr. Hinchliffe: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman carefully and I agree with much of his speech, although not with his last comments. Does he accept that he is falling into the trap to which the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) referred? He is generalising in his use of figures.
      The hon. Gentleman said that social work assessments had gone wrong in the past and mentioned the problems that he experienced. There are two other checks that we should consider. The first is the role of the guardian ad litem after the assessment process and the second is that of the court. The hon. Gentleman appears to fail to accept that a range of opportunities are available for examining in detail the merits or otherwise of individual applicants.
      Mr. Brazier: I am not sure whether I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The guardian ad litem service is a big issue. I know that he and other members of the Committee share the anxiety about the muddle in it. It is a scandal that could do much to undermine the good work in the Bill. I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), is present; she is taking a close interest in the matter. However, to answer the hon. Gentleman's point directly, I do not have much faith in the courts on family matters. Indeed, they can be only as good as the information that they receive. The guardian ad litem service was good, but has sadly suffered heavily in the past two or three years. It provides an extra safeguard but that does not greatly affect the argument.
      Jonathan Shaw: The hon. Gentleman likes to use examples, often from his own postbag or constituency surgery, to illustrate and advance his argument. Perhaps I can offer him another example. Let us take a situation in which two gay men were fostering a child who had all kinds of different challenges, and it was felt that the best people to look after that child for the rest of its life were those two individuals. Would the hon. Gentleman deny that child the opportunity to he adopted by those two people?
      Mr. Brazier: I am afraid that on the basis of the arguments that I have put forward, my answer would be yes. I do not, however, see any reason why one of those people should not adopt the child. I should have made it clear when I answered the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham earlier that my first choice for adoption would always be a married couple. I accept the principle of the occasional gay adoption, but only when there is no one else available. Hard cases make bad law—[Interruption.] I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      Kevin Brennan: I did not intend to make an intervention, but as the hon. Gentleman has given me
      78
      the opportunity, I shall do so. He may be right to say that hard cases make bad law, but he is always using them as examples when trying to make his points.
      Mr. Brazier: Every single child in care is a hard case, in the sense that the hon. Gentleman uses the phrase. Those who have been in care for more than a year are harder cases, and those who have been in care for more than four years—of whom there were 12,000 when we started campaigning—are very hard cases. I was referring earlier to getting further and further into legal technicalities.
      Dr. Evan Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Brazier: I will, but then I really must conclude my remarks.
      Dr. Harris: I want to take the hon. Gentleman back to the important points about generalisation, and the problems surrounding it, that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and I raised. If the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) could identify a group of married people that had exactly the same rate of separation that he attributes to unmarried couples—for example, a particular ethnic minority or, perhaps, married service men and women, although I am not suggesting that this is the case— would he execute a broad ban on that group seeking to adopt? If not—since he has said that separation is the key factor—why not?
      Mr. Brazier: I do not know of any such category. Service families are not such an example. It is true, sadly, that the divorce rate in the Army and the Navy is higher than the national average, but it does not begin to compare with the staggering amount of separations among unmarried couples. It reflects the overstretch that the armed services suffer from at the moment. So I know of no such category, but if I did I would not support a ban on any particular ethnic group. Civil marriage does not ask that people have a particular religion, or anything else other than that they make a public commitment of permanence. That is all it asks. In the debates that took place in the 19th century about the introduction of civil marriage, I would have been on the side of those who wanted to introduce it, precisely because it provided an opportunity for people of no particular religious faith to make a public, legally binding commitment. That is all it involves, and it seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable criterion for adoption by two people who both want legal ties to the child.
      Mr. Bercow: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; he is always generous in that respect. I want to clarify exactly what his position is. Is he arguing his absolutist stance in support of only married couples being allowed to adopt to the extent that, even if the only reason why an otherwise thoroughly suitable couple could not adopt was that there were religious impediments to their marriage, he would still rule them out?
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Brazier: The short answer to that is no, because religious impediments would not stop them having a civil arrangement. Forgive me, but that really is not an argument at all.

      79
      I want to finish by making a wider point. In his excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham touched on the fact that there were several other ways in which we could broaden the pool. I want to mention two of them. These measures would introduce extra homes and provide extra opportunities for children in care to be adopted, not through a technicality involving a one-person adoption in a two-person home. They would provide real extra homes.
      The first measure would involve a relatively small redrafting of the first clause of the Bill. We had an indication on the Floor of the House from the Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), that he appeared to be in favour of such a redrafting, which would alter clause 1(5) so that the requirements on ethnicity and religion would be subservient to the provision in clause 1(3) that there should be no undue delay. Some of the examples that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham read out illustrated that many local authorities still take the view that they would rather not have a child adopted at all than let the child go to a family that does not match the ethnicity or religion of that child. That is the real scandal.
      The second example involves contact. I think that the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) mentioned this earlier, and I accept his point that a balance has to be struck. We have to consider the circumstances of the child in the birth family from which he or she was extracted. We must, of course, take account of the fact that the child may have made a real bond with an auntie or a granny, or someone else who played no part at all in the unhappy circumstances that led to the child being taken into care. We must also, however, make a reasonable assessment of what it is fair to ask an adoptive parent to take on. In my view, this can only be done after an adoptive couple has been lined up. It cannot, as those wretched advertisements suggest, be prejudged, if we want adoptive parents to take on damaged children.
      I have not had the courage to adopt a child, but the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) has done so and she knows how much I admire her for sharing her experiences with us. If I had had the courage to take on those two little boys who I mentioned earlier, with all that history, and someone had said to me—as the courts more and more frequently do these days; we even have advertisements from the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering that apparently prejudge these decisions—"Ah, but we want there to be letter-box contact with the birth parents", I cannot believe that even the bravest adoptive parents in the land would stand for it. If someone is taking on really damaged children, they cannot be expected to accept mail from the parents who inflicted the damage; that sort of decision must be made later in the process. That is my second suggestion for widening the pool. Social workers in my own area, including the former director of social services, have told me of individual adoptions that would otherwise have gone through but did not do so because of court rulings on contact with the birth family.
      80
      I shall end where I came in: this is not the burning issue of the hour. The measure was not even in the original Bill. This is a good Bill, and I believe that the best way to look after these children is by extending the opportunities in the way that has just been described, rather than by going down the route of introducing fresh legal complexities—because that is all that this is—to adoption.
      Ms Dari Taylor: This is the third time that I have spoken in a debate on the Adoption and Children Bill. Each time, it has been a pleasure, because everyone speaks with such warmth and commitment. Although I disagree with much of what the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said, I totally applaud his integrity. It was a positive treat to listen to the powerful speech by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). It was seriously timely, and I see him as a Member who is making a commitment to a good Bill by reinstating amendments and by putting his career second. Well done!
      This is an excellent Bill. It offers services, opportunities and controls, and, crucially, it says that the rights of children should be put first and foremost. It will speed up the process and introduce a gamut of services to provide support if breakdown in adoption is threatened. Most particularly and specifically, it will widen the pool of potential adopters. That is the essence of the debate for us all: how do we widen the pool of adoptive parents?
      Many believe that because the Bill is good and because it will speed up the processes, those things will of themselves increase the number of potential adopters. I am sad to say that, although that will have an effect, it will not answer the charge. We want to widen the pool and increase the number of people who want to take on an adoptive child, but we must encourage them to accept that many such children have histories—seriously damaged histories—that they will have to cope with. That is an enormous task, so, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said, widening the pool is not straightforward. I suggest to him, however, that his argument to the House is based much more on confused prejudice than on careful thought.
      The amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) introduced, which I hope is reinstated by the House tonight and respected by the other place, aims most particularly at widening the pool, giving people the opportunity to have an equal, open and fair relationship with the children whom their partners may have adopted. Most crucially, in aiming to widen the pool, the amendment acknowledges a statement that has been made time and again in the debate, but I shall make it again: we are giving children an opportunity to live in a loving, stable family.
      Sharing my experience with the House, let me say again that I worked in a care establishment. I shall not criticise it, but in no way, shape or form is it better to put a child of four, six or nine with other children in a dormitory where there is no mum, no special relationship and no shoulder to cry on so that the child who is crying can feel that he or she will be treated with sympathy. The answer that is given so many times is, "Don't be so silly—get to sleep." That is because one care worker has to look after 15 children who all need

      81
      help and attention. How on earth can we conclude that the loving relationship that produces a well-balanced child is present in such circumstances? It is not.
      Some children go from home to home. There is nothing wrong with the homes, but after 40 different ones, such children find it impossible to establish a relationship that is seriously stable and has controls to it. The children are shunted from one to another and believe that nobody wants or loves them.
      Children in the care establishment where I worked looked at me and said, "Miss, do you think that, one day, someone will want me to live with them?" Does the House think that I ever had the confidence to say to a child, "There is nobody there for you and nobody wants you. You're 14, and you have serious problems. It will take a serious family to take you on board, and you need a lot of support so that you can live in that family." I could not tell a child those things—I did not have the courage.
      The plain fact is that, every year, 2,000 children live the reality of that statement—there is no one there for them. Members are putting to the House their clear, committed ideas on married couples and saying that they are the best and the ideal. Nobody denies or doubts that, but often, we are not dealing with the best or the ideal. We live with reality. A constituent phoned me, as she knew that the debate was taking place today. She said, "I ask you to say one thing in that House of Commons: legislators, get real." I ask the House to do that.
      I want to widen the debate, as we often believe that some groups in our communities will never accept that unmarried couples have the right to adopt or that unmarried gay couples, or gay couples that cannot marry, have no right to adopt. I refer to a letter from the Nottingham branch of the Catholic Children's Society, which, for 50 years, has been recruiting and placing children for adoption:
      "Through innovative and pioneering practice in the Voluntary Adoption Sector over two decades, many excellent placements have been achieved for older children with troubled histories with single carers, who would not previously have been considered suitable for adoptive parenting because of their lone status during a time when marriage was perceived by society as the 'norm'."
      The society takes matters a stage further by saying that it has
      "5,000 children who currently wait for such family placements … recognition should be given to the potential family resources provided by couples who are not married, but can show, through an increasingly rigorous Adoption Preparation and Assessment Programme, that they have the necessary stability and commitment, both to each other and to any child or children they may parent."
      I put that statement to the House. It takes a lot for a Catholic organisation—I am an Anglo-Catholic—to move in such a direction and to see the need to identify such appropriateness. I can only ask hon. Members to hear what the society is saying.
      In the House of Lords debate, it was implied in much that was said that natural parents are best. I ask the Members of the other place who made such comments to accept that they are undermining the serious manner and the whole process of adoption. Natural parents listened to what one of them said: the view was that only birth parents could provide young children with
      82
      successful relationships, love and security, and that anything less was second best, with gay parenting at the bottom.
      I found it quite disturbing that thoughtful people in the other place held such a view; I felt quite reduced by it. I am an adoptive parent of some 21 years, and I do not think that my love for my child has been less than that which any other person might have offered. The House knows me well—I think that my love has been less questioning and more evident than that of many others. I found that view seriously unacceptable.
      For me, the Bill is about widening the group that could or would consider becoming adoptive parents. The scrutiny of potential adopters does not involve the marriage contract, but, importantly, it is rigorous. It attempts competently to define whether they could produce a stable home and a loving relationship. That is what we are here to achieve in widening the pool. I hope that the House accepts that reintroducing the amendment will help to achieve the loving home longed for by thousands of children.
      Mr. Lansley: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), who spoke from the heart. Participating in the debate is a humbling experience, because many contributions have been excellent in so many different ways. At this stage, therefore, I want not to rehearse previous arguments, but to consider the question that the House must answer at the debate's conclusion.
      One of the excellent speeches was made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who presented a difficult case in an exemplary fashion. However, I want to question one or two aspects of it.
      7.30 pm
      This does not strike me as a side issue. It was not part of the original Bill, but if Conservative Members try to justify—or exclude from justification—any aspect of a Bill not originally introduced by the Government, we deny ourselves a range of valuable arguments. Moreover, we must consider the nature of the Bill with which we are dealing, and compare it with the legislation of 26 years ago. This Bill proposes that a child's interests throughout its life should be the paramount consideration, not that its interests throughout childhood should be the first consideration.
      That important change means that we must think hard about all the circumstances of adoption at this point. It would be remiss of us to transfer any aspect of the decision that must be made to a point in the future, or to a separate discussion in a civil partnerships review. If we are genuinely considering the best interests of children in relation to the adoption system, we should think through all the aspects. That was contemplated on Second Reading, not least by Ministers. I remember the Secretary of State for Health, who is present, saying that he looked forward to the debate in the Special Standing Committee, the implication being that if there was a justification for a further change he would have no objection. That turned out to be the case.
      I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who fostered my original interest in, and understanding of, the immense difficulties

      83
      experienced by children who are looked after by local authorities, when we served together on the Select Committee on Health. I would feel resentful if it were thought that I, along with some of my hon. Friends and, indeed, Labour Members, was promoting this issue purely in order to campaign on lifestyle" issues. The hon. Member for Wakefield and I probably have similar views on many of the matters that we are discussing, but we hold those views less on the basis of any assertion about the lifestyles of adults than on that of the interests of children. Happily, that has been the context of the debate: we are all keen to establish what is in children's best interests.
      I think that all the legal arguments can be dealt with in t he same context. If it is true that children's best interests should be paramount—which was established by the United Nations convention on the rights of the child—it follows logically that if by extending the ability to adopt to, for instance, unmarried couples we can improve children's prospects by one jot, we are obliged to do that.
      I do not know—other Conservative Members have asked the question—whether at the end of the process it will be possible for all children placed for adoption to be adopted by married couples because of improvements elsewhere in the Bill; but even if that is so, we cannot know at this point. We must allow for the possibility that we do not meet all our objectives in terms of securing suitable adoptive parents, even with all the other measures in the Bill. It would be remiss of us not to take the opportunity presented to us now.
      It has always seemed straightforward to me. We must contemplate offering the possibility of adoption to unmarried couples, because some will have been deterred in the past by the structure of the legislation, by the presumptions implicit in that legislation and, not least, by the difficulty of determining who is the adoptive parent and who is not. It must be in the interests of children to establish a lasting legal relationship. In the past, when residency orders have been involved, they have expired when children have reached a certain age. If we are now to be concerned about children's interests throughout their lives, by definition we must look beyond residency orders and try to create that lasting legal relationship.
      All Members must think about how they will vote, but that applies particularly to Conservative Members, because we are being asked to support the House of Lords and to oppose the hon. Member for Wakefield. That would cause me immense difficulty. The hon. Gentleman and I discussed an amendment along these lines at the beginning of the year, or perhaps last year. I made it clear on 29 October last year, on Second Reading, that the Bill should address this issue. I wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on 1 March this year, saying that I would support the extension of adoption to unmarried couples and that the Conservatives should have a free vote. I spoke about the subject on 16 May, and voted contrary to my party's desire on 20 May. It would be wholly inconsistent of me to say now, "My party says I must vote in a particular way, so I must reverse all my earlier decisions". It would be particularly perverse of me to do so, given that I adopted a view in the absence of a view
      84
      on my party's Front Bench and had to take an initiative, along with the hon. Member for Wakefield, to embark on that path.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: Many of us who disagree with my hon. Friend agree profoundly that this is free-vote territory, and that it was quite wrong to impose a three-line Whip.
      Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for punctuating that section of my speech with a full stop. I am always glad when I can agree with him.
      Mr. Bercow: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the justifications for the imposition of a three-line Whip on this occasion is: "We did it last time; we could have allowed a free vote but we did not, and it would look bad to change tack now"? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is more important to be right than to be consistent, and that in any case it is more important to be consistent with what was right at the Conservative party conference in Bournemouth than to be consistent with what was wrong in May?
      Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend leads me into difficult territory. I can only say that for me to change tack now would constitute a substantial inconsistency. He is right, though. More to the point, I would be voting contrary to my judgment and conscience, and I can only applaud the way in which my hon. Friend is exercising his responsibility to vote according to his judgment and conscience.
      I am persuaded of the desirability of pursuing the interests of children, to the extent that couples should be permitted to adopt. The question that some will remember from the debates on 16 and 20 May is whether that should mean all couples, regardless of whether they consist of a man and woman living together or of two people of the same sex. I am not persuaded, as I was not persuaded then, that we should necessarily extend the possibility of adoption to same-sex couples, not principally for any of the reasons advanced in the House of Lords but because I wonder whether we should create a set of circumstances in which the state can give children the prospect of having two legal fathers or two legal mothers, rather than one of two other prospects that natural circumstances would otherwise allow—that of having a mother and a father, and that of having a single legal parent who happens to be in a long-lasting relationship.
      Ms Dari Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that it is better for a child to be in one care establishment after another than to be adopted by unmarried or gay parents?
      Mr. Lansley: No. I would hope that the hon. Lady would gather from the context of my argument that I am not saying that. I want to ensure the maximum possible use of adoption as an alternative to institutional care. But—there is always a but—we have to set the framework for those decisions and we cannot set out a hierarchy. We cannot simply say that all married couples should be given priority over all unmarried couples, who should be given priority over same-sex

      85
      couples. In individual circumstances it will be right for a person in a same-sex relationship to be the adoptive parent.
      In British society today it is a normal outcome for a child to be in a relationship with two adoptive parents who are a man and a woman living together, but for a child to have a legal relationship with both partners in a same-sex relationship would not normally happen and would happen solely at the behest of adoption legislation. That is my problem with the issue.
      Dr. Evan Harris: The hon. Gentleman, tonight and previously, has been very clear about his reasons for opposing adoption by same-sex couples. However, he will recognise the conflict with his initial presumption. If we could increase the number of suitable homes for children by allowing adoption by same-sex couples, it would be important to do that, even at the cost—as he sees it—of creating an artificial situation legally with a child having two fathers or two mothers. How does he balance those two sincerely held positions?
      Mr. Lansley: The greatest number of potential adopters is among unmarried couples, with a smaller number among same-sex couples. Same-sex couples, when considering adoption as a possibility, will be aware that in natural circumstances only one of them could be the natural parent. For a same-sex couple to care for a child does not require both of them to be parents, because that is not what occurs naturally. For example, if a woman has a child mid then enters a same-sex relationship, she would not expect her partner to be the mother of that child. We are talking about normal circumstances.
      I admit that I am making fine distinctions, but they are important legally. The preponderant issue is whether adoption should be restricted to married couples and single people, rather than to couples generally, and on that point the burden of the argument lies heavily with the hon. Member for Wakefield and with the conclusion that we have to disagree with the Lords in this amendment. When the matter returns to the other place, it will be for the Lords to decide whether they should think again about their amendment, or to give ground gracefully.
      Whatever happens, the Bill should pass later this week. I have no doubt about that, and that should be common ground on both sides of the House and with the other place. Constitutionally, the other place would be well advised to bear in mind the fact that all parties in this House are committed to adoption legislation and that we have always been clear about the desirability of achieving that legislation as quickly as possible. It would be extraordinarily undesirable for the Bill to be put back to a future Session.
      When the Lords act as a check on this House, they generally do so as a revising Chamber, to ensure that what we do works and is technically competent, or as a check on the power of the Executive. Neither case applies here. The Bill is technically competent and the original amendment was tabled by Back Benchers on both sides of the House. It is not the Government's amendment. Therefore, the essence of the argument with their Lordships is that we are seeking to express a view on behalf of the country about this current social
      86
      issue. It must be right that the House of Commons is better at doing that than the House of Lords. I hope that the Lords will give ground gracefully.
      7.45 pm
      Kevin Brennan: I wish to pay tribute to many of the speeches made in this debate, not least those by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who made a thoughtful contribution, and by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who like myself is short of stature but whose speech cast a long shadow across the Chamber. Worryingly for Labour Members, he perhaps defined a way forward for his own party's attitude to social issues.
      I also wish to pay tribute to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench. I have been involved with the Bill from the beginning and have heard many of the eloquent contributions made by him. Today's was no exception. He made a good job of a bad case, unlike the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who did exactly the opposite in making a bad job of a good case. Indeed, the last time that we discussed the issue, he did equally well.
      The Bill is not about political correctness. One has only to consider the names of hon. Members supporting the motions to disagree this evening to see that they are not soft southerners or Islington wine bar politically correct types. Indeed, it would be soft southerners and Islington wine bar types who would run a mile from the motions, because they would be worried about headlines in the Daily Mail. That is not the case. The names include my hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield, for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) and for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), who is not a northerner by birth but is Welsh and from the Rhondda valley. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) is a horny-handed son of toil who is able to entertain hon. Members with Kentish drinking songs. So this is not a matter of political correctness. In fact, it has everything to do with common sense.
      As has been said many times in the debate, no one has the right to adopt. This debate is about doing what is right for the individual child, not for children in general. The weakness of the Opposition's arguments is that they focus on the child as an abstract concept, not on the individual child and his or her circumstances. 'The issue is one of common sense. We are not arguing that adoption by unmarried couples is the ideal, but it is wrong to make the ideal the enemy of the good when we are considering the interests of the child.
      In pursuing change, we do not have to argue that unmarried people, whatever their sexuality, should be allowed to apply to adopt. They may already adopt—but as individuals. Indeed, they can foster as couples, but they are not allowed to adopt as couples. The opponents of the motion to disagree have not tried to amend the Bill to stop single people adopting. Therefore, their case must be that it is all right for a single person to adopt, even one who has a partner and is in a stable relationship, but it is not okay for a couple to adopt, even when they are assessed to be in a long-term, stable and loving relationship. That leaves the

      87
      opponents of the motion to disagree with only a statistical argument about the rate of failure of unmarried couples' relationships, but they have no moral argument to make.
      The statistics that opponents of the motion are advancing are deeply flawed, because they are not comparing the right samples. They are considering only the generality of statistics on unmarried couples. They are not looking at the unmarried couples who are putting themselves forward as adopters. They are not comparing the level of failure of relationships between unmarried couples and the number of children who are in institutional care. For some children, institutional care can be the right thing. From time to time, it may be right for certain children to be in care, but the overwhelming evidence is that it is better for them to be adopted.
      I shall cut short my remarks because I know that other hon. Members want to speak and I want to be helpful to them. I have studied the debates in the House of Lords, and I believe that for some this argument is about the fear of a gay contagion, as if somehow it is possible for children who are adopted by unmarried or same-sex unmarried couples—such occurrences are very rare and will still be rare when the Bill is passed—to catch homosexuality from their adoptive parents. That is absurd, but it seems to be an underlying factor. It is impossible, of course, to catch homosexuality from parents, since, by definition, the parents of homosexuals are heterosexual.
      Mr. Bryant: Mostly.
      Kevin Brennan: For the most part, as my hon. Friend says. However, the fear of that happening is an underlying theme throughout this argument.
      I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham on his courage and integrity in supporting the motion to disagree tonight and sacrificing so much in doing so.
      Mr. Huw Edwards: He has not sacrificed much.
      Kevin Brennan: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not sacrificed so much—I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) says. The hon. Gentleman's attitude contrasts starkly with that of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who speaks on Welsh affairs for the Conservative party. The hon. Gentleman has chosen to be on an oil rig in the middle of the North sea rather than face the prospect of trooping through the Division Lobbies with his party this evening.
      It is incredible that in the 21st century, a so-called modern political party should seek to corral the individual consciences of its Members of Parliament in the way that the Conservative party has done tonight. It is not worthy of being called the nasty party, because that suggests that what its members do is based on an ideology or a Machiavellian plan to get back into power. Perhaps the remarks that I understand were made recently by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) in the 1922 committee about Gerald
      88
      Ratner's description of his company might be a more suitable description of the Conservatives than the nasty party.
      Andrew Selous: I support my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) in resisting the motion to disagree. I have listened with great interest to the speeches this evening. I do not dispute the motivation or sincerity of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have spoken in support of the motion; I simply ask that they extend the same courtesy to me as I try to make my case.
      I believe, as we all do, that adopted children deserve the very best possible environment. We are all united on that—there is no dispute between us. Clause 1(2) states:
      "The paramount consideration of the court or adoption agency must be the child's welfare".
      We all agree on that Then come the three words "throughout his life", and that is the aspect on which I wish to concentrate.
      Labour Members have criticised the statistics, but I would like to come to the defence of the statistics. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) referred to Disraeli's dictum about lies, damned lies and statistics. However, we know that married couples are more likely to stay together than unmarried couples. We know that the average length of cohabitation is only two years. We know that 83 per cent. of cohabitations will break up within 10 years. I am sure that everybody—married couples, unmarried couples or same-sex couples—starts their relationship hoping that it will be permanent. No one enters a relationship hoping anything else. However, we know from the statistics and the evidence, which we are not here to dispute tonight, that married relationships provide the most permanent form of security, and that is what we are concerned about for adopted children. Of course unmarried and same-sex couples start out intending their relationship to be permanent but, sadly, that does not prove to be the case.
      Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: The hon. Gentleman mentions statistics. Is it not the case that many cohabiting couples have no intention of remaining together and have no children to care for? It is therefore misleading to compare them with married couples, who may well have children and may want them.
      Andrew Selous: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. However, I think that my argument is backed up by the fact that cohabiting couples are, sadly, six and a half times more likely than married couples to split up after the birth of a child. I am concerned about permanence and continuing stability for these very damaged children. That is not to make any judgment about what people do in their private life. I do not believe that anyone in this country is a second-class citizen, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham seemed to imply some of us might believe. Parliament deciding who has the care of adopted children is different from private individuals making their own choices.
      Ian Lucas: With respect, it is not Parliament that is making the decision in individual

      89
      cases but the courts. Rather than referring to generalities, why does the hon. Gentleman not concede the power to the court to look at each case, make its own assessment in respect of each child and reach a considered decision? He is seeking to deprive the courts of that right.
      Andrew Selous: We deal with generalities in this place. I dare say that some young children of 12 or 13 years old would be perfectly capable of driving a car or exercising positions of responsibility, but we do not allow them that right. There are many issues on which this House, quite properly, generalises.
      Dr. Evan Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Andrew Selous: No, I wish to make progress.
      I have some sympathy with the arguments advanced by the Labour peer Lord Alli in the other place. He believes that married couples should have preference over unmarried couples, who, in turn, should have preference over homosexual couples. If there were a degree of hierarchy supporting the status of marriage, that could usefully be considered.
      We need to think seriously tonight before we support the motion that will overturn the decisions taken in the House of Lords. There is a considerable body of concern about what the Government are planning to do.
      8 pm
      Ivan Massow, a prominent gay business man, has expressed concern about gay adoption. He is worried about what might happen in the playground, where children might not be politically correct. The same view is held by Michael Brown, a former Conservative MP, who is also homosexual.
      Dr. Harris rose—
      Mr. Bryant rose—
      Andrew Selous: I want to make a little progress.
      I have also been influenced by the debate in the House of Lords in which the Bishop of Winchester clearly explained why the Lords should agree to their amendment. My own bishop, the Bishop of St. Albans, has concerns. Members of many churches in my constituency are anxious about what will happen this evening.
      Contrary to the remarks of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), opinion polls conducted not by disreputable organisations but by ICM showed that 71 per cent. of parents have grave concerns about adoption by same-sex couples.
      We know that most European countries do not allow what we are proposing to do. We know that the Government, on five occasions, have argued against the proposals. The Foreign Secretary has made such arguments strongly. Indeed, when the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), commented on the adoption law review, she did not agree with the proposals that we are
      90
      discussing. We know that 23 Labour peers disagree with the proposals, as does the leader of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords.
      Many Members have rightly asked how we can widen the pool of people who are prepared to adopt. We have heard harrowing stories from hon. Members on both sides of the House about children who need to be adopted. I pay tribute to colleagues, such as the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), who have had the courage to adopt. We need to enlarge the pool of people who are prepared to take that courageous decision.
      We need a massive advertising campaign to tell people about adoption. We need to give adoptive parents much greater support. I am prepared to put my money where my mouth is and, as a Conservative, to advocate that my constituents and I should pay higher taxes to support those who would be prepared to adopt children.
      That is the way forward. We need a positive campaign to persuade more married couples to adopt. We need to remove some of the procedures. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) pointed out that although about 29,000 people responded to a BBC programme on adoption, only a few went on with the process. We should take away unnecessary barriers to adoption.
      That is how we shall extend the pool so that we can ensure that seriously damaged children, who deserve a stable, loving family home, receive the support that they so desperately need.
      Mr. Dawson: Although I have been listening to the debate for four and a half hours, I am still a bit ambivalent about it. I realise that this has been a grand parliamentary occasion and that there have been excellent contributions from both sides. However, I am worried that it could provide the media with another opportunity to characterise the whole of an excellent Bill by one provision, rather than by the major developments in adoption work that the measure will bring about.
      I am sorry that other speakers have not sufficiently emphasised the quality of the Bill. It will extend the number of people who will be keen to adopt because it will support them better. It will provide the support that adoptive parents need, the lack of which led to the breakdown of many placements in the past. Assessment and recruitment will be better. The focus will be on ensuring that good practice is developed throughout the country.
      The debate has been very good indeed. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) who made a remarkable speech. It is appropriate to congratulate him on both his speech and his forthcoming marriage. There has been the usual social work debate, characterised by the tedious contributions of my colleagues—some of whom have not had as much social work experience as me and some of whom have had many more years experience than me, but they lay on with a trowel the length of time that they have worked for social services.
      People have also compared the length of time that they have been married. I am pleased to point out to the hon. Member for Buckingham, who brought up the subject, that I have been married for much longer than

      91
      my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). By the time of the marriage of the hon. Member for Buckingham, I shall have been married for 29 years. The hon. Gentleman probably faces the same amount of time on the bleak wastes of the Opposition Benches if he continues his current political trajectory. However, after his speech this evening, I can assure him that there is a place for him in the next Government recruitment campaign for social workers. He gave a magnificent exposition of the qualities of that fine profession.
      This is a serious debate and it is right and proper that Labour Members have a free vote. It is a matter of conscience. The adoption process is complex. Not only is there intensely difficult work to assess prospective adopters, but there is also the matching of children and young people who have been through appalling experiences, which would knock all of us sideways, in appropriate placements.
      I want to give the House a word of caution, indeed censure. It is vital that we realise that adoption is part of a system. We talk about the desirability of adopting 5,000 children who are in care, but there are actually 55,000 children in care. Most of them will go back to their homes, which I welcome; we need to improve the facilities for working with families. However, many of them will remain in foster care, so I was distressed to hear some of the descriptions of foster care during the debate.
      Long-term and short-term fostering are important options for children, as is residential care. The Government have performed magnificently by investing in all those forms of care. They have developed policy throughout the whole care system nationwide and various initiatives are being implemented.
      I was a few minutes late for the debate because I was at the launch of a splendid initiative launched by A Voice for the Child in Care, which will ensure that the voices of children and young people are heard more and more as opportunities are transformed in children's services. We should acknowledge both the value of the whole care system and that each part of it should be developed to provide for the needs of children.
      We are talking about the needs of children. This is a matter of conscience. Members who are minded to vote with the House of Lords and indeed the Members of that place should search their consciences.
      Whatever well founded principles one has about marriage or Christian principles governing the way that people should live their lives, it cannot be right to put them above the individual needs of children who require placements. We require an extraordinary range of talents and different placements for the many children who need to be adopted. We must ensure that the needs of children who require adoptive placements are met.
      I cannot think it right that any Member of the House or the other place puts even well established and firmly held principles above the needs of individual children. Surely we cannot say that any individual child should lose out on the lifetime opportunity of stability and family life because we think that we should put off a decision until we have got the law right, that we should
      92
      stand on our principles about marriage, or that we should put anything before the needs of individual children. My vote tonight is with the children.
      The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): Once again, we have had a very good and well considered debate on this issue. The majority of hon. Members who have spoken have made it clear that, as the Government believe, our only consideration should be what is in the best interests of the child. That fundamental principle, which derives from the Children Act 1989, is enshrined, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) said, in the Bill's very first clause.
      The Government's objective in the Bill and in the action that we have taken since the Prime Minister's review of adoption is to increase the number of children who have the opportunity through adoption to grow up as part of a loving, stable and permanent family, and there are encouraging signs that our drive to increase adoption is working. The number of children adopted from care is increasing. Nearly 3,100 children were adopted from care last year—1,200 more than in 1997.
      The Bill and all the improvements that it will bring to the adoption system and the money that we are investing in the adoption service and improving adoption support can only build on that progress. Although the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) agreed that that was important, he seemed to argue that, somehow, this was a case of either taking forward the action that the Government already have in train or supporting the amendments in lieu of the Lords amendments. 01' course that is not the case.
      As many hon. Members have said, the ability to widen the pool of adopters that the amendments in lieu would provide is a very important part of what the Government are trying to do in relation to adoption, but it is worth taking up a few of the points that hon. Members made about what more we need to do to encourage adopters.
      First, the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) suggested that, we had not properly tackled the need to ensure that families came forward and that we were putting delays into the system. I have to repeat to him that the key point in 111, adoption standards, which form the basis for all our work, is that children will be matched with families who can best meet their needs and that they will not be left waiting indefinitely for a perfect family.
      The hon. Gentleman also reiterated his view that the Bill will require an ethnic match and that that will hold up the ability for children to be adopted. That is just not true; as we have frequently said, clause 1(5) will simply require that, when placing children for adoption, the agency
      "must give due consider at ion to the child's … racial origin and cultural and linguistic background."
      That cannot override the duty in clause 1(3) to bear in mind the fact that delay is likely to prejudice welfare. We have the clear requirement in the national standards.
      8.15 pm
      I have some sympathy with those hon. Members who have expressed concern about the way in which the

      93
      assessment process is carried out. Of course that is why we are also undertaking a fundamental review of the assessment process, to ensure that prospective adopters have better education and information, that there is more consistency and transparency in the process, and that we are clear when people come forward as prospective adopters about what will be asked of them.
      The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) called for recruitment activities to be supported, and we are already providing such support. Under the Bill, we will introduce an independent review for possible adopters who are turned down by adopter panels, to provide more certainty about the process.
      The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) called for tax rises to help adoption support. I do not remember him and other Conservative Members voting for the investment outlined in the Budget. Nevertheless, the Government are investing £70 million in improved adoption support, which will enable people to come forward with more certainty that they will have the support that they need to take on some of those very difficult children. So we are making progress, but there is no room for complacency.
      As we have heard, BAAF estimates that 5,000 new adoptive parents are needed every year. It says that there is no shortage of adopters for very young children, but they represent only one in every nine children adopted, and we recognise that and several hon. Members have made that point.
      Many hon. Members have referred to BAAF's publication, "Be My Parent", and to the fact that, in one month alone, 431 children appeared and that there were 1,255 inquiries about them, but the crux of the matter is that 65 of those individuals and 64 groups of siblings received no inquiry at all. As many hon. Members have very powerfully said, no one felt able to express an interested in adopting the eight-year-old boy who is interested in football and swimming and is lively but who has mild learning disabilities and has been in care for the past four years. No one felt able to offer the stable family life that children need so much to the five-year-old boy who is keen on computer games, bicycling and dogs but who was taken into care at the age of one. That is the basis of my support for the amendments in lieu of the Lords amendments—measures that will make a difference to the possible pool of those who can provide a family life to those children.
      In supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, I should like to point out that amendments (a) to (uu) in lieu would complete the changes necessary to the Bill that are consequent on the decision to allow unmarried couples to adopt jointly. Those amendments fall into three main groups. The first group contains those amendments that would replace references throughout the Bill to "married couple", "step-parents" and "persons to whom the adopter is married" with references to "couple", "two-people adopters", "partner" and "partner of a parent", and insert the new definitions of "couple" and "partner" in relation to a parent in the glossary contained in schedule 6.
      The second group contains amendments that would ensure that adopted people have a clear legal status, irrespective of whether adopted bet ore or after the Bill is enacted or whether by a married couple, a single adopter or an unmarried couple. The amendments
      94
      would enable relationships created by adoption to be described in law as adoptive relationships, and they would also preserve the status of people adopted prior to the Bill.
      The third group contains amendments to adoption and other legislation consequent on the changes to the legal status of adopted people. When the House votes, as I hope that it does, for the principle of allowing unmarried people to adopt, that will ensure that the necessary consequential amendments are included. I want to make it clear that the House will have an opportunity to vote on all the amendments in the group. I want to ensure that the House has a chance to express its views on these and any amendments in lieu where appropriate. In addition, I would move any outstanding motions to disagree to Lords amendments if and when the knife falls—
      Dr. Evan Harris: Will the hon. Lady clarify a point that was raised over four and a half hours ago about whether the Government agree with the Joint Committee on Human Rights? The Committee concluded:
      "As amended at Report stage in the House of Lords, the Bill may … no longer be compatible with the right of children to have their best interests treated as the paramount consideration under CRC Article 23, and is likely to be incompatible with the rights of unmarried couples, wishing to be considered jointly as potential adoptive parents, to be free from discrimination under ECHR Article 14 combined with Article 8, and under ICCPR Article 26."
      Jacqui Smith: The Government took legal advice when the Bill was introduced in the House of Commons, which was that the position in the 1976 Act and in the Bill as it then stood was, on balance, defensible on ECHR grounds. As we have heard, the Committee has now given its view that the Bill as amended by the Lords is incompatible with convention rights, and the Government do not necessarily accept the reasoning of the Committee. We recognise, however, as we always have, that in the light of developing case law—not least some of that cited by the hon. Gentleman—there is a risk that the current law and the Bill as it stands would be found to be incompatible. Clearly, much will depend on the circumstances of individual cases. I shall now return to the key issues.
      Much has been said about the propensity of unmarried relationships to break down—that was a key part of the arguments of the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). We are not suggesting, however, that all unmarried couples or all same-sex couples should have a right to adopt. We are simply saying that these couples should have the same right to be assessed jointly as prospective adopters as that enjoyed by married couples.
      Mr. Brazier: Will the Minister give way?
      Jacqui Smith: No.
      When considering the suitability of couples as adopters, agencies and the courts are not assessing from the public at large but from a small self-selecting group

      95
      who have decided that they would like to adopt. Incidentally, we should be grateful to and encourage that group of people, not label them as being concerned about making a lifestyle choice, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) did at the weekend.
      The overall statistics are not, therefore, a helpful guide. People who are in casual, short-term relationships are most unlikely to put themselves forward as prospective adopters, and if they did, they would certainly not advance beyond the first stage of the approval process. The key is in the assessment process, which ensures that we can identify with confidence those single people and couples that have the qualities needed to be successful adoptive parents. Adoption is about making judgments about suitability and judgements based on evidence, not judgments based on generalisation and—dare I say it—sometimes prejudice. One cannot use generalisation to determine assessment—that is not acting in the best interests of children. One can, however, assess each prospective adopter on their own merits so that an informed decision can be taken as to their suitability to offer a home to a vulnerable child. That is why the adopter assessment process is critical, and the assessment process is tough. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn), and in the brave and wise speech of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), which reflected the in-depth analysis that he has undertaken of this issue.
      We have spelled out in the framework for assessment, which is currently out for consultation, the tough questions that will need to be asked about the stability and security of the relationship of any couple coming forward to be potential adopters. The sorts of issues that social workers will seek to discuss with them will be about the history of their current relationship and any previous relationships, what makes that relationship work, whether the relationship has been severely tested and survived, how the couple go about resolving difficulties, how they perceive commitment, where they see themselves in 20 years' time, how decisions are made within the partnership, how conflict is dealt with in the relationship, and whether both partners support each other and meet each others' needs. We are asking whether people believe that those are the crucial factors that need to be discussed. It seems to me that that is a tough and rigorous approach to ensuring that we make clear that couples who come forward to adopt will be in very stable relationships. That is the toughness of the assessment that hon. Members have outlined today.
      Some have seen these amendments as an attack on marriage. That is rubbish. My marriage is not made stronger by knowing that the loving, caring and skilled potential parents down the road are prevented from offering a home to a child because they are not married. Marriage is not the strong institution that I believe it to be if it has to be protected by limiting the life chances of vulnerable children.
      Many Members have rightly argued that what we need to ensure for children is stability and security. Of course, single people, including gay people, can already adopt. They have been able to do so since 1926. Some of them will be in long-term relationships, and the
      96
      assessment process already considers the nature of those relationships. What the reforms will do is enable adopted children to have a long-term legal relationship with two parents. I fail to see how that undermines security and stability. Children have written to the Department of Health outlining some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) about the security that comes from a legal relationship with two parents. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), demonstrated the illogicality of the position that opposes these reforms.
      Mr. Brazier: Will the Minister give way?
      Jacqui Smith: No.
      The hon. Member for Canterbury would accept a child being adopted by one member of a gay relationship but would resist the stability that allowing both to have a legal relationship with that child would ensure.
      Mr. Brazier: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not a convention of the House that if the Member speaking refers to a Member who is present in the Chamber, who then seeks to intervene, he or she gives way?
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I remind the hon. Gentleman that when a Member is winding up a debate, it is usual for him or her to refer to numerous Members.
      Jacqui Smith: Hon. Members would have been disappointed if I had not referred to them.
      This debate is about making difficult but fundamental choices for children. It is about whether our adoption system should be based on the needs of individual children and families or on dogma backed up by dodgy statistics. It is about whether we focus on the reality of modern children and families or on outdated visions of a supposedly perfect family life. It is about whether more children are adopted or whether they end up staying in care. The alternatives for the children whom I mentioned earlier are not to be adopted by a married couple or to be adopted by an unmarried couple, but to be adopted or to stay in care.
      For some Members, the choice is between being nice or nasty. Of course, Labour Members are free to vote to be nice, but Conservative Members have been whipped to be nasty, and there have been times in the debate when it has felt rather like intruding on private grief. This is a difficult issue, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out on Second Reading. We said that we would listen; we have listened and that is why these reforms are being introduced. I repeat: nobody has a right to adopt—
      It being half-past Eight o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
      The House divided: Ayes 344, Noes 145.

      Division No. 345]

      [8:30 am

      AYES

      Ainger, Nick

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Cooper, Yvette

      Allan, Richard

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Allen, Graham

      Corston, Jean

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Cousins, Jim

      Cruddas Jon

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cummings, John

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Austin, John

      Curry, rh David

      Bailey, Adrian

      Dalyell, Tam

      Baird, Vera

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Banks, Tony

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Barnes, Harry

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Barrett, John

      David, Wayne

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Davidson, Ian

      Bayley, Hugh

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Beard, Nigel

      Dawson, Hilton

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Berth, rh A. J.

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Benn, Hilary

      Dismore, Andrew

      Bennett, Andrew

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Bercow, John

      Doran, Frank

      Berry, Roger

      Doughty, Sue

      Best, Harold

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Betts, Clive

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Blackman, Liz

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Blair, rh Tony

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Edwards, Huw

      Blunkett, rh David

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Borrow, David

      Farrelly, Paul

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Fisher, Mark

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Flint, Caroline

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Follett, Barbara

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Bryant, Chris

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Foulkes, rh George

      Burden, Richard

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Burgon, Colin

      Galloway, George

      Burnham, Andy

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Burstow, Paul

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Gerrard, Neil

      Cairns, David

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Gidley, Sandra

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      Goggins, Paul

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Casale, Roger

      Grogan, John

      Caton, Martin

      Hain, rh Peter

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Challen, Colin

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Chidgey, David

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Clapham, Michael

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Hanson, David

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Clelland, David

      Harvey, Nick

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Healey, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Heath, David

      Coleman, Iain

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      98

      Hendrick, Mark

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Heppell, John

      Mallaber, Judy

      Heyes, David

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Holmes, Paul

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Martlew, Eric

      Maude, rh Francis

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Michael, rh Alun

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Miliband, David

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Miller, Andrew

      Hutton, rh John

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Mole, Chris

      Illsley, Eric

      Moran, Margaret

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Morgan, Julie

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Morley, Elliot

      Mountford, Kali

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Mudie, George

      Jamieson, David

      Mullin, Chris

      Jenkins, Brian

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Olner, Bill

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Organ, Diana

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Owen, Albert

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Perham, Linda

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Keetch, Paul

      Plaskitt, James

      Kemp, Fraser

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Pound, Stephen

      Kidney, David

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Prescott, rh John

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Purchase, Ken

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Purnell, James

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Lamb, Norman

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Lansley, Andrew

      Rammell, Bill

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Lepper, David

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Rendel, David

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Linton, Martin

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Love, Andrew

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Rooney, Terry

      McCabe, Stephen

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Ruane, Chris

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Ruddock, Joan

      McDonnell, John

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      MacDougall, John

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      McIsaac, Shona

      MacKay, rh Andrew

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Salter, Martin

      McWalter, Tony

      Sanders, Adrian

      99

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Sawford, Phil

      Timms, Stephen

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Tipping, Paddy

      Sheerman, Barry

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Trickett, Jon

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Truswell, Paul

      Singh, Marsha

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

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

      White, Brian

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Soley, Clive

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Southworth, Helen

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Spellar, rh John

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Squire, Rachel

      Willis, Phil

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Winnick, David

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wishart, Pete

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Woodward, Shaun

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Woolas, Phil

      Stringer, Graham

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Kevin Brennan and

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Jonathan Shaw

      NOES

      Amess, David

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Bacon, Richard

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Baldry, Tony

      Dodds, Nigel

      Barker, Gregory

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Fallon, Michael

      Bellingham, Henry

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Flook, Adrian

      Boswell, Tim

      Forth, rh Eric

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Francois, Mark

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Brady, Graham

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Brazier Julian

      Goodman, Paul

      Burns, Simon

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Burnside, David

      Greenway, John

      Burt, Alistair

      Grieve, Dominic

      Butterfill, John

      Gummer, rh John

      Cash, William

      Hague, rh William

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Hammond, Philip

      Hawkins, Nick

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Chope, Christopher

      Heald, Oliver

      Clappison, James

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Collins, Tim

      Hendry, Charles

      Colman, Tony

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Conway, Derek

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Crausby, David

      Hunter, Andrew

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jack, rh Michael

      100

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Selous, Andrew

      Leigh, Edward

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Simmonds, Mark

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Lidington, David

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Loughton, Tim

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Streeter, Gary

      MacDonald, Calum

      Swayne, Desmond

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Maclean, rh David

      Syms, Robert

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Malins, Humfrey

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Maples, John

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Mates, Michael

      Tredinnick, David

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Trend, Michael

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Viggers, Peter

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Watkinson, Angela

      Moss, Malcolm

      Watts, David

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Page, Richard

      Willetts, David

      Paice, James

      Wilshire, David

      Paisley, Rev. Ian

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Paterson, Owen

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Pickles, Eric

      Pollard, Kerry

      Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Randall, John

      Young, rh Sir George

      Redwood, rh John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Chris Grayling and

      Mr. Laurence Robertson

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 32 to 36 and 66 disagreed to.
      Government amendments (a) to (uu) in lieu of Lords amendments Nos. 26, 32 to 36 and 66 agreed to.

    Clause 2

      BASIC DEFINITIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 16, leave out from "information" to end of line 18 and insert
      "and
      (b) any other services prescribed by regulations, in relation to adoption.
      () The power to make regulations under subsection (6)(b) is to be exercised so as to secure that local authorities provide financial support."
      8.45 pm
      Jacqui Smith: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 25, 27 to 31, 37, 38, 42, 43, 45, 47, 50 to 57, 62 to 65, 67 to 91, 98 to 101, 103 and 105 to 107.
      Jacqui Smith: We come to a group of mostly minor and technical amendments—[Interruption.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will Members leaving the Chamber please do so as quickly as possible so that the debate can continue?
      Jacqui Smith: There are 80 amendments in this group. I would be more than willing to go through them one by one, but perhaps I shall just give hon. Members the high points to begin with. Included in the group are amendments to the Bill's provisions on placements, voluntary adoption agencies, access to information and advocacy services. Many of the amendments were tabled by the Government in response to the views expressed by peers when the Bill was considered in the other place.
      Lords amendments Nos. 14 to 24, 30, 31 and 80 make changes to the provisions in chapter 3 covering placement of children for adoption, principally to ensure that placements of young babies are properly covered, but in addition to improve arrangements for relatives and others to obtain contact orders for children who are placed for adoption.
      Lords amendments Nos. 14, 17 to 22, 24 and 31 ensure that children who are placed for adoption when under six weeks of age are explicitly covered by the provisions in chapter 3, that the arrangements for getting contact orders also apply to them, and that parents' rights to request the return of their child from any voluntary baby placement are clearly set out in the Bill so that there can be no doubt. Amendment No. 31 also ensures that it is possible to make a placement order in respect of a baby under six weeks, and that that order will be a valid basis for a later adoption order. That is to allow for the placement for adoption of young babies in cases where the parents do not consent.
      On contact, amendments Nos. 14 and 15 improve the provisions in clause 25 for contact orders where children are placed for adoption. They allow relatives, including siblings, to apply for a placement contact order without needing the leave of the court. They also give the same rights to people who had Children Act 1989 orders for contact with the child before the child was placed for adoption. Amendment No. 30 to 41.tuse 46 ensures that the court can make adoption orders where a child has no parents. Amendment No. 80 to schedule 3 ensures that children looked after by local authorities can be placed for adoption across borders in the UK without the specific permission of their natural parents.
      A second group of amendments relate to voluntary adoption agencies. Amendment No. 81 amends the Care Standards Act 2000 to provide that voluntary adoption agencies do not have to register each branch separately. That is because, under the Adoption Act 1976 and the Bill, voluntary adoption agencies must be incorporated bodies. I am sure that hon. Members will remember from our discussions that adoption agencies must be incorporated bodies because they have significant responsibilities, which may include parental responsibility for a child. Incorporated bodies are separate and distinct from the individual members of the body, and therefore provide a much clearer definition of where the responsibilities for the child lie.
      Amendment No. 12 inserts a new clause which ensures that each registration authority under the Care Standards Act—the National Care Standards Commission and the National Assembly for Wales—has the appropriate level of scrutiny over the activity of agencies operating in their area.
      The remaining amendments, Nos. 43, 63, 67, 84 to 91 and 103, are consequential on those two key amendments. For example, they ensure that under the
      102
      1976 Act, the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales may make joint regulations by making the regulation-making powers appropriate-Minister powers. That may be necessary as these regulations will make provision relating to the regulation of the way voluntary adoption agencies are run. Given that voluntary adoption agencies will be cross-border bodies, it may be appropriate that these regulations are made jointly.
      I move on to the amendments dealing with access to information. All hon. Members who have followed the passage of the Bill throughout its stages up till now will know that access to information is a subject about which there has been much discussion. Amendment No. 42 builds on amendments tabled by the Opposition on Report in another place. Those reflect some of the arguments made so strongly and effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) throughout the Bill's passage through this place.
      The Government acknowledge that the Opposition's amendments sought to tackle our concerns that adoption agencies should not be burdened with work that would draw their resources away from arranging and supporting adoptions for today's children, if we ensured that it was easier for people adopted before the new access to information provisions in the Bill came into operation to gain information about other people involved in the adoption.
      Amendment No. 42 provides through regulations for registered adoption support agencies to operate an intermediary service for contact between adopted adults and their adult birth relatives. Adoption stakeholders welcomed the amendment. Adoption support agencies will be able to access identifying information relating to past adoptions from the registrar-general and from adoption agencies. We intend to ensure through regulations that there are safeguards to protect that information, and to provide for it to be disclosed only if the informed consent of the adopted adult is forthcoming. The amendment inserts a new clause after clause 95 and amplifies the power in clause 9 to make regulations for the disclosure of information in relation to adoptions made before the Bill is enacted. Lords amendments Nos. 4, 8 and 70 are consequential on Lords amendment No. 42. It is the Government's firm intention to use the regulations to establish the scheme and set out the details in regulations after consultation with adoption stakeholders.
      Kevin Brennan: I thank my hon. Friend for referring to my small part in this process, and I pay tribute to the Government for listening to the points that I made on Second Reading and in amendments tabled in the Special Standing Committee and other stages of the Bill's passage, and for listening to the Opposition when they picked up the proposals. I praise her for her handling of the matter. I am sure that the incorporation of the amendments in the Bill will be due in no small part to her listening approach.
      Jacqui Smith: That is nice of my hon. Friend and very sweet of him. It is right that the Government listened, but considerable pressure was exerted, for which he not least was responsible. Without turning the debate into a love-in, I believe that the amendments are a good example of effective scrutiny of legislation by a Government who have been willing to listen.

      103
      The final amendments relate to advocacy services. Lords amendment No. 47 inserts a new clause that introduces new section 26A into the Children Act 1989 in relation to advocacy services. As we have considered the provisions, and especially improvements to the complaints procedure in relation to children, many hon. Members have argued about the need to ensure not only that children's voices are heard, but that children are adequately represented and supported, especially at the very difficult time of making complaints. Once again, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) has played a very important part, as he always does, in pushing for such development.
      New section 26A to the Children Act 1989 places a duty on local authorities to make arrangements for assistance, including representation, to looked-after children and young people leaving care who make or intend to make complaints under sections 24D and 26 of that Act. It also provides for regulations to specify who must not provide the assistance. That will enable regulations to ensure the independence of that service. Other regulations may be made under section 26A relating to how the service must be provided and the actions that local authorities must take to monitor its compliance with the regulations. Finally, the new section provides that local authorities must publicise the service as they consider appropriate.
      This series of amendments tabled in the other place and supported by the Government in some cases improves the Bill even further and in many cases brings about the necessary technical and consequential changes attendant on those decisions in these very important areas.
      Tim Loughton: The Minister promised us some high points and we have just had a few. It is a shame that more of the 493 hon. Members who were with us only 15 minutes ago have not stayed on to listen to an explanation of these very important amendments, which have improved the Bill in great measure in all the areas that she mentioned.
      I am particularly pleased with the improvements that have been made in respect of placements for young babies. With regard to the necessary changes on contact orders and parents' rights—points that we raised in Committee and on Report—the Government have listened and accepted the relevant amendments in another place.
      9 pm
      There are the changes regarding voluntary adoption agencies, and we have had debates about the incorporation of those bodies. Access to information changes were rightly raised, in the first instance, in Committee by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), and supported by the Opposition. The issues were raised more forcefully on Report. Several adoption agencies were consulted. We were talking about people who had given up children for adoption as far back as 1926 as well as people who had given up children similarly very recently. There was a span of three quarters of a century during which birth relatives, in many instances, had the last opportunity to make
      104
      contact with children given up for adoption, often under duress, in difficult circumstances, especially during postwar years.
      The Bill was their last chance. I am pleased to say that almost at the 11th hour the Government have listened to objections from Members, adoption agencies and many individual mothers, who I know have written in and contacted their Member of Parliament. It is a credit to the Government that they have found ways of overcoming real practical problems that the Minister outlined on Report. The problems include agency records that are incomplete and the not inconsiderable extra demands that acquiring information could place on adoption agencies. That is setting aside all the extra work that we are expecting the agencies to do to increase the numbers of people coming forward to adopt. There are difficulties in locating people after many years while using old records. There is, of course, a huge potential demand for the service.
      No one pretends that the process will be easy, but the principle was right. If the Government have found a way of putting the principle into effect, I am delighted. More importantly, many thousands of birth mothers over many years—many of them are in their twilight years—will be eternally grateful to all those who have enabled the amendments to be brought about.
      Mr. Lansley: I take the opportunity to express my appreciation of the work that my hon. Friend has undertaken on consideration of the Bill. He and I have not agreed on absolutely everything at every stage, but on the great majority of issues I admire the diligence with which he has gone about his task and the improvements that have resulted from his scrutiny and interventions. The access-to-information provisions are a good example of that. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend.
      Tim Loughton: There we are. The occupants of both Front Benches have now had a love-in, so we are all equal. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have not agreed on absolutely everything, but he has been an assiduous follower of the Bill. He was not a member of the Committee, but he knows about the practicalities of some of the things that we needed to do to improve the adoption support service, regardless of the debate that took place earlier.
      The Minister grouped together the amendments relating to advocacy services. It is natural that following the improvements to the complaints procedure, which took up a deal of time of hon. Members in Committee, children's voices need to heard rather more loudly than in the past. Many of us made that point on Report. It is right that there should be a duty on local authorities to make assistance available, and it is right also that it should be publicized. I know from the experience of my district's advocacy service in Adur that excellent work is done. It is often unappreciated and unheard of, but the work is expanding enormously, not least in the areas of health and social services. The work is directed not least to help elderly people who are faced with a barrage of problems relating to access to health care benefits, for example. It is right that these services should be extended and that resources should be made available to deal with children's issues in the context of adoption.
      There is no point in being churlish. It is a time to rejoice in many of the great improvements that have been made during the Bill's passage. From the early

      105
      stages when the Committee started its deliberations, improvements have been made. They did not happen immediately, and the Opposition were not necessarily credited with them at the time, but we can all share in the Bill's success and many of the improvements. The amendments are key contributions and I have great pleasure in supporting them.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 25, 27 to 31, and 37 and 38 agreed to.

    Clause 82

      RESTRICTION ON BRINGING CHILDREN IN
      Lords amendment: No. 39, in page 45, line 31, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b).
      Jacqui Smith: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 40 and 41, Government amendments (a), (b) and (c) thereto, 58, Government amendment (a) thereto, 59 to 61, Government amendment (a) thereto, 92, 93, Government amendment (a) thereto, 94, 95, 96, Government amendment (a) thereto, 97, 102 and 104.
      Jacqui Smith: The group focuses on the application of intercountry adoption provisions to parents, relatives, guardians and step-parents, and provides for the time that the child must live with the adopters before an adoption order can be made.
      First, let me deal with the time that the child should live with the adopters. Section 13 of the Adoption Act 1976 provides that, when the applicant is a parent, stepparent or relative of the child, or the child is placed by an adoption agency, or in pursuance of an order of the High Court, the child must be placed with the applicants for 13 weeks before the adoption order can be made. In cases of intercountry adoptions, which are not agency placements, the child must live with the applicants for 12 months. Clause 41 sets out the residence periods in the Bill.
      For non-agency placements, for which clause 41 does not provide elsewhere, the residence period is three out of the previous five years. However, clause 82(6)(a) enables regulations to provide that clauses in chapter 3 apply with modifications or do not apply to children who are brought in under clause 82. Hon. Members will remember that, to improve the safeguards for intercountry adoption, we intend to use that power to provide that the child must live with the applicants for six months when the correct procedures have been followed and 12 months when they have not.
      When clause 82 does not apply, the standard residence period in clause 41 will apply. However, it is intended that clause 82 will apply to all but a limited group of people. The exceptions are likely to be, for example, parents in prescribed circumstances. Under clause 41, the residence period for parents is 10 weeks.
      The amendments are intended to make clear the residence periods that should apply to convention adoptions and to ensure that the same modification powers are available for early implementation of the
      106
      restrictions on intercountry adoption. In summary, whenever the correct procedures have been followed, we intend that the child should live with the adopters for six months. That would ensure that the children had time to adjust and settle with their new families, and that the local authority had been able to monitor the placement satisfactorily before the court made the order.
      As I said earlier, when the correct procedures have not been followed, we intend that the child should be required to live with the adopters for a minimum of 12 months to allow the child to settle with the new family and the local authority to assess the family fully in lieu of the checks that should have been made before the child came to live with the family.
      I turn now to the amendments that deal with the issue of to whom the provisions on intercountry adoption should apply. Hon. Members will remember the structure of clause 82, which relates to restrictions on such adoptions. In their previous form, the provisions ensured that parents and relatives were excluded from those restrictions. We have received representations from intercountry adoption stakeholder groups expressing concern about intercountry adoption by relatives. They have suggested that, at present, the welfare of the child is not paramount, because these cases are treated predominantly as an immigration issue rather than an adoption matter.
      The groups have raised concern about the lack of preparation undertaken by relatives adopting from overseas, and about the fact that relatives do not have their suitability to adopt assessed unless the child's home country requires it. They have made it clear that this means that we cannot be sure that those relatives will provide a safe, secure environment for the child. We have listened carefully to the issues that they have raised, and we believe that this is an important issue that needs to be addressed.
      Clauses 82, 84 and 128 of the Bill, the transitional provision in paragraph 10 of schedule 4, and section 56 of the Adoption Act 1976 place restrictions on the circumstances in which children may be brought into the UK or taken out of the UK for the purposes of adoption. At present, those restrictions include the requirement for a person wishing to bring a child into the country for the purpose of adoption to be assessed and approved by an adoption agency, and for a person wishing to take a child out of the country for the purpose of adoption to be in receipt of an order permitting this. However, these safeguards do not apply when the prospective adopters are the child's natural parents, natural relatives, guardians or step-parents.
      In the light of the concerns that stakeholders have raised, we have returned to the case for exempting those groups, and come to the conclusion that something should be done to address the issue. The approach that we have taken, through the amendments, is to remove the specific exemption of parents, guardians, relatives and step-parents from the provisions that set out the restrictions. Then, in each case, a regulation-making power has been taken to enable us to prescribe that the provisions setting out restrictions on bringing a child in or removing a child are not to apply—or, in the case of taking the child out of the country for the purposes of adoption, are to apply with modification—to parents, guardians, relatives and step-parents. For example, amendment No. 41 inserts a new clause in the Bill

      107
      containing such regulation-making powers in relation to clauses 82 and 84. This reflects the need to be flexible and to be careful that we do not impose these restrictions inappropriately. Using those regulation-making powers will provide the necessary flexibility to react to changing circumstances. It may become clear through experience and discussions with other countries that it would be inappropriate for certain groups to be included in the restrictions. We intend to consult on who should be exempt from the restrictions, and the use of regulations will allow for the responses to be taken into account.
      Amendments Nos. 39 to 41 deal with the position under the Bill. Amendments Nos. 58 to 61 deal with the position under the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978, and amendments Nos. 93 to 96 deal with the position under the Adoption Act 1976. Because the amendments remove the explicit exemption of parents, guardians, relatives and step-parents from the restrictions, this gives us additional powers in relation to residence periods. It means that we will be able to use the regulation-making powers in clause 82 of the Bill, section 50A of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 and new section 56A of the Adoption Act 1976 to make regulations to modify the time a child must live with a parent, relative, guardian or step-parent in intercountry adoption cases.
      9.15 pm
      These are detailed amendments, but our clear intention is to ensure that children being adopted from overseas by parents, relatives, guardians and stepparents are properly safeguarded. We recognise that such children are vulnerable, that they need protecting and that their relatives may need the same assessment of suitability and/or help to prepare for adoption as a stranger planning to adopt a child from overseas. However, we are also clear about the fact that we do not want to impose unworkable restrictions and that we need to take the advice of those working in the field as to any groups that should legitimately be excluded. That is why we have taken care to include in the amendments regulation-making powers that provide the necessary flexibility to react to experience, changes in practice and the views of professionals.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments No. 40 agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 41 and Government amendments (a) to (c) thereto agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 42 and 43 agreed to.

    New clause
    Lords amendment: No. 44, before clause 110, to insert the following new clause—"Orders with respect to children—
    In section 8 of the 1989 Act (residence, contact and other orders with respect to children) there is inserted—
    108
    "(5) The Lord Chancellor may make regulations providing for the separate representation of children in specified circumstances relating to any matter arising from proceedings under this section.""
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 48 and 49, the Government motions to disagree thereto and amendment (a) in lieu thereof.
    Ms Winterton: First, I must make it clear that in moving motions to disagree with amendments Nos. 44, 48 and 49 made in the other place, the Government are not disagreeing at all with the principle that children should have a say in decision making regarding their future. The Government amendment in lieu seeks to meet the spirit of the amendments made in the other place while eliminating some technical flaws and reducing duplication.
    Neither the amendments made in the other place nor the Government amendment would add to the existing powers of the courts or the Lord Chancellor. The courts can already order that a child be made a party and separately represented in any family proceedings. However, we have listened to and respected the views of the House and the other place, and we agree that those powers should be explicitly referred to in primary legislation.
    The Government, in tabling their own amendment in lieu of those made in the other place, seek to address three key concerns that have been raised during the passage of the Bill. First, there is too stark a distinction between public law cases in which the state intervenes in a family's life—for example, care proceedings—and private law disputes between individuals. Secondly, the power to provide for the separate representation of children is not referred to explicitly in primary legislation. Thirdly, children should have access to separate representation more frequently than they do at present.
    The Government's amendment would make it clear in primary legislation that applications for the making or revocation of a placement order will be specified proceedings as defined by section 41(6) of the Children Act 1989. The child will he a party, a children's guardian will be appointed, and the child will be separately represented in every case. The issue has been raised both here and in the other place. The Government have already said publicly that they will make such proceedings specified; the amendment would embody that commitment in the Bill.
    Using Lords amendment No. 49 as a basis, the Government's amendment in lieu provides that proceedings for section 8 orders—such as contact and residence orders—can, in circumstances to be established by rules of court, be designated specified proceedings. That will give us the necessary flexibility to take into account the outcome of planned public consultation on the representation of children in private law proceedings. Using section 64 of the Family Law Act 1996 as a basis, the Government's amendment

    109
    amends section 93 of the Children Act, dealing with rules of court, to enable the Lord Chancellor to make rules to provide for the separate representation of children. He has made such provision in the current rules, but the amendment sets his power in primary legislation. That is intended to address Lords amendments Nos. 42 and 48.
    The Government's amendment goes wider. It will apply not only to applications for section 8 orders, but to other proceedings under the Children Act—for example, applications for special guardianship orders. It makes it absolutely clear that we have power to specify certain categories of private law proceedings as requiring children to be parties automatically, and to be separately represented. The amendment would place in primary legislation the ability for rules to provide for children's separate representation in private law cases. It goes further than Lords amendment No. 44, as it applies to all proceedings under the Children Act.
    Mr. Dawson: What would be the effect on children appearing at adoption hearings? Will they have ready access to separate representation?
    Ms Winterton: Not all adoption proceedings will require separate representation. The issue has been much discussed, and I think it is agreed that it will not be appropriate in some cases. We are trying to adopt a belt-and-braces approach to the current situation. We want it to be stated in primary legislation that other circumstances can also be specified in regard to automatic representation.
    The amendment should not be seen in isolation. We have already completed a "scoping" study of how children might have a more effective voice in family proceedings. There will be full public consultation, which will begin later this year. That consultation will also address the third concern raised in debates here and in the other place about the need for greater consistency in how the powers available to the courts are used in practice. If necessary, following consultation, we can add to the definition of specified proceedings and use court rules to guide the courts in those cases in which the separate representation of the child may be especially important.
    The amendments do not change the existing position. Children may already be separately represented in any family proceedings, but the Government's amendments are intended to make that commitment explicit in primary legislation in order to address the concerns that have been raised. Those changes in primary legislation must not be the end of the story. We need to ensure that the powers provided under the Children Act 1989 work effectively, and that is why we need to have the flexibility to take into account the results of consultation when making court rules. It is important that we listen to the views of children and young people themselves. I ask the House therefore to disagree with Lords amendments Nos. 44, 48 and 49, and to support the Government's amendment in lieu.
    Dr. Evan Harris: Strictly on a non-love-in basis, I wish to congratulate both Ministers on the mastery of their briefs and to thank them for their courtesy. I even extend my thanks to the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham
    110
    (Tim Loughton), who has occasionally been courteous to me and was, no doubt, very courteous to my hon. Friend the. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley). She has been promoted out of this portfolio, but wished me to pass on her thanks. [Interruption.] I will not be drawn on whether she has escaped or been punished.
    I come late to the issue, but I do not intend to oppose the amendments in lieu. However, I wish to raise several points on behalf of those who have supported our campaign. I have received help from the NSPCC. Women's Aid, NCH and the legal department at BAAF in promoting the approach that the Government have now accepted. The original amendments, the spirit of which the Government have accepted, were tabled by Lord Listowel, but were moved by my colleague, Baroness Thomas. We would appreciate some clarification on certain issues: if not now, then in the other place when the original movers of the amendments will have the chance to put their view.
    I shall not rehearse the basis of the amendments, because the Minister has done that admirably. I thank the Minister for accepting the thrust of the amendments and, indeed, for going further in some of her amendments in lieu, which are of course more correctly drafted. My first question is whether the necessary and relevant court rules will be made as promptly as possible, because without them the amendments would add nothing to the Bill. The existing framework is in place, so the addition of the court rules would be straightforward. Does the Minister have in mind a timetable for her proposals to consult? We remember section 64 of the Family Law Act 1996, which was never implemented, so people with an interest in the matter will want to see the actual regulations.
    The Minister has clarified that children will be full parties in the circumstances in which she envisages that the court will feel that to be appropriate. The children will then have the benefit of both the children's guardian and a solicitor.
    9.30 pm
    Another question is whether it is appropriate to replace Lords amendment No. 48, which requires the court to have particular regard to
    "the wishes and feelings of the child considered in the light of his age and understanding"
    and the need for his separate representation. The Minister in the House of Lords who argued against the amendment pointed out that the court has a duty in any case under the checklist in section 1 of the Children Act 1989 to consider the child's wishes and feelings. That is true, but only to a limited extent. Section 1(4) of the Children Act sets out the circumstances in which the court is required to use the checklist, and those circumstances do not include applications by stepparents for parental responsibility orders under new section 4A or for special guardianship orders, which the Minister mentioned, under new section 14A, both of which the Bill inserts in the Children Act. In both cases, it is particularly important that the court has an opportunity to hear the child's wishes in respect of the application.
    In the case of applications by a step-parent for parental responsibility, there is to be no requirement for any kind of report from a social worker or children's

    111
    guardian and no easy means for the court to ascertain the child's wishes and feelings unless it is specifically required to inquire into them. Among other things, special guardianship orders place severe restrictions on parents' rights to exercise their parental responsibility and to give special guardians the power to exercise their parental responsibility "to the exclusion of" another person with parental responsibility. It could therefore have more serious consequences than a section 8 order, yet the section 1 checklist is not automatically applied.
    I presume that the Government intend that the court should have regard to the child's wishes in both types of application. They will probably say that they will make appropriate provision for consulting the child in the regulations governing local authorities' duties to report to court in respect of special guardianship applications. I accept that, but I fear that even that safeguard is not present in respect of the step-parent applications.
    I should be grateful for the Minister's clarification, either now or later, on whether the absence of Lords amendment No. 48 would leave a lacuna in the need for the children's views to be covered in respect of stepparent applications. Otherwise, I am reasonably happy with the Government's proposals and repeat my thanks to them for accepting, after what I understand was an exciting vote in the House of Lords, the principle behind the need to have written into primary legislation the provisions that the Minister has outlined.
    Margaret Moran: May I add my welcome to the introduction of the proposal, which incorporates the spirit of the amendments that were put forward in another place? Throughout the Bill's proceedings and in the Special Standing Committee, the issues surrounding child protection were focused on the need for an independent voice for the child as well as the protection of children in contact cases. The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), is probably fed up with hearing me talk about that. However, together with the coalition of children's charities and Women's Aid, I welcome the Government's proposals.
    The House will not be surprised to learn that the coalition of children's charities is keen that these rules be introduced at the earliest possible opportunity. They believe that there needs to be special consideration of the circumstances for separate representation of children. They have indicated a number of areas that they would like covered in separate representation, such as cases in which implacably adversarial parents create high levels of conflict in which the child's interests are disregarded or where there is a history of violence. As we have said throughout the Bill's proceedings, children are at their most vulnerable when there is violence in the household, and it is vital that their voices are heard as clearly as possible.
    The children's charities also believe that separate representation is important where a child is unaware of their relationship with an absent parent; where the court accepts the need for medical or psychological reports on the child in family proceedings; where concerns about the welfare of a child in a family fall short of child protection measures or of a direction under section 37 of
    112
    the Children Act 1989; where a clear conflict of interest between one or both parents might include conflicts that arise in the future if a child disagrees with court-approved arrangements made some years earlier when the child was young; where a child who was previously the subject of divorce proceedings is going through such proceedings on a second or subsequent occasion; and where there has been unreasonable denial of contact or when a child's parent is to be committed for contempt of a court order issued to allow contact with another parent.
    Those are examples of the circumstances that the children's charities want dealt with under the rules at the earliest opportunity. The introduction of an independent voice for children is but one plank in a range of measures to protect children. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is aware, our special concern is to protect children when there is domestic violence.
    My hon. Friend will also be acutely aware that, despite some of those measures, there will still be cases where children are vulnerable. We heard recently from Women's Aid of a child contact order case in which a solicitor had to have alarms installed because of the fear of attack and had to flee the court, alongside the judge, because of the violence of the parent. Despite all that violence, even in the court, the violent parent was granted contact with the child.
    That is one example of the many that my noble Friends related to show their concern that we may need further legislation to protect children in such circumstances. I am sure that the independent voice of the child will add to our armoury of protection, but I invite my hon. Friend to acknowledge the concerns of many Members on both sides of the House by assuring us that there will be early consultation on such measures and that, if necessary, there will be further legislation, as was suggested in the other place, to ensure that the full protection of the law, is available to children in contact cases where there is domestic violence.
    Mr. Dawson: I rise to congratulate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on the real progress that has been made on separate representation.
    I join my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) in urging that the section 8 provisions be introduced quickly. At my constituency surgery last Saturday, some worried grandparents told me about contact proceedings in a local court, where the judge had found it necessary to tell an 11-year-old child that he could have her dragged kicking and screaming to a contact session, even though there had been child protection issues and Allegations in the past.
    I hope that we are dealing with the final aspects of the Bill, so I want to emphasise the importance of separate representation for some children at adoption hearings. I accept the Minister's view that it would not be necessary in all cases—for example, where many problems were sorted out when making the placement order and where young children were involved. However, the fact that so many issues can be sorted out at that stage makes it especially important that some young people have a further opportunity to raise problems at the adoption hearing.

    113
    We have acknowledged throughout debates on the Bill and today that adoption is changing; it is a much more open process and much more contact is involved. It is highly likely that many contact issues, particularly those involving older children, will need to be resolved at adoption hearings. That would not necessarily be terribly contentious, but it is important—particularly for contact with siblings, but for contact with the wider family as well—that there should be an opportunity to allow the child's voice to be clearly heard and articulated in court.
    9.45 pm
    Ms Rosie Winterton: This has been short debate, but, as might be expected, very many important issues have been raised. First, may I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) for his usual wise comments and the experience that he brings to our debates. He is absolutely right to say that it is important that everything possible be done to ensure that the voice of the child is heard in adoption proceedings, but, as he says, of course there may be some cases where separate representation is not appropriate—perhaps the adoption has been undertaken by a family member and all parties, including the child, are happy.
    The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) asked about the timing. We intend to consult on the secondary legislation—the court rules—and hope to do so by the end of this year. There will be a three-month consultation period, following which we will draft rules, and they will be laid before Parliament for 28 days. It is therefore not possible for me to give an absolute guarantee on timing. We have to undertake the consultation; we have to take note or that consultation and ensure that it agrees with what we are proposing, and then it has go through the parliamentary procedure.
    The hon. Gentleman raised an issue in connection with Lords amendment No. 48. The courts already have to pay attention to the child's wishes and feelings under section 13 of the Children Act 1989, and section 93 of the Act is also relevant. It is important that we do not duplicate what already appears in primary legislation, and I assure him that the courts have to ascertain the wishes and feelings of the child in the light of his or her age and understanding.
    The hon. Gentleman also suggested that there is a lacuna in respect of step-parents. We do not believe that such a lacuna exists, but I shall certainly come back to him if one does.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) spoke with her usual passion about consultation and how it relates to contact issues. I hope that I can reassure her by saying that we have specifically asked the stakeholder group looking at cases involving allegations of violence to consider how we take the views of the child into account in those cases. In terms of making certain proceedings specified, we will consider many of the issues that she rightly raised. The group that we will be consulting includes the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, CAFCASS, Barnardo's and NCH. I hope that the group will produce recommendations by the end of the year. I know that she is very much aware, too, of the fact that we are considering in the round all the issues that she raised tonight.
    114
    The need for further legislation is always kept under review. At the moment, however, I am very keen to make sure—given the changes that we are making here and the changes that we have made in the past—that the legislation works adequately and for the benefit of children in vulnerable situations. I look forward to working closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South, who is chair of the all-party group on domestic violence, and with the organisations that are already working with us to look at how we can increase protection for children.
    Having given those explanations, I hope that the House will agree to Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 49.
    Lords amendment disagreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 45 agreed to.

    Clause 112

      SPECIAL GUARDIANS
      Lords amendment: No. 46, in page 63, line 29, at end insert—"(b) a birth parent;"
      Jacqui Smith: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 2, leave out "birth".
      Amendment No. 46 was a Liberal Democrat amendment accepted by the Government on Third Reading in another place on the understanding that we would need to table a technical correction in the House of Commons. The effect of amendment No. 46 is to insert "birth parents" into the list in proposed new section 14F(2) of people whose needs for special guardianship support a local authority may—or, if the Secretary of State requires, must—assess on request. We have said previously that we could use the power in proposed new subsection (2)(c) to prescribe other people who may be assessed, which would be a means of including birth parents. We are, however, sympathetic to the suggestion that we should provide a signal in the legislation that we anticipate that birth parents are likely to be key recipients of special guardianship support services, which is why we agreed the amendment. However, the term "birth parent" is not one used in the Children Act, so we need to correct it to "parent". The amendment will thereby achieve the intention behind amendment No. 46, as the term "parent" will be given its natural meaning—the child's birth parents, or, in the case of adopted children under special guardianship orders, their adoptive parents. I hope that Members will recognise that that addresses the concerns underlying the original amendment and the need to make a technical correction to it.
      In case this is the last time that I speak in the House on the Adoption and Children Bill—[Interruption.] As the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) says from a sedentary position, I jolly well hope that it is. I want to put on record the honour that I feel at having served on this Bill. Members on both sides of the House have agreed that the Bill will make a difference to vulnerable children and to the adoption process.
      I particularly want to place on the record my thanks to the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), and the other members of the Committee, including the Whips and my

      115
      Parliamentary Private Secretary, who have stayed with the Bill throughout its lengthy proceedings. To continue the love-in that started earlier, I record my appreciation of the good-natured way in which Opposition Members have approached the Bill, the commitment of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) to scrutinising it and the hard work of the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), which I understand has resulted in her promotion. I also pay tribute to the commitment of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris).
      It has been an honour to work on this Bill, and I hope that this will be the last thing that I have to say about it, but the most important point is that it will, I hope, in years to come, make a difference to the opportunities for children in this country.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 47 agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 48 and 49 disagreed to.
      Amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 49 agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 50 to 57 agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 58 and Government amendment (a) thereto agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 59 and 60 agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 61 and Government amendment (a) thereto agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 62 to 65 and 67 to 92 agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 93 and Government amendment (a) thereto agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 94 and 95 agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 96 and Government amendment (a) thereto agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 97 to 107 agreed to.

      DELEGATED LEGISLATION
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
      DELEGATED LEGISLATION
        SUPREME COURT OF ENGLAND AND WALES
        That the draft Maximum Number of Judges Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 15th October, be approved.
        DATA PROTECTION
        That the draft Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) (Elected Representatives) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 24th July, be approved.

        CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
        That the draft Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 16th October, be approved.— [Dan Norris.]
        Question agreed to.

      PETITIONS

        Food Supplements
        9.59 pm
        Mr. Gordon Marsden: I rise to present a petition of some 450 people in Blackpool who are supporters of Consumers for Health Choice. I am delighted to do so and give the petition my strong support. It reads as follows:
        To the House of Conmions
        The Petition of Consumers for Health Choice and its supporters,
        Declares that consumers in the United Kingdom have for many years maintained good health by choosing to take safe vitamin and mineral supplements and herbal remedies; and fears that the European Food Supplements Directive and the Proposed European Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products would severely restrict the number and range of such products on general retail sale in the future.
        The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons requires that the Secretary of State for Health does all in his power to protect the rights of U.K. consumers by ensuring that such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural health products.
        And the Petitioners remain, Etc.
        To lie upon the Table.
        10 pm
        Sue Doughty: I rise on behalf of 112 petitioners from my constituency who are supporters of Consumers for Health Choice. The petition has my full support. It reads as follows:
        To the House of Commons
        The petition of Consumers for Health Choice and its supporters,
        Declares that consumers in the United Kingdom have for many years maintained good health by choosing to take safe vitamin and mineral supplements and herbal remedies; and fears that the European Food Supplements Directive and the Proposed European Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products would severely restrict the number and range of such products on general retail sale in the future.
        The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons requires that the Secretary of State for Health does all in his power to protect the rights of U.K. consumers by ensuring that such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural health products.
        And the Petitioners remain, Etc.
        To lie upon the Table.

  Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Woolas]
  10.1 pm
  Mr. Chris Bryant (Rhondda): With all the votes, it feels as though we have run a marathon in the past few minutes.
  I am told by one hon. Friend that I have won the award for the most obscurely named Adjournment debate this year, and the title does indeed conjure up images of Dickens' Circumlocution Office. The moments of birth, death and marriage are some of the most tender in people's lives, but they are also points at which the state touches people's lives, day in, day out. It is often forgotten that it is not only the civil registration of marriages that is governed by state legislation: all marriages in church and religious ceremonies are covered as well. It is worth bearing it in mind that, in 1999, 263,515 marriages took place in England and Wales, so the number of people touched every single year by parliamentary legislation is significant.
  In a former world, there was a different dispensation: the Church provided for all hatching, matching and dispatching. The Church—as opposed to the state started to intervene in marriage in 313, so it has been directly involved in such matters for a long time. In the former world, a fact of significant interest to the state when legislating on marriage in particular was that the vast majority of people remained resident in one place throughout their whole life, so the system that arose covering, for example, the publication of banns of marriage was eminently suitable for the villages of England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland in the 10th or 11th centuries, and remained suitable up until perhaps the mid-19th century. Since then, however, things have changed, and now many of our constituents may, throughout the course of their life, reside in 10, 15 or even 20 constituencies.
  One of the most significant changes to have occurred in recent years is to marriage. The number of people who choose to get married not in church but in a civil service has grown dramatically.
  Mr. Tom Harris: It might help to reinforce my hon. Friend's argument, with which I agree, for him to learn that only last week I was invited by my researcher, Mr. Donald Campbell, to act as his best man at his wedding next June on top of a mountain near Aviemore.
  Mr. Bryant: I am not sure which mountain near Aviemore that might be, but I am sure that there could be no better best man than my hon. Friend. He may be interested to know that that option would not be available to his researcher if he were living in England or Wales because the law prohibits people from marrying at the top of a mountain, in their back garden or anywhere else other than specially licensed premises. My hon. Friend has neatly made my point.
  The number of church marriages is falling dramatically: 34 per cent. of all marriages in England and Wales in 1989 were performed in churches in either the Church of England or the Church in Wales, but by 1999 the figure had fallen to 25 per cent. So, across a 10-year period, there has been a significant fall.
  118
  Across the span, over the past 170 years since civil registration began in 1837, many understandings about birth, death and marriage have changed. People's understanding of suicide and how the law should deal with it has changed dramatically. Whereas 170 years ago—even 50 years ago—suicide was primarily considered a sin and therefore to be treated as illegal, meaning that people had to be buried separately from consecrated ground, nowadays most people would consider the mental health rather than the criminal issues involved.
  The change in the law in 1994 that allowed marriages to take place not just in registry offices but on approved premises resulted in 1999 in the marriage of 37,709 people on approved premises around the land. The vast majority of them took place in hotels, which are doing a nice trade as a result, but we have not yet seen full liberalisation, which I hope we might see soon.
  Other understandings have changed. Even 30 years ago, the understanding of stillbirth was very limited. It is only in the past few years that people have realised that giving the child who was born dead a name and providing an opportunity for proper bereavement are essential to the long-term mental health of the couple involved. There is still some way to go in the registration process, as I shall say in a moment. There has also been a large falling away in the number of baptisms conducted by all the Churches—for a series of reasons, which I shall not go into.
  For all those reasons, I am delighted that the Government have published an excellent although perhaps slightly under-read White Paper, "Civil Registration: Vital Change". I presume that "vital" in that context is a pun. Intriguingly, the White Paper has been issued under the auspices of the Treasury. I am sure that the Minister will later tell us why it was not a Home Office document. I also presume that many of the issues that will be addressed in legislation to come will reform the Marriage Act 1949 and subsequent amendments to it, especially the Marriage Act 1994, but I should like to describe a few areas in which the Government should be encouraged in their move towards change. I shall go through them in life order, as it were, starting with birth.
  I mentioned the marked falling away of the number of baptisms over the past 100 years. It is important none the less that there should be an opportunity in today's society to recognise the moment of birth. I am sure that many families would welcome a formal opportunity—a rite of passage, as it were—to invite friends and family to an officially recognised naming ceremony. I am glad to see that that is in the Government's White Paper and I urge them to take that idea forward. I know that many registrars are keen to establish that new service.
  In the world of the internet, it would also be helpful if people were able to register a birth online. There are thousands of other things to be getting on with at the time of a birth without having to worry about finding a register office and going along to it.
  Miss Anne Begg: Before my hon. Friend goes through the other six of the seven ages of man, I want to draw to his attention a reform that I would like to the registration of births, which is to do with people who have changed sex during their lifetime. I have a constituent who was born a boy but had an

  119
  operation and is now living as a woman. She would like to change her birth certificate to reflect her new sex. Does my hon. Friend agree that that reform is long overdue in this country?
  Mr. Bryant: I thank my hon. Friend. I wholly agree with the point that she makes, which has been made to me by a couple of my own constituents. The Minister may want to return to the matter later.
  Pursuing further the issue of weddings, I am aware that, in a sense, I am one of the least likely people in the Chamber to be talking about weddings, though I am reminded of some words of Noel Coward:
  "I've sometimes thought of marrying—and then I've thought again."
  The present law is still relatively restrictive, compared with many other countries, and compared with most people's expectations of the law. So, for instance, one is allowed to get married only between 8 am and 6 pm, and only in certain places. The law also allows only certain fairly perfunctory services. I know that many people do not want to go for a church service, but would like a service that is a full recognition and which has all the weight and dignity of a decent service; and they have sometimes felt that the services offered by registry offices do not quite meet that necessity.
  I would welcome the Government's move towards the celebrant-based understanding of registration—that is, instead of registering the place where one gets married, one registers the person who is to do the marrying. In terms of guaranteeing the dignity of the service, the most important issue is whether the person standing in front of the couple on behalf of society and of the people can conduct the ceremony with due dignity. People should have the freedom to choose where they want to get married, whether on the stands of the Millennium stadium or the top of a mountain in the Rhondda. Wherever they want to get married, they should be able to make that choice, while at the same time ensuring the dignity of marriage. Without that moment of dignity, the whole institution of marriage is undermined, which I am sure no hon. Member wants to happen.
  There are specific issues that the White Paper does not address substantially. The Government may intend to introduce another White Paper. I understand that the Church of England expects them to do so later this year. As there is not much more of the year left, I do not know when that would happen. There are still some anomalies in relation to religious weddings, which are provided for in legislation. For instance, there are no restrictions on the times when Jews and Quakers can get married, or on the places in which they are allowed to get married. The main way in which ordinary members of the public can get married anywhere they want, if they can persuade the Archbishop of Canterbury to allow them to do so, is by getting hold of an archbishop's special licence. That is used in certain circumstances, but not as widely as it might be.
  There are other anomalies. The residency requirement that is laid on church weddings to enable people to apply for a common licence, if they are to get married in their local parish church or if they are on the electoral roll, is crying out for amendment. From my
  120
  former days as a vicar, I know that many vicars who have pretty churches are happy to enable anyone to qualify to be on their electoral roll, regardless of their attendance at the church. I do not want to issue calumnies about the clergy, but we may need to help the clergy to be a little more honest in the matter.
  I support the Church of England's recommendation—I wonder whether the Minister would like to comment on this—that instead of a residency requirement or the electoral roll requirement, it would be better to prove a demonstrable connection between the couple who are applying to get married in a particular church, and that church.
  On the subject of deaths, I have already mentioned the issue relating to stillbirths. Many hon. Members will know of families who have been somewhat distressed by the process of registration, or in some cases the absence of a process of registration, of their stillbirth. Although the national health service and many other organisations have moved on in providing support for couples, it is important that we move towards providing a simpler system which looks more like the registration of a death than the registration of a birth and of a death.
  It should also be possible for couples to register a still birth in the hospital where it happened—a system that is now operated by some hospital trusts around the country. If couples are to register a still birth through a registrar, they should do so by appointment rather than by having to turn up in a room where people might be celebrating the birth and registration of a newborn child or a marriage. It would he more sensitive to introduce separate waiting rooms and an appointments system. It would also be a good idea to waive the registration fee for those registering a still birth, and it is obviously important that those involved in registering still births are given some help, understanding and training in the issues that they might encounter.
  One tiny issue of which the White Paper takes note is the problem of people who die at sea. I hope that the Government will address it, not least because a distant relative of mine died in that way. As I am sure the Minister is aware, those who die at sea but do not die on a ship cannot have their death registered in the same way as others. The problem applies in respect of remarkably few people every year, but is none the less very distressing for the families concerned.
  The Government mentioned several times in the White Paper the move towards making available the archives of the registers on the web, which I welcome. As genealogy is one of the most popular pastimes in Britain today—one has only to visit a computer store to see how many different software applications are available to enable people to build their family tree—it would be good if we could provide those engaged in research and ordinary members of the public with the opportunity to access all that information on the web as soon as possible. I hope that the Treasury will not be niggardly or parsimonious—I am sure that it would never want to be—in allowing that to happen.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to raise these issues and I hope that this debate has not been as dry as parchment, as some hon. Members suggested to me earlier that it might be.
  10.17 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) for bringing his attention and that of the House to these important matters.
  As my hon. Friend said, civil registration is an important service that touches everyone at some time during his or her life. It ensures the civil status of every person, protecting individuals as well as society as a whole. However, as he pointed out, the current system dates back to the 19th century. The needs of society, families and individuals have changed dramatically since then, and it is important that civil registration adapt to reflect those changes and support today's society.
  My hon. Friend thought that it was perhaps a little odd that a Treasury Minister should be present to deal with these matters. Perhaps I should explain why. As he is aware, the registrar-general is responsible for administering the law relating to the registration of births, deaths and marriages in England and Wales. The registrar-general's office forms part of the Office for National Statistics, and I am the sponsor Minister for national statistics. In that role, I am also responsible for civil registration.
  The Government consultation paper "Supporting Families", which was published in 1998, recommended that there should be a review of the civil registration system in England and Wales. It also promoted the idea of a wider role for registration officers, to include the provision of services associated and linked with the registration of births, deaths and marriages. The registrar-general was asked by the Government to take forward that review, following which he published a consultation paper, "Registration: Modernising a Vital Service", in 1999. The review does not extend to fundamental marriage law, although Ministers agreed that the registrar-general could consult on widening the choice of places of marriage.
  There were almost 1,000 responses to the consultation. Together with other evidence, they were used to formulate a new policy framework for civil registration. Subsequently, on 22 January this year, the Registrar-General published the white Paper "Civil Registration: Vital Change", which details the Government's proposals for improving civil registration in England and Wales.
  The Government's proposals, as sot out in the White Paper, will give more choice in using registration services—choice about where and how to register a birth or death and where one can get married, as well as the wider choices of new services such as baby naming and marriage reaffirmation. These proposals will improve the service that users receive. They will allow change and innovation to continue in future and they will make full use of modern technology, about which I shall say more. They will help also to maximise the benefits that this can bring to individuals and organisations while continuing with the necessary safeguards.
  My hon. Friend suggested that we should make civil registration records available in electronic form over time on the internet. That is precisely what we propose to do. Over time, we hope that all existing records of births, marriages and deaths will be computerised. Looking forward, it is intended to develop a system
  122
  based on web technology for the future collection of civil registration information. That system will incorporate technologies that are up to date, robust, flexible and efficient. It will also contain features to maintain security of the data, and to authenticate users where that is necessary.
  The Government have chosen to distinguish between historical records—those relating to people born more than 100 years ago—and records relating to people born within the past 100 years. We propose to fund the computerisation of the latter group of records, although some of the information will be treated as confidential. These historical records are to be made fully open and available to the public. The Government recognise that family history is a popular hobby. We have said that we would support not-for-profit organisations investing in the introduction of electronic access to these records.
  I move on to marriage law and the wider role that is envisaged for registration officers. As I have explained, fundamental marriage law is outside the scope of the civil registration review and is the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor. Respondents to the registrar-general's consultation paper supported the prospect of greater freedom to marry in places other than those currently approved for marriage. It is widely acknowledged that many of the current restrictions on the time or place of marriage, which have been in place since 1837, are no longer appropriate in today's society.
  I wish to reassure the House that we intend that the solemnity and dignity of marriage should be upheld in the proposals that we put forward. The registrar-general will continue to issue guidance about how that solemnity and dignity should be retained during the marriage ceremony.
  As for Church of England marriages, currently the rule is that in most cases a couple who want such a marriage must go to the parish church of the place where one or both of them live, or are on the church electoral roll. However, it is not always easy to determine whether a person is "resident" in a particular place at a particular time. I understand that one of the problems has been different views on precisely what residence means. For example, the general view is that a student who is living elsewhere during term time may still be "resident" at his or her parents' home. Another example is where a couple wish to marry in the parish where one of them grew up and where his or her parents still live, even though he or she has a home elsewhere throughout the year.
  Some clergy apply stricter criteria than others in these cases when deciding whether the person concerned is also resident in the parish where the couple wish to marry, and instead of calling banns may, I understand, require the couple to obtain an Archbishop of Canterbury's special licence. I am advised that such a licence can permit a marriage at any time and in any place, and without the calling of banns or the completion of any other marriage preliminaries. The archbishop is responsible for laying down the criteria to be applied in deciding when to grant a licence, but the detailed procedure is determined by the faculty office. Licences are granted, for example, to permit marriages outside the parish in which the couple live, in a private chapel or, in an emergency, where one of the couple is ill.

  123
  As the House is aware, it is not for the Government to speak for the Church of England or the Church in Wales. However, I am advised by the Lord Chancellor that the General Synod of the Church of England decided in July that the Church should also move to a more flexible set of principles on where marriages may take place.
  The Church proposes to preserve the ancient right of a parishioner to marry in the church of the parish where he or she lives, but at the same time to create a range of well defined cases in which a couple can marry in some other place of worship where they have a "demonstrable connection".
  While the details are still being worked on, a good many couples who in the past would have needed to obtain an archbishop's special licence to marry should no longer need one. The proposals tie in closely with those of the Government, and the Church will work with us to bring about the changes.
  The Church does not intend to abolish the special licence procedure, which has not, it believes, outlived its usefulness. It will still be needed as a means of allowing special flexibility in exceptional cases; a similar provision exists for civil marriages in the form of the registrar-general's licence.
  The special licence procedure will also be used to permit marriage in places other than places of worship. However, I am advised that the Church is clear that that should not mean a free-for-all, which would permit marriages in unsuitable venues. In our White Paper, the Government explained that the registration service is ideally placed to act as a focal point for information about services associated with births, deaths and marriages, such as social security benefits, marriage preparation and probate. The new support and advisory services will be complemented by the provision of celebratory services such as baby naming, the reaffirmation of marriage vows and civil funerals. Like my hon. Friend, I believe that there is a genuine opportunity for local authorities to develop those services innovatively to meet the needs of their communities, now and in future. A wider role for the registration service will improve on the current piecemeal approach by local authorities and will be underpinned by the proposed national standards.
  Baby naming ceremonies give parents who prefer a secular ceremony the opportunity to celebrate the birth of their child publicly and show their commitment to its upbringing. The Government will expect local authorities to ensure that a baby naming service is available.
  Some couples wish to celebrate key wedding anniversaries by reaffirming their marriage vows. The Government support the provision of secular marriage reaffirmation ceremonies and will expect local
  124
  authorities to ensure their availability. That will provide couples with an alternative to equivalent religious ceremonies and will form a natural and appropriate extension to the role of the registration service.
  The Government acknowledge that it may be appropriate for local authorities to offer other celebratory services. The law will be designed to respond to emerging public demand so that local authorities can innovate and extend their services to fulfil the changing needs of their communities.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned still births, currently defined in legislation as children who are born after 24 weeks. There is already provision for their registration. Proposals in the White Paper will make that registration easier and give parents more options about the way in which to provide that information.
  As my hon. Friend acknowledged, making the necessary changes to registration is long overdue. It will not be easy and it will not happen overnight. Changes to legislation will be made through order-making powers in the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. It contains wide powers, matched by tough safeguards, for reforming legislation on a regulatory regime such as that which relates to civil registration.
  As I hope I have made clear, the proposals for reforming civil registration reflect the Government's wider agenda for modernising public services. We aim to improve and simplify services and to introduce greater flexibility and more choice. Modernising civil registration is an important part of the Government's aim of focusing public services directly on people's needs. Above all, it is important that the public receive a better service at such important moments of their lives.
  I thank my hon. Friend for presenting the matter for consideration. I assure him that the Government are determined to introduce major reforms to the civil registration service in England and Wales.
  Dr. Brian Iddon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the views of registration officers should be taken into account and that security of the records is important?
  Ruth Kelly: I agree. I appreciate my hon. Friend's interest in the welfare of registration officers. We have consulted them closely in developing the proposals, and we intend to take account of their views. We agree that there is a balance to maintain between security of, and open access to, the relevant data. We are committed to finding an appropriate balance.
  As I said, we want to respond to emerging public demand and we hope that local authorities will be in a position to take advantage of the new proposals.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

WALES

  Departmental Job Vacancies
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many job vacancies there were at(a) administrative assistant or equivalent, (b) administrative officer or equivalent, (c) administrative executive officer, (d) higher executive officer, (e) senior executive officer, (f) grade 7 principal and (g) all positions above grade 7 level in his Department for jobs located in (i) London and (ii) the south-east between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2002; and what is the total employment for each civil service grade. [76558]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: My Department has offices in London and Cardiff. It is staffed entirely by secondees. The table shows the number of vacancies by grade as at 1 April 2001 against total employment for each grade in London.

  Responsibility level

  Vacancies

  Total Staff

  Grades 6 and above

  —

  2

  Grade 7

  —

  4

  Senior executive officer

  —

  1

  Higher executive officer

  1

  9

  Executive officer

  —

  9

  Administrative officer

  3

  8

  Administrative assistant

  1

  5

  Total non-industrial staff

  5

  38

  Political Appointments (Salaries)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the salary costs are of political appointments made by him in 2002–03; and what the figures were in each of the last three years. [77637]

  Peter Hain
  The Secretary of State for Wales is entitled to appoint two special advisers. Special advisers are paid on national salary scales which apply to all Government Departments. The basic scale currently ranges from £34,851 to £45,760.

TRANSPORT

  Air Transport Consultation
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total cost was of the Department for Transport exhibition at the village of Church Lawford on 29 to 30 October regarding the Midlands New Site Option, contained in the National Consultation on the Future of Air Transport in the UK. [79473]
  2W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The approximate cost of the exhibition for the Midlands New Site Option is £82,000.

  Biofuels Directive
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on how he intends to implement the EU Biofuel Directive. [72936]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Negotiations on the precise drafting of the Biofuels Directive are currently underway and the final form of the Directive has still to be agreed. Negotiations so far indicate it is likely that the key measure in the final version will be a requirement for member states to set indicative targets for 2005 and 2010 for the use of biofuels in transport. Transposition into UK law is likely to be via Regulations under the European Communities Act 1972.

  Bus Services
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how he is ensuring improvements in off-peak frequency of bus services. [79080]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Around 82 per cent. of bus services outside London are provided commercially and it is for the operators of those services to decide upon appropriate frequencies. Local authorities have powers to subsidise enhanced services outside peak hours.

  For rural areas local authorities can use their allocations from the Government's Rural Bus Subsidy Grant (RBSG) to fund off-peak services. RBSG allocations total £47.5 million in 2002–03, rising to £48.5 million in 2003–04.

  In London, where local transport is the responsibility of the Mayor, most routes now operate seven days a week and are sufficiently frequent throughout the day to allow passengers to use the network on a "turn-up-and go" basis. Routes operating at low frequency are regularly reviewed to see whether higher frequencies are worthwhile.

  Colne-Skipton Railway
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will commission an assessment of the feasibility of re-opening the Colne-Skipton railway. [79085]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport on 8 February 2002,Official Report, column 1186W. The situation remains the same.

  Congestion Charging
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to amend the Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication) (London) Regulations 2001, pursuant to the Government undertaking to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments of 19 October 2001. [78906]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Following the recent consultation, I anticipate that the amendment regulations will be made shortly, in time for implementation of the central London congestion charging scheme in February 2003.

  Disused Railway Track Beds
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent advice he has given to the(a) SRA and (b) planning authorities concerning the safeguarding of disused railway track beds. [79086]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Directions and Guidance the Secretary of State has issued to the Strategic Rail Authority require the Authority, when considering the disposal of land (including disused trackbeds), to have regard to the sites' transport potential and to avoid taking a short-term view. The Authority should look to the rail industry and local authorities to acquire sites with rail potential, but if these bodies do not purchase sites the Authority should consider whether they should be retained for rail use at a later date. The "Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport", issued to Local Planning Authorities, states that local authorities should identify, and protect sites and routes, both existing and potential, which could be critical in developing infrastructure for the movement of freight.

  Firefighters' Strike
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what preparations he has made to ensure the safety and continuity of service to the public in the event of a firefighters' strike. [77671]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr Raynsford) on 28 October 2002,Official Report, column 527W.

  Frethun Rail Freight Yard
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the nature and extent of the financial contribution by the Strategic Rail Authority to the package of measures to increase security at the Fréthun Rail freight yard; and if he will make a statement. [78907]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority has undertaken to contribute around half of the £7.5 million cost of fixed security installations at the Fréthun freight yard, by means of a freight facilities grant. The contribution is subject to the provision of project and budgetary information (which has now been received), confirmation of completion of works and an independent verification of the works by UK security experts.

  Grassington (Rail Services)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will request the SRA to conduct a feasibility study into extending the railway from the quarry outside Grassington into the town itself. [79083]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority's Strategic Plan outlines its proposals for future projects and their priorities. The Authority will update the plan annually.

  Home Zones Scheme
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department has made 4W
  available through the Home Zones Scheme Capital Modernisation Fund since 2000; and how much has been (a) applied for and (b) spent in rural areas in (i) 2000–01, (ii) 2001–02 and (iii) 2002–03 to date. [78399]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 31 October 2002]: The Department has made £30 million available through the Capital Modernisation Fund for Home Zones Challenge projects. The funding covers a three year period from 2002–03. Successful projects were announced on 11 January 2002. The Home Zones Challenge is specifically aimed at improving the design of streets in residential locations. There were no applications from rural areas.

  Invalid Carriages
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will amend his code of practice for class 3 vehicle users to include advice on the safe off-road storage of invalid carriages. [78619]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are not aware of problems relating to safe off road storage of these vehicles but we would be happy to consider drawing up appropriate advice once we have information about the issue.

  Loading Gauges
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which lines on the rail network have(a) W6a, (b) W6a-Pb and (c) Sb 1c loading gauge under Railtrack Group Standards; and if he will place copies of maps showing these lines in the Library. [78814]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I understand that the information requested and a map of the gauge classification of routes on the national network are available from the Route Directory section of the Railtrack Freight Commercial Website at http://www.railtrack.co.uk/industry—partners/freight/index.cfm. The information is also available as a small scale map in Railtrack's 2002 Network Management Statement.

  Local Transport Plans
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many planning authorities have included(a) new and (b) re-opened railways in their local transport plans in the last two years. [79088]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Full information is not readily available in the form requested. However, in the five-year Local Transport Plans (LTPs) submitted in July 2000, and subsequent Annual Progress Reports on these, 12 local transport authorities in England outside London have included proposals for 16 rail-related major local transport schemes. Proposals are not categorised by whether they contain new or re-opened railways. In addition, all LTPs contain strategies which take account of the contribution rail can make towards their objectives.

  Motorways
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reason the southbound carriageway of the M1 motorway was closed on 6 October; and who authorised the closure. [79134]
  5W
  Mr. Spellar
  On 6 October the southbound carriageway of the M1 in the area of Junction 21 had to be closed as a result of a fire in an outbuilding of a local farm, where gas cylinders containing potentially explosive gases were stored. Following consultation between Leicester County Fire Brigade and the Health and Safety Executive, a 200-metre exclusion zone was requested around the farm including a section of the motorway. Leicestershire police therefore closed the motorway until the risk of explosion had passed.

  Public Transport (Disabled Access)
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what obligations there are on public transport providers to provide access for passengers with disabilities. [79052]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Part V of the Disability Discrimination Act gives the Secretary of State powers to introduce regulations requiring public transport to be accessible to disabled people, including those who need to travel in a wheelchair. Under these regulations all new trains (including light rail and underground) which have come into service since January 1999 have been required to meet comprehensive accessibility standards. Similar regulations have applied since January 2000 to all new buses with a capacity of over 22 passengers used on local or scheduled service. Some requirements to help ambulant disabled people and those with visual impairment use coaches and smaller buses have also been introduced but full wheelchair access will not be required for these vehicles until January 2005 because of the technical and operational challenges that remain. Regulations, which came into force on 1 October this year, also place obligations on bus drivers and conductors to assist disabled passengers.

  Transport infrastructure, including bus and railway stations is covered by Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act which has placed duties on service providers since October 1999 to amend policies or practices which discriminate against disabled people. From October 2004 these duties will extend to the removal of physical harriers to access.

  Railway Track Condition (East Lancashire)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the state of the railway track in east Lancashire; and if he will make a statement. [79089]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is primarily a matter for Network Rail.

  Reopened Railway Costs
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the estimated cost per week is of reopening a closed railway where the trackbed is in good condition. [79084]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is not possible to give a generalised figure. The cost would depend on location, planned usage, the condition of existing or provision of new infrastructure, and a host of other factors. A meaningful cost estimate could only be made on a case by case basis, and would be unlikely to be best expressed as a 'cost per week'.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the Government oppose EU proposals to introduce a presumption of guilt on the part of the motorist in all cases of motorist/cyclist accidents. [79037]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Proposals for a fifth motor insurance directive are at an early stage. It is not clear that a presumption of guilt on the part of the motorist is intended. The proposal states that there is no intention to 'prejudice the civil liability of the pedestrian or cyclist or the level of award for damages in a specific accident, under national legislation'.

  Road Networks
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for the 2002 National Road Maintenance Condition Survey to include the cost of outstanding repairs on the(a) local and (b) strategic road networks. [78897]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The 2002 National Road Maintenance Condition Survey is being conducted on the same basis as in 2001 and previous years. Results will be published in April 2003.

  Trust Port Boards
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport further to his answer of 29 October, Ref 78170, if he will list appointments he has made to trust port boards since January 2000 involving representatives of local authorities. [79155]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Five such appointments have been made since January 2000, three to the Shoreham Port Authority, and two to the Milford Haven Port Authority as detailed in the following table.

  Port authority Shoreham

  Appointed

  Councillor Bob Carden

  January 2002

  Councillor Pat Hawkes

  January 2002

  Councillor Neil Parkin

  January 2002

  Milford Haven

  Councillor Eric Harries

  February 2000

  Councillor John Allen-Mirehouse

  April 2002

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Correspondence
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Leominster of 13 September, regarding the River Lugg Internal Drainage Board. [78603]

  Mr. Morley
  I regret that the Department has no record of receiving this correspondence.

  Dog Licensing Scheme
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to introduce a dog licensing scheme for owners; and if she will make a statement. [76954]

  Alun Michael
  This Government have considered the options for introducing a dog licensing scheme for owners very carefully. However, at present the Government are not planning to introduce a dog licensing scheme for dog owners. Defra does promote responsible dog ownership through byelaws, education and publicity.

  Farm Mapping
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the level of accuracy is of the digital mapping of farms across the UK. [78745]

  Alun Michael
  The underlying digital mapping used for the digitisation of the IACS registered fields is the Ordnance Survey's latest digital product known as MasterMap. The accuracy levels are at least as good as those for the National Grid series previously used and the product is available from the Ordnance Survey.

  Fish Stocks
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what analysis her Department has made of the share of Community fish stocks, by species, that fall under UK(a) 12 and (b) 200 mile/median line limits. [77252]

  Mr. Morley
  No such analysis has been carried out since for the most part the stock assessments are carried out by international scientists, not in relation to national waters, but by total ICES area. In any case, almost all of the main stocks fished in UK waters spend time also in the waters of other countries.

  Fisheries
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what role she proposes for English regional assemblies in the governance of fisheries out to 12 nautical miles from the baseline. [77644]

  Mr. Morley
  None. The powers and functions of elected regional assemblies are fully set out in the regional governance White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice" (Cm 5511). These proposals have no implications for the governance of fisheries either within or outside 12 nautical miles from the baseline.

  Flood and Coastal Defence
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the local authorities who(a) have and (b) have not produced a policy statement under High Level Targets for flood and coastal defence. [77618]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra and the Environment Agency have received policy statements from 219 of the 354 local authorities expected to produce them. We have 8W
  received 12 statements since the report on High Level Target 1 was compiled in April 2002; however there are still 135 outstanding statements.

  The following local authorities have produced policy statements:

  Adur District Council

  Allerdale Borough Council

  Alnwick District Council

  Amber Valley Borough Council

  Arun District Council

  Ashford Borough Council

  Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  Barrow-in-Furness Borough Council

  Bassetlaw District Council

  Bedford Borough Council

  Berwick-upon-Tweed Borough Council

  Bexley London Borough Council

  Birmingham City Council

  Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council

  Blackpool Borough Council

  Blyth Valley Borough Council

  Bolsover District Council

  Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council

  Bournemouth Borough Council

  Braintree District Council

  Bristol City Council

  Bromley London Borough Council

  Broxtowe Borough Council

  Burnley Borough Council

  Bury Metropolitan Borough Council

  Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council

  Camden London Borough Council

  Canterbury City Council

  Caradon District Council

  Carlisle City Council

  Castle Morpeth Borough Council

  Charnwood Borough Council

  Cheltenham Borough Council

  Cherwell District Council

  Chester City Council

  Chesterfield Borough Council

  Chichester District Council

  Chorley Borough Council

  Christchurch Borough Council

  Congleton Borough Council

  Copeland Borough Council

  Cotswold District Council

  Coventry City Council

  Darlington Borough Council

  Daventry District Council

  Derby City Council

  Derwentside District Council

  Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

  Dover District Council

  Durham City Council

  Easington District Council

  East Devon District Council

  East Dorset District Council

  East Hampshire District Council

  East Northamptonshire District Council

  East Riding of Yorkshire Council

  East Staffordshire Borough Council

  Eastbourne Borough Council

  Eastleigh Borough Council

  Eden District Council

  Ellesmere Port and Neston Borough

  Council

  Elmbridge Borough Council

  Enfield London Borough Council

  Epping Forest District Council

  Epsom and Ewell Borough Council

  Erewash Borough Council

  Exeter City Council

  Fareham Borough Council

  Fylde Borough Council

  Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

  Gedling Borough Council

  Gloucester City Council

  Gosport Borough Council

  Gravesham Borough Council

  Great Yarmouth Borough Council

  Halton Borough Council

  Hambleton District Council

  Harrogate Borough Council

  Harrow London Borough Council

  Hart District Council

  Hartlepool Borough Council

  Hastings Borough Council

  Havant Borough Council

  Hertsmere Borough Council

  Horsham District Council

  Hounslow London Borough Council

  Huntingdonshire District Council

  Hyndburn Borough Council

  Ipswich Borough Council

  Isle of Wight Council

  Isles of Scilly Council

  Kennet District Council

  Kerrier District Council

  Kingston upon Hull City Council

  Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council

  9W

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  Lancaster City Council

  Leeds City Council

  Lewes District Council

  Lichfield District Council

  Liverpool City Council

  Luton Borough Council

  Macclesfield Borough Council

  Manchester City Council

  Mansfield District Council

  Medway Council

  Melton Borough Council

  Mid Bedfordshire District Council

  Mid Suffolk District Council

  Mid Sussex District Council

  Middlesbrough Borough Council

  Mole Valley District Council

  New Forest District Council

  Newark & Sherwood District Council

  Newcastle upon Tyne City Council

  North Cornwall District Council

  North Devon District Council

  North Dorset District Council

  North East Derbyshire District Council

  North East Lincolnshire Council

  North Lincolnshire Council

  North Norfolk District Council

  North Shropshire District Council

  North Somerset Council

  North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough

  Council

  North Warwickshire Borough Council

  Northampton Borough Council

  Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council

  Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council

  Oswestry Borough Council

  Pendle Borough Council

  Peterborough City Council

  Poole Borough Council

  Portsmouth City Council

  Preston Borough Council

  Purbeck District Council

  Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council

  Redditch Borough Council

  Reigate and Banstead Borough Council

  Restormel Borough Council

  Ribble Valley Borough Council

  Richmondshire District Council

  Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council

  Rossendale Borough Council

  Rother District Council

  Rotherham Borough Council

  Rugby Borough Council

  Runnymede Borough Council

  Rushcliffe Borough Council

  Ryedale District Council

  Salford City Council

  Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

  Scarborough Borough Council

  Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council

  Sevenoaks District Council

  Sheffield City Council

  Dover District Council

  Durham City Council

  Easington District Council

  East Devon District Council

  East Dorset District Council

  East Hampshire District Council

  East Northamptonshire District Council

  East Riding of Yorkshire Council

  East Staffordshire Borough Council

  Eastbourne Borough Council

  Eastleigh Borough Council

  Eden District Council Council

  Ellesmere Port and Neston Borough

  Council

  Elmbridge Borough Council

  Enfield London Borough Council

  Epping Forest District Council

  Epsom and Ewell Borough Council

  Erewash Borough Council

  Exeter City Council

  Fareham Borough Council

  Fylde Borough Council

  Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

  Gedling Borough Council

  Gloucester City Council

  Gosport Borough Council

  Gravesham Borough Council

  Great Yarmouth Borough Council

  Halton Borough Council

  Hambleton District Council

  Harrogate Borough Council

  Harrow London Borough Council

  Hart District Council

  Hartlepool Borough Council

  Hastings Borough Council

  Havant Borough Council

  Hertsmere Borough Council

  Horsham District Council

  10W

  Hounslow London Borough Council

  Huntingdonshire District Council

  Hyndburn Borough Council

  Ipswich Borough Council

  Isle of Wight Council

  Isles of Scilly Council

  Kennet District Council

  Kerrier District Council

  Kingston upon Hull City Council

  Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  Lancaster City Council

  Leeds City Council

  Lewes District Council

  Lichfield District Council

  Liverpool City Council

  Luton Borough Council

  Macclesfield Borough Council

  Manchester City Council

  Mansfield District Council

  Medway Council

  Melton Borough Council

  Mid Bedfordshire District Council

  Mid Suffolk District Council

  Mid Sussex District Council

  Middlesbrough Borough Council

  Mole Valley District Council

  New Forest District Council

  Newark & Sherwood District Council

  Newcastle upon Tyne City Council

  North Cornwall District Council

  North Devon District Council

  North Dorset District Council

  North East Derbyshire District Council

  North East Lincolnshire Council

  North Lincolnshire Council

  North Norfolk District Council

  North Shropshire District Council

  North Somerset Council

  North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough

  Council

  North Warwickshire Borough Council

  Northampton Borough Council

  Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council

  Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council

  Oswestry Borough Council

  Pendle Borough Council

  Peterborough City Council

  Poole Borough Council

  Portsmouth City Council

  Preston Borough Council

  Purbeck District Council

  Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council

  Redditch Borough Council

  Reigate and Banstead Borough Council

  Restormel Borough Council

  Ribble Valley Borough Council

  Richmondshire District Council

  Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council

  Rossendale Borough Council

  Rother District Council

  Rotherham Borough Council

  Rugby Borough Council

  Runnymede Borough Council

  Rushcliffe Borough Council

  Ryedale District Council

  Salford City Council

  Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

  Scarborough Borough Council

  Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council

  Sevenoaks District Council

  Sheffield City Council

  Shepway District Council

  South Cambridgeshire District Council

  South Gloucestershire Council

  South Northamptonshire District Council

  South Ribble Borough Council

  South Staffordshire District Council

  South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough

  Council

  Southampton City Council

  Southwark London Borough Council

  St Edmundsbury Borough Council

  St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  Stafford Borough Council

  Staffordshire Moorlands District Council

  Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

  Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

  Stoke-on-Trent City Council

  Stroud District Council

  Suffolk Coastal District Council

  Sunderland City Council

  Surrey Heath Borough Council

  Sutton London Borough Council

  11W

  Swale Borough Council

  Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council

  Tamworth Borough Council

  Tandridge District Council

  Taunton Deane Borough Council

  Teignbridge District Council

  Telford and Wrekin Council

  Tendring District Council

  Test Valley Borough Council

  Tewkesbury Borough Council

  Thanet District Council

  Tonbridge & Mailing Borough Council

  Torbay Borough Council

  Torridge District Council

  Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council

  Tynedale District Council

  Vale of White Horse District Council

  Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council

  Wansbeck District Council

  Warrington Council

  Warwick District Council

  Waveney District Council

  Waverley Borough Council

  Wealden District Council

  Wear Valley District Council

  Wellingborough District Council

  Welwyn Hatfield District Council

  West Devon Borough Council

  West Dorset District Council

  West Lancashire District Council

  West Oxfordshire District Council

  Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council

  Winchester City Council

  Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

  Woking Borough Council

  Wolverhampton Metropolitan Borough

  Council

  Worcester City Council

  Worthing Borough Council

  Wychavon District Council

  Wycombe District Council

  Wyre Borough Council

  York City Council

  The following local authorities have not produced policy statements:

  Ashfield District Council

  Aylesbury Vale District Council

  Babergh District Council

  Barking and Dagenham London

  Borough Council

  Barnet London Borough Council

  Basildon District Council

  Basingstoke and Deane Borough

  Council

  Bath & North East Somerset Council

  Blaby District Council

  Boston Borough Council

  Bracknell Forest Borough Council

  Bradford City Council

  Breckland Council

  Brent London Borough Council

  Brentwood Borough Council

  Bridgnorth District Council

  Brighton and Hove Council

  Broadland District Council

  Bromsgrove District Council

  Broxbourne Borough Council

  Cambridge City Council

  Cannock Chase District Council

  Carrick District Council

  Castle Point Borough Council

  Chelmsford Borough Council

  Chester-le-Street District Council

  Chiltern District Council

  City of London

  Colchester Borough Council

  Corby Borough Council

  Craven District Council

  Crawley Borough Council

  Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council

  Croydon London Borough Council

  Dacorum Borough Council

  Dartford Borough Council

  Dover District Council

  Durham City Council

  Easington District Council

  East Devon District Council

  East Dorset District Council

  East Hampshire District Council

  East Northamptonshire District Council

  East Riding of Yorkshire Council

  East Staffordshire Borough Council

  Eastbourne Borough Council

  Eastleigh Borough Council

  Eden District Council

  Ellesmere Port and Neston Borough

  Council

  Elmbridge Borough Council

  Enfield London Borough Council

  Epping Forest District Council

  Epsom and Ewell Borough Council

  Erewash Borough Council

  Exeter City Council

  12W

  Fareham Borough Council

  Fylde Borough Council

  Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

  Gedling Borough Council

  Gloucester City Council

  Gosport Borough Council

  Gravesham Borough Council

  Great Yarmouth Borough Council

  Halton Borough Council

  Hambleton District Council

  Harrogate Borough Council

  Harrow London Borough Council

  Hart District Council

  Hartlepool Borough Council

  Hastings Borough Council

  Havant Borough Council

  Hertsmere Borough Council

  Horsham District Council

  Hounslow London Borough Council

  Huntingdonshire District Council

  Hyndburn Borough Council

  Ipswich Borough Council

  Isle of Wight Council

  Isles of Scilly Council

  Kennel District Council

  Kerrier District Council

  Kingston upon Hull City Council

  Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  Lancaster City Council

  Leeds City Council

  Lewes District Council

  Lichfield District Council

  Liverpool City Council

  Luton Borough Council

  Macclesfield Borough Council

  Manchester City Council

  Mansfield District Council

  Medway Council

  Melton Borough Council

  Mid Bedfordshire District Council

  Mid Suffolk District Council

  Mid Sussex District Council

  Middlesbrough Borough Council

  Mole Valley District Council

  New Forest District Council

  Newark & Sherwood District Council

  Newcastle upon Tyne City Council

  North Cornwall District Council

  North Devon District Council

  North Dorset District Council

  North East Derbyshire District Council

  North East Lincolnshire Council

  North Lincolnshire Council

  North Norfolk District Council

  North Shropshire District Council

  North Somerset Council

  North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough

  Council

  North Warwickshire Borough Council

  Northampton Borough Council

  Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council

  Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council

  Oswestry Borough Council

  Pendle Borough Council

  Peterborough City Council

  Poole Borough Council

  Portsmouth City Council

  Preston Borough Council

  Purbeck District Council

  Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council

  Redditch Borough Council

  Reigate and Banstead Borough Council

  Restormel Borough Council

  Ribble Valley Borough Council

  Richmondshire District Council

  Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council

  Rossendale Borough Council

  Rother District Council

  Rotherham Borough Council

  Rugby Borough Council

  Runnymede Borough Council

  Rushcliffe Borough Council

  Ryedale District Council

  Salford City Council

  Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

  Scarborough Borough Council

  Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council

  Sevenoaks District Council

  Sheffield City Council

  Shepway District Council

  South Cambridgeshire District Council

  South Gloucestershire Council

  South Northamptonshire District Council

  South Ribble Borough Council

  South Staffordshire District Council

  South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough

  Council

  13W

  Southampton City Council

  Southwark London Borough Council

  St Edmundsbury Borough Council

  St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  Stafford Borough Council

  Staffordshire Moorlands District Council

  Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

  Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

  Stoke-on-Trent City Council

  Stroud District Council

  Suffolk Coastal District Council

  Sunderland City Council

  Surrey Heath Borough Council

  Sutton London Borough Council

  Swale Borough Council

  Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council

  Tamworth Borough Council

  Tandridge District Council

  Taunton Deane Borough Council

  Teignbridge District Council

  Telford and Wrekin Council

  Tendring District Council

  Test Valley Borough Council

  Tewkesbury Borough Council

  Thanet District Council

  Tonbridge & Mailing Borough Council

  Torbay Borough Council

  Torridge District Council

  Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council

  Tynedale District Council

  Vale of White Horse District Council

  Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council

  Wansbeck District Council

  Warrington Council

  Warwick District Council

  Waveney District Council

  Waverley Borough Council

  Wealden District Council

  Wear Valley District Council

  Wellingborough District Council

  Welwyn Hatfield District Council

  West Devon Borough Council

  West Dorset District Council

  West Lancashire District Council

  West Oxfordshire District Council

  Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council

  Winchester City Council

  Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

  Woking Borough Council

  Wolverhampton Metropolitan Borough

  Council

  Worcester City Council

  Worthing Borough Council

  Wychavon District Council

  Wycombe District Council

  Wyre Borough Council

  York City Council

  The following local authorities have not produced policy statements:

  Ashfleld District Council

  Aylesbury Vale District Council

  Babergh District Council

  Barking and Dagenham London

  Borough Council

  Barnet London Borough Council

  Basildon District Council

  Basingstoke and Deane Borough

  Council

  Bath & North East Somerset Council

  Blaby District Council

  Boston Borough Council

  Bracknell Forest Borough Council

  Bradford City Council

  Breckland Council

  Brent London Borough Council

  Brentwood Borough Council

  Bridgnorth District Council

  Brighton and Hove Council

  Broadland District Council

  Bromsgrove District Council

  Broxbourne Borough Council

  Cambridge City Council

  Cannock Chase District Council

  Carrick District Council

  Castle Point Borough Council

  Chelmsford Borough Council

  Chester-le-Street District Council

  Chiltern District Council

  City of London

  Colchester Borough Council

  Corby Borough Council

  Craven District Council

  Crawley Borough Council

  Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council

  Croydon London Borough Council

  Dacorum Borough Council

  Dartford Borough Council

  Derbyshire Dales District Council

  Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council

  Ealing London Borough Council

  East Cambridgeshire District Council

  14W

  East Hertfordshire District Council

  East Lindsey District Council

  Fenland District Council

  Forest Heath District Council

  Forest of Dean District Council

  Greenwich London Borough Council

  Guildford Borough Council

  Hackney London Borough Council

  Hammersmith and Fulham London

  Borough Council

  Harborough District Council

  Haringey London Borough Council

  Harlow District Council

  Havering London Borough Council

  Herefordshire Council

  High Peak Borough Council

  Hillingdon London Borough Council

  Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council

  Islington London Borough Council

  Kensington and Chelsea Royal Council

  Kettering Borough Council

  King's Lynn & West Norfolk Borough

  Council

  Kingston upon Thames Royal Borough

  Lambeth London Borough Council

  Leicester City Council

  Lewisham London Borough Council

  Lincoln City Council

  Maidstone Borough Council

  Maldon District Council

  Malvern Hills District Council

  Mendip District Council

  Merton London Borough Council

  Mid Devon District Council

  Milton Keynes Council

  Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council

  Newham London Borough Council

  North Hertfordshire District Council

  North Kesteven District Council

  North West Leicestershire District

  Council

  North Wiltshire District Council

  Norwich City Council

  Nottingham City Council

  Oadby and Wigston Borough Council

  Oxford City Council

  Penwith District Council

  Plymouth City Council

  Reading Borough Council

  Redbridge London Borough Council

  Richmond upon Thames London

  Borough Council

  Rochford District Council

  Rushmoor Borough Council

  Salisbury District Council

  Sedgefield Borough Council

  Sedgemoor District Council

  Selby District Council

  Shrewsbury & Atcham Borough Council

  Slough Borough Council

  Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council

  South Bedfordshire District Council

  South Bucks District Council

  South Derbyshire District Council

  South Hams District Council

  South Holland District Council

  South Kesteven District Council

  South Lakeland District Council

  South Norfolk District Council

  South Oxfordshire District Council

  South Shropshire District Council

  South Somerset District Council

  Southend-on-Sea Borough Council

  Spelthorne Borough Council

  St Albans District Council

  Stevenage Borough Council

  Stratford-on-Avon District Council

  Swindon Borough Council

  Teesdale District Council

  Telford and Wrekin Council

  Three Rivers District Council

  Thurrock Borough Council

  Tower Hamlets London Borough Council

  Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

  Uttlesford District Council

  Vale Royal Borough Council

  Wakefield City Council

  Waltham Forest London Borough

  Council

  Wandsworth London Borough Council

  Watford Borough Council

  West Berkshire Council

  15W

  West Lindsey District Council

  West Somerset District Council

  West Wiltshire District Council

  Westminster City Council

  Weymouth & Portland Borough Council

  Windsor & Maidenhead Royal Borough

  Wokingham Council

  Wyre Forest District Council

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place in the Library the documentation and advice given in respect of tax treatment of grants given under the Foot and Mouth Recovery Fund. [77539]

  Alun Michael
  It is for the Inland Revenue and local tax offices to advise on the tax treatment of income, including Business Recovery Fund grants.

  Livestock Movements
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to require the computers at the RPA and the BCMS to be made compatible; and if she will make a statement. [79318]

  Alun Michael
  The new computer system being developed for bovine schemes under the RPA Change Programme will provide interfaces to current systems such as the BCMS database.

  A major investment in IT improvements is also being made at the BCMS. The system will be moved onto a more secure platform and a facility will be developed to provide for the issue of "statements" to producers showing details of the animals recorded on their holdings.

  Public Paths
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many roads used as public paths have yet to have their usage reviewed by the relevant surveying authority in accordance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. [79380]

  Alun Michael
  A highway authority survey carried out in 1999 found that 4,166 roads used as a public path have been reclassified in accordance with section 54 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, with 3,305 still to be reviewed.

  Recruitment (Over-50s)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of new recruits to her Department in the past two years were aged 50 and over. [79312]

  Alun Michael
  Information is available from the date of the creation of the new Department (Defra) on 9 June 2001.

  The percentage of new recruits to core-Defra, between 9 June 2001 and 31

  March 2002, who were aged 50 or over, is 7.2 per cent.

  Religious Slaughter
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to improve the welfare of animals slaughtered by religious methods; and if she will make a statement. [78466]

  Mr. Morley
  There are already detailed requirements governing the religious slaughter of animals and birds laid down in Schedule 12 of the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 (as amended). Although we are currently in the process of making some further amendments to the regulations, none of these changes are to Schedule 12. However we are in the process of producing draft Codes of Practice on the slaughter of animals and poultry, including religious slaughter, with the aim of improving the welfare of animals and birds at slaughter. In addition, the Farm Animal Welfare Council (the Government's advisory body on farmed animal welfare matters) is currently preparing a report on the welfare of farmed livestock (red meat animals) at slaughter, including livestock slaughtered by religious methods.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much has been spent by her Department and its predecessors on research and development in each of the last 15 years broken down by category. [78591]

  Alun Michael
  Breaking down the figure spent on research and development programmes, by category, for DEFRA, former MAFF, DETR and DOE for each of the last 15 years could be achieved only at disproportionate cost. A full picture of the current DEFRA research programme, including details of all projects, can be found on the DEFRA website http://www.defra.gov.uk/research.

  Sea Angling
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list those who have expressed interest in her proposal for research into the economic contribution of sea angling. [77263]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 30 October 2002]: Defra holds in confidence details of the institutions expressing an interest because the information is commercially sensitive and its disclosure might create difficulties for the remainder of the tender exercise. It would therefore be inappropriate to give details of the institutions. The identity of the researcher who is selected will be made public once the contract has been let.

  Third Countries Fisheries Agreements
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list those third countries with which the EU has concluded mutual fisheries agreements; and how much Community money has been granted to each state. [77250]
  17W
  Mr. Morley
  There are currently 20 fisheries agreements in force between the European Community and third countries. These can be classified into three main types:

  Reciprocal-where community fishermen obtain rights to fish in the waters of a third country and in return fishermen from the third country have rights to fish in EU waters;

  Classical-where the European Union pays for access for EU vessels to fish in the waters of a third country and where skippers pay for licences and in some cases for the amount of fish caught; and

  Mixed-a mixture of both the reciprocal and classical.

  The table shows the third countries with which the EU has fisheries agreements, the type of agreement and the sum paid by the EU where applicable.

  euro

  Third Country Agreements

  Country

  Agreement type

  Annual cost 2002

  Angola

  classical

  15,500,000

  Cape Verde

  classical

  680,000

  Comores

  classical

  350,250

  Faroe

  reciprocal

  —

  Gabon

  classical

  1,262,500

  Greenland

  mixed

  42,820,000

  Guinea Bissau

  classical

  10,000,000

  Republic of Guinea

  classical

  2,960,000

  Iceland

  reciprocal

  —

  Ivory Coast

  classical

  957,500

  Lithuania

  mixed

  —

  Madagascar

  classical

  825,000

  Mauritania

  classical

  86,000,000

  Mauritius

  classical

  825,000

  Norway

  reciprocal

  —

  Poland

  reciprocal

  —

  Russia

  reciprocal

  —

  Sao Tomé e Principe

  classical

  925,000

  Senegal

  classical

  16,000,000

  Seychelles

  classical

  3,480,000

  Vital Villages Initiative
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the budget is for 2002–03 of the vital villages initiative; and what the future projections for this figure are. [79062]

  Alun Michael
  The budget for vital villages for 2002–03 is £10.41 million, which is split as follows:

  Parish plans: £1.35 million

  Community service grants: £4.82 million

  Parish transport grants: £4.24 million

  Future projections will emerge from the current corporate planning process following the outcome of the 2002 Spending Review.

  Water (Unpowered Craft Access)
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what further progress she has made on increasing access to water for non-powered craft; and if she will make a statement. [79076]
  18W
  Alun Michael
  Our research report, Water-Based Sport and Recreation: the facts was published in December 2001. This is a wide-ranging report which touches on the responsibilities of several Government Departments and agencies and we have been working with them in deciding how best to take this forward.

  While none of the issues are new or straightforward to resolve, I am committed to finding solutions wherever possible.

  As a first step I have asked the Countryside Agency (in partnership with other agencies) to pilot some demonstration projects to develop best practice for access agreements on key stretches of water.

  Water Framework Directive
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how she will ensure that transposition of the Water Framework Directive in England and Wales will contribute to the mitigation of floods and droughts. [76384]

  Mr. Morley
  The Directive is concerned with achieving water quality objectives (article 4). While it does not set objectives for flood and drought mitigation, the overall effect of the actions to protect and improve water quality required by the Directive will contribute to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts (article 1(e)).

  Draft regulations to transpose the Directive, including articles 1 and 4 will be included in a consultation paper to be published next year.

  In addition, my Department will be working closely with the Environment Agency and others to ensure appropriate links are made between river basin management and flood risk management planning.

  Water Policy
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when she will be publishing the water policy document for England. [79448]

  Mr. Morley
  The document entitled "Directing the Flow—priorities for future water policy" will be published on 5 November. It is intended to be a high-level policy document and strengthens the integration of water policy with other policy areas. The document takes the first steps towards setting out our strategic aims and summarising our proposed future priorities and direction for the water environment, water resources and water management. It aims to take a long-term view, looking at the next 20 years and beyond and setting the context within which specific actions will need to be taken. Copies of the document will be deposited in the House Libraries and will also be available on DEFRA's internet site (www.defra.gov.uk/ environment/water/index.htm).

CABINET OFFICE

  Digital Television
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office for what reason UK online interactive is(a) being solely provided on British Sky Broadcasting digital television and (b) not being provided on BBC digital television. [77884]

  Mr. Alexander
  It is our continued intention to make UK online interactive available on all available digital television platforms where technically possible. We are working to do this.

  The BBC operates two of the six UK digital television multiplexes but were unable to make these available to UK online interactive due to the lack of capacity. We are actively exploring the opportunity to use one of the remaining multiplexes not controlled by the BBC.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what discussions he has had with eight coastal local authorities along the possible route of ships carrying nuclear waste from Japan to Sellafield on the subject of emergency planning. [68091]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  I understand there are no plans for the shipment of nuclear waste from Japan to Sellafield at this time. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency discuss emergency planning with coastal local authorities on a general basis and not related to specific shipments.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what discussions he has had with the(a) Government of the Republic of Ireland, (b) National Assembly for Wales, (c) Northern Irish Assembly and (d) Scottish Executive on the subject of emergency planning in respect of ships carrying nuclear waste to Sellafield. [68092]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have had no discussions with any of the bodies mentioned, however the Maritime and Coastguard Agency have been in discussions with officials from the Government of the Republic of Ireland on a more general emergency response basis.

  UK Online Interactive Project
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the consequences for phase one of the UK online interactive project were of the end of ITV interactive's involvement. [77885]

  Mr. Alexander
  ITV Digital closed its interactive services on 1 May 2002. From that point onwards some 225,000 previous ITV Active subscribers were not able to access UK online interactive using ITV digital equipment. The UK online interactive service continued to be available to about 7 million users of Sky digital receivers.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Benefit Initiatives
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 24 July 2002,Official Report, column 1349W, if she will, for each pilot and pathfinder initiative listed, give the criteria for the selection of the local authorities benefiting; whether all local authorities were invited to apply; by what criteria invitations to apply were allocated; where local authorities were invited to apply; which did so; and whether elements of local authority matched funding were required. [76177]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  Child Deprivation (Funding)
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the maximum extra funding is that a child can receive under the ethnicity and other factors. [78611]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The existing Education Standard Spending Assessment does not identify children with additional educational needs, so it is not possible to give the maximum funding that an LEA receives for a child through ethnicity and other factors. Under the proposals issued for consultation on 8 July, the number of children with additional educational needs due to poverty and ethnicity or language needs is estimated for each authority, which receives a top-up for each such child, either for poverty or for ethnicity or language needs, but not for both. Decisions on the top-ups, and their level, will be announced by the beginning of December.

  Connexions
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much has been spent to date by the Connexions service on(a) literature design, (b) printing of literature and (c) consultancy fees related to the production of literature for each region in which it operates. [77352]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: The amounts spent by Connexions Partnerships on literature (which is interpreted here as promotional material) vary according to the length of time partnerships have been operational. (The first phase of partnerships went live in April 2001 and the most recent in October 2002.) The table presents regional data on partnerships' cumulative expenditure from the date they went live. It has not been possible in all cases to disaggregate figures for design, printing and consultancy as some partnerships group these together and/or contract with one provider to supply all three services (these appear as "merged costs" in the table).
  21W

  Connexions partnership spend to date on literature by region

  £ Region

  Total spend

  Design

  Print

  Consultancy

  Merged costs

  North West

  390,612

  —

  —

  —

  390,612

  West Midlands

  341,588

  12,930

  50,855

  7,453

  270,350

  London

  251,321

  32,205

  90,341

  25,375

  103,400

  Yorkshire and Humber

  154,002

  29,669

  39,383

  15,242

  69,708

  South West

  144,674

  16,390

  78,650

  —

  49,634

  South East

  69,093

  3,750

  7,960

  —

  57,383

  East

  61,695

  8,189

  25,756

  1,750

  26,000

  East Midlands

  34,069

  —

  —

  —

  34,069

  North East

  47,361

  —

  —

  —

  47,361

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his latest estimate is of the number of vacancies in the construction industry in each region of the country. [78480]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 31 October 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr Charles Hendry, dated 4 November 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question concerning the latest estimate of the number of vacancies in the construction industry in each region of the country (78480).
  The only comprehensive information about current job vacancies analysed by industry is the new monthly enterprise-based ONS Vacancy Survey, which at this stage is being published on an experimental basis. According to this survey there were 21,400 job vacancies in the construction industry on average for the period July to September 2002 for the United Kingdom as a whole. The design of the sample survey means it is not presently possible to provide regional analysis of vacancies on a reliable basis.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he intends to reply in full to the letter to his predecessor dated 22 August 2002 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Geoffrey Walker. [78344]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  A reply was issued on 12 September.

  Education Funding
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment his Department has made of Option 5 in the review of the level of funding for education. [78842]

  Mr. Miliband
  I refer my hon Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on 24 October 2002,Official Report, column 399.

  Education SSA
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many of the authorities that have more than 10 per cent. of children in their schools,22W
  whose mother tongue is believed not to be English, spent below their education SSA in the last year for which figures are available. [78612]

  Mr. Miliband
  The table shows, for those authorities where there are more than 10 per cent. of pupils in primary and secondary schools whose mother tongue is known or believed not to be English, the difference between budgeted spend and Education Standard Spending Assessment, for 2002–03. Of the 49 LEAs in this category, 33 budgeted to spend above Education SSA for 2002–03.

  £ million

  SSA

  Spend

  Difference

  Barking and Dagenham

  102.9

  103.2

  0.3

  Barnet

  161.9

  164.1

  2.1

  Birmingham

  578.5

  605.5

  27.1

  Blackburn

  79.2

  81.5

  2.3

  Bolton

  134.8

  135.0

  0.3

  Bradford

  267.3

  259.1

  (8.2)

  Brent

  144.5

  135.5

  (9.0)

  Camden

  103.0

  106.8

  3.7

  City of London

  1.0

  2.3

  1.3

  Coventry

  155.5

  161.9

  6.4

  Croydon

  169.2

  170.5

  1.2

  Derby

  112.7

  112.5

  (0.3)

  Ealing

  152.7

  154.4

  1.7

  Enfield

  170.02

  168.2

  (2.0)

  Greenwich

  145.0

  141.8

  (3.2)

  Hackney

  120.7

  112.7

  (8.0)

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  77.0

  77.0

  0.1

  Haringey

  134.3

  134.3

  0.0

  Harrow

  95.8

  97.3

  1.4

  Hillingdon

  134.1

  132.4

  (1.7)

  Hounslow

  126.4

  124.9

  (1.5)

  Islington

  104.5

  104.7

  0.2

  Kensington and Chelsea

  48.7

  50.1

  1.4

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  64.9

  67.0

  2.1

  Kirklees

  188.7

  186.9

  (1.7)

  Lambeth

  130.9

  131.2

  0.3

  Leicester

  150.8

  151.5

  0.7

  Lewisham

  147.1

  147.8

  0.7

  Luton

  102.8

  103.0

  0.2

  Manchester

  232.5

  231.7

  (0.8)

  Merton

  74.8

  75.6

  0.7

  Newham

  190.2

  183.2

  (7.0)

  Nottingham City

  128.7

  132.7

  4.0

  Oldham

  122.3

  123.8

  1.6

  Peterborough

  92.6

  91.4

  (1.2)

  Reading

  55.0

  56.0

  1.0

  Redbridge

  144.7

  142.2

  (2.5)

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  60.7

  65.0

  4.4

  Rochdale

  111.1

  109.6

  (1.6)

  Sandwell

  152.6

  154.6

  2.0

  Slough

  70.2

  68.3

  (1.9)

  Southwark

  149.8

  149.8

  0.0

  23W

  £ million

  SSA

  Spend

  Difference

  Tower Hamlets

  167.8

  170.0

  2.1

  Walsall

  143.1

  144.0

  0.9

  Waltham Forest

  131.5

  133.5

  2.0

  Wandsworth

  112.2

  108.8

  (3.4)

  Westminster

  79.7

  87.0

  7.3

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  61.1

  61.5

  0.4

  Wolverhampton

  128.1

  129.9

  1.7

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the SSA per head is in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Staffordshire. [78843]

  Mr. Miliband
  In 2002–03 Staffordshire's Education SSA per primary pupil (aged 5–10) is £2,450 and per secondary pupil (aged 11–15) is £3,140.

  Note:

  Figures in cash terms rounded to the nearest £10

  Ethnicity
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what factors other than language are measured in the ethnicity factor; and what proportion of the ethnicity factor is based on additional language criteria. [78610]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The ethnicity factor in the existing Education Standard Spending Assessment is measured by country of birth data taken from the 1991 national census. Under the proposals issued for consultation on 8 July, two factors are proposed for ethnicity, both taken from the Annual Schools' Census:

  £million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  KS1 SATS

  1.6

  1.6

  1.7

  1.9

  2.2

  KS2 SATS

  3.1

  10.5

  10.6

  11.4

  12.2

  KS3 SATS

  3.5

  10.5

  11.0

  11.9

  13.0

  KS3 SATS 1–3 total

  8.2

  22.6

  23.3

  25.2

  27.4

  GCSE

  86.0

  92.7

  95.8

  102.0

  108.9

  A Level

  36.4

  42.4

  44.4

  59.5

  64.6

  Notes:

  1. Because of budgeting methods, the individual KS1–3 SATS figures are an indicative breakdown of the KS SATs subtotals.

  2. Figures for KS SATS for 1997–98 are from 1 October 1997 (when QCA commenced operations).

  3. Figures for A Level include AS and A2.

  4. Figures for GCSE and A-Level for 2001–02 are estimates.

  F40 Group
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he has had with the F40 group in the review of local government education funding formula to provide a more even funding system for rural and inner city schools. [78877]

  Mr. Miliband
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) on 24 October 2002,Official Report, column 460W.

  Free School Milk
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures he is taking to
  24W
  the first relates to the number of children with language needs; the second relates to the numbers of children in certain low achieving ethnic groups. Decisions on the proportion of funding to be distributed using each factor will be announced by the beginning of December.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what money is planned to pass between the Department and(a) the European Social Fund and (b) the European Regional Development Fund in (i) 2002–03 and (ii) 2003–04. [79072]

  Margaret Hodge
  Overall £502 million of ESF is available in England in 2002–03 and £512 million in 2003–04. The figures for ERDF are £421 million in 2002–03 and £532 million in 2003–04. A significant proportion of ESF and a small proportion of ERDF support the Department for Education and Skills' policy objectives in the English regions. In addition, the Department plans to use £11 million of ESF in 2002–03 and £30 million in 2003–04 to support the development of its national policies and programmes.

  Examinations
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the initial total cost was including production, printing, marking and moderation of(a) KS1 SATS, (b) KS2 SATS, (c) KS3 SATS, (d) GCSE, (e) AS, (f) A Level and (g) A2 for all schools in England and Wales for each of the years from 1997–98 to 2001–02. [76582]

  Mr. Miliband
  The breakdown of expenditure for the KS SATS (England) and GCSE and A Level (England and Wales is as follows:

  promote free milk in schools for children aged up to 11; and if he will list education authorities in the UK which provide free school milk for those aged up to (a) seven and (b) 11 years. [79224]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department supports the provision of free and paid for milk in schools and encourages schools and LEAs to offer it to pupils. Following a 20 percent reduction of the EU subsidy on school milk from January 2001, this Department jointly agreed with the Department of Health and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to top up the 1.5m shortfall. This helped to prevent possible increased costs of school milk provision. This Department does not collect statistics on school milk provision.

  Funding Gap
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of funding is distributed under the AEN for(a) deprivation, (b) ethnicity and (c) area cost adjustment; what criteria are used to access the need for increased funding for ethnicity in secondary and primary schools; and what plans she has to reduce the funding gap between schools. [76274]

  Mr. Miliband
  Under the current system of education standard spending assessments, 19 per cent. of funding is distributed according to additional educational needs, of which 17 per cent. is for deprivation and 2 per cent. is related to ethnicity (as measured by country of birth data taken from the 1991 national census). A further 4 per cent. is distributed through the area cost adjustment. The level of extra funding for ethnicity in the current system is determined by analysis of the spending patterns of local authorities from 1990–91. In the new system of education funding assessments, which will be introduced for 2003–04, the level of extra funding for additional educational needs will be decided on the basis of evidence about pupil characteristics and cost of provision. This will determine the distribution of funding between authorities and will be announced with the local authority finance settlement by early December.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will consult students on the findings of the review of higher education; [77753]

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the Government will consult students on the outcome of the review of higher education. [77778]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: We plan to publish a strategy document setting out our 10-year vision for the development and reform of higher education in January. Once the document is published there will be opportunity for all interested parties to respond.

  Higher Education (Lecturers' Pay)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he expects to achieve the equalisation of pay between further education college and sixth form college lecturers. [78476]

  Margaret Hodge
  Colleges in the further education (FE) sector, including sixth form colleges, are independent corporations with their own pay arrangements. Colleges agree annual pay rises and conditions of employment with their staff in the context of local priorities and the overall resources available to them. There is a nationally recommended pay increase agreed by the employers' representative bodies and the unions but pay arrangements in the sector are diverse, reflecting colleges' local flexibility. Government have no plans to change this arrangement.

  Extra resources have been made available to the FE sector. This year, £4.4 billion has been allocated to FE, an increase of £1.2 billion in five years. Within this, there is £142 million available for the Teaching Pay Initiative,
  26W
  known as the Professional Standards Payment in sixth form colleges, which helps colleges to modernise pay arrangements and to recruit, reward and retain excellent teachers.

  We have already announced that from next year and up to 2005–06 there will be a 1 per cent. annual real terms increase in core funding for FE and three year budgets for colleges which demonstrate their effectiveness. This, plus the additional resources for FE that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be announcing in November to support our Success for All strategy, will present a more stable environment within which general FE and sixth form colleges can plan and negotiate pay levels and arrangements.

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what grants his Department plans to make to NGOs in 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [79078]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This Department works with over a 1000 voluntary and private organisations to which grants are made directly. Many more organisations receive grants via our NDPBs and other agencies, for which we hold no central records. Therefore this question could only be answered at disproportionate cost.

  School Exclusions
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils were permanently excluded from school in each local education authority in each of the last five years. [78475]

  Mr. Miliband
  A table showing the information requested has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  School Repairs
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to(a) publish annual reports on his Department's targets for the rebuilding and repair of school infrastructure and (b) instruct his Department's Service Delivery Agreement to include fresh targets for (i) the number of schools to be rebuilt and remodelled, (ii) the number of schools to be in receipt of substantial repair and (iii) the elimination of the repair backlog by 2005–06; and if he will make a statement. [78894]

  Mr. Miliband
  We have no immediate plans to publish annual reports on the rebuilding and repair of school infrastructures. The Department is currently reviewing its schools capital programme in the light of the outcome of the recent spending review.

  School Tranpsort
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to provide free school bus services for secondary school students in Staffordshire living less than three miles from their schools. [78458]
  27W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Staffordshire county council's bid under the Rural Bus Challenge will be assessed over the next two months by officials in the Department for Transport. They aim to announce the successful schemes early in the new year.

  Schools Finance (Essex)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in Essex suffered a cash budget cut in this financial year. [78478]

  Mr. Miliband
  In Essex local education authority 86 schools had a fall in their cash budget share in 2002–03, but of these only three also had a fall in their cash budget share per pupil. Changes in pupil numbers are the principal reason for changes in budget share from year to year. 493 schools had a rise in their cash budget share, but of these 20 had a fall in their cash budget share per pupil: this was largely in cases where rising rolls led to a lessening of the factor which protects the smallest primary schools.

  The information is taken from data published in the LEAs section 52 budget statements for 2001–02 and 2002–03.

  Special Educational Needs
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what powers he has to make provision for the assessment of special educational needs of children living in accommodation centres. [77803]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Clause 28(1)(f) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill provides Government with the power to provide education in an accommodation centre. Clause 35(7) states that the education provider shall make appropriate facilities available for a child with special educational needs unless it is incompatible with the special educational provision his learning difficulty calls for; the provision of efficient education for other children resident in the centre; or the efficient use of resources. Clause 35(9)(b) empowers the education provider to ask the LEA to conduct a statutory assessment of a child's SEN, under section 329A of the Education Act 1996.

  An LEA's duties under Part IV of the Education Act 1996 to assess, and where necessary, to make provision for children in their area who are of compulsory school age and have special educational needs, will apply to children residing in accommodation centres as such children will be in the area of a LEA for the purposes of this part of the 1996 Act.

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many specialist schools were designated before 1 September 1997; how many such schools and what percentage of the whole were(a) city technology colleges and (b) grant maintained schools; and what the average percentage was of children in receipt of free school meals in (i) specialist schools designated prior to 1 September 1997 and (ii) city technology colleges and grant maintained schools designated as specialist schools before 1 September 1997. [77012]
  28W
  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is as follows:181 specialist schools were designated before 1 September 1997.

  (a) None of these are city technology colleges (CTCs).

  (b) 98 of these are grant maintained secondary schools, which is 54 per cent. of the total.

  Free school meal (FSM) eligibility as at January 2002.

  (a) 13 per cent of pupils attending the 181 specialist schools designated before 1 September 1997 were eligible to receive a free school meal.

  (b) No CTCs are specialist schools, and therefore, are not applicable. 11 per cent. of pupils attending the 98 grant maintained secondary schools were eligible to receive a free school meal.

  Standards Fund
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what amounts per pupil his Department paid to English local education authorities out of the standards fund in 2001–02; [78456]

  (2) what the (a) average amounts paid to English local authorities and (b) actual amounts paid to Staffordshire local education authority per pupil were in respect of (i) educational standard spending, (ii) standards fund and (iii) other special and specific grants in each of the last three years. [78457]

  Mr. Miliband
  The figures showing the amounts allocated to English local education authorities in 2000–01, 2001–02 and 2002–03 to date have been placed in the Library. Education standard spending is an assessment of need rather than grant. Decisions on the new assessment formula for education will be announced in early December. Other special and specific grants include recurrent grants relating to pupils aged 4–19, and exclude grants for children aged below four years and education maintenance allowances.

  Student Loans
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what plans he has to increase the interest rate on student loans; and if he will make a statement. [78778]

  (2) what plans he has to change the threshold over which graduates are required to repay student loans; and if will make a statement. [78780]

  (3) when he intends to publish his Department's review of post-16 student support. [78781]

  Margaret Hodge
  We intend to publish a strategy document setting out our vision for the development and reform of higher education, including the outcome of the student support review, in January. We will set out our policies on student loans and post 16 student support in that document.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has
  29W
  had with the US Government about the delivery of aid to Afghanistan; and if she will make a statement. [76953]

  Clare Short
  During a recent visit to Washington and a return visit to London I met the head of USAID Andrew Natsios, during which we discussed the situation in Afghanistan. We noted that considerable progress had been made and an estimated $1.3 billion of $1.8 billion pledged at Tokyo for Afghanistan had now been disbursed. However, much remains to be done. I also met with General McNeill in Afghanistan last week to discuss humanitarian and security issues. We will continue to work with UN and bilateral agencies to try to ensure that Afghanistan's humanitarian needs are properly resourced.

  I have also recently agreed to contribute towards clearance of Afghanistan's outstanding arrears to the Asia Development Bank and World Bank in order that more finance can be made available for the reconstruction effort.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  Asked the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with ministers from other governments who promised aid to Afganistan and are yet to deliver it; and if she will make a statement. [76952]

  Clare Short
  All the major doners were represented at an Afghanistan Implementation Group meeting held in Kabul in mid October. This meeting revealed that delivery of pledges was now less of a problem than had previously been the case, with the overall picture looking good: of the $1.8 billion pledged at Tokoyo for 2002, it is estimated that up to $1.3 billion has been disbursed. The key issue as set out by the Afghans at the IG is now that future support is channelled in the most effective way in accordance with Afghanistan's budget priorities.

  Agricultural Commodities
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if it is her policy to support(a) co-operation between coffee producing governments to stop more beans entering the market than can be sold and (b) the scheme agreed by coffee producing governments to reduce supply by increasing the quality of coffee traded. [78053]

  Clare Short
  The UK Government support the objectives of the 2001 International Coffee Agreement. Co-operation between coffee producing governments to restrict supplies entering the market has been pursued a number of times in the past without much success. The Coffee Retention Plan agreed in 2000 by the Association of Coffee Producing Countries was formally abandoned earlier this year.

  The International Coffee Organisation (ICO) Quality Initiative started on 1 October 2002 and has the backing of all ICO producing and consuming countries. The scheme is voluntary and requests that producer members do not export coffee below certain standards set by the organisation. Although the scheme has deficiencies and may cause problems for some exporters it is seen by most producers as a step in the right direction.
  30W
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to assist producer countries in capturing more value from agricultural commodities. [78055]

  Clare Short
  DFID is working with developing countries to strengthen their capacity in trade. We are also working to tackle tariff and non-tariff barriers to developing country agricultural exports, especially those that exist in the European Union. It is also important to ensure that a greater proportion of value added, including through processing, is retained in the developing country of origin. DFID provides support to initiatives that provide more timely market information, contributes to improvements in essential infrastructure (including energy and transport) and works to ensure appropriate legal regulatory frameworks exist to promote investment.

  CDC Capital Partners
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the publications in which the post of the new chief executive of CDC Capital Partners was advertised. [78667]

  Clare Short
  The vacancy was advertised in the Financial Times on 5 September 2002, and in The Economist for that week.

  Coffee
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how her Department is helping small coffee producers in developing countries to diversify into alternative livelihoods following the sustained decline in world prices. [78054]

  Clare Short
  Addressing commodity problems, including those arising from a sustained decline in prices, requires the establishment of a more favourable environment, at both domestic and international level, in order to reduce commodity dependence and encourage value added through processing.

  The UK, through its development programme and other endeavours, is supporting a range of actions that seek to expand the trade opportunities for commodity dependent countries. The UK also lends support to a variety of activities within the countries themselves in order to generate the economic growth, and other conditions, that provide enhanced opportunities for livelihood diversification.

  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact of the low price of unprocessed coffee on the livelihoods of coffee producers. [78052]

  Clare Short
  The UK forms part of the European Community's delegation to the International Coffee Organisation (ICO) and which deliberates on coffee matters. In 2001, the ICO organised the first World Coffee Conference and which drew attention to the challenges posed by low coffee prices. The UK is also a member of the Common Fund for Commodities which has a particular interest in the livelihoods of commodity dependent peoples, particularly in the least developed countries.
  31W
  The main cause of low coffee prices is oversupply, with production far exceeding consumption. Many poor smallholder farmers, particularly in Africa and Latin America, are dependent on coffee for a livelihood. The dramatic fall in prices has therefore had, and continues to have a significant livelihood and development concerns.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department is providing to help small coffee producers in developing countries to diversify into alternative livelihoods. [78205]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 30 October 2002]: The current situation of historically low coffee prices is having a significant effect on the livelihoods of very large numbers of coffee producers (who are predominantly smallholders) and those working in related industries and services. The income that people derive from the production and sale of commodities like coffee is influenced by a number of market (price, quality requirements) and non-market (pests and disease, weather etc.) factors. Low prices also have substantial macro-economic effects in terms of foreign exchange earnings, income to the exchequer and hence on debt repayment. Many of the poorest countries, particularly in Africa, remain dependent on a narrow range of commodity exports of which coffee is but one example.

  The UK, through its development programme and by working at international level, supports programmes that seek to expand the trade opportunities for poor countries and improve the economic, social, environmental and political framework within which commodity-dependent people derive a livelihood. Diversification, both horizontal (into other economic activities or crops) and vertical (greater participation in value-adding activities within the coffee value chain such as processing) forms an important element of this broader approach.

  In many countries we are assisting governments to develop poverty reduction strategies that address the needs of poor producers, taking into account commodity dependence. Ghana, Tanzania and Uganda are examples. We also support capacity building of individuals and producer organisations to better enable them to explore alternative markets and options and engage in the supply chain.

  DFID provides support to producers and producer groups to meet the growing range of quality (eg food safety) and performance criteria (eg environmental; social) that increasingly characterise developed country market requirements. We also fund research on smaller producers (eg integrated pest management, germplasm quality, post-harvest management) that aims to provide effective and low-cost solutions for those seeking to diversify both vertically and horizontally.

  DFID is also working hard to ensure that pressure is maintained for pro-poor trade reform (including CAP reform)—to ensure that any diversification efforts by poor coffee producers in developing countries are not undermined by unfair trade arrangements. We are also, with other Whitehall Departments, working to ensure that the Common Fund for Commodities is more poverty focused.

  Country Strategy Papers
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the countries for which her Department has produced country strategy papers. [78972]

  Clare Short
  Since 1998 DFID has produced country strategy papers for the following countries:

  Albania

  Bangladesh

  Bolivia (first edition 1998, revised 2002)

  Bosnia and Herzegovina

  Brazil

  Bulgaria

  Burma

  Cambodia

  Cameroon

  China (first edition 1998, revised 2002)

  Croatia

  Czech Republic

  Ghana

  Guyana

  Hungary

  India

  Indonesia

  Jamaica

  Jordan

  Kenya

  Kosovo

  Malawi

  Moldova

  Montserrat (policy paper)

  Mozambique

  Nepal

  Nigeria

  Peru

  Poland

  Romania

  Russia (first edition 1998, revised 2001)

  Rwanda

  Slovak Republic

  South Africa

  Sri Lanka

  Tanzania

  Uganda

  Ukraine (first edition 1998, revised 2001)

  Vietnam

  Windward Islands

  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe

  33W
  In addition, we have produced the following regional strategy papers:
  Baltic States (covering Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania)
  Central America (El Salvador, Guatemala. Honduras, Nicaragua)
  Central Asia and South Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan)
  Pacific (Fiji, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Tonga, Samoa, Cook Islands, Kiribati, Tuvalu, Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau)
  Southern Africa (Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland)

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what(a) financial and (b) other assistance her Department (i) is providing and (ii) plans to provide to the Government of DRC; and if she will make a statement. [77553]

  Clare Short
  To date UK assistance to DRC has focused on humanitarian and peace building assistance provided through the UN and international NGOs. We have had no direct Government-to-Government assistance programme. However once an inclusive transitional Government has been agreed, the UK will be willing to consider providing direct assistance to the Government of DRC. In the short term we are considering options for Quick start initiatives to demonstrate to the people of DRC the benefits of peace. In the medium term we plan to provide assistance in a number of sectors where we believe we can best add value such as disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) and support to the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) process. We will also continue our humanitarian and peace building activities, and will support re-engagement in the DRC by the international financial institutions (IFIs).

  Dr. Cable
  Asked the Secretary of State for International Development how many(a) UN Force and (b) MONUC representatives are in the Democratic Republic of Congo; what plans there are to send British troops there; what plans there are to increase the number of MONUC representatives; and if she will make a statement. [77641]

  Clare Short
  On 30 September the UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUC) comprised 4,309 uniformed personnel (military observers, troops and civilian police), and 1,185 civilian personnel. Five of these military observers have been provided by the United Kingdom. There are no plans to send British troops to the DRC.

  Last month the Secretary General of the UN (UNSG) produced a report on MONUC's activities, which is now being discussed by the UN Security Council. The principal recommendation of the report is that the cap on MONUC's military personnel be increased from 5,537 to 7,500. We are encouraging the UNSG to get MONUC more focused and effective on DDR, particularly in eastern DRC.

  We warmly welcomed the Pretoria and Luanda Agreements which Rwanda and Uganda respectively signed with DRC as major breakthroughs towards peace in the region. We are working closely with all three
  34W
  governments, and that of Burundi, as well as the South Africans and the UNSG who are the third parties in the Pretoria Agreement, to ensure full implementation of these Agreements.

  Education
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of the new money announced for International Development in the CSR will be spent on basic education; and how much this represents in real terms. [78217]

  Clare Short
  Improving education outcomes for poor people is not primarily about donor resources. We are working to help partner Governments put the policies and plans in place which will enable them to accelerate the achievement of universal primary completion. The resources allocated to this will therefore depend on individual country circumstances—but the international community has already made it clear that no country seriously committed to Education for All will be thwarted by lack of resources.

  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when her Department will announce what resources it will put into the Fast Track Initiative on Education. [78218]

  Clare Short
  Our approach to the Fast Track Initiative is to help partner Governments put the policies and plans in place which will enable them to accelerate the achievement of universal primary completion. As plans emerge from individual countries, the resources required for implementation will be discussed at the country level. We will determine through this process any additional resources from my Department.

  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to support education in the Fast Track countries on the list. [78219]

  Clare Short
  My Department in engaged in over half of the countries included in the Fast Track Initiative. We are working with Governments to improve education policies and plans through a variety of mechanisms, including direct budget support, sectoral budget support and bilateral projects.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of her Department's budget she expects to be spent on basic education in the next three years. [78207]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer sent 30 October 2002]: The Government have committed over £700 million to basic education since 1997. At Kananaskis we joined other G8 countries in pledging to increase our bilateral assistance for countries that have demonstrated a strong and credible policy and financial commitment to the goals of achieving universal primary education for all children and equal access to education for girls. We are working closely with partner Governments to help them improve their education policies and plans: actual expenditure will therefore depend on progress made in individual countries.
  35W
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much the Government have contributed to the Education for All plan for each of the last seven years for which records are available. [78009]

  Clare Short
  The Government have committed over £700 million to basic education since 1997. Annual figures are not readily available.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what target sum she has agreed with her counterparts in other countries should be set for the total budget for the World Bank Education for All programme. [78010]

  Clare Short
  Improving education outcomes for poor people is not primarily dependant on donor resources but on political commitment at country level. We are working to try to ensure that the Education for All initiative adds value to the efforts to deliver universal primary education by 2015. The resources allocated to this will depend on individual country circumstances. We and the international community have already made it clear that no country seriously committed to Education for All will be thwarted by lack of resources.

  Iraq
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether the WHO study of possible increased cancer rates in southern Iraq and their causes has begun; and what the UK contribution to the study is proposed to be. [77683]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 29 October 2002]: The World Health Organisation's (WHO) study has not begun. My Department has not been asked by the WHO for any contribution.

  Libya
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of(a) poverty levels and (b) human rights abuses in Libya. [78672]

  Clare Short
  Libya is an Upper Middle Income Country with an annual GDP per capita of $7,570 (UN Human Development Report 2001). DFID has no plans to provide assistance to Libya and we have thus not made any detailed assessment of poverty levels or human rights abuses. The FCO's assessment is that Libya's record on human rights is not good, but there are recent signs of improvement (including the release of remaining political prisoners), and Libya is expected to continue to show a commitment to improving its human rights record during its period as chair of the UN Commission on Human Rights.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what projects her Department supports that operate in Libya. [78721]

  Clare Short
  None.

  Malawi
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made in writing off debt for Malawi; and if she will make a statement. [78445]
  36W
  Clare Short
  Malawi is currently eligible for interim debt relief under the Enhanced HIPC (Heavily Indebted Poor Countries) Initiative amounting to some US$91.4 million in total. Relief in 2001 was about $27 million and is estimated at about $50 million (including Japan) for 2002. This relief should be used for increased spending on health, education, and other social priorities. Subject to satisfactory performance, Malawi is scheduled to reach its HIPC Completion Point in the second half of 2003. At this stage, all of Malawi's eligible debt under the initiative will be irrevocably cancelled.

  Millennium Declaration
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps have been taken to produce an annual report on progress towards the Millennium Declaration. [77571]

  Clare Short
  Following the Millennium summit in September 2000, the UN General Assembly mandated the Secretary General to produce annual reports on "Implementation of the United Nations Millennium Declaration", including progress towards the Millennium Development Goals. The first of these reports (reference A/57/270) is available on the UN website at www.un.org

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of overseas aid provided by the UK is spent on(a) education and (b) health; what steps she is taking to increase this percentage; and if she will make a statement. [78523]

  Clare Short
  The proportion of my Department's bilateral aid programme allocable by sector in 2001–02 was;

  Education: 12 per cent.

  Health and Population: 20 per cent.

  These figures represent expenditure on projects specific to these sectors but do not capture the full extent of our efforts in each policy area because they exclude multisector projects and programmes, strategic funding to civil society organisations and budget support and balance of payments. Also excluded are activities funded through multilateral channels. Education and health and population will remain priorities for future spending. We do not however, support externally imposed targets. We believe support for poverty reduction strategies devoted to meeting the millennium development goals is the right approach and that our programmes should be harmonised with the efforts of other donors behind locally led poverty reduction strategies.

  Police Training (South African Development Community)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether the UK Government is intending to seek an assurance that training on human rights will become a permanent component of police training programmes in the Southern African Development Community region. [77773]
  37W
  Clare Short
  Poor people are particularly vulnerable both to crime and to weaknesses in the justice system. We believe that justice sector reform needs to be a key part of poverty reduction strategies in many countries. Justice programmes supported by my Department in SADC countries aim to promote respect for human rights, both through training, and through strengthening the accountability of the justice sector. Through such programmes we seek to encourage the integration of human rights principles into the training programmes of police services and other professionals in the justice sector.

  Rwanda and Burundi
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about the re-establishment of functioning legal institutions in(a) Rwanda and (b) Burundi. [78089]

  Clare Short
  The re-establishment of effective legal institutions and the rule of law are crucial for successful reconciliation and future development in both countries.
  Rwanda has made significant progress in reestablishing a functioning legal system and rehabilitating the judiciary since the 1994 genocide. The development of a new Constitution will further clarify roles and enable greater effectiveness of the justice system.

  The justice system is overstretched by the need to administer justice to people affected by the genocide. The Government are implementing the community-based justice system of Gacaca, which will relieve pressure on existing overburdened legal structures. The introduction of traditional Gacaca trials for genocide related crimes has an important role to play as a key part of the reconciliation process within Rwandan communities. This mechanism is complementary to national trials for more serious genocide related offences and those at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

  DFID's programme in Rwanda is committed to the strengthening of governance systems and the elimination of poverty, including support to the Gacaca process.

  In Burundi, DFID, with the rest of the international community, is actively supporting the process of implementation of the Arusha Accord for Peace and Reconciliation, which was signed on 28 August 2000. The Arusha Accord includes a Protocol dedicated to democracy and good governance. As well as setting out transitional constitutional and parliamentary arrangements, the Protocol sets out a number of measures aimed at reinforcing the independence of the judiciary and the effectiveness of the justice system. The success of the transition will largely depend on a ceasefire.

  DFID has recently established an office in Burundi, and, in partnership with Government, civil society and the international community, is committed to an increasing effort to bring peace and help restart efforts to develop Burundi's full potential.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with the Norwegian and Sri Lankan Governments about the peace process in Sri Lanka; and if she will make a statement. [77514]

  Clare Short
  I met with Prime Minister Wickremasinghe on 28 May 2002. I have also met with Minister for Economic Reform, Milinda Moragoda, twice this year, most recently when he visited the UK in September. Minister Moragoda is a key member of the Government of Sri Lanka negotiating team at the peace talks. My officials are in regular contact with staff of the Norwegian Embassy in Colombo.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action she is taking to provide support for(a) de-mining and (b) the resettlement of displaced people in Sri Lanka. [77515]

  Clare Short
  My Department is providing £2.6 million to a joint Government of Sri Lanka and UN programme to support the resettlement of returning internally displaced persons (IDPs). This covers de-mining, immediate assistance to help restart livelihoods, shelter and provision of education services. In addition, £6.8 million has been provided for long-term OXFAM and SCF programmes which include support for IDPs. Further assistance will be considered in the light of needs assessments currently under way.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support she is providing for projects to tackle poverty in southern Sri Lanka; and if she will make a statement. [77516]

  Clare Short
  The Government of Sri Lanka intends to ensure that communities in southern Sri Lanka benefit from the peace process, as well as those in the war-torn north and east. My Department already has long term programmes which address the needs of poor people throughout the island of Sri Lanka. These include national programmes to strengthen the quality of, and access to, primary schooling. In addition DFID is financing Oxfam's work with poor people across the country, including the south. My Department will continue to encourage bilateral and multilateral development organisations to ensure that future international assistance responds to the needs of poor people throughout the country.

  Transparency Initiative
  Dr. Jenny Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 15 October 2002 to the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry),Official Report, column 652W, what discussions the Government had with the Governments of (a) Angola, (b) Nigeria and (c) Sudan regarding becoming partners in the Transparency Initiative. [77057]

  Clare Short
  We approached several other Governments to seek their support for the initiative on transparency of payments for the extractives industry in the run up to, and during, the recent World Summit for Sustainable Development. Like many of the Governments the UK approached at the time, the
  39W
  Nigerians were interested in the proposal but needed further internal consultation before they could take a firm position. I understand these to be still ongoing. We have not yet approached Sudan or Angola.

  Unexploded Ordnance (Afghanistan)
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether those organisations undertaking the clearance of unexploded bomblets following the use of cluster bombs in Afghanistan have the financial and technical resources necessary to maintain current clearance rates. [78850]

  Clare Short
  DFID's demining adviser has just returned from leading a mission to Afghanistan. The purpose was to analyse the effectiveness of the United Nations Mine Action Programme for Afghanistan (MAPA), and the Mine Action Centre for Afghanistan (MACA) which is responsible for overall planning and co-ordination. I await the results of this evaluation. However on my recent visit to Afghanistan it was frequently suggested that demining was being organised in an exemplary fashion.

  DFID is allocating £1.8 million for humanitarian mine action in Afghanistan in the current financial year.

  United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with counterparts in other nations who have signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. [78006]

  Clare Short
  I discuss child rights and development regularly with partners. Discussions focus on the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals to which the UK Government are committed. In particular the goals of achieving primary education for all, promoting gender equality and improving child survival are key to meeting the goal of halving absolute poverty by 2015. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child forms one cornerstone for the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and the UN General Assembly's Special Session on Children in May 2002, to which my Department contributed, committed governments to clear action and objectives for children and young people.

  Western Sahel (World Food Programme)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact fighting in the Ivory Coast is having on the World Food Programme's activities in the Western Sahel region. [78202]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 30 October 2002]: We have not done an independent assessment on the effect the conflict on Côte d'lvoire is having on World Food Programme (WFP) activities in the Western Sahel Region of Africa. The UN held an Emergency Regional Contingency Planning meeting in Accra from 17–18 October to discuss the situation and the likely humanitarian needs in Côte d'lvoire and neighbouring countries. We are awaiting their assessment and are continuing to monitor the situation.

  World Food Programme (Africa)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the(a) estimated number of people reliant on food aid and (b) estimated amount of food aid required by the World Food Programme is over the next six months for (i) Mauritania, (ii) Mali, (iii) Senegal, (iv) Eritrea and (v) Ethiopia. [77610]

  Clare Short
  The information is as follows:

  (i) Mauritania: (a) The World Food Programme (WFP) has estimated that up to 750,000 people are affected by food shortages. The FAO have just completed an assessment of the situation and more accurate figures should be available soon. (b) The WFP Emergency Operation, launched in April, aims to provide 16,231 tonnes of food aid, benefiting 246,500 people until the end of December 2002.

  (ii) Mali: (a) No humanitarian crisis or large scale food shortages are currently reported.

  (b) The WFP is providing 3,765 tonnes of food aid until June 2003 in support of rehabilitation activities for 305,000 people affected by the armed conflict of 1990–95.

  (iii) Senegal: (a) No humanitarian crisis or large scale food shortages are currently reported. (b) The WFP is providing 1,650 tonnes of food aid, benefiting 76,000 people over 18 months until December 2003, in support of populations affected by conflict.

  (iv) Eritrea: (a) According to recent WFP/FAO assessments, approximately 1.04 million of the most vulnerable people in Eritrea will (b) require 140, 000 tonnes of food aid in 2003.

  (v) Ethiopia: (a) The UN estimates that upwards of six million people require food assistance at present. (b) WFP assess unmet food aid needs for the remainder of this year at approximately 70,000 tonnes and a further 263,000 tonnes for the first three months of next year.

PRIME MINISTER

  CAP Reform
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what matters in respect of reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and the United Kingdom rebate were discussed with President Chirac of France at the European Summit in Brussels on 25th October. [78652]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement I gave in the House on Monday 28 October and the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) in the House on Wednesday 30 October,Official Report, column 865.

  Correspondence
  Mr Salmond
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan of 4th July on nuclear power. [78802]

  The Prime Minister
  I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Energy and Construction replied on my behalf on 10 August.

  Hawk Sale (India)
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what guarantees he has obtained from his Indian counterpart in the course of recent discussions that BAe Systems Hawk aircraft will, if purchased by India, only be used for training purposes; [78853]
  41W
  (2) what percentage of the time he spent in discussions with his Indian counterpart at Chequers on 19th October was spent (a) lobbying for the purchase of BAe Systems Hawk aircraft and (b) on other matters. [78854]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) on 28 October,Official Report, column 604W.

  Middle East
  Mr Drew
  To ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made with his offer to convene a peace conference between Israel and the Palestinians. [79044]

  The Prime Minister
  The immediate priorities are for the quartet (the US, EU, UN and Russia) to agree a roadmap leading to a comprehensive settlement by 2005, and for the parties to commit to implementing it. We believe that a conference of the parties involved in the peace process should be a key element of that roadmap. We are examining how we can best contribute to achieving this goal.

  Parliamentary Recall
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will propose changes to Standing Order No 13 to grant the power to initiate a recall of Parliament to the Speaker. [78844]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  Scottish MPs (Redundancy Payments)
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Prime Minister what the anticipated cost is of one-off redundancy payments to Scottish MPs losing their seats as a result of the proposed reduction in the number of Westminster constituencies; from what budget they will be paid; and if he will make it his policy to extend such payments to English MPs who lose their seats as a result of the redrawing of boundaries by the Boundaries Commission. [77956]

  The Prime Minister
  There are no arrangements for additional compensation for Members who lose their seats as a result of the redrawing of boundaries by the Boundaries Commission. All Members of Parliament who retire or are defeated at a General Election are entitled to payment of a resettlement grant. The amount of the grant is calculated on the basis of age and length of service, and the cost involved is determined by the actual Members who are ultimately affected. The resettlement grant is available to all eligible Members of Parliament.

  Sellafield
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what matters in respect of Sellafield were raised by his Irish counterpart at the Heads of Government Summit in Brussels on 25th October; and what response he made. [78651]

  The Prime Minister
  The Taoiseach did not raise Sellafield at the Brussels European Council on 25 October. However, Irish concerns over Sellafield have been made clear through other fora. We continue to respond as fully as possible to such concerns and to assure the Irish Government that we take very seriously our responsibilities in respect of the effective and safe management of the Sellafield site.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Postalisation of Gas Prices
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce postalisation of gas prices in Northern Ireland. [78801]

  Mr. Pearson
  The provisions to give effect to postalisation of gas transmission costs were included in the draft Energy Bill which had entered Committee stage prior to the suspension of the devolved Administration. Subject to the Secretary of State's consent, it would be my intention that the Energy Bill would be converted to an Order in Council and included in the programme for the next legislative session.

  The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Regulator are involved in ongoing discussions with the pipeline owners about the precise arrangements for introducing postalisation.

  Public Employees
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many public employees there are in Northern Ireland; and what percentage they represent of the overall workforce in Northern Ireland. [78335]

  Mr. Pearson
  At June 2002, there were 204,952 public sector employee jobs in Northern Ireland. This represents 27.1 per cent. of the workforce jobs figure for Northern Ireland.

  Selective Education
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions his Department has had with the Department for Education and Skills regarding the future of selective education in Northern Ireland. [79251]

  Jane Kennedy
  The review of post-primary education was taken forward by the devolved Administration. No formal discussions have been held with the Department for Education and Skills.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Business Organisation (West Midlands)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the business organisations in the West Midlands with which he makes it his policy to consult on matters of relevance to the business sector. [79488]

  Mr. Leslie
  An example of recent consultation undertaken across the West Midlands region by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister related to draft Regional Planning Guidance for the West Midlands. The list set out follows shows the range of business organisations consulted on that occasion.

  BUSINESS ORGANISATIONS IN THE WEST MIDLANDS CONSULTED ON DRAFT REGIONAL PLANNING GUIDANCE

  Advantage West Midlands

  Birmingham and Solihull Chamber of Commerce

  Birmingham and Solihull Business Link

  Birmingham City 2000 (now known as Birmingham Forward)

  Black Country Chamber and Business Link

  1 British Property Federation (Based in London)

  1 British Retail Consortium (Based in London)

  British Trade International

  Business in the Community

  CBI West Midlands

  Country Landowners Association

  Coventry and Warwickshire Chamber of Commerce

  Coventry and Warwickshire Business Link

  Coventry and Warwickshire Co-operative Development Agency

  Coventry and Warwickshire Partnerships Ltd.

  East Mercia Chamber of Commerce

  Engineering Employers Federation

  Federation of Small Businesses

  Freight Transport Association

  Heart of England Tourist Board

  Herefordshire and Worcestershire Chamber of Commerce and Business Link

  House Builders Federation

  Institute of Asian Businesses

  Institute of Directors

  Institution of Highways and Transportation

  Midlands Environmental Business Club

  National Farmers Union

  North Staffordshire Chamber of Commerce

  Staffordshire Business Link

  Road Haulage Association

  1 Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Ltd. (Based in London)

  Shropshire Chamber and Business Link

  West Midlands Business Policy Group

  West Midlands Enterprise Board

  West Midlands Rural Network

  West Midlands Regional Group of Chambers of Commerce

  1 Not located in the West Midland region

  Council Housing
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister where council tenants vote against the transfer of housing stock to an arm's length management organisation or other social landlord, how the local authority will access the debt write-off provisions offered by the Government. [79067]

  Mr. McNulty
  Where council tenants vote against the transfer of housing stock to a Registered Social Landlord (RSL), their authority's attributable housing debt will continue to be serviced through Housing Revenue Account subsidy and the provisions for addressing overhanging debt will not arise.44W
  Overhanging debt payment is only made when transfer is to an RSL, it does not apply to transfers to Arm's Length Management Organisations (ALMOs), as the authority still owns the stock.

  Domestic Fires
  David Wright
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many people were killed in domestic house fires in the last year, broken down by region. [78551]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The table shows fatal casualties in dwelling fires attended by local authority fire brigades in the UK in 2000 by region. 2000 is the latest year for which data are available.

  Fatal casualties in dwelling firesl,2 by region and brigade area, UK, 20003

  Fatal casualties

  United Kingdom

  445

  4 (447)

  England and Wales

  365

  4 (367)

  England

  340

  North East

  13

  Cleveland

  1

  Durham

  6

  Northumberland

  1

  Tyne and Wear

  5

  North West

  69

  Cheshire

  6

  Cumbria

  3

  Greater Manchester

  22

  Lancashire

  17

  Merseyside

  21

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  41

  Humberside

  7

  North Yorkshire

  2

  South Yorkshire

  10

  West Yorkshire

  22

  East Midlands

  23

  Derbyshire

  9

  Leicestershire

  4

  Lincolnshire

  4

  Northamptonshire

  3

  Nottinghamshire

  3

  West Midlands

  51

  Hereford and Worcester

  3

  Shropshire

  8

  Staffordshire

  8

  Warwickshire

  6

  West Midlands

  26

  East of England

  36

  Bedfordshire

  5

  Cambridgeshire

  3

  Essex

  10

  Hertfordshire

  6

  Norfolk

  8

  Suffolk

  4

  South East

  43

  Berkshire

  5

  Buckinghamshire

  7

  East Sussex

  3

  Hampshire

  9

  Isle of Wight

  0

  Kent

  9

  45W

  Fatal casualties in dwelling firesl,2 by region and brigade area, UK, 20003

  Fatal casualties

  Oxfordshire

  1

  Surrey

  6

  West Sussex

  3

  South West

  19

  Avon

  4

  Cornwall

  4

  Devon

  7

  Dorset

  1

  Gloucestershire

  2

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  Somerset

  1

  Wiltshire

  0

  London

  45

  Wales

  25

  North Wales

  3

  Mid and West Wales

  14

  South Wales

  8

  Northern Ireland

  13

  Scotland

  67

  Strathclyde

  39

  Highland and Islands

  3

  Grampian

  5

  Tayside

  5

  Lothian and Borders

  12

  Fife

  3

  Central

  0

  Dumfries

  0

  1 Including late call and heat and smoke damage incidents.

  2 Including caravans, houseboats and other non-building permanent dwellings.

  3 Data are provisional and fatality figures are likely to be revised downwards as later information becomes available.

  4 Estimates of the revised figures for United Kingdom and England and Wales are shown in brackets.

  Exchange Flags
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress is being made in resolving the dispute concerning funding given to the Walton Group for its regeneration of Exchange Flags, Liverpool. [78758]

  Mr. McNulty
  English Partnerships, acting as agent for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, is continuing its legal action for the return of all public money and subsequent legal costs expended on the Exchange Flags building, Liverpool. The date for trial has been set for the week beginning 18 November 2002.

  For legal reasons, I cannot comment further at the present time. I shall write to my hon. Friend when more information is available.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the executive agencies affiliated to his Department. [79684]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for the following executive agencies:

  Fire Service College

  The Planning Inspectorate

  The Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  The Rent Service

  46W
  In addition Ordnance Survey, a separate non-ministerial Government Department, and executive agency, is the responsibility of ODPM Ministers.

  FD Services Ltd
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the contracts which his Department has entered into with FD Services Ltd. [78905]

  Mr. Leslie
  The financial systems of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister contain no record of any contracts with FD Services Limited.

  Firefighters' Dispute
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what information he has received from the Chief Fire Officer of Somerset on his assessment of the adequacy of fire cover in areas of the Somerton and Frome constituency during a firefighters' strike. [77111]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Chief Fire Officer of Somerset Fire Brigade sent a short e-mail to officials at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on 20 September, in which he expressed the view that strike action at two retained stations in Somerset would potentially leave a significant number of road traffic accidents uncovered.

  Emergency cover in Somerset, as for the rest of the country, will consist of a number of elements including Green Goddesses, breathing apparatus teams (BARTs), a rescue team equipped with specialist equipment (REST) and the police. The BARTs and RESTs carry basic cutting and other rescue equipment, and have been trained to respond to road traffic accidents.

  The provision of MOD emergency cover has been planned in consultation with Chief Fire Officers to maximise the effectiveness of call-outs and the availability of a range of firefighting capabilities. The MOD's emergency cover will not replicate the firefighting capabilities of the Fire Service, but will aim to minimise the danger to human life.

  Retained firefighters provide a very valuable service to their communities. We expect that during industrial action many retained firefighters would continue to protect the communities in which they live and work.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) full-time and (b) full-time equivalent firefighters there were in Lancashire in each of the last five years. [78626]

  Mr. Leslie
  The following table shows the latest available information on the number of wholetime firefighters and strength (in 24 hour units of cover) of retained firefighters in Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service.

  Year

  Wholetime

  Retained

  1997–98

  987

  339

  1998–99

  1,007

  321

  1999–2000

  1,008

  304

  2001–01

  1,010

  285

  2001–021

  1,002

  268

  1 Provisional

  47W
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether(a) professional firemen, (b) retained firefighters and (c) other publicly employed persons are insured, including the death in service provision, when dealing with a fire or other incident during a firefighters' strike. [77607]

  Mr. Leslie
  Professional and retained firefighters who are on duty during any FBU industrial action will be fully covered by the standard insurance, death and pension benefits as normal. Members of the armed forces will benefit from the same cover and support as is provided for any operational duty. Police officers are afforded protection in the event of injury while on duty by the provisions of the Police Pension Regulations in the case of death or permanent disablement. In the event of temporary disablement the arrangements for contractual sick pay would safeguard the officer from immediate financial loss.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the housing associations; how many houses they have built and acquired over the last five years; and how many of these have been allocated to(a) those on their existing waiting list and (b) those outside their area. [77871]

  Mr. McNulty
  A full list of the 2,033 housing associations registered with the Housing Corporation is available on the corporation's website at www.housingcorp.gov.uk

  Only about one quarter of registered housing associations undertake development. Over the last five years, housing associations have completed the following number of dwellings, through new-build or acquisition and redevelopment, via funding from the Housing Corporation's approved development programme (ADP) and local authority social housing grant (LASHG):

  Approved development programme

  Local authority social housing grant

  1997–98

  35,418

  10,152

  1998–99

  31,960

  9,929

  1999–2000

  25,040

  8,678

  2000–01

  22,354

  8,419

  2001–02

  22,875

  6,971

  Information is not available about the allocation of housing association dwellings to people on existing waiting lists or from elsewhere. The Housing Corporation's regulatory code states that registered housing associations must work with local authorities to enable the latter to fulfil their duties to homeless households and people in priority housing need; to the vulnerable and those covered by the Government's Supporting People policy.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a summary of the responses to his consultation on reform of local government finance. [77027]
  48W
  Mr. Raynsford
  A summary of responses to the consultation on the formula grant review will be published and placed in the Library before the Government's proposals for the future grant distribution system are announced at around the beginning of December.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions his Department has had with the F40 group in the review of the local government education funding formula to provide a more even funding system for rural and inner city schools. [78878]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My colleagues and I had discussions with both the F40 as a group and some of their 36 constituent authorities as part of the consultation on the Formula Grant Review.

  Similar discussions have taken place between the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's officials and officers representing F40 members. We are currently taking decisions on the new system to be that we will propose following that consultation. In doing so we are considering carefully the evidence, pressures and representations that we received, including those from F40 authorities and campaigners.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what impact changes in the local government formula grant will have on public services delivered by the East Riding of Yorkshire council. [79166]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) on 4 November 2002.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of rural deprivation in the local government formula grant review. [79167]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend, the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) on 4 November 2002.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what account he has taken of the extra cost of providing services in rural areas in the local government formula grant review. [79168]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) on 4 November 2002.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what account he has taken of the extra cost of providing services in rural areas in the local government formula grant review. [78879]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The formula grant review options that were put forward as part of the summer consultation were informed by evidence on relative costs of providing services across the country. We are currently taking decisions on the new system to be implemented following that consultation, and in doing so are considering carefully all of the evidence, pressures and representations that we received, including those from rural areas.
  49W
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what impact changes in the local government formula grant will have on public services in(a) the East Riding of Yorkshire and (b) North Lincolnshire. [78881]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We will announce the new system for distributing Formula Grant, including detailed grant allocations for individual authorities, at the time of the provisional local government finance settlement which we expect to be around the start of December. Once the Government has allocated its grant, decisions about budgets and services are primarily for local councils to make. However, we have already guaranteed that no authority will face a cut in grant next year on a like for like basis, and we hope to do better than that when we announce the actual floors and ceilings scheme as part of the provisional settlement.

  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research was done by his Department into the impact of dispersal and settlement patterns on the cost of providing services in rural areas as part of the local government formula grant review. [78882]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister commissioned research into the impact of sparsity, dispersal and settlement patterns as part of the work on the Environmental, Protective & Cultural Services block. In addition other Government departments have undertaken such research covering the services for which they are primarilyresponsible. Officials have also discussed sparsity issues with local government colleagues over the past 18 months in technical groups covering all service blocks. This informed the options put forward in the Formula Grant Review consultation document. We are currently taking decisions on the new system to be implemented following that consultation, and in doing so are considering carefully all of the evidence, pressures and representations that we received, including those from rural areas.

  Local Government Officers
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to revise the Widdecombe Rules on political activity of local government officers. [76625]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We intend to conduct a review looking at political restrictions on local government officers, and to publish a consultation paper containing proposals, in due course.

  Neighbourhood Management Scheme
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects to announce a further round of the Neighbourhood Management scheme. [78629]

  Mrs. Roche
  We are considering proposals for a second round of Neighbourhood Management Pathfinders and hope to make an announcement in the near future.

  Non-department Public Bodies
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the non-departmental public bodies affiliated to his Department. [79665]
  50W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for sponsoring the following Non-Departmental Public Bodies:

  Advisory Panel on Beacon Councils

  Advisory Panel on Standards for the Planning Inspectorate

  Audit Commission

  Building Regulations Advisory Committee

  Community Forum

  Commission for New Towns/English Partnerships

  Castle Vale Housing Action Trust

  Housing Corporation

  Liverpool Housing Action Trust

  Property Advisory Group

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales

  Rent Assessment Panels

  Standards Board for England

  Stonebridge Housing Action Trust

  Tower Hamlets Housing Action Trust

  Valuation Tribunals

  Park Homes
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will place a copy of the survey on the economics of park homes in the Library. [78908]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the member for St. Helens North (Mr. Watts) on 29 October 2002,Official report, column 680W.

  Planning
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the planning appeals and their location by local planning authority that have been dismissed on the grounds of health concerns in each of the last three years. [79042]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many public service agreements have been entered into with local authorities in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement; [79593]

  (2) if he will list the local authorities which have entered into public service agreements; and if he will make a statement. [79594]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on 22 October 2002,Official Report, column 292W.

  Recruitment (Over-50s)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of new recruits to his Department in the past two years were aged 50 and over. [79308]
  51W
  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was formed in May 2002. As part of the former DETR(C) and DTLR(C) the percentage figures for each year for new recruits aged 50 and over in the period requested is as follows:

  1. 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001 = 7.25 per cent.

  2. 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 = 6.5 per cent.

  Regional Assemblies
  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 23 October 2002,Official Report, columns 389–90W. how he defines the word stakeholder; and if he will list the categories of stakeholders consulted. [79346]

  Mr. Raynsford
  'Your Region, Your Choice', the White Paper on regional governance, includes business, trade unions, the voluntary and community sectors, local authorities and other key partners in the public sector, and environmental groups as examples of stakeholders. However, the White Paper is not prescriptive. We would consider that any organisation with an interest in regional governance can be considered as a stakeholder.

  The White Paper did not sound out particular stakeholders or groups of stakeholders for consultation. It invited anyone with views on stakeholder involvement with elected regional assemblies to submit their comments.

  Registered Social Landlords
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will(a) list the total debt of each registered social landlord in England and Wales in the last financial year, (b) identify what percentage of each of each debt was incurred through borrowing for council housing stock transfer and (c) state from where. [78916]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information requested entails listing all social landlords registered with the Housing Corporation of which there are around 2,000. Due to the volume of material, I will write to the hon. Member as soon as the information is collated.

  Rural Deprivation
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of rural deprivation in the local government formula grant review. [78880]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The formula grant review options that were put forward as part of the summer consultation were informed by evidence on relative costs of providing services across the country. Further work on measuring deprivation was carried out during the consultation period as part of discussions with groups representing rural authorities. We are currently taking decisions on the new system to be implemented following that consultation, and in doing so are considering carefully all of the evidence, pressures and representations that we received, including those from rural areas.

  Rural Services
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research has been undertaken by his Department into 52W
  the impact of dispersal and settlement patterns on the cost of providing services in rural areas as part of the local government formula grant review. [79165]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) on 4 November 2002.

  Your Region Your Choice
  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister with reference to paragraph 9.21 of the 'Your Region, Your Choice' White Paper, what account he has taken of the other views invited; and if he will publish the views submitted. [79347]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Other than the specific request for views on stakeholder involvement with elected regional assemblies to be submitted by 31 August 2002, the White Paper 'Your Region, Your Choice' was not a formal consultation exercise. The White Paper indicated that the Government would also be interested in views on its other proposals, but there is no deadline and views may still be submitted. We have no plans to publish these views, but we will take them into account as we implement our proposals.

DEFENCE

  Live Animals (Exports)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the aims and objectives of the future offensive air system programme. [76695]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Future Offensive Air System programme is intended to replace the offensive air capability currently provided by the Tornado GR4 strike aircraft towards the end of the next decade. The programme is currently in the concept stage. No final decisions have been taken.

  National Missile Defence
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what recent discussions he has had with his United States counterpart on national missile defence. [76708]

  Mr. Hoon
  I last discussed missile defence issues with the United States Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, at our meeting in Washington on 11 September.

  Regular and Territorial Armies
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by how much the strength of the(a) regular and (b) territorial armies have changed since May 1997; and by how much the number of medically unfit soldiers has changed over the same period. [76712]

  Mr. Ingram
  In June 1997 the strength of the regular army was 101,360, of which 6.7 per cent. were listed as not employable at full combatant duties. In September this year, these figures were 101,660 and 10. 4 per cent. respectively.
  53W
  In June 1997 the strength of the territorial army stood at 55, 470. The strategic defence review vision for the territorial army was to restructure it into a more relevant, usable and integrated organisation. The current strength of the territorial army, as at 1 September 2002, stands at 38,835. This includes 400 who are currently mobilised in support of operations.

  Middle East
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of British forces in international peacekeeping in the middle east region. [76713]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Strategic Defence Review concluded that our national interests are directly affected by events in the middle east. The deployment of United Kingdom armed forced to Oman for exercise Saif Sareea 11 graphically illustrated our commitment to stability in the region.

  Royal Air Force aircraft continue to patrol the no fly zones over Iraq in support of UN SCR 688, which demanded that Saddam Hussein end the repression of his own people. We also contribute a small contingent of British armed forces personnel to the UN Iraq Kuwait Observer Mission established under UN SCR 687 to monitor the defined border and demilitarised zone between Iraq and Kuwait.

  Armed Forces (Careers)
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures the Ministry of Defence is taking to promote the armed forces as a career to students in schools. [76715]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Cunningham).

  High-Tech Equipment
  Lawrie Quinn
  What measures his Department is taking to enhance opportunities within the engineering industry to enter into partnership development roles during the procurement of high-tech equipment and software for the armed forces. [76717]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence recognises that partnerships with industry in high-tech areas are crucial to military capability and to the UK Defence Industry. The Ministry of Defence has recently launched the "Towers of Excellence" and Defence Technology Centres. These are mechanisms for partnering with industry and academia in priority high technology areas. We are also taking steps, via the National Defence & Aerospace's Systems Panel, to ensure that Ministry of Defence and Department of Trade and Industry Science and Technology spending is fully co-ordinated.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans have been made to train armed forces personnel to carry out duties as firefighters. [76716]

  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the deployment of the Army during the firefighters' dispute. [76718]
  54W
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the armed forces have been assigned to providing emergency fire and rescue cover in the event of a national firemen's strike. [76729]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire).

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the firefighters' strike on the training and operational effectiveness of the armed forces. [76732]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Armed Forces have been particularly busy over the last few years performing their primary duties in defence of United Kingdom interests and acting as a force for good. The deployment to provide emergency fire cover will inevitably impact on their ability to continue some of these tasks at the same level of effort. The longer service personnel are required to provide fire cover the greater the penalties that will accrue to other activities, and in particular on the Armed Forces personnel employed on these duties in place of professional firefighters.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many defence personnel have been trained on equipment introduced in the last 10 years; and what scope there is for training more to help with the current firefighters' strike. [77502]

  Mr. Ingram
  31 Breathing Apparatus Rescue Teams (BARTS) and 59 Rescue Equipment Support Teams (RESTS)—a total of about 2,500 personnel—will be deployed should a fire strike take place. They will be fully trained, and provided with modern equipment, to undertake fire rescues and release road traffic accident victims.

  The 10,000 military personnel trained to operate Green Goddess fire tenders provided by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will provide basic levels of emergency cover in helping to bring fires under control, and they will act in support of BART and REST teams when fire rescue is required.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what preparations he has made to ensure the safety and continuity of service to the public in the event of a firefighters' strike; and what the cost is to the Department of these actions. [77661]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 28 October 2002,Official Report, column 527W, by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The cost of providing emergency cover will depend on the extent and nature of any industrial action.

  Service Families Taskforce
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of the service families taskforce. [76719]

  Mr. Ingram
  The service families taskforce was set up by the Government in 1999 to deal with service family issues that were outside the control of the Ministry of Defence. However, it is now the tri-Service focus for family issues, both internal and external.
  55W
  Representatives of service families meet a Minister twice a year to discuss the issues that are of concern to them. In addition, bilateral meetings are held with other Government Departments, as necessary, to discuss changes to any rules and regulations that are considered detrimental to, and discriminate against, service families.

  Some are of progress by the Task Force over the last year are:

  (a) The new Adoption legislation has been amended to ensure that Service families will not be disadvantaged when overseas.

  (b) Legislative changes have been made to enable the Inland Revenue to pay Working Families Tax Credit to Service families on overseas postings.

  (c) We have resolved the problems that some Service spouses had encountered in claiming Child Support Agency payments when on an overseas posting.

  (d) As a result of discussions with the Department for Education and Skills, the new Code of Practice for School Admissions in England due for publication next year contains specific reference to Service families. This will assist the schools admissions process for their children.

  Joint Strike Fighter Project
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress there has been to advance UK participation in the joint strike fighter project. [76720]

  Mr. Hoon
  The recent announcement of the selection of the Short Take off and Vertical Landing variant of Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) to meet the United Kingdom Joint Combat Aircraft requirement reaffirmed our participation in the JSF programme. This decision has been well received by UK industry.

  United Kingdom companies have already secured key roles within the programme as a result of their outstanding technology and ability to deliver value for money. Industry estimates that its involvement could be worth up to £27 billion over the whole life of the programme, creating or securing some 8,500 jobs. In addition, we are working closely with the US authorities to facilitate further involvement of UK companies and we are placing particular emphasis on arrangements to smooth the transfer of technology between the US and UK. This builds on the considerable progress already made under the declaration of principles.

  NATO
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last discussed with NATO counterparts the potential enlargement of the Alliance; and if he will make a statement. [76721]

  Mr. Hoon
  I regularly discuss a range of NATO issues, including enlargement, with my Alliance colleagues; I did so most recently at the informal meeting of Defence Ministers in Warsaw in September. The United Kingdom remains a strong supporter of enlargement and continues to look forward to a robust round at Prague.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last discussed with NATO counterparts the potential enlargement of the alliance; and if he will make a statement. [76724]
  56W
  Mr. Hoon
  I refer my hon. friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Mr Jenkins).

  Service Personnel (Wales)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) service personnel and (b) agency staff in the defence field are employed in Wales; and how many were employed in 1992. [76722]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of fire service personnel currently employed in Wales on Ministry of Defence and QinetiQ sites is 105. This figure covers contract, civilian, and service personnel. As at August 2002, there were 3,733 Agency staff based in Wales; this figure includes those staff working for Trading Fund agencies.

  Information on fire service personnel and Agency staff employed in 1992 is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Desert Terrain Equipment
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment he has made of the suitability of the equipment available to the British armed forces for conflict in desert terrain. [76723]

  Mr. Ingram
  The recent Exercise SAIF SAREEA 2 allowed us to identify and assess the challenge our armed forces could face when operating in testing desert conditions. This major exercise enabled us to evaluate strengths and indicated where we might make improvements to our equipment and procedures. As a result of the post-exercise evaluation, we are carrying out equipment enhancement programmes to meet the demands of desert environments.

  Bullying
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he is taking to combat bullying in the armed forces. [76725]

  Mr. Ingram
  The services' policy is that no form of harassment or intimidation will be tolerated; all allegations are investigated, and appropriate action taken. Potential recruits are made fully aware of this policy and it is set out in the Armed Forces Diversity policy issued in June 2002. A confidential helpline is available in case of need. Officers and senior ranks have the responsibility to preserve good order and discipline at all times, and this is reinforced on appropriate training courses. All of these measures are kept under review and adjusted as necessary.

  Test and Evaluation Ranges
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's work to find alternative commercial opportunities at test and evaluation ranges. [76726]

  Mr. Ingram
  Over the next year, Defence Estates will be closely examining QinetiQ's rationalisation plans for test and evaluation ranges to identify whether any property can be declared surplus to Ministry of Defence requirements and released for commercial opportunities. In addition, the Defence Diversification
  57W
  Agency (DDA) continues to work in support of the regional development agencies, which assume overall responsibility for economic regeneration issues. Wherever possible, the DDA assists local communities to secure diversification opportunities through the use of Ministry of Defence technology transfer, expertise and information sharing.

  Civil Emergencies
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of(a) the Army and (b) the Royal Navy in assisting with UK civil emergencies. [76727]

  Mr. Ingram
  All three armed forces provide support to the civil authorities during civil emergencies under well understood, long-standing arrangements. These fall into three broad categories: military aid to the civil community, which is provided at times of life-threatening emergency; military aid to other Government Departments, which is provided when essential services cannot be maintained in any other way, and military aid to the civil power which is the provision of specialist support to the police and other law enforcement agencies.

  Warships
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy warships are operational. [76728]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are currently 80 HM ships and submarines in the operational fleet. This includes all vessels that are operational or engaged in preparing for service, trials or training.

  Reserves
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what progress has been made in enhancing the role of the reserves in home defence; and if he will make a statement. [76731]

  Mr. Hoon
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces announced the full implementation of our proposals for the use of the Reserves in home defence and security in the House on 31 October 2002,Official Report, column 1023.

  The new arrangements will provide significant improvements in three areas. An enhanced regionally-based planning and command capability will make it easier for the authorities dealing with civil contingencies to secure rapid support from the Armed Forces, both Regular and Reserve. An integrated communications infrastructure will be provided by a Territorial Army unit, 2 (National Communications) Signals Brigade, for which we are acquiring new communications equipment compatible with that being introduced in the emergency services. Finally, we are establishing 14 Civil Contingency Reaction Forces, each of some 500 volunteers from existing Reservists, to provide a new planned capability to assist the emergency services and other authorities at short notice.

  In total the Reserve Forces will receive an addition of some 700 new posts and some 130,000 man-training days.

  Army Recruits
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many Army regiments are running at more than(a) five and (b) ten per cent. below their recommended complement of non-commissioned officers, and if he will make a statement [78274]

  (2) how many Army regiments are running at more than (a) five and (b) ten per cent. below their recommended complement of commissioned officers; and if he will make a statement. [78273]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is not held by Regiment, but by Arms/Corps. Those Arms/Corps running at more than five per cent. below their recommended compliment of non-commissioned officers and warrant officers are shown in the table.

  Percentage

  Warrant Officers

  Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps

  -37.9

  Non-Commissioned Officers

  Royal Artillery

  -12.1

  Royal Signals

  -9.4

  Infantry

  -8.8

  Army Air Corps

  -21.2

  Royal Logistics Corps

  -6.4

  Royal Army Medical Corps

  -16.9

  Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  -11.8

  Royal Army Veterinary Corps

  -25.0

  Small Arms School Corps

  -12.2

  Army Physical Training Corps

  -31.4

  Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps

  -40.9

  Those Arms/Corps running at more than ten per cent. below their recommended compliment of noncommissioned officers and warrant officers are shown in the following table.

  Percentage

  Warrant Officers

  Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps

  -37.9

  Non-Commissioned Officers

  Royal Artillery

  -2.1

  Army Air Corps

  -21.2

  Royal Army Medical Corps

  -16.9

  Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  -11.8

  Royal Army Veterinary Corps

  -25.0

  Small Arms School Corps

  -12.2

  Army Physical Training Corps

  -31.4

  Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps

  -40.9

  Non-commissioned officers are those soldiers with the rank of Lance Corporal up to and including Staff Sergeant. Warrant Officers are not classified as noncommissioned officers, the data has been included for completeness. All figures are as at 1 September 2002 and for trained personnel only.

  Those Arms/Corps running at more than five per cent. below their recommended compliment of commissioned officers are shown in the following table.

  Percentage

  Royal Signals

  5.8

  Army Air Corps

  8.9

  59W

  Percentage

  Royal Army Chaplains Department

  9.7

  Royal Army Medical Corps

  27.0

  Adjutant General's Corps (Provost)

  8.5

  Adjutant General's Corps (Staff and Personnel Support)

  14.8

  Royal Army Veterinary Corps

  17.4

  Royal Army Dental Corps

  5.6

  Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps

  19.9

  Corps of Army Music

  5.6

  Those Arms/Corps running at more than ten per cent. below their recommended compliment of commissioned officers are shown in the following table.

  Percentage

  Royal Army Medical Corps

  27.0

  Adjutant General's Corps (Staff and Personnel Support)

  14.8

  Royal Army Veterinary Corps

  17.4

  Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps

  19.9

  All figures are as at 1 September 2002 and for trained personnel only.

  BAE Systems
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long the arrangement whereby employees of BAE Systems work on secondment to his Department has been in place, and where those staff are based; how many employees of BAE Systems are on secondment to the his Department; and how many employees of other defence manufacturers are on secondment to his Department, with the number of employees per company. [75229]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: The interchange of personnel between the public and commercial sectors is an important feature of the Ministry of Defence's long-standing programme to build stronger links with other sectors of the economy. This programme aims to enhance business performance by exchanging ideas, skills and experience. Encouraging interchange activities is a key part of the Civil Service reform agenda.

  The information requested on inward secondees from defence manufacturers to the MOD is as follows:

  Parent Company

  Number and location

  Total

  BAE Systems

  3 based in Bath

  6

  2 based in London

  1 based in Bristol

  Rolls Royce plc

  Both based in Bath

  2

  In addition, there are currently two secondees from QinetiQ, one based in Bristol and one based in London.

  Defence Logistics Organisation
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost of the introduction by the Defence Logistics Organisation of a60W
  single IT system for recording and controlling stocks; and what practical difficulties are still to be addressed. [78315]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Defence Logistics Organisation does not currently plan to introduce a single IT system for recording and controlling stocks.

  EU-NATO Consultative Structures
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what permanent arrangements have been put in place to formalise structures and procedures for consultations between EU and NATO; and if he will make a statement. [77815]

  Mr. Hoon
  The arrangements for consultation between EU and NATO are set out in Annexe VII to Annexe VI of the Presidency Conclusions of the December 2000 Nice European Council. The arrangements for consultation outside times of crisis, as set out in part II of Annexe VII, are now in place.

  European Rapid Reaction Force
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the European Rapid Reaction Force will be operational; and if he will make a statement. [77812]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 23 October 2002,Official Report, column 348W.

  Ferry Services (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether ferry services in and out of Portsmouth harbour were suspended on 26 and 27 October due to dangerous weather conditions; who made the decision as to whether to suspend the services; and if he will make a statement. [78540]

  Mr. Ingram
  In the event of adverse weather conditions, it is for individual ferry operators to decide whether to suspend services or not. Weather conditions affect some types of vessels more than others, and some ferry operators suspended their services while others did not.

  Fleet Air Arm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he plans to supplement the Fleet Air Arm with additional pilots from foreign and commonwealth countries in order to achieve full manning for the 150 F35 aircraft, once they are acquired. [77935]

  Mr. Ingram
  As announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement, Lord Bach, on 30 September, it has been decided to purchase up to 150 short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) versions of the Lockheed Martin F35s to meet the future joint combat aircraft (FJCA) requirement for the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force. These aircraft, which are due to enter service in 2012 with the first unit of a new class of carrier, will replace both the land and carrier-based Harrier aircraft of Joint Force Harrier.
  61W
  No final decision on aircraft numbers has yet been taken. The current planning assumptions to procure up to 150 includes not only front-line aircraft, but also provision for training, maintenance, trials, and attrition.

  It is planned that, as with Joint Force Harrier, both Royal Navy and Royal Air Force pilots will fly the F35 aircraft when it enters into front-line service. The exact requirements for front-line crews for the successor joint force have yet to be determined by the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force. On current planning assumptions it will not be necessary to supplement aircrew manning of the joint force from foreign and Commonwealth countries, as we are confident we will be able to fully man the force with regular Royal Navy and Royal Air Force pilots. However, as with all current operational and training squadrons, exchange personnel from foreign and Commonwealth countries may well fill some posts.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the current research programmes funded by the UK Government that involve examinations of UK Gulf War veterans. [78607]

  Dr. Moonie
  The current research programmes funded by the Ministry of Defence involving medical examinations of United Kingdom Gulf veterans are as follows:A study by researchers at Guy's, King's and St. Thomas' School of Medicine who carried out clinical tests on number of Gulf veterans who reported significant neuromuscular symptoms in their responses to an earlier epidemiological study funded by the United States Department of Defense. Work is now complete and the findings are expected to be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal before the end of this year.
  A study by a team at Manchester Royal Infirmary who analysed the levels of paraoxanase in blood samples collected by researchers at Guy's, King's and St. Thomas' School of Medicine (blood sample collection was not Ministry of Defence funded). Work is now complete and the results are expected to be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
  The Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme (GVMAP) established in 1993, continues to see patients following a referral from their doctors. Patients seen at the GVMAP undergo a battery of standard tests and if clinically justified, further tests are carried out. The clinical findings for 3,000 service and ex-service patients who attended the GVMAP in the period between 11 October 1993 and 18 June 2001 were published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine on 1 October 2002.

  HMS Nottingham
  Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when a decision will be made as to where HMS Nottingham will be repaired upon its return to the UK from Australia; what the procurement process will be for the repair work that is needed to HMS Nottingham; and if he will make a statement. [77690]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 22 October 2002,Official Report, column 143W, to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock). Bids from those companies invited to tender for any repair work will be assessed during
  62W
  Nottingham's journey back to the United Kingdom. Should the decision be taken to repair her, the intention would be to award a contract before she makes landfall in the United Kingdom.

  HMS St. Albans
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the sea trials of HMS St. Albans to recommence; and if he will make a statement. [78509]

  Mr. Ingram
  St. Albans completed her sea trials and became available to the Fleet Time on 30 September 2002.

  Until the full damage assessment is complete, and repair options have been considered, it is not possible to say when St. Albans will be able to resume her programme of operational training. Initial indications are that this might be achieved early in 2003.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the latest assessment is of the work needed to repair HMS St. Albans; how long this work will take; who will pay for it; and if he will make a statement. [78511]

  Mr. Ingram
  The extent of the damage sustained by HMS St. Albans is still being assessed, and until this completed it is not possible to determine how long the repair work will take. An investigation into the circumstances which led to the incident is underway and pending its outcome it is premature to say where repair costs will fall.

  Home Defence
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on home defence priorities and how they have changed since 11 September 2001. [76707]

  Mr. Hoon
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has lead Government responsibility for counterterrorist policy and security within the United Kingdom, and maintains oversight of the measures being taken to strengthen the United Kingdom's ability to respond to the terrorist threat. The armed forces make an important contribution in support of the police through their specialist skills and capabilities.

  Following the attacks on 11 September, as part of the Government's wider assessment of the implications for the United Kingdom, the Ministry of Defence undertook a detailed review of its contribution to home defence, based on the principles outlined in the Strategic Defence Review of 1998. The result was the SDR New Chapter, published in July this year. This outlined enhancements to the command structure for provision of support to the civil authorities and proposals for an enhanced role for the Reserves.

  The SDR New Chapter reaffirmed the need to take the fight to the enemy overseas to prevent, deter and disrupt attacks, but it also recognised the need to be better prepared to respond to a threat to the United Kingdom itself. Since 11 September 2001, we have improved our capability to intercept renegade aircraft

  63W
  and shipping, and refined our response to incidents involving the use of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear devices.

  Anti-tank Missiles
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the findings of the search for the anti-tank missiles lost in the Bristol Channel. [78741]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Royal Navy Southern Diving Group's search report is currently being finalised. When it has been completed I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints have been received from residents of Dumfries and Galloway by his Department in respect of low flying sorties by the RAF in each of the last five years. [78737]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of complaints recorded by the Ministry of Defence Low Flying Complaints and Enquiries Unit over the last five years, from residents of Dumfries and Galloway, is shown in the table.

  Number of complaints recorded

  Calendar year

  1997

  184

  1998

  177

  1999

  192

  Training year1

  1999–2000

  197

  2000–01

  156

  2001–02

  161

  1 From 1999, recorded by training year from I April to 31 March.

  Machrihanish Airport
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to shorten the runway at Machrihanish airport. [78833]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has no plans physically to shorten the runway at Machrihanish. However, we have required Highlands and Islands Airways Ltd. to use a shorter runway in compliance with the terms of their current lease.

  Military Airspace
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes to designated military airspace will be implemented following the closure of West Freugh airfield. [78735]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  No decisions have yet been taken about changes to the use of airspace when the airfield closes.

  Military Low Flying Training
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low flying training sorties have been flown over Dumfries and Galloway by the RAF in each of the last five years. [78738]
  64W
  Dr. Moonie
  Information on military low flying training in the United Kingdom low flying system is recorded for each low flying area (LFA) in the form of number of hours booked for the aircraft of all three services. Data for Dumfries and Galloway are incorporated in the total for LFA 16, which also includes the Borders region of southern Scotland and other countries up to and including those within the central belt. Figures quoted in the table indicate the number of hours low flying training has been booked by day and night in the LFA over the last five years.

  Total

  Fixed-wing

  Helicopters

  Calendar year

  1997

  4,023

  3,455

  568

  1998

  3,680

  2,946

  734

  1999

  3,544

  2,843

  701

  Training year1

  1999–2000

  3,408

  2,830

  578

  2000–01

  3,735

  2,939

  796

  2001–02

  4,080

  3,279

  801

  1 From 1999, recorded by training year from 1 April to 31 March

  Note:

  The figure for 2001–02 is some 13.5 per cent. lower than that recorded for 1995.

  Military Medical Records
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether military medical records are made available once service personnel(a) have completed their military service and (b) are deceased; and if he will make a statement. [78271]

  Dr. Moonie
  On leaving the armed forces, personnel are provided with a summary of their medical history (Form F Med 133—Medical History on Release from HM Forces) to give to their civilian doctor. Release of full military medical records is permitted if an individual makes a Subject Access Request to the appropriate Service Records Office. If an individual wishes to make his or her records available to other parties, such as civilian health care providers or solicitors, written consent must be given to release the records.

  In respect of deceased persons, the Access to Health Records Act 1990 applies. Records are usually released only for the purposes of litigation or claims, and disclosure of these records is subject to the consent of their executors. Where there are no executors, the consent of the administrator of the estate is required.

  Disclosure of medical records of deceased personnel to other Government Departments, such as to the War Pensions Agency for the purpose of establishing entitlement to War Widows' Pensions, is permitted only on a strict "need to know" basis.

  Minelaying
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the Royal Navy's minelaying capability is; and what types of mine are in service. [78661]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Royal Navy has no specialist minelaying vessels although most vessels in the fleet, including submarines, could be adapted to lay mines if deemed necessary. The Royal Navy does not have any
  65W
  mine stocks and has not had since 1992. Notwithstanding this, the United Kingdom retains the capability to lay mines and continues research into mine exploitation. Practice mines, used for exercises, continue to be laid in order to retain the necessary skills.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of compensation offered to service personnel of other states who participated in UK nuclear tests. [79185]

  Dr. Moonie
  Australian and New Zealand personnel who participated in the British nuclear test programme and who believe that they were injured or suffered a loss as a result of their participation are entitled to claim compensation from their own governments. However, the Governments of Australia and New Zealand have vigorously defended compensation claims on the grounds that particular regard was taken for the safety and welfare of test participants, and in the absence of evidence of negligence, there is no proper basis for settling the claims. I understand that no compensation has been paid to individual New Zealand veterans, but that 10 Australian veterans have secured compensation from the Australian Government.

  Personnel Inquiry
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish the findings of the inquiry into armed forces personnel issues. [77789]

  Mr. Ingram
  The current phase of the Service Personnel Process review, which I announced to the House on 17 July 2002,Official Report, columns 277–78W is due to be completed early in the New Year. I therefore expect to be able to make an announcement about its findings in the Spring. The final phase of the review is expected to last six months, which would point to a further announcement in the Autumn.

  Porton Down
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set up a public inquiry into the health risks of the release of zinc cadmium sulphide and radio-xenon from the atomic research establishment, Harwell, by scientists from the chemical and biological defence establishment, Porton Down, in 1961; and if he will make a statement. [78155]

  Dr. Moonie
  I do not consider it necessary to set up a public inquiry. In 1999, the Ministry of Defence commissioned Professor Peter Lachmann and a team of distinguished scientists to undertake an independent review of the fluorescent particle trials which occurred between 1955 and 1963, and included the four two-hour trials which also involved the release of133 Xenon at Harwell in 1961. The MOD accepts the conclusion of this review, which was that "Exposure to cadmium from dissemination of zinc cadmium sulphide during the 'cold war' should not have resulted in adverse health effects in the United Kingdom population". The findings of the review are summarised in an open literature paper entitled, "The Risk to the UK Population of Zinc Cadmium Sulphide Dispersion by the MOD During the "Cold War" (Occup. Environ.
  66W
  Med. 2002, 59, 13–17). Additionally, the complete review can be found at www.mod.uk/publications/ zinc-cadmium.

  Pride of Portsmouth (Collision)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who made the decision to allow ferry ships to enter Portsmouth harbour on the 26 and 27 October in poor weather conditions; who was consulted; and if he will make a statement. [78510]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Queen's Harbour Master (QHM) is responsible to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence for the control of all movements within the Dockyard Port of Portsmouth in accordance with the Dockyard Port Regulation Act 1865 and the Dockyard Port of Portsmouth Order 1978. Although the weather conditions were poor they were not unusual and the duty Harbour Control Officer, acting under QHM's delegated authority and without the need for further consultation, made the decision to allow ferry movements in the harbour.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who authorised the tug boats to be used to assist after the collision of the P&O ferry Pride of Portsmouth and HMS St Albans on 27 October; who was in control of the tug boats; and if he will make a statement. [78538]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Queen's Harbour Master (QHM) Portsmouth always provides a tug for cross channel ferry movements in winds exceeding 30 knots. A second tug is also available if required. In this case two tugs were provided for the move and were in attendance from the harbour entrance until the ferry berthed at the Commercial Ferry Port. The tugs were under the instruction of the Master of the ferry.

  RAF Communications Systems
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in equipping RAF aircraft with secure air-to-air and air-to-ground communication systems fully interoperable with similar systems in use by the United States Air Force. [78313]

  Dr. Moonie
  A wide range of RAF platforms are fitted with secure air-to-air and air-to-ground communications. These systems are fully interoperable with coalition forces, including the United States.

  RAF Machrihanish
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military landings and take-offs were recorded at RAF Machrihanish during each of the last five years. [78731]

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

  RAF Menwith Hill
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many(a) arrests, (b) reports with a view to prosecution charges, (c) arrests (d) actual prosecutions and (e) successful prosecutions there have

  67W
  been since 1996 under the (i) RAF Menwith Hill Military Land Byelaws 1996 and (ii) the RAF Fylingdales Military Land Byelaws 1986; [77767]

  (2) what the cost to his Department is of (a) the new security developments to the main entrance to RAF Menwith Hill and (b) the road development and road widening to the main entrance to Menwith Hill; [77768]

  (3) how many breaches of security, in each year since 2000, there have been at (a) RAF Menwith Hill, (b) RAF Fylingdales, (c) RAF Lakenheath, (d) RAF Molesworth, (e) Barford St. John, (f) RAF Croughton and (g) RAF Fairford; and if he will make a statement. [77770]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested for RAF Menwith Hill is shown in the table.

  Arrests

  Reports with a view to prosecution

  1996–97

  17

  17

  1997–98

  49

  49

  1998–99

  30

  30

  1999–2000

  32

  32

  2000–01

  5

  5

  2001–02

  7

  7

  2002–03 to date

  4

  4

  The records held in respect of RAF Fylingdales only go as far back as 1997–98 and indicate 11 arrests and two reports with a view to prosecution in financial year 2000–01. Prosecutions are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General.

  The number of incursions recorded against the Ministry of Defence installations indicated in the previous table are shown in the following table:

  Number of incursions

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03 to date

  RAF Menwith Hill

  1

  1

  1

  RAF Fylingdales

  1

  0

  0

  RAF Lakenheath

  1

  0

  110

  RAF Molesworth

  2

  3

  1

  Barford St. John

  1

  1

  0

  RAF Croughton

  4

  3

  0

  RAF Fairford

  1

  1

  0

  1 This figure relates to incursions that took place on 6 October 2002 during a large demonstration at RAF Lakenheath.

  There was no cost to the MOD in respect of the works carried out at Menwith Hill. The cost was funded by the United States authorities.

  RAF Squadrons
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF squadrons have their full complement of(a) pilots and (b) ground crews; which squadrons do not have a full complement of (i) pilots, (ii) ground crew; and if he will make a statement. [78270]

  Mr. Ingram
  On 25 October 13 RAF front line fixed and rotary wing squadrons had their full complement of pilots and 20 had a full complement of ground crew.
  68W
  The following front line squadrons did not have a full complement of pilots: 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 25, 27, 28, 31, 33, 43, 101, 111, 216 and 230.

  The following front line squadrons did not have a full complement of ground crew 7, 8, 18, 23, 25, 27, 28, 28, 33, 47, 70, 216 230.

  RAF manning shortfalls are well known and are being addressed. The RAF continues to meet its operational commitments.

  Rapid Deployment Force
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from the US Administration regarding NATO's plans to set up a rapid deployment force unit; and if he will make a statement. [77810]

  Mr. Hoon
  I discussed the proposal for a NATO Response Force (NRF) with the United States Secretary of Defence and other NATO colleagues at the informal meeting of defence ministers in Warsaw in September 2002. The proposed NRF concept is coherent with current work to reform NATO's command and force structures and enjoys the United Kingdom's strong support. Work is now under way within NATO to develop the NRF concept, and guiding principles are expected to be put before Heads of State and Government at the Prague summit for their agreement.

  Refit Intervals
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his policy of refit intervals for Royal Navy warships. [78659]

  Mr. Ingram
  The policy of refit intervals seeks to achieve a satisfactory balance between resources and operational requirements. In general terms, such refits will occur after eight to 12 years for submarines, up to 10 years for major surface ships and one to eight years for minor surface ships.

  Submarine Sonar
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research he has undertaken into the effects of submarine sonar on the behaviour and health of cetaceans; and if he will make a statement on the conclusions of the research. [78625]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence is undertaking a range of research projects into the effects of both submarine and surface ship sonar on the behaviour and health of cetaceans. This research is intended to inform the Ministry of Defence's conduct of Environment Appraisals and Environmental Impact Assessments, as required by the Secretary of State for Defence's Policy Statement of 7 July 2000 on the Management of Safety and Environmental Protection in the Ministry of Defence. That Policy Statement requires Environmental Impact Assessments to be conducted for all new equipment projects. A copy of the Policy Statement, together with a chapter on the conduct of Environmental Appraisal and Environmental Impact Assessment, can be found in the Ministry of Defence's Environmental Manual, JSP 418 which is in the Library of the House.
  69W
  The reason for the research programme is that, to date, it has not been possible to put forward any definitive conclusions on the effects of differing acoustic energy on marine mammals. The research, which is ongoing, has not yet reached any conclusion. In addition to the research, Environmental Impact Assessments undertaken by the Ministry of Defence in respect of this subject will also be informed by evidence from leading experts both in the United Kingdom and the United States. We are also monitoring relevant scientific and environmental research around the globe on this issue.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to monitor the effects on cetaceans of the use of sonar in antisubmarine warfare operations. [78628]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is Ministry of Defence policy to consider the effects of sonar use on cetaceans. An environmental impact assessment is undertaken prior to all new projects and training activities. The way in which the equipment is then used during each subsequent training activity takes the assessment into account. Trials are preceded by a detailed environmental study of the operating area concerned. The operating area continues to be monitored while the trials are under way, and the activity is managed to minimize the potential impacts on cetaceans. Mitigation methods based on best scientific advice, such as acoustic and visual monitoring in accordance with Government and Joint Nature Conservation Committee published guidelines adapted for military use, are used so that the activity will be modified, delayed or moved as necessary.

  These measures provide a balance between the requirement for essential trials work and training, and the equally important need to avoid causing any significant adverse effect on the marine environment.

  Suicide Prevention
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the rank of officer is who is responsible for suicide prevention at(a) Deepcut Barracks, Surrey and (b) Catterick Barracks, Yorkshire. [78794]

  Mr. Ingram
  The responsibility for the welfare of recruits, including the identification of those who may be vulnerable to self-harm, rests with the entire chain of command. All staff are aware of the need to identify those who may be vulnerable and an army suicide prevention pamphlet, issued in January 2001, is widely available through the chain of command.

  Soldiers are encouraged to discuss any issues of concern and may seek advice from a number of individuals including their immediate superiors, the regimental medical office, Padre, unit welfare officer, Local Army Welfare Worker or Women's Royal Voluntary Service (WRVS) welfare officer. WRVS staff are concentrated at the army's training establishments and provide regular, informal contact with recruits. Regular case conferences are held by these agencies to identify any soldiers who may be particularly vulnerable.

  If a soldier wishes to remain entirely anonymous they may ring the army's confidential support line, which has been in operation since December 1997 under the
  70W
  guidance of the Samaritans. Telephone charges are free to the caller from anywhere in the world and the line is widely publicised throughout the army community.

  UN Global Ceasefire
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has to ensure the observance of the UN annual day of global ceasefire; [79158]

  (2) what measures he took to ensure that Britain's armed forces observed the UN global ceasefire on 21 September; [79164]

  (3) if he will list (a) the countries in which British armed forces are stationed and (b) those countries in which British armed forces observed the UN global ceasefire of 21 September 2001; [79157]

  (4) what instructions were received by his Department on the observance of the United Nation's International Peace One Day. [79163]

  Mr. Ingram
  In 2001 the United Kingdom cosponsored GA Resolution 55/282, which fixed the International Day of Peace on 21 September each year. The primary objective of the day is to encourage parties engaged in civil war and armed conflict to allow humanitarian agencies to deliver relief and medical supplies to civilian populations. The United Kingdom continues to make an important contribution to United Nations peacekeeping efforts around the world, most notably in Sierra Leone and the Balkans.

  The full details as to the countries in which British armed forces are stationed are published in "Tri-Service Publication 6, Global Location of Service Personnel", a copy of which can be found in the House of Commons Library.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is intended to be taken against the(a) British-registered and (b) British-based persons listed by the UN as having violated the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises in respect of their activities in relation to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [78852]

  Mr. Rammell
  The United Nations Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth in the Democratic Republic of the Congo alleges that 12 UK companies have violated the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. We are seeking more details. We are considering a substantive response to the report's recommendations.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the activities of those UK companies and persons based in the UK which have been criticised by the UN for breaking sanctions in respect of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [78851]

  Mr. Rammell
  The United Nations Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth in the Democratic Republic of
  71W
  the Congo alleges that some UK based companies and persons have breached sanctions on Zimbabwe and have supplied military equipment to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We are studying the report's allegations closely and are considering a substantive response to its recommendations. We will also be discussing action on these and other allegations at the United Nations Security Council.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what investigations his Department had carried out into sanctions-breaking by(a) UK companies and (b) British-based persons in respect of the supply of spare parts for British Aerospace Hawk jets of the Zimbabwe Defence Force to the Democratic Republic of Congo, prior to the publication of the UN Panel of Exports' report on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the DRC. [78855]

  Mr. Rammell
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The recent UN Panel report on the Democratic Republic of Congo contains allegations in relation to the supply of Hawk jet spare parts. We are urgently seeking further details from the UN, and will investigate them fully.

  (b) None.

  Charter of Fundamental Rights
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy on the Charter of Fundamental Rights is; how the Government plans to take that policy forward; and if he will make a statement. [75039]

  Echelons

  Grade

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  Total number of staff

  A1

  1

  8

  7

  14

  11

  20

  61

  11,940.71

  12,575.01

  13,209.31

  13,843.61

  14,477.91

  15,112.21

  A2

  17

  37

  29

  31

  46

  63

  223

  10,596.40

  11,201.67

  11,806.94

  12,412.21

  13,017.48

  13,622.75

  A3

  36

  58

  79

  103

  111

  101

  49

  117

  654

  8,775.74

  9,305.18

  9,834.62

  10,364.06

  10,893.5

  11,422.94

  11,952.38

  12,481.82

  A4

  38

  115

  198

  242

  325

  276

  221

  453

  1,868

  7,372.55

  7,785.79

  8,199.03

  8,612.27

  9,025.51

  9,438.75

  9,851.99

  10,265.23

  A5

  134

  252

  444

  411

  229

  166

  95

  119

  1,850

  6,078.30

  6,438.40

  6,798.50

  7,518.70

  7,518.70

  7,878.80

  8,238.90

  8,599.00

  A6

  160

  394

  453

  308

  127

  42

  19

  15

  1,518

  5,250.79

  5,539.39

  5,825.99

  6,112.59

  6,399.19

  6,685.79

  6,972.39

  7,258.99

  A7

  449

  254

  433

  302

  93

  57

  1,588

  4,521.59

  4,746.58

  4,971.57

  5,196.56

  5,421.55

  5,646.54

  A8

  145

  57

  202

  3,998.94

  4,160.21

  B1

  9

  34

  72

  143

  137

  102 6,685.79

  82

  229

  808

  5,252.79

  5,539.39

  5,825.99

  6,112.59

  6,399.19

  6,972.39

  7,258.99

  B2

  40

  143

  151

  179

  128

  122

  65

  56

  884

  4,551.14

  4,764.51

  4,977.88

  5,191.25

  5,404.62

  5,617.99

  5,831.36

  6,044.73

  B3

  47

  192

  232

  244

  184

  102

  54

  37

  1,092

  3,817.46

  3,994.88

  4,172.3

  4,349.72

  4,527.14

  4,704.56

  4,881.98

  5,059.40

  B4

  25

  191

  309

  268

  95

  45

  19

  22

  974

  3,301.76

  3,455.62

  3,609.48

  3,763.34

  3,917.20

  4,071.06

  4,224.92

  4,378.78

  B5

  422

  39

  142

  150

  757

  2,951.34

  3,075.85

  3,200.36

  3,324.87

  C1

  1

  5

  15

  59

  209

  222

  198,

  910,

  1,619

  3,367.66

  3,503.46

  3,639.26

  3,775.06

  3,910.86

  4,046.66

  4,182.46

  4,318.26

  C2

  1

  18

  99

  223

  292

  290

  390

  1,313

  2,929.16

  3,053.61

  3,178.06

  3,302.51

  3,426.96

  3,551.41

  3,675.86

  3,800.31

  72W
  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 23 October 2002]: The Nice European Council agreed that the Charter of Fundamental Rights would be a political statement. As mandated by the Laeken European Council, the Convention on the Future of Europe is examining whether and, if so, how, the Charter should be included in the treaties. EU member states will take the final decision by unanimity at the Intergovernmental Conference in 2004. People need to know their rights and the EU institutions need to respect them. Our policy remains one of strong support for the charter.

  Das Air
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the activities of Das Air. [78845]

  Mr. Rammell
  The United Nations Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth in the Democratic Republic of the Congo lists a number of companies, including Das Air which it considers to have violated the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. We are seeking further details from the UN. We are studying the report's allegations closely and we are considering a substantive response to the report's recommendations.

  European Union Officials (Salaries)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide a break down of salaries of officials of the European Commission by(a) pay grade and (b) number. [78115]

  Mr. MacShane
  The following is a breakdown of the number of staff at each grade (top figure in cell) and their relative monthly salaries (bottom figure) within the Commission. Salaries are given in euros. Echelons are the individual pay steps within each grade.
  73W

  Echelons

  Grade

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  Total number of staff

  C3

  6

  33

  181

  364

  344

  241

  128

  123

  1,420

  2,732.35

  2,838.97

  2,945.59

  3,052.21

  3,158.83

  3,265.45

  3,372.07

  3,478.69

  C4

  11

  178

  455

  401

  228

  56

  17

  125

  1,471

  2,468.89

  2,568.90

  2,668.91

  2,768.92

  2,868.93

  2,968.94

  3,068.95

  3,168.96

  C5

  409

  17

  256

  183

  865

  2,276.47

  2,369.75

  2,463.03

  2,556.31

  D1

  1

  1

  13

  33

  50

  111

  253

  462

  2,572.75

  2,685.24

  2,797.73

  2,910.22

  3,022.71

  3,135.20

  3,247.69

  3,360.18

  D2

  3

  6

  53

  56

  43

  11

  15

  187

  2,345.85

  2,445.76

  2,545.67

  2,645.58

  2,745.49

  2,845.40

  2,945.31

  3,045.22

  D3

  23

  1

  16

  50

  22

  7

  1

  120

  2,183.37

  2,276.82

  2,370.27

  2,463.72

  2,557.17

  2,650.62

  2,744.07

  2,837.52

  L3

  1

  1

  2

  2

  12

  8

  12

  7

  45

  8,775.74

  9,305.18

  9,834.62

  10,364.06

  10,893.5

  11,422.94

  11,952.38

  12,481.82

  L4

  2

  12

  20

  53

  98

  91

  95

  157

  528

  7,372.55

  7,785.79

  8,199.03

  8,612.27

  9,025.51

  9,438.75

  9,851.99

  10,265.23

  L5

  2

  53

  106

  113

  65

  50

  30

  36

  455

  6,078.30

  6,438.40

  6,798.50

  7,158.60

  7,518.70

  7,878.80

  8,238.90

  8,599.00

  L6

  73

  84

  116

  77 6,112.59

  23

  4

  2

  379

  5,252.79

  5,539.39

  5,825.99

  6,399.19

  6,685.79

  6,972.39

  7,258.99

  L7

  105

  105

  84

  43

  20

  3

  360

  4,521.59

  4,746.58

  4,971.57

  5,196.56

  5,421.55

  5,646.54

  L8

  41

  23

  64

  3,998.94

  4,160.21

  Total full and part time staff

  21,767

  Firefighters' Strike
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what preparations he has made to ensure the safety and continuity of service to the public in the event of a firefighters' strike. [77667]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Raynsford) on 28 October 2002,Official Report, column 527W.

  International Criminal Court
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 21 October 2002,Official Report, column 38W, on the International Criminal Court, what discussions he has had with his counterpart in the United States on a bilateral agreement with the United States regarding the exemption of US citizens from the ICC. [78800]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs had a number of discussions with US Secretary Powell about the US Government's request for a bilateral agreement under Article 98.2 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in the period leading up to the GAER Council on 30 September. On 17 October, and as part of a tour of four EU capitals, US officials visited London for discussions with FCO officials. Those discussions were of an exploratory nature: the British side explained that HMG was ready to respond, within the parameters of the Guiding Principles agreed by EU Foreign Ministers at GAERC on 30 September. No date has yet been set for further discussion.

  Iran/Iraq (Military Conflict)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Iranian Government regarding possible military action against Iraq. [78440]
  74W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  While in Iran on 9 October my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed a number of regional issues, including the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, which have in the past been used against Iran. Both sides agreed on the need for Iraq to comply with its obligations under UN resolutions.

  Moscow Theatre Siege
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assurances he has(a) sought and (b) received that the gas used by the Russian authorities was not in violation of the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention. [78568]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Following inquiries by the United Kingdom and others, Russian authorities have announced that the gas used in ending the siege on a Moscow theatre, on Saturday 26 October, was based on Fentanyl, an opium based narcotic. Fentanyl is not a chemical scheduled under the Chemical Weapons Convention. Non-scheduled chemicals are not in themselves prohibited under the Convention for use in law enforcement, including domestic riot control purposes. On 30 October, the Russian Health Minister, Mr. Shevchenko said "I officially declare that chemical substances of the kind banned under international conventions on chemical weapons were not used".

  Namibia
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received about the Namibian Government's plans to pass emergency legislation to make it illegal for foreigners to own land; what his Department's policy is; what plans he has to discuss these issues with(a) his European counterparts and (b) members of the Southern African Development Community; and if he will make a statement. [78805]
  75W
  Mr. Rammell
  We understand that the Namibian Government are considering an amendment to the 1995 Land Reform Bill. We are seeking urgent clarification. EU Heads of Mission in Windhoek are drawing up a report on land reform, and the issue will be discussed within the EU framework. We will if necessary also raise the issue during contact with SADC members.

  New Zealand
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library copies of the reports compiled by the secondee from Barrow International to the British Consulate in Auckland, New Zealand in 2001 into export opportunities in the New Zealand marine industry for British companies. [78153]

  Mr. Rammell
  The report to which I believe the hon. Member is referring was produced in May 2000. I have today asked for the report to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Pakistan
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit Pakistan. [78870]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no immediate plans to visit Pakistan. He has visited the country three times in the last 12 months. I hope to be able to visit in the months to come.

  Private Sector Secondments
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the standard contract letter which is drawn up between his Department and secondees from private companies before they start their secondment. [78152]

  Mr. Rummell
  There are two standard contract letters—one with the secondee and one with the seconding company. I have today asked for these to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures are taken to prevent conflicts of interest involving secondees from the private sector to British embassies. [78157]

  Mr. Rammell
  The potential for conflicts of interest is addressed when BTI and the FCO consider candidates for secondment opportunities and when setting up the secondments themselves. There are two letters of appointment: one with the secondee, and one with the seconding organisation. Both cover this issue. The letter to the secondee states:"It is a prime condition of the secondment that you ensure that in the course of official duties there will be no conflict of interest that will cause either embarrassment to, or difficulties for, your parent organisation (Company) or the FCO. You will be expected to ensure that your position here is not, and raises no reasonable suspicion of being, abused either in your own personal interest, or in the interests of (Company). In practise this means that you should not undertake any work or research on behalf of (Company), or present yourself as a representative of the company, for the duration of the secondment. In addition,
  76W
  (Company) should not have priority access to information or sales leads you secure in your work with the (Post), but should receive this information at the same time as all other British companies operating in the market or sector. Any areas of work that might possibly give rise to conflict of interest should be discussed with your line manager. Please be aware that if any of these guidelines are breached, British Trade International reserves the right to consider immediate termination of the secondment."
  The letter to the seconding organisation states:
  "I trust (Company) will appreciate and share our concerns that, in the course of (Name) official duties with the FCO, there should be no conflict of interest that would, or might be, a source of embarrassment either to your company or the Department. In practise this means that (Name) should not undertake any work or research on behalf of (Company), or present himself/herself as a representative of the company, for the duration of the secondment. In addition, (Company) should not have priority access to information or sales leads secured in the course of (Name) work with the Embassy, but should receive this information at the same time as all other British companies operating in the market or sector Please be aware that if any of these guidelines are breached, British Trade International reserves the right to consider immediate termination of the secondment. In addition, may I particularly draw your attention to paragraph vi of the attached letter."
  I have arranged for a copy of both letters to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library copies of the reports compiled by the secondee from British Nuclear Fuels following his secondment to the British embassy in Sweden between September 1999 and February 2000 to review the energy market in that country and identify opportunities for UK companies. [78158]

  Mr. Rammell
  I have today asked for this report to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Recruitment
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much has been spent in recruiting staff to his Department in(a) London and (b) the south east in each year since 1997. [78563]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office recruits nationally. We do not, therefore break down the recruitment budget by region. The following figures include money spent on recruitment in its widest sense. This includes general marketing via careers fairs, as well as targeted marketing aimed at under-represented groups such as minority ethnic communities and women.

  Financial Year

  £

  1997–98

  995,293

  1998–99

  1,622,811

  1999–2000

  1,999,803

  2000–01

  2,543,387

  2001–02

  2,791,659

  2002–03

  11,501,626

  1 To date

  Soviet Polar Region Medal
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will grant veterans the right to receive and wear the Soviet Polar Region Medal. [79066]

  Mr. Straw
  My Department has received no formal request from the Russian Government asking that permission be granted to issue the Defence of the Soviet Arctic Region Medal (also referred to as the Polar Region Medal) to British Veterans. Were the Russian authorities formally to ask for this campaign medal officially to be recognised in this country, the matter would be carefully considered, as are similar requests from foreign governments.

  Turkey
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his estimate is for a date for Turkey to join the EU. [78867]

  Mr. MacShane
  The British Government looks forward to Turkey's membership of the European Union as soon as possible. Turkey has not started accession negotiations because it does not yet meet the Copenhagen political criteria, which include rule of law, democracy and respect for human rights and minorities.

  We welcome the significant EU-related reforms that the Turkish Parliament has passed this year. As the Brussels European Council agreed, this has brought forward the opening of accession negotiations with Turkey. Brussels also encouraged Turkey to pursue its reform process and take further concrete steps in the direction of implementation.

  UK-owned Equipment
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with the Governments of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates and the Sultanate of Oman concerning the operation of UK-owned and operated equipment of Israeli origin from their territories. [78464]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I do not know of any such discussions.

  Visa Offices
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the opening of visas offices in(a) Jallander, (b) Ahamedblad and (c) Lahore. [78871]

  Mr. Rammell
  We intend to open offices in Jalandhar and Ahmedabad to make our visa services more accessible to our customers and to provide them with the advice they need. The offices will also act as visa application centres, forwarding completed applications to the relevant visa issuing post for consideration. We are also exploring the possibility of offering similar services in other cities in India.

  Given the security situation in Pakistan, there is no current plan to reopen the visa operation in Lahore.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations his Department has received concerning the non-payment of pensions(a) by the Zimbabwe Government to British citizens and (b) to former British citizens in Zimbabwe; and what discussions he has had concerning the non-payment of pensions by the Government of Zimbabwe. [77943]

  Mr. Rammell
  The FCO has replied to 20 letters from hon. Members and five from members of the public between June and September this year concerning nonpayment of Zimbabwe civil service or company pensions to British citizens in the UK and overseas. We have also answered five written PQs since February this year.

  Responsibility for the payment of these pensions rests with the Zimbabwean authorities and the relevant pension fund managers. We regularly remind the Zimbabwean pension authorities of their responsibility to pay the pensions of those resident outside Zimbabwe in full and on time.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Fruit Scheme
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much has been spent on the National Fruit Scheme by the National Opportunities Fund in(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03 to date, broken down by region. [78387]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 31 October 2002]: £42 million is available under the New Opportunities Fund National School Fruit programme. Grants are being awarded through an allocation process. 27 areas have been allocated funds in phase 1 of the programme and these projects started in the summer term 2002. Further allocations will be announced during 2002 and 2003.

  The amount awarded to each of the 27 areas under phase 1 of the National School Fruit programme is set out in the table.

  Lead organisation

  Amount of grant award (£)

  London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

  180,460.00

  Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull NHS Trust (Teaching)

  10,167,600.00

  Education Bradford

  93,220.00

  London Borough of Brent

  103,800.00

  Northamptonshire Heartlands Primary Care Trust

  62,100.00

  Cornwall County Council

  104,060.00

  Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust

  136,540.00

  City and Hackney Primary Care Trust

  130,792.00

  Enfield Primary Care Trust

  155,980.00

  West Hull Primary Care Trust

  59,860.00

  Lambeth Primary Care Trust

  109,340.00

  Hinckley and Bosworth Primary Care Trust

  111,580.00

  Luton Primary Care Trust

  164,860.00

  Manchester City Council

  152,100.00

  Central Liverpool Primary Care Trust

  119,220.00

  Nottingham City Primary Care Trust

  122,580.00

  79W

  Lead organisation

  Amount of grant award (£)

  Portsmouth City Council

  129,300.00

  Plymouth Primary Care Trust

  144,444.00

  Sheffield West Primary Care Trust

  150,340.00

  Slough Borough Council

  158,700.00

  Barnsley Primary Care Trust

  82,792.00

  North Tees Primary Care Trust

  124,860.00

  Newcastle Primary Care Trust

  153,180.00

  Wakefield West Primary Care Trust

  110,340.00

  Halton Borough Council

  90,900.00

  Newham Primary Care Trust

  102,792.00

  Tower Hamlets Primary Care Trust

  94,792.00

  Football Commission
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what(a) recent discussions she has had with and (b) representations she has received regarding the Independent Football Commission; and if she will make a statement; [78889]

  (2) what research (a) has been conducted and (b) is planned by her Department on the Independent Football Commission; and if she will place the related documentation in the Library. [78888]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Independent Football Commission was launched in March. In addition to its work in considering individual complaints from supporters, the Commission has already considered issues of racism, merchandising, broadcasting, and the treatment of away supporters. The Commission's success in establishing itself and meeting its initial objectives will be considered in its first annual report, which is due to be published in January 2003. In advance of that report, the Government does not see a need for separate research into the Commission's activities.

  I have received one representation on the subject of the Commission since its launch. My Department has, however, drawn the attention of correspondents to it where this is appropriate. I met the Commission's Chairman, Professor Derek Fraser, on 30 April, and will meet him again on 7 January to discuss progress.

  Lottery Funds (Village Halls)
  Mr Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many representations she has received about the case for village halls to win an appropriate share of Lottery funds; and if she will make a statement. [78444]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received numerous representations from Members of Parliament, village halls advisers and others about the funding difficulties facing village halls. Many village halls have received Lottery funding and the community fund alone has to date awarded £109 million for the building, extension and improvement of 2,271 village halls.

  We have asked Lottery distributors to work together to make it easier for community groups to access such funding. Last month distributors launched a £2 million trial programme in the West Midlands involving a
  80W
  shared application process for groups seeking up to £100,000 to improve their community building and the sports, arts or community activities that happen there.

  National Lottery Funding
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will issue guidance to direct more funds from the National Lottery receipts to support projects for youth and young people, including the uniformed organisations, which create more facilities and organised opportunities designed to remove young people from the streets. [78479]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government has issued policy directions to Lottery distributing bodies which include a requirement to take into account the needs of children and young people in distributing Lottery funds. This summer, 11.5m from the New Opportunities Fund went directly towards diversionary activities for young people to help reduce street crime. We are currently consulting on the future of Lottery distribution and a dedicated Youth Fund is among the options proposed.

  New Opportunities Fund
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much was spent of the New Opportunities Fund on PE and sports in schools in rural England in(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03 to date. [78405]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 31 October 2002]: The New Opportunities Fund (NOF) has allocated funding to each LEA area to ensure that funding is available for projects in all parts of England. These allocations are made up of a baseline allocation (based on the size of the school population in the LEA) and a deprivation allocation (based on the levels of deprivation within the LEA).

  Out of the £581.25 million available under the New Opportunities for PE and Sport programme in England, NOF has committed around £83 million to date.

  Figures are not readily available in the format requested, but rural communities have benefited from the awards made to date, and will continue to benefit from this programme in the future.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations have been made to her by the Scottish Executive on the operation of the New Opportunities Fund in Scotland. [78733]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a number of representations from the Scottish Executive about the New Opportunities Fund's operations in Scotland. The most recent of these concerned the future allocation of NOF funding in Scotland.

  Olympics World Games
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures she will take to support the UK delegation at the Dublin special Olympics world games. [78887]
  81W
  Mr. Caborn
  As the Special Olympics is a grassroots sporting event the United Kingdom delegation does not qualify for specific funding from either Sport England or UK Sport. I understand that in previous years the Special Olympics has canvassed for support from many organisations without relying on any one block grant.

  My right hon Friend the Prime Minister has recently provided a message of support for the Special Olympics "Support an Athlete" fundraising initiative. "Support an Athlete" will be launched in January 2003 and will provide companies, individuals and schools with the opportunity to sponsor an athlete or an entire delegation for the duration of the Games. The monies raised will cover all costs involved in hosting the delegations during their two week stay, and includes food, transport, insurance and entertainment for that period.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Pensioner Poverty
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent representations he has received on pensioner poverty. [75897]

  Maria Eagle
  We regularly receive representation from a variety of sources regarding our policies for tackling pensioner poverty. In addition both Ministers and Officials meet regularly with organisations that represent older people to discuss a range of issues of mutual interest.

  Benefit Payments
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what measures his Department has taken to prevent pensions and benefits claimants with(a) learning disabilities and (b) registered sight loss from being penalised following the introduction of Automatic Credit Transfer; [76934]

  (2) what funds have been allocated by his Department to prevent pensions and benefits claimants with (a) learning disabilities and (b) registered sight loss from being penalised following the introduction of Automatic Credit Transfer. [76935]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Many people in these circumstances already opt to be paid directly into their bank account. After April 2003 many others will be able to benefit from the greater flexibility that payment by automated credit transfer offers in terms of when and where they collect their money.

  The new service is being designed with the needs of all customers in mind. Banks are making their basic accounts accessible at the Post Office. The Post Office is developing a post office card account which is a simple account just for the receipt of benefit, pension and tax credit payments. As is now the case with orderbooks and girocheques, customers can, if they wish, nominate someone else to collect their money for them. In these cases a second card will be issued.
  82W
  Our information campaign will take customers through the changes that are being made to the way benefits and pensions are paid. Customers will be supplied with information which clearly sets out their account options including a leaflet which outlines the features of each type of account. This will help customers to decide which account best meets their needs and circumstances.

  There have been no specific funds allocated to this group of claimants as the Government are confident that a service will be in place to ensure they will not be disadvantaged.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps will be taken to assist people in hospitals or otherwise unable to get to banks because of illness to collect pensions from source after January 2003. [77095]

  Malcolm Wicks
  As with orderbooks and girocheques now, customers would need to give someone else access to their account. The precise arrangement would depend on which type of account they have. For those with a current account there are a number of well established options which include Power of Attorney arrangements, third party mandate with the bank or provide another person with a signed letter of authority. Those with a post office card account will be able to nominate someone else to access their account through a second card.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reason the Post Office has issued guidance but it will not advise customers on the best route for the payment of benefits after January 2003. [77096]

  Malcolm Wicks
  It would not be appropriate for post office or Government staff to provide detailed financial advice, including which type of account people should open. The Government will make clear in its literature what options are available to customers. This literature will mention the option of continuing to collect money at a post office branch and the availability of the post office card account. The Post Office will also be able to supply information on banking at post offices. This will enable customers to decide which account best meets their needs and circumstances.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 24 July,Official Report, column 1570W, on incapacity reviews, what the findings were of the previous studies of sample cases. [77247]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The only previous study of a sample of cases was carried out in 1996 and found that on average the whole medical assessment process took 15.9 weeks where entitlement was confirmed and 17.7 weeks where benefit was withdrawn.

  Adult Disadvantage
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what assessment he has made of the incidence of ageism in the workplace; and if he will make a statement; [76961]

  (2) what steps he is taking to discourage ageism in the workplace; and if he will make a statement. [76962]
  83W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We have made a pledge to tackle age discrimination and we are committed to introducing age legislation covering employment, vocational training and guidance by 2006.

  We have been vigorously promoting the benefits of age diversity and recruitment, training and retaining of older workers to employers through our Age Positive campaign. The campaign focuses on raising employers' awareness of the business case for an age diverse work force and encouraging them to use the Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment to inform their employment policies. The campaign features a range of initiatives to promote age diversity, which are shown on our website www.agepositive.gov.uk.

  The Code of Practice, published in June 1999, sets out the standards for non-ageist approaches to recruitment, training, promotion, redundancy and retirement, and was developed with leading organisations including the CBI, TUC, the Employers Forum on Age and Age Concern. Evaluation of the Code of Practice, published last year, found that the number of companies using age in recruitment had fallen from 27 per cent. to 13 per cent. and those companies with a policy against employing older people has halved from 14 per cent. to 7 per cent. However it also indicated that 90 per cent. of people believe that employers do discriminate against older workers and although age awareness had increased considerably over the evaluation period, smaller employers were least likely to have realised the implications of ageism.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his Department's policy is towards ageism in the workplace. [77855]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 29 October 2002]: We have made a pledge to tackle age discrimination and we are committed to introducing age legislation covering employment, vocational training and guidance by 2006.

  We are already encouraging employers to adopt non-ageist employment practices through our Age Positive Campaign. The campaign raises employers' awareness of the business benefits of an age diverse work force and encourages a flexible approach to retirement to open up choice and opportunity for individuals to stay in work longer.

  In 1999 we published the Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment which sets out the standards for non-ageist approaches to recruitment, training, promotion, redundancy and retirement. The code was developed with leading organisations including the CBI, TUC, the Employers Forum on Age and Age Concern. Evaluation shows that from 1999 to 2001 the number of companies using age in recruitment had already fallen from 27 per cent. to 13 per cent. and the number of companies having a policy against employing older workers had dropped from 14 per cent. to 7 per cent.

  Older workers have a wealth of skills and experience that can benefit individual businesses and the economy as a whole. Our policies will help to improve further the employment rate of people over 50, which has risen considerably since 1997.

  Benefit Fraud
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his estimate is of the overall cost of(a) benefits fraud and (b) the agencies and actions taken to discover, prevent and prosecute benefit fraud in the last year for which figures are available. [78469]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Our latest estimate is that around £2 billion is lost annually through benefit fraud in Great Britain.

  The overall aim of the Department's anti-fraud strategy is to have a benefit system, which is secure from first claim to final payment. The implementation of this strategy means that an anti-fraud focus is integral to the work of all staff in the Department, as is dealing with the wider agenda of error and incorrectness in benefit payments. It is therefore not possible to identify separately the cost involved in tackling benefit fraud across the Department and its Agencies.

  Backdated Benefits
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much money he estimates has been saved by the government since the rules for backdating of benefits were changed. [76976]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available.

  Benefit Rates
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will raise the benefit rates for working age adults. [79205]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We keep all benefit rates under continuous review. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make an announcement in due course about the proposed rates of benefit which will apply from April 2003.

  Employment Agencies
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list his Department's employment agencies operating in Stoke on Trent. [76661]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Jobcentre Plus has the following offices within the boundaries of the Stoke-on-Trent local authority area:

  Hanley Jobcentre

  Burslem Jobcentre

  Longton Jobcentre

  Stoke Jobcentre

  Hanley Social Security Office

  Longton Social Security Office

  Firefighters' Strike
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what preparations he has made to ensure the safety and continuity of service to the public in the event of a firefighters' strike; and what the cost is to the Department of these actions. [77655]
  85W
  Malcolm Wicks
  We have put in place procedures to review internal contingency plans and evacuation procedures to ensure the safety of both the Departments staff and its customers. The cost of providing emergency cover will depend on the extent and nature of any industrial action.

  Health And Safety Commission
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the change in the number of fatal injuries in the construction industry in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02. [75132]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  There were 113 fatal injuries in the construction industry including workers and members of the public, in 2000–01. The Health and Safety Executive's provisional figures for 2001–02 show that there were 85 fatal injuries to workers and members of the public for the corresponding period.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many inspectors, excluding trainees, are employed by the Field Operations Division of the Health and Safety Executive in(a) Scotland, (b) Yorkshire and the North East, (c) the North West, (d) the Midlands, (e) Wales and the West, (f) London and the South East and (g) the Home Counties; and if he will make a statement. [75138]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The number of inspectors, excluding trainees, employed by the Field Operations Directorate (FOD) of the Health and Safety Executive on 17 October 2002 is:

  Division

  Number of inspectors

  Scotland

  80

  Yorkshire and North East

  85

  North West

  75

  Midlands

  106

  Wales and South West

  75

  London

  44

  East and South East

  97

  Construction

  148

  Total

  710

  The information is not available in the format requested. This reflects the re-organisation which took effect on 8 April 2002.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many companies have been fined for failure to insure their liability to their employees in the event of injury or disease sustained in the course of their employment in each year since 1997. [75849]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The number of employers who have been fined by courts in England, Scotland and Wales for failure to have insurance cover as required by the Employer's Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 and the Employer's Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Regulations 1998 each year since 1997 is as follows:

  1997—7

  1998—1

  1999—4

  2000—1

  2001—12

  Housing Benefit
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average level of rent paid through housing benefit to private sector tenants in Islington was in each of the past three years; and what the average rent charged to the tenants concerned was. [76330]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 22 October 2002]: The table shows the average weekly Housing Benefit payment and the average rent eligible for Housing Benefit for tenants living in the deregulated private sector, in the London Borough of Islington, at May 2000, 2001 and 2002. There is no directly comparable information about the actual rents paid by tenants.

  £

  Average weekly amount of Housing Benefit paid

  Average weekly eligible rent

  May 2000

  93.00

  95.80

  May 2001

  101.80

  105.60

  May 2002

  112.70

  117.10

  Notes:

  1. The data refer to households claiming Housing Benefit, which may be a single person, a couple or a family. More than benefit household can live in one property, for example two or more adults in a flat or house share arrangement.

  2.The eligible rent is the amount of rent which may be met by Housing Benefit after any restrictions applied by the rent officer, taking account of the cost of suitable accommodation in the area.

  3. Figures include cases where Housing Benefit is paid at the reduced rate due to the tenant's income.

  4. Figures exclude any extended payment cases.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System Quarterly 100 per cent. sample inquiries taken in May 2000, 2001 and 2002.

  Maternity Benefits
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to introduce improvements to(a) statutory maternity pay and (b) maternity allowance. [79586]

  Maria Eagle
  Regulations were laid before Parliament on 1 November which:amend existing regulations to improve the current arrangements for Statutory Maternity Pay and Maternity Allowance and;
  amend existing regulations dealing with Income Support, Jobseeker's Allowance, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit which are needed to take account of measures in the Employment Act 2002 which improve maternity rights and introduce new rights to paternity pay and leave and adoption pay and leave.
  These regulations are part of the package of measures developed to help working parents balance their work and family lives and significantly improve and extend the maternity payments made to pregnant and new mothers.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 24 October laid three draft Statutory Instruments which cover the improvements to maternity leave and the introduction of statutory adoption leave and pay and statutory paternity leave and pay.

  Pensions
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of
  87W
  the number of people required to retire from their jobs owing to reaching a certain age; and if he will make a statement. [76963]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department has commissioned a study to update knowledge about older workers' participation in the labour market, including the influences on their remaining in employment and the reasons for retirement. This survey of 2,800 people aged 50–69 asked people why they retired, including whether this was a result of having reached their employer's normal retirement age. The findings from this research, which is on-going, are expected to be published in spring 2003.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will supply the National Pensioners' Convention with a copy of the Government's National Strategy on Pensions; and if he will make a statement. [77040]

  Percentage of working-age individuals in each quintile contributing to a non-state pension in at least three out of four years by equivalised income quintiles (20 per cent. band) (Great Britain)

  Bottom quintile

  Second quintile

  Third quintile

  Fourth quintile

  Top quintile

  All

  All

  1992–95

  27

  33

  48

  57

  69

  47

  1993–96

  27

  30

  48

  55

  66

  46

  1994–97

  26

  31

  50

  57

  68

  47

  1995–98

  26

  36

  49

  57

  68

  48

  1996–99

  23

  34

  50

  60

  66

  48

  1997–2000

  21

  36

  49

  60

  68

  49

  Males

  1992–95

  36

  48

  62

  72

  80

  59

  1993–96

  35

  46

  62

  66

  74

  56

  1994–97

  35

  45

  63

  66

  76

  57

  1995–98

  37

  47

  59

  61

  74

  57

  1996–99

  31

  45

  60

  68

  69

  56

  1997–2000

  31

  47

  58

  68

  70

  57

  Females

  1992–95

  19

  17

  33

  42

  59

  35

  1993–96

  18

  14

  33

  45

  59

  35

  1994–97

  19

  17

  36

  47

  61

  37

  1995–98

  17

  24

  37

  52

  62

  39

  1996–99

  16

  22

  40

  51

  63

  40

  1997–2000

  13

  25

  39

  50

  65

  41

  Notes:

  1. All figures are estimates and are taken from the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) data set. The BHPS is a longitudinal data set developed at the University of Essex, Institute for Social and Economic Research. The latest data available is for the period 1997 to 2000.

  2. The estimates are sample counts, which have been adjusted for non-response using multipurpose grossing factors. Estimates are subject to both sampling error and to variability in non-response. The income measure used is total equivalised household income (that is to say income that is adjusted to reflect the composition of the household).

  3. Individuals are assigned between quintiles according to their household income in the first year of each of the four year periods.

  Source:

  BHPS

  Post Offices
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what plans he has to inform benefit and tax credit claimants that they will be able to receive their entitlement in cash over the counter at the Post Office after April 2003; [76105]

  (2) what plans he has to publicise the availability of the new Post Office card account. [76106]
  88W
  Maria Eagle
  A copy of the UK's national strategy report on pensions was sent to the National Pensioners' Convention on 17 September.

  All EU member states have produced reports as part of an exercise to exchange information and best practice on pensions. The UK report sets out current pensions policy. A draft Joint Commission/Council Report based on the information in the reports from member states is provisionally scheduled to be considered by EU Heads of State and Government at the spring European Council in 2003.

  Copies of the UK report are in the Library.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 24 October 2002,Official Report, column 487W, on contributions to non-state pensions, if he will estimate for each four year period for (a) all people, (b) men and (c) women the percentage of members of each quintile group who contributed to a non-state pension in at least three out of four years. [78806]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is in the table.

  Malcolm Wicks
  Customers are being supplied with information (including letters and leaflets), which clearly sets out their 'account options'. They can choose the bank or building society account (including the Post Office card account) which best meets their needs and circumstances. All of the Department for Work and Pensions material sets out the key features of the various accounts and mentions the availability of collecting cash from the Post Office, and the Post Office card account.
  89W
  The material the Inland Revenue have sent out with new Tax Credit application forms also clearly sets out the various account options, and the fact that people will still be able to collect their money from the Post Office if they wish.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 15 October 2002,Official Report, column 643W, on winter fuel payments, on what basis he has estimated the one-off cost of paying backdated winter fuel payments for 1997–98 to 2001–02 to British citizens living within the European Economic Area to be less than the future annual cost. [78482]

  Mr. McCartney
  The one-off costs quoted in my written answer on 15 October 2002,Official Report, column 643W were the administrative costs associated with the implementation of the changes.

  The annual cost is the estimated on-going cost of the actual winter fuel payments. Our estimate of the first year cost of such winter fuel payments is around £21 million, which takes account of entitlement for past periods.

  Fraud
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average time taken by his Department's Operational Intelligence Unit to respond to requests from local benefit fraud inspectors to requests for data in suspected fraud cases under the terms of the Social Security Fraud Act has been. [74843]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Advertising
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list external(a) public relations/communications companies, (b) advertising and marketing companies, (c) management consultancies, (d) accountancy companies, (e) banking firms, (f) individual consultants and (g) other specialist consultancies used by his Department since June 2001; what actions those consultancies/companies have performed within his Department; and what costs have been incurred through use of these consultancies/companies. [74682]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to ensure that Jobcentre Plus services are available throughout rural areas. [73983]
  90W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We understand the difficulties that people living in rural areas can face, both in securing employment and gaining access to our services. We are therefore developing new ways of making Jobcentre Plus services more accessible to such people, for example by:providing a single point of access to jobs and benefits
  providing access to jobs through call centres, touch screen 'Jobpoints' in a wider range of locations, and the internet
  enabling people to make claims for benefit by telephone, and eventually through other channels such as the internet
  extending outreach services such as local community surgeries
  making services available through mobile units
  delivering services from premises shared with our partners in the local community, for example local authorities

  We have introduced new services which should be particularly useful for Jobcentre Plus customers in rural areas. "Jobseeker Direct"—on 0845 6060234—is a telephone jobfinding service available to both unemployed and employed people. They can also look for jobs and learning opportunities on the internet, through two websites www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk and www.worktrain.gov.uk.

  The integrated Jobcentre Plus offices which we will be extending throughout Great Britain over the next four years will offer a significantly enhanced telephone service that will improve access to services for those who do not live near a Jobcentre Plus office. Each Jobcentre Plus office will have a dedicated telephone contact centre open from 8.30 am to 6.00 pm. Customers will be able to make their initial claim to benefit through this service and book appointments with Personal Advisers.

  Employment Initiatives
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to increase the(a) amount and (b) quality of support for the educational, training and employment scheme employees. [74405]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The amount and quality of support available to participants on our educational, training and employment programmes is under constant review as part of our continuous improvement agenda. This is led by Jobcentre Plus in partnership with the organisations delivering the programmes. Organisations wishing to compete for our education, training or employment related contracts are asked to set out how they intend delivering the programme, including the amount and quality of support they will offer participants. The providers who win the contracts are then subject to contractual and quality audits by Jobcentre Plus regional contracts managers, district quality management teams and, in some cases, the Adult Learning Inspectorate. These seek to ensure that providers deliver to the standards proposed in their bids and to support continuous improvement in the quality of their provision.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Food Import Inspections
  Mr Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects harmonised European Union legislation will be in force covering food of non-animal origin. [75921]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that the European Commission is still preparing its proposal for a regulation on official feed and food controls which will cover, inter alia, harmonised controls for imports of food of non-animal origin. The Commission expects to submit its final proposal to the European Council in late November 2002. It is unlikely, therefore, that the Regulation will be agreed and come into force before 2004.

  Recycling
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list local authorities that are(a) failing to meet Government recycling targets, (b) expected to meet them and (c) exceeding them; and what the estimates are for recycling in England for (i) the current year and (ii) 2003–04. [HL71110]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding Answer 19 July 2002]: Local authority Statutory Performance Standard ("targets") for recycling and composting of household waste have been set for the years 2003–04 and 2005–06. Local authorities will submit performance data against which these targets will be measured to the Audit Commission in Summer 2004 and audited performance figures will be available towards the end of 2004.

  Targets for individual authorities are listed in the publication "Guidance on Municipal Waste Management Strategies" March 2001. Copies of this document were placed within both libraries of the House on 5 March 2001. They are also published on DEFRA's website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/management/guidance/mwms/10.htm.

  We will have audited recycling performance figures for 2001–02 in December 2002 and this should give us an indication of progress to targets. A document setting out individual local authorities' targets and the most recent available data for their household waste recycling rates (2000–01), set out in ascending order according to their recycling and composting rate for 2000–01, has been placed in both libraries of the House (Table A).

  A further document (Table B) setting out the same information, but also including a column showing the difference between the 2000–01 rate and the 2003–04 target, in order to show "progress to target", has also been placed in both libraries of the House. Those furthest from their target in percentage points are shown at the top of the table. Note that, since all authorities had to achieve different levels of improvement to reach their target, that table does not allow for exact comparison.
  92W
  We set targets in a way which means all authorities would have to improve their performance over their rate in 1998–99, no matter what their starting point. For that reason, when tracking local authorities' recycling performance, we consider how much the recycling rate has increased, rather than looking simply at the rate.

  I have written to the leaders of the local authorities that are listed below about recycling. In these authorities, preliminary performance data for 2001–02, taken from 2002–03 Best Value Performance Plans, shows that the authority's recycling rate has decreased, stayed the same, or only increased by 1 per cent. between 1998–99 and 2001–02. I have invited the relevant leaders to identify work that is already in hand to meet their 2003–04 Statutory Performance Standard for recycling and composting of household waste and to consider the need for further action where this is relevant.

  Adur District Council

  Arun District Council

  Aylesbury Vale District Council

  Barrow-in-Furness Borough Council

  Bassetlaw District Council

  Berwick-upon-Tweed Borough Council

  Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council

  Bournemouth Borough Council

  Bradford City Council

  Breckland District Council

  Brentwood Borough Council

  Brighton & Hove Council

  Broadland District Council

  Broxtowe Borough Council

  Cambridge County Council

  Cannock Chase District Council

  Carlisle City Council

  Charnwood Borough Council

  Christchurch Borough Council

  Copeland Borough Council

  Corby Borough Council

  Cotswold District Council

  Craven District Council

  Cumbria County Council

  Dartford Borough Council

  Derby City Council

  Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

  Dorset County Council

  Dover District Council

  Easington District Council

  East Dorset District Council

  East Northamptonshire District Council

  East Staffordshire Borough Council

  Eastbourne Borough Council

  Ellesmere Port & Neston Borough Council

  Elmbridge Borough Council

  Exeter City Council

  Fareham Borough Council

  Forest of Dean District Council

  Fylde Borough Council

  Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

  Gloucester City Council

  Gosport Borough Council

  Gravesham Borough Council

  Hampshire County Council

  Harrogate Borough Council

  93W

  Hertsmere Borough Council

  Horsham District Council

  Hyndburn Borough Council

  Kettering Borough Council

  Kingston upon Hull City Council

  Lancaster City Council

  Lincoln City Council

  Liverpool City Council

  London Borough of Barking & Dagenham

  London Borough of Barnet

  London Borough of Bexley

  Longon Borough of Croydon

  London Borough of Ealing

  London Borough of Enfield

  London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

  London Borough of Haringey

  London Borough of Newham

  London Borough of Redbridge

  London Borough of Richmond upon Thames

  London Borough of Southwark

  London Borough of Tower Hamlets

  Macclesfield Borough Council

  Manchester City Council

  Mansfield District Council

  Medway Council

  Mendip District Council

  Mid Suffolk District Council

  Mid Sussex District Council

  Milton Keynes Council

  Newark & Sherwood District Council

  Newcastle upon Tyne City Council

  Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council

  North Cornwall District Council

  North Dorset District Council

  North Kesteven District Council

  North Norfolk District Council

  North Shropshire District Council

  North Tyneside Council

  North Warwickshire Borough Council

  North West Leicestershire District Council

  Northampton Borough Council

  Northumberland County Council

  Nottingham City Council

  Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council

  Oadby & Wigston Borough Council

  Oswestry Borough Council

  Poole Borough Council

  Purbeck District Council

  Reigate & Banstead Borough Council

  Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council

  Rossendale Borough Council

  Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

  Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea

  Runnymede Borough Council

  Rushmoor Borough Council

  Rydale District Council

  Sedgemoor District Council

  Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council

  Sheffield City Council

  Shepway District Council

  Shrewsbury & Atcham Borough Council

  Shropshire County Council

  Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council

  94W

  South Bedfordshire District Council

  South Kesteven District Council

  South Lakeland District Council

  South Oxfordshire District Council

  South Somerset District Council

  South Staffordshire Council

  St Albans City and District Council

  Stevenage Borough Council

  Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

  Stockton-on-Tees Council

  Stoke-on-Trent City Council

  Sunderland City Council

  Swindon Borough Council

  Tandridge District Council

  Taunton Deane Borough Council

  Teesdale District Council

  Thanet District Council

  Three Rivers District Council

  Tewkesbury Borough Council

  Tynedale District Council

  Warwick District Council

  Warwickshire County Council

  Watford Council

  Waveney District Council

  Waverley Borough Council

  West Berkshire Council

  West Devon Borough Council

  West Lancashire District Council

  Western Riverside Waste Authority

  Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

  Worcester City Council

  Worthing Borough Council.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, what progress has been made(a) on the Government sustainability index on climate change and (b) towards the Government's domestic target for a 20 per cent. reduction in CO2 emissions based on 1990 levels; and if she will make a statement. [77462]

  Mr. Meacher
  (a) The latest figures for the Headline Sustainable Development Indicator for Climate Change were published in a Defra Statistical Press Release on 28 March. Emissions on the "basket" of six greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol, weighted by global warming potential, fell by 13.2 per cent. between the 1990 base year and 2000, the last year for which confirmed data is available. There was no change between 1999 and 2000. The UK has a target under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2008–12. We remain on course to achieve this target.

  (b) A provisional estimate of carbon dioxide emissions for 2001, based on energy use, was published by the Department for Trade and Industry in March in its Energy Trends publication. This estimated that carbon dioxide emissions were 154.4 million tonnes of carbon, approximately 6 per cent. below the UK's 1990 baseline emissions of 16.4 million tonnes of carbon.

  Agricultural Support
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment she has made of support given to farmers in other countries to enable and encourage them to care for the environment and countryside; and if she will make a statement. [79241]

  Alun Michael
  Precise support arrangements vary widely between countries. Within the EU, all Member States are able to operate programmes under the Rural Development Regulation. These include agri-environment schemes which encourage farmers to adopt environmentally beneficial farming practices by compensating farmers for the costs and income foregone and by providing an incentive payment.

  The Department recently received the final report of an economic evaluation of agri-environment schemes commissioned from the Centre for Rural Economics Research at the University of Cambridge. This report included a comparison of agri-environment schemes offered in other European countries. It will be published shortly and will be available on the Defra website.

  All Member States submit mid-term evaluations of their rural development programmes to the European Commission at the end of 2003. The results should allow an EU-wide comparison and assessment of rural development support in general, including agri-environment support.

  British Cattle Movement Service
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, (1) what assessment she has made of the accuracy of data held by the BCMS; and if she will make a statement; [79281]

  (2) what assessment she has made of how up to date the information held by the BCMS is; and if she will make a statement. [79320]

  Alun Michael
  The British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS) works hard to validate and cleanse the information it is sent by cattle keepers. The information received by BCMS can often be incomplete or incorrect. The BCMS and the Paying Agencies throughout Great Britain cross check their data to confirm accuracy and identify and rectify anomalies. This is a time consuming and laborious process. The BCMS is working with partners in Government and Industry to improve the quality of the data that it receives.

  Refrigerators
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many refrigerators are awaiting disposal in Essex; and how much it will cost to dispose of them. [77154]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 31 October 2002]: The exact number of fridges being stored pending treatment in either waste collection authority or waste disposal authority at any one point in time are not held centrally. However, current estimates suggest there are more than 900,000 units awaiting treatment in the UK.

  The initial annual UK cost is likely to be around £40 million. This will decrease as plant are commissioned, competition becomes established and more fridges that do not need treatment enter the waste stream.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Press Advertising (Devolved Posts)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many non-devolved posts were advertised in the Press in each year since June 1999; and what percentage of them were advertised in the Scottish press. [76855]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 24 October 2002]: The information requested is not available.

  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve the detection of crime and to increase the numbers of criminals brought to justice. [76933]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer my hon Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ross Cranston) on 28 October 2002,Official Report, column 626W.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's involvement with the International Organisation for Migration; and the role he expects that organisation to take in the UK. [77339]

  Beverley Hughes
  The United Kingdom (UK) joined the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) in June 2001. This was a result of an agreement between the Home Office, the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as the UK was increasingly making use of the IOM's services, and the increasing level of work being taken forward by the Home Office in conjunction with the IOM was at odds with the United Kingdom's retaining "observer" status.

  The Government funds many projects undertaken by the IOM. The IOM co-ordinates the delivery of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's Voluntary Assisted Returns Programme for asylum seekers and failed asylum seekers.

  Additionally, the UK part finances IOM projects on return and reintegration.

  Furthermore, the IOM have considerable expertise in supporting the victims of people trafficking, and Home Office officials have consulted closely with the IOM in order to develop support systems for victims of trafficking.

  We see IOM's assistance to be crucial to our plans for practical action against illegal migration, by working proactively beyond our borders.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the application pack for candidates for the job of Chair of the Commission for Racial Equality; and if he will make a statement on the differences between this pack and those issued to applicants for this post on previous occasions. [77431]

  Beverley Hughes
  I have today placed a copy of the information pack for candidates for the post of Chair of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) in the Library.
  98W
  The post of Chair was advertised for the first time in 1999. On that occasion the pack set out basic information about the CRE and the person specification. This time the information pack has been re-designed to provide additional information about the wider race equality agenda and the government's support for the work of the Commission. No new requirements have been added to the role of the Chair, but more information about the role has been included in the information pack.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those public bodies for which his Department is responsible where provision is made in the job description of the Chairman that the policies of the body be compatible with those of the Secretary of State. [77432]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information pack sent to candidates for the post of Chair of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), which is currently vacant, states that:"The Chair must ensure that the CRE's policies are compatible with those of the Secretary of State and that the Commission's affairs are conducted with probity"

  The requirement is not a new one as the Commission for Racial Equality's policy and resource framework is agreed with Ministers who remain accountable to Parliament for the work and efficiency of the Commission.

  To my knowledge, this particular form of words has not been used in the job descriptions sent to applicants for the post of Chair of other public bodies sponsored by the Home Office. However, all non Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) agree their policy and resources framework with Ministers, and Ministers are answerable to Parliament for the policies and performance of all public bodies sponsored by their departments, including their use of resources and the policy framework within which they operate.

  Asylum Applications
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum were made during each of the last three years at(a) Glasgow airport, (b) Edinburgh airport, (c) Rosyth port and (d) Stranraer port. [78497]

  Beverley Hughes
  Asylum applications were as follows:

  Date

  Number of applications

  Glasgow airport (including Prestwick airport)

  1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000

  4

  1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001

  20

  1 January 2002 to 30 October 2002

  123

  Edinburgh airport

  1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000

  6

  1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001

  16

  1 January 2002 to 30 October 2002

  119

  Rosyth

  May 2002 to date2

  12

  99W

  Date

  Number of applications

  Stranraer/Cairnryan

  1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000

  11

  1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001

  31

  1 January 2002 to 30 October 2002

  142

  1 Data for 2002 are from local management information and may be subject to change.

  2 The ferry service into Rosyth has only operated since May 2002.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what resources are available to process asylum applications at(a) Belfast port and (b) Lame port. [78504]

  Beverley Hughes
  No permanent resources are in place at either Belfast or Lame ports. Neither port has international ferry services and accordingly there is no operational need for UK Immigration Service personnel to be stationed there. Any person who indicated to port staff at either port that they wished to claim asylum would be directed to the UK Immigration Service office at Belfast International Airport, where arrangements would be made for screening and interview in the normal way.

  Asylum Applications (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons claimed asylum during each of the last three years in Northern Ireland. [78506]

  Beverley Hughes
  No statistics are kept of the numbers of asylum applicants in Northern Ireland, or any other geographic region in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what resources are available to the Immigration Service in dealing with asylum applications made on entry to Northern Ireland from Eire. [78728]

  Beverley Hughes
  Any person seeking asylum in Northern Ireland is directed to the UK Immigration Service staff at Belfast International airport, where arrangements are then made for their screening and interview in the same way as a person seeking asylum elsewhere in the UK.

  The Belfast office currently has 11.5 staff, part of whose duties is to screen new asylum applicants identified in Northern Ireland.

  Asylum Centres
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are being used in assessing the suitability of contractors for operating the proposed new centres for asylum seekers; and who will decide on the award of contracts. [78549]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 31 October 2002]: Tender documents for the design, build and operation of accommodation centres have not yet been issued to potential contractors.
  100W
  In due course, the criteria to be used in evaluating bids will involve project management; legal and financial responses; design and construction; and delivery of services and maintenance. Home Office Ministers will make decisions to award contracts

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made for a full year of the cost of the withdrawal of the work concession to asylum seekers in(a) added benefit and (b) payments to detainees; and what he estimates to be the net difference in the costs to each removal centre of employing contract and agency labour in place of detainees working in cleaning and kitchens. [78484]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 31 October 2002]: We do not have figures on the additional costs, if any, of providing support to asylum seekers who can no longer seek permission to work. Internal management Information indicates that during the financial year 2001–02 we made initial decisions on the vast majority of new substantive applications within the initial six months. The number who might have been able to benefit from the concession is therefore much reduced.

  The percentage of new substantive cases in 2001–02 which were decided within six months will be available from 29 November 2002 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html

  The work concession for asylum seekers did not extend to asylum seekers in detention.

  Immigration detainees held in immigration Service removal centres have never been required to work nor are they expected to assist in the running of the centres.

  Following their redesignation earlier this year as removal centres, the Prison Service detention facilities at Dover, Haslar and Lindholme ceased to operate under Prison Rules. As a consequence, detainees no longer had the opportunity to undertake paid employment in the centres and the practice of relying on such work for the provision of certain ancillary services came to an end. Work formerly undertaken by detainees at these centres has been contracted out or transferred to agency staff. For this year this has resulted in a net additional cost of £1.09 million. This will be met from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's budget.

  Asylum Support
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) local authorities, (b) private sector contractors and (c) voluntary sector contractors are providing accommodation and support services for asylum seekers; and what the financial value is of tenders awarded to each sector. [78544]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 31 October 2002]: The information is as follows:

  Contracts

  Grant agreements

  Private sector

  11

  —

  Local authorities

  11

  —

  Voluntary sector

  —

  6

  101W
  Information on the financial value of contracts is not available in the form requested.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what geographical areas are covered in each region in the regional breakdown used by NASS; and what powers and responsibilities have been delegated to the individual regions. [78545]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 31 October 2002]: The areas covered by each region are as follows:

  Region

  County

  East of England

  Norfolk

  Suffolk

  Essex

  Cambridgeshire

  Hertfordshire

  Bedfordshire

  East Midlands

  Derbyshire

  Nottinghamshire

  Leicestershire

  Lincolnshire

  Northamptonshire

  Greater London

  London

  South Central and East

  Dorset

  Buckinghamshire

  Oxfordshire

  Berkshire

  Hampshire

  Surrey

  West Sussex

  East Sussex

  Kent

  North East

  Northumberland

  Tyne and Wear

  Durham

  Cleveland

  North West

  Greater Manchester

  Merseyside

  Lancashire

  Cheshire

  Cumbria

  Northern Ireland

  County Antrim

  County Down

  County Armagh

  County Tyrone

  County Fermanagh

  County Derry

  Scotland

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Borders

  Lothian

  Strathclyde

  Central

  Fife

  Tayside

  Grampian

  Highland

  South West

  Cornwall

  Devon

  Somerset

  Avon

  Wiltshire

  Gloucestershire

  Wales

  Gwent

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Mid Glamorgan

  Dyfed

  Powys

  Clwyd

  Gwynedd

  Anglesey

  102W

  Region

  Country

  West Midlands

  Staffordshire

  Shropshire

  West Midlands

  Hereford and Worcester

  Warwickshire

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  North Yorkshire

  West Yorkshire

  South Yorkshire

  Humberside

  National Asylum Support Service (NASS) is planning to increase the number of its staff in each major region. It is expected that the regional infrastructure will be in place by the end of the current financial year. Under the regionalisation programme work related to investigations, outreach and housing contract management will be delegated, with the expectation that aspects of operations work will follow at a later date. Actual locations of individual offices within regions are still being finalised.

  Mrs. Ellman:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many private contractors providing accommodation or support for asylum seekers have been dropped since 1997 because of dissatisfaction with their performance. [78546]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 31 October 2002]: The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) became operational on 3 April 2000. Since that date NASS has not terminated any contracts with private sector contractors providing accommodation or support asylum seekers.

  Chechens (Deportation)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will postpone the deportation of Chechens to Russia. [78526]

  Simon Hughes
  [holding answer 31 October 2002]: The Home Office, in conjunction with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, closely monitors the situation in the Russian Federation, and in particular, the conflict in Chechnya. We are aware that the Russian authorities have intensified their security operations in the wake of the terrorist incident in Moscow, but the impact of this remains unclear thus far. Our deportation policy, however, is kept under constant review.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter to him dated 3 September from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Tabasum Raja and Asif Kamal. [78044]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 30 October 2002.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government is taking to ensure that the Criminal Records Bureau delivers an effective service to its customers. [77742]
  103W
  Mr. Blunkett
  The Government is committed to the delivery of an effective service for undertaking pre-employment criminal record checks for people working with children and vulnerable adults. The Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) has not so far been able to provide a satisfactory service.

  A number of steps have already been taken to improve the CRB's performance. In May an initial service improvement plan was put in place. As a result the number of disclosures issued by the CRB has increased from an average of 24,500 per week in August to an average of 39,500 per week in the three weeks ending 26 October. The CRB has now issued 541,000 disclosures.

  In addition, in September I announced the appointment of an independent team, led by Patrick Carter, to take a fundamental look at the strategy and operations of the CRB and its private-sector partner, Capita. The team will be looking to identify the longer-term changes in the way the CRB operates to ensure that it can meet the demand both for the standard and enhanced disclosures already in place and the basic disclosures to be introduced in due course.

  I expect the independent team to report to me with their conclusions and recommendations by the end of the year. It is likely, however, to require a period of months before any system changes necessary to deliver the required step change in the CRB's output can be fully implemented. In the meantime it is expected that there will be a gradual improvement in performance through the ongoing service improvement plan.

  In the interim, we need to take steps to ensure that the demand for disclosures is in line with the CRB's current ability to process the applications. I have therefore agreed with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health, and for Education and Skills a number of measures to defer the existing or proposed requirement on certain occupations or office holders to obtain a CRB disclosure.

  Persons caring for children and vulnerable adults will, as now, continue to be subject to rigorous pre-employment checks, including confirming previous employment history and taking up references, to ensure their suitability for the position in question. All those occupations which were subject to a criminal record check prior to the advent of the CRB will continue to be subject to such a check.

  The details of the measures are set out as follows:

  Care Homes
  The care homes regulations (relating to care homes for adults) currently require CRB checks for existing staff—that is, those employed to work in a care home immediately before 1 April 2002—to be completed by 31 March 2003. The Government will be amending the regulations to extend this time limit. Existing care home staff will now be required to obtain a CRB check during the course of 2004. New care homes staff will continue to be required to have CRB checks, as will registered providers and managers of care homes.
  Nurses agencies and domiciliary care agencies
  Nurses supplied by nurses agencies, and staff supplied by domiciliary care agencies, will not be required to have CRB checks for the time being. The Department of Health will still be going ahead with the introduction of the nurses agency and domiciliary care agency regulations to come into effect in February 2003, but
  104W
  without the requirement for CRB checks. Staff will be required to provide a statement that they have no criminal convictions, or to provide a statement of any criminal convictions that they do have.
  The CRB check requirements will however, apply to registered providers and managers of nurses agencies and domiciliary care agencies.
  Some nurses agencies are already having to comply with requirements for CRB checks, which stem from the care homes regulations and the private and voluntary health care regulations which are already in place. These require checks to be made before temporary staff can be placed in those settings. These requirements have been in place since April 2002, and are not being removed.
  Other Department of Health regulations
  There will be no change to other regulations under the Care Standards Act 2000. Furthermore, none of these measures affect the requirements of those working with children to have a Protection of Children Act list check and the checks required by the Children's Homes Regulations and the Fostering Services Regulations.
  It is planned that regulations on residential family centres and adoption agencies will come into effect, with CRB check requirements, in February and April 2003 respectively.
  In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has agreed to postpone the implementation of the Protection of Vulnerable Adults list provided for the Care Standards Act.
  All these arrangements are designed to avoid having regulations in place which cannot be complied with by providers. The Government recognises the importance of criminal records checks but at the same time providers must not be prevented from operating. Care homes have to be able to continue to employ existing staff, and we believe that domiciliary care agencies and nurses agencies should not be prevented from being able to place staff because they have not obtained checks.
  The regulations and national minimum standards, even with the CRB check requirements, will still be a significant factor in driving up standards and protecting service users. Among other things, they will cover the way the organisation is run, recruitment procedures, staffing arrangements, user feedback, information for service users, all of which are part of a system to protect vulnerable people.
  School Governors
  School governors will not be required to have CRB checks for the time being. The Department for Education and Skills will still be going ahead with the introduction of the School Governance (Constitution) regulations to come into effect in April 2003, but without the requirement for CRB checks.
  The Government remains committed to introducing CRB checks in these areas at the earliest possible opportunity.
  The Home Office, in conjunction with the Department of Health for Education and Skills, will be issuing detailed guidance to Registered Bodies about the implications of the above measures. The three Departments will continue to work with their partners and the CRB as the situation develops.

  EU Border Policing
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the timetable through which(a) his press office, (b) his staff and (c) he were informed of proposals in the European Commission for the establishment of common EU border policing. [78125]

  Beverley Hughes
  The communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament towards integrated management of the external borders of the member states of the European Union was released to member states on 7 May 2002 and deposited for parliamentary scrutiny on 17 May 2002.
  105W
  The Communication was received by the Home Office and forwarded to the relevant directorates. Press office would not normally receive this as a matter of course.

  An explanatory memorandum on the communication was forwarded to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 14 June 2002.

  Funded Projects (Kingston upon Hull)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the projects to which his Department has allocated funding in the Kingston-upon-Hull North constituency since 1997, indicating the amount in each case. [76560]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: The table outlines projects that have been funded in the Kingston-upon-Hull local authority area.

  £

  Project

  Amount per year

  Total

  Communities against drugs 2001–03

  373,500/373,500

  747,000

  Safer communities initiative 2002–03

  152,828

  152,828

  Small retailers in deprived areas 2001–03

  40,450/81,030

  121,480

  Partnership development fund 2000–03

  10,000/121,000/110,500

  241,500

  Intervention work in schools

  341,000

  341,000

  City of Hull CCTV

  5,000,000

  5,000,000

  Reducing burglary initiative (Stoneferry/Bramsholme)

  135,880

  135,880

  Time limited development fund (North Hull Women's Centre) 2002–05

  30,153/31,109/31,987

  93,249

  'Splash' funding (Youth Offending Team: YOT) summer 2000

  1,570

  1,570

  Bail supervision and support services 1999–2002

  58,056/58,056/58,056

  174,170

  Restorative justice services 1999–2002

  98,299/98,299/98,299

  294,897

  Parenting 1999–2001

  10,988/10,988

  21,976

  YOT extra resources (used to develop its youth crime prevention strategy) 1999–2002

  55,700/30,682/20,905

  107,287

  Literacy/numeracy mentoring project 2001–03

  17,500/34,930

  52,430

  General YOT funding 2001–03

  101,955/207,844

  309,799

  Referral order funding for YOTs 2001–03

  26,812/59,385

  86,197

  Drugs funding of YOTs 2001–03

  25,489/63,097

  88,586

  Total spend

  7,969,849

  Funded Projects (North Wales)
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the projects to which his Department has allocated funding in the North Wales Police Authority area since May 1997. [77620]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 30 October 2002]: The table outlines projects that have been funded in the North Wales Police Authority area. This encompasses the Anglesey, Gwynedd, Conwy, Denbighshire, Wrexham and Flintshire Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership areas.

  Project

  Total (£)

  Communities Against Drugs 01/03

  1,121,000

  Safer Communities Initiative 02/03

  201,814

  Small Retailers in Deprived Areas 01/03

  146,321

  Partnership Development Fund 00/03

  512,390

  Youth Inclusion Project(Wrexham

  225,000

  Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Projects

  2,146,565

  Conwy, Denbighshire, Flintshire Reducing Burglary Project

  33,300

  Violence Against Women Projects

  160,500

  106W

  Project

  Total (£)

  'Splash' Funding (Youth Offending Team: YOT) Summer 2000 and 2001

  58,000

  Neighbourhood Wardens—Caernarfon

  35,000

  Wrexham Industrial Estate—Targeted Policing Project

  188,000

  Total Spend

  4,827,890

  In addition, mainstream funding of £406 million has been allocated to North Wales for policing since 1997.

  Immigration Offences (Stranraer and Cairnryan)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were detained on immigration offences during each of the last three years at Stranraer and Cairnryan ports. [78500]

  Beverley Hughes
  Persons detained at Stranraer and Cairnryan for immigration offences as follows:

  Number detained

  1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000

  31

  1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001

  153

  1 January 2002 to 31 October 2002

  206

  The figure for the current year 2002 is from local management information and may be subject to change.

  Immigration Offences (Stranraer)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of those persons detained on immigration offences at Stranraer port were(a) outbound to Northern Ireland and (b) inbound from Northern Ireland in each of the last three years. [78501]

  Beverley Hughes
  Persons detained at Stranraer:

  Outbound to Northern Ireland

  Inbound from Northern Ireland

  1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000

  31

  0

  1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001

  135

  18

  1 January 2002 to 31 October 2002

  159

  46

  The figures for 2002 are from local management information and may be subject to change.

  Immigration Service (Scotland)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Immigration Service staff are based in Scotland; and how many of these are qualified to process asylum applications. [78498]

  Beverley Hughes
  On 31 October 2002, there were 112 immigration staff based in Scotland. The work of all staff includes some level of involvement in the asylum process.

  Iraqi People (Support)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Iraqis applied for hard case support in each of the past 12 months; and how many received it. [78543]
  107W
  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 31 October 2002]: The requested information is not available.

  Leave to Remain
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to replace the application forms for foreign nationals wishing to apply for leave to remain in the United Kingdom. [79538]

  Beverley Hughes
  The current application forms are valid for use only until 14 November 2002. Revised forms will be prescribed before then. From the time they are issued until 14 November 2002, applications may be made on either the new forms or the present versions. Only the new forms may be used for applications made on or after 15 November 2002. Copies will be placed in the Library when they are available.

  Mariana Carr
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when the application by Mrs. Mariana Carr for British citizenship, ref C1059748, will be dealt with. [78910]

  Beverley Hughes
  Mrs. Carr's nationality application was approved on 19 September and an oath of allegiance was sent to Mrs. Carr's home address.

  Mrs. Carr's certificate of British Nationality was issued on 27 September 2002.

  Marsham Street Redevelopment
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what timber has been purchased and used in the redevelopment of 2 Marsham Street, London; and who supplied the timber. [77674]

  Beverley Hughes
  As of 4 November 2002, no works have been undertaken on the construction of the Home Office's new building at 2 Marsham Street. No timber has been purchased at this time.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures have been put in place to ensure that the redevelopment of 2 Marsham Street, London, will be covered by Government requirements to ensure timber purchases are from legal and sustainable sources. [77675]

  Beverley Hughes
  Procurement and use of legal timber has been identified as a requirement of the contract signed by the Home Office and Anne Gates Property plc (AGP) in March 2002. Independently verified documentary evidence will be obtained relating to the source of timber.

  The contract requires timber to be certified by the supplier as purchased in accordance with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES); to be from a supplier with an environmental timber purchasing policy; and requires AGP to consider acquiring reclaimed timber or products made from reclaimed timber where it is cost-effective and practicable to do so.

  AGP are minimizing the amount of hardwood used, both in terms of the use of alternative materials and through the use of veneers. AGP will also ensure,
  108W
  through their Quality Assurance systems, that rigorous checks are made to ensure that timber is procured from sources as contracted.

  People Trafficking
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken by the Government to curb the number of women illegally trafficked against their will for use in vice rings. [77555]

  Beverley Hughes
  We set out a comprehensive approach to tackle trafficking and other forms of organised crime in the White Paper "Secure Borders, Safe Haven" published earlier this year. This approach encompasses new legislation to criminalise trafficking. The Nationality Immigration and Asylum (NIA) Bill currently before Parliament creates an offence of trafficking for the purpose of controlling someone through prostitution, with a tough maximum sentence of 14 years. This measure will tackle the worst forms of exploitation, pending the introduction of comprehensive legislation that will cover trafficking for the purposes of both labour and sexual exploitation.

  We are working to tackle the criminal networks involved in people trafficking through Reflex, the multi-agency response to organised immigration crime. Reflex has co-ordinated intelligence on the scale and has assisted with planning operations such as Horsley, which dismantled a group trafficking Thai women into the UK.

  We also recognise the importance of providing protection for the victims of trafficking in order to encourage them to co-operate with the authorities. We are developing support arrangements for victims in co-operation with the voluntary sector and plan to establish a pilot scheme next year. In conjunction with this we are developing a toolkit to raise awareness of the problem with police and immigration officers to help them to identify victims.

  Finally, we are working with our European Union partners and with source and transit countries to build effective international action. We have established a network of liaison officers to build intelligence on routes and methods used by the traffickers. We are also working with the International Organisation for Migration to develop a programme for the safe voluntary return of trafficking victims.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to tackle human trafficking into the United Kingdom. [78149]

  Beverley Hughes
  We set out a comprehensive approach to tackle trafficking and other forms of organised crime in the White Paper "Secure Borders, Safe Haven" published earlier this year. This approach encompasses new legislation to criminalise trafficking. The Nationality Immigration and Asylum (NIA) Bill currently before Parliament creates an offence of trafficking for the purpose of controlling someone through prostitution, with a tough maximum sentence of 14 years. This measure will tackle the worst forms of exploitation, pending the introduction of comprehensive legislation that will cover trafficking for the purposes of both labour and sexual exploitation.
  109W
  We are working to tackle the criminal networks involved in people trafficking through Reflex, the multi-agency response to organised immigration crime. Its remit is to co-ordinate operations against organised immigration crime and to develop the intelligence and strategic planning to underpin them.

  We also recognise the importance of providing protection for the victims of trafficking in order to encourage them to co- operate with the authorities. We are developing support arrangements for victims in co-operation with the voluntary sector and plan to establish a pilot scheme next year, in conjunction with this we are developing a toolkit to raise awareness of the problem with police and immigration officers to help them to treat victims compassionately.

  Finally, we are working with our European Union partners and with source and transit countries to build effective international action. We have established a network of liaison officers to build intelligence on routes and methods used by the traffickers. We are also working with the International Organisation for Migration to develop a programme for the safe voluntary return of trafficking victims.

  Police Arrests (Chorley)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been arrested in the Chorley constituency in each of the last three years. [77765]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on the number of arrests for notifiable offences is collected centrally at police force area level only. Available information shows that in 1999–2000 there were 37,535 arrests for notifiable offences within the Lancashire police force area and in 2000–01 (latest available) 36,998. Information for earlier years is not available on a consistent basis. Figures for 2001–02 will he available in due course.

  Police Formula
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations his Department has made to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in respect of its preferred outcome for the police formula under the Formula Grant Distribution Consultation. [78508]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 30 October 2002]: The Home Department has regular discussions with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on a number of issues including the Local Government Finance Formula Grant Distribution.

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there are in(a) Lancashire, (b) the north-west of England and (c) Wales. [77634]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  110W

  Force/region

  Police strength as at March 2002

  Civilian support staff as at 31 March 2002

  Lancashire

  3,304

  1,442

  North West

  17,804

  7,624

  Wales

  7,194

  3,109

  Source:

  Home Office Statistical Bulletin—Police Service Strength 31 March 2002.

  Lancashire constabulary is at record levels of police officers.

  Police Officers
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have been employed by(a) Avon and Somerset constabulary and (b) West Somerset division in each of the 10 yzears for which figures are available. [77760]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested for Avon and Somerset constabulary is set out in the table. Data for individual divisions/basic command units is not collected centrally. By March 2002 Avon and Somerset constabulary had a record number of police officers.

  Avon and Somerset Constabulary

  Year as at 31 March

  Police officer strength

  Civilian support staff

  1992

  3,081

  899

  1993

  3,068

  1,171

  1994

  3,033

  1,195

  1995

  3,000

  1,204

  1996

  2,981

  1,213

  1997

  2,989

  1,438

  1998

  2,976

  1,393

  1999

  2,999

  1,424

  2000

  2,934

  1,436

  2001

  2,994

  1,452

  2002

  3,096

  1,611

  Source:

  Home Office Statistical Bulletins(Police Service Strength 1997—2002. Home Office historical data 1992–96.

  Police Staff
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many non-operational staff are employed by the police in(a) Lancashire, (b) the North West of England and (c) Wales. [77636]

  Mr. Denham
  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) has provided the figures set out in the table for the 12 months ending 31 March 2002.

  HMIC figures count staff according to the following primary roles (a role that takes up more than half of a person's time):
  Operational: any member of staff, including covert staff, whose primary role is to directly deliver the overarching aims of the Police Service;
  Operational Support; any member of staff whose primary role is to support the delivery of the overarching aims of the Police Service; and
  Organisational Support: any member of staff whose primary role is to service the internal needs of the organisation.

  The table shows the total of Operational Support and Organisational Support staff.
  111W

  Force/area

  Non-operational police officers

  Non-operational civilian support staff

  Lancashire Constabulary

  233

  903

  North West Region

  1,413

  6,276

  Wales

  526

  2,445

  Police Training
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he gives to chief constables about the possibility of police forces being(a) prosecuted and (b) sued for the consequences of insufficient health and safety training of their officers involved in various policing situations. [77487]

  Mr. Denham
  Home Office Circular 33/1997 advises Chief Officers on their duties under the Police (Health and Safety) Act 1997. Annex A refers to the legal liability of Chief Officers.

  Policing (Rural Areas)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on policing in rural areas. [75893]

  Mr. Denham
  Support for the police service in both rural and urban areas continues to be a key element of this Government's policy. We now have the highest levels of police officers since records began in 1921 (129,603).

  Last year we provided an extra £30 million through the Rural Policing Fund to tackle problems faced in the 31 more rural police areas. This is being paid again this year.

  The Police Authority and the Chief Officer may decide how to spend this additional money for the benefit of rural communities. It may be used to fund additional officers. Some police authorities have used the money to buy and operate mobile police stations to provide an enhanced police presence in remote areas.

  Police numbers in the rural areas have increased significantly. At 31 March 2002 there were 60,401 officers in the 31 more rural forces. This represents an increase of 2.6 per cent. over March 2001 and 4.9 per cent. over March 2000.

  Police forces can also employ Community Support Officers (CSO's) to provide additional support in rural communities. 19 of the 27 successful bids on the new CSO Fund were from the 31 more rural forces and they will receive between them £3.9 million this year. CSOs will provide a visible police presence and will have a vital role to play in support of the police in reducing the fear of crime, increasing public safety and tackling antisocial behaviour.

  Prison Population (England)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the population of English prisons in each of the last five years for(a) men, (b) women and (c) juveniles. [70817]
  112W
  Hilary Benn
  The number of males and females held in prisons in England since 1998 is shown in the table. The number of juveniles in custody is also shown.

  The juvenile estate was established in April 2000, which is when the Youth Justice Board began collecting data on juveniles separately from the prison service. The juvenile figures for 2000 onwards therefore include those children held in private sector secure training centres and local authority secure children's homes in addition to the previously supplied prison service establishments. The juvenile figures for 1998 and 1999 are for those in prison service establishments only.

  Year1

  Males2

  Females2

  Juveniles3

  1998

  60,584

  3,120

  2,446

  1999

  59,232

  3,207

  2,359

  2000

  59,916

  3,355

  2,665

  2001

  60,640

  3,713

  2,777

  2002

  64,560

  4,394

  3,014

  1 All data represent 30 June.

  2 Data for males and females include juveniles in prison service establishments.

  3 Under 18 years of age.

  Radioactivity Monitors at British Ports
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when he will announce the(a) location and (b) the commencement date of the proposed pilot to install radioactivity monitors at British ports. [38590]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: As a result of the terrorist in America in September last year, reviews have been undertaken of the security arrangements to counter the new threats that now exist to this country. This has resulted in a number of new measures, initiatives and trials. For obvious reasons I do not propose to give details of them. However, I can confirm that screening is part of this overall package.

  Retail Crime
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to provide funding to local retail crime prevention initiatives in town shopping centres and secondary shopping areas. [77977]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) on 14 May 2002,Official Report, column 605W.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the correlation between retail crime and drug abuse; [78129]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the correlation between retail crime and street crime. [78135]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) on 19 September 2002,Official Report, column 19W.
  113W
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost of retail crime was to(a) business, (b) local authorities and (c) the police in each of the past three years; and what information he has on the amount spent by the retail sector on crime prevention measures in each of the last three years. [78131]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office does not collect information about the cost of retail crime. The British Retail Consortium conducts an annual retail crime survey and the most recent, published in June 2002, estimated total retail crime losses in the United Kingdom at £2.4 billion in 2001, down from an estimated £2.5 billion in 2000. The survey of crimes affecting retailers and manufacturers announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 23 April 2002, the results of which should be available next spring, will provide information on the amount spent by the retail sector on crime prevention measures over the past year. The British Retail Consortium is assisting us with our survey.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much of the money allocated to his Department in this year's Budget will be used to tackle retail crime. [78133]

  Mr. Denham
  It is not possible to provide an overall figure for the amount of money allocated to the Home Office in this year's budget, which will be used to tackle retail crime. Chief officers of police forces and individual crime and disorder reduction partnerships decide on the priorities for their local areas, and a proportion of their mainstream expenditure or their Home Office funding may be spent on tackling retail crime. Many of the measures taken to reduce particular crimes, such as juvenile crime, street crime and drug-related crime, and anti-social behaviour, are also likely to have a beneficial impact on reducing retail crime.

  Table 1: Specials Numbers

  Police force

  September

  March

  1977

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Avon and Somerset

  629

  584

  482

  416

  391

  364

  Bedfordshire

  186

  175

  148

  134

  119

  118

  Cambridgeshire

  336

  308

  293

  214

  197

  207

  Cheshire

  491

  416

  358

  307

  233

  191

  Cleveland

  157

  136

  108

  122

  98

  85

  Cumbria

  184

  210

  193

  167

  125

  102

  Derbyshire

  414

  355

  303

  286

  263

  260

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,079

  916

  908

  836

  780

  689

  Dorset

  325

  303

  287

  278

  258

  253

  Durham

  178

  159

  169

  155

  146

  134

  Essex

  641

  590

  528

  478

  413

  381

  Gloucestershire

  287

  245

  221

  197

  153

  154

  Greater Manchester

  657

  567

  498

  408

  355

  338

  Hampshire

  681

  747

  720

  500

  444

  444

  Hertfordshire

  306

  267

  232

  214

  177

  206

  Humberside

  348

  289

  263

  198

  207

  207

  Kent

  588

  565

  484

  416

  366

  327

  Lancashire

  500

  465

  397

  362

  325

  363

  Leicestershire

  402

  350

  303

  202

  155

  143

  Lincolnshire

  273

  233

  218

  179

  160

  155

  114W
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department is taking to tackle retail crime. [78136]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) on 16 May 2002,Official Report, column 846W.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make retail crime a best value indicator for police force performance. [78137]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) on 24 July 2002,Official Report, column 1493W.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many special constables there were in each police force in England and Wales on(a) 1st September 2002 and (b) 1 September of each of the last five years; [77640]

  (2) how many special constables there are in (a) Lancashire, (b) the north-west of England and (c) Wales. [77639]

  Mr. Denham
  Data on police officer numbers in England and Wales, including the Special Constabulary, is collected in March and September each year by the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate and published in the statistical bulletin "Police Service Strength".

  The data on Special Constabulary strength for 30 September 1997 to 30 September 2001 is set out in the table. For 2002, the latest figure available is for 31 March 2002.

  The Special Constabulary has a vital role to play in reducing crime and providing reassurance to the public and we are committed to increasing the numbers of specials. We are working with stakeholders on a variety of measures, including good practice guidance to help forces improve the recruitment, management and deployment of specials.
  115W

  Table 1: Specials Numbers

  Police force

  September

  March

  1977

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  City of London

  84

  69

  66

  46

  34

  36

  Merseyside

  407

  463

  467

  452

  507

  468

  Metropolitan police

  1,528

  1,214

  1,173

  754

  753

  680

  Norfolk

  346

  351

  317

  270

  240

  244

  Northamptonshire

  314

  262

  210

  195

  184

  177

  Northumbria

  480

  352

  356

  323

  276

  256

  North Yorkshire

  337

  302

  245

  189

  186

  185

  Nottinghamshire

  597

  530

  405

  411

  281

  341

  South Yorkshire

  295

  266

  236

  193

  189

  206

  Staffordshire

  643

  558

  460

  461

  395

  384

  Suffolk

  300

  402

  420

  376

  322

  308

  Surrey

  231

  226

  205

  168

  176

  187

  Sussex

  465

  415

  377

  317

  301

  306

  Thames Valley

  694

  587

  514

  463

  377

  356

  Warwickshire

  379

  323

  260

  260

  208

  209

  West Mercia

  558

  499

  512

  443

  364

  339

  West Midlands

  949

  784

  697

  662

  604

  598

  West Yorkshire

  604

  590

  572

  452

  371

  349

  Wiltshire

  150

  176

  182

  172

  160

  147

  Dyfed Powys

  241

  237

  237

  193

  174

  157

  Gwent

  149

  114

  110

  131

  148

  142

  North Wales

  388

  336

  262

  233

  203

  125

  South Wales

  362

  360

  331

  254

  250

  277

  Total

  19,163

  17,296

  15,727

  13,487

  12, 068

  11,598

  Source:

  Figures provided by Research Development Statistics Directorate

  Speeding Offences (Police)
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many drivers of police cars were caught exceeding the speed limit by speed cameras in the last year when not attending to an emergency call; [77830]

  (2) how many drivers of police cars that were caught exceeding the speed limit by speed cameras in the last year when not attending to an emergency call were prosecuted. [77829]

  Mr. Denham
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Street Crime (Lancashire)
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the levels of street crime in Lancashire. [77635]

  Mr. Denham
  Lancashire is one of the 10 areas involved in the Government's street crime initiative, which was announced on 17 March 2002.

  We published street crime figures on 14 October 2002 charting progress under the initiative to the end of September. There are two indicators of progress: a comparison with the period immediately before the initiative began, and a direct comparison with the same period last year.

  In Lancashire, there was a 20 per cent reduction in street crime offences (robbery and snatch theft) between April and September 2002. For robbery, the more serious offence, figures showed 15 per cent fewer offences in September compared to March, the month preceding the initiative.
  116W
  Year on year comparisons show an 11 per cent reduction in the number of robberies in Lancashire in the six months from April to September 2002, compared to the same period last year.

  Published figures for the first six months of the initiative, including a document detailing the achievements made through the initiative's partnership work, can be found in the Library or on the Crime Reduction website atwww.crimereduction.gov.uk/streetcrime.

  Violent Crime
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many incidents of violent crime there were in(a) Lancashire, (b) the north-west of England and (c) Wales in the last 12 months for which figures are available; [77633]

  Robbery
  (2) how many incidents of robbery there were in (a) Lancashire, (b) the north-west of England and (c) Wales in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [77638]
  Mr. Denham
  The requested details in respect of crimes recorded by the police in the year ending March 2002 have already been published in table 6.06 of the Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Crime in England and Wales 2001–02", which was published in July this year, and is available in the Library. The table also gives rates for overall violent crime obtained from the British Crime Survey, which records people's actual experiences of crime.
  117W
  Recorded crime figures may have been affected in comparison to the previous year as a result of changes to police recording practices. Some of the forces in Wales and the North West, including Lancashire, implemented the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard in advance of its national introduction in April 2002. This early implementation by these and other police forces had the effect of uplifting the number of offences of violence against the person in England and Wales as a whole in 2001–02 by an estimated 13 per cent.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many work permits were issued to foreign nationals in each of the last five years. [78723]

  Beverley Hughes
  The number of work permits issued to foreign nationals is as follows:

  2001–02—123,337

  2000–01—99,815

  1999–2000—63,853

  1998–99—57,089

  1997–98—47,009

  The figures above include all individual and group work permit applications which have been approved in each of the last five financial years.

  Yarl's Wood Detention Centre
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the re-opened facility at Yarl's Wood, Bedfordshire will be used from April 2003 for(a) the long-term detention of asylum seekers and (b) their removal after refusal of their applications; and if he will make a statement. [78578]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 31 October 2002]: I can confirm the intention is for the remaining centre at Yarl's Wood to be ready to re-open in April 2003 with a population of single females, and later families, both asylum and non-asylum cases. In advance of this, work has already commenced to install sprinklers and the necessary facilities so that this population can be accommodated. As with all other removal centres, Yarl's Wood will be used to ensure we deliver our commitment to remove those without lawful right to be here. The intention is always to ensure that the period in detention is as short as possible. However, it is sometimes regrettably necessary to detain asylum seekers and other immigration related cases for longer periods of time.

  Yarlswood Detention Centre
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what decision he has made in respect of the publication of the report which has been submitted to him by Stephen Moore, in respect of the circumstances of the fire at Yarlswood detention centre on 14 February; and if he will make a statement. [78579]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 31 October 2002]: It has not been decided when the report will be published. Stephen Moore has consulted widely and taken
  118W
  representations from a number of interested parties. However, his terms of reference require him to take full account of inquiries being undertaken by Bedfordshire police and the Bedfordshire fire and rescue service, neither of which has yet concluded investigations. He is also required to conduct his inquiry in a way that would not impede any criminal investigation. Criminal trials arising out of the events at Yarl's Wood on 14 and 15 February are listed for April 2003. Consideration is therefore still being given as to when the report can be completed and published.

  Criminal Justice System
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he will take in response to the finding of Home Office Research Study 45: Improving Public Attitudes to the Criminal Justice System, that overall knowledge of the criminal justice system among the general public was poor. [73785]

  Hilary Benn
  We recognise that public understanding of the criminal justice system is poor, and the Home Office will take this into account when considering future communication activity.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has publicly acknowledged this fact, and has sought to encourage a wide-ranging public debate about the criminal justice system in the run up to and following publication of the Criminal Justice White Paper, "Justice for All". Work is under way to develop a plan and programme of work to improve public confidence in the criminal justice system.

HEALTH

  EU Directives
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement regarding the EU's requirements with regards to sausage skins. [77049]

  Ms Blears
  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that, in the knowledge of a theoretical risk of BSE in sheep, the Agency has recommended to the European Union (EU) Commission that sheep intestines, used to make some sausage casings, be added to the EU list of specified risk material (SRM) prohibited from the food chain. The EU scientific steering committee (SSC) considered at its September meeting the most recent data on BSE and sheep intestines. The SSC decided not to recommend, at this time, the addition of sheep intestines to the list of SRM. At the same time, differing scientific opinions on the effectiveness of processing sheep intestines, in removing potential infective material should BSE be present in a sheep, were acknowledged. The Agency has subsequently suggested to the Commission that experts be called together at EU level to achieve better common understanding. The Commission has agreed to this. In the meantime, there are no restrictions on the sale or use of such sausage casings pending any decision at the EU level.
  119W
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will assess the impact on the NHS budget of the European food supplements directive and the proposed European directive on traditional herbal medicinal products; and if he will make a statement. [75816]

  Ms Blears
  The European Union food supplements directive is not expected to have any impact on the availability of vitamin and mineral supplements required by specific population groups, such as pregnant women. It is therefore not expected to have any impact on the national health service budget.

  Overall, it is not possible to quantify the likely impact of the proposed traditional herbal medicines directive on the NHS budget.

  The proposed directive on traditional herbal medicinal products should ensure the availability of a wide range of traditional herbal remedies made to assured standards of safety and quality, and accompanied by systematic and reliable information about the purpose of the product and its safe usage. Potentially the directive could help members of the public wishing to take greater responsibility for their own health to make an informed choice about which traditional herbal remedy may be helpful. It could also reduce the possibility of the public taking remedies that may be inappropriate to their health needs.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his position towards Directive 2002/67/EC (OJ L191, vol 45, 19 July 2002) on the labelling of foodstuffs containing(a) quinine and (b) caffeine; how many products on sale in the UK will be affected; and what cost assessment his Department has made of the cost of change in packaging. [77248]

  Ms Blears
  These labelling changes will help consumers make informed choices about consumption of these products. Many manufacturers already indicate when caffeine or quinine has been added as an ingredient and most beverages containing high levels of caffeine already carry a warning to that effect. The new rules do not take full effect until 1 July 2004 and the legislation provides for products labelled before that date to continue to be sold while stocks last. This generous transitional period should allow any necessary changes to be incorporated as part of normal label redesign cycles and therefore ensure costs are kept to a minimum.

  Cancer Care Action Group
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations his Department has received concerning the effectiveness of the Cancer Care Action Group in identifying and implementing improvements to the quality of care for patients; [75748]

  (2) if he will list the members of the Cancer Care Action Group and the organisations that they represent. [75747]
  120W
  Ms Blears
  The Cancer Care Action Group was established in 1998 after the Caring for Cancer conference, which brought together statutory and voluntary organisations involved in caring for those with cancer. Following the publication of the NHS Cancer Plan, the group was replaced by a supportive and palliative care strategy co-rdinating group.

  The Supportive and Palliative Care Strategy Group membership comprises representatives from the Department of Health, the national health service, the National Council for Hospices and specialist palliative care services, Macmillan Cancer Relief, CancerBACUP, National Cancer Alliance, Marie Curie Cancer Care and voluntary hospices.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health through what mechanisms staff of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, deployed to patient forums, will be accountable to those forums and their local communities. [77425]

  Mr. Lammy
  Staff will be provided by the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health to primary care trust patients' forums to support the members of patients' forums in their work. The work programme of the staff will be set by the patients' forum members. Therefore, while staff will be employed by the Commission on a day to day basis, they will be accountable to the patients' forum to which they are attached. It is for the Commission to decide exactly how this dual accountability will be managed and ensured.

  Advisory Committee on Resources Allocations
  Mr Dave Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the Advisory Committee on Resources Allocations committee recommendations and options; if he will consult on the(a) options and recommendations and (b) weighting that will be given to any measures used to determine need; and what weighting he plans to give to (i) basic per capita allocations, (ii) deprivation, (iii) ethnicity, (iv) poor health indicators, (v) ACA, (vi) low birth weight, (vii) income, (viii) unemployment, (ix) premature death rates and (x) other measures. [78617]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are currently considering the recommendations of the advisory committee on resource allocation (ACRA) for a new National Health Service funding formula. Later this autumn when we announce the revenue allocations for the next three years we will explain changes to the formula. The team who carried out the research into the new formula plan to publish a full report of their findings.

  ACRA is an expert body whose membership is made up of individuals with a wide range of relevant experience and expertise from within and outside the NHS. We do not consult on ACRA's recommendations.

  Ambulance Personnel (Assaults)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many ambulance personnel by region have been(a) shot, (b) stabbed and (c) assaulted in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [78428]
  121W
  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 31 October 2002]: Information on the type of and levels of violent incidents by individual staff group is not collected centrally, but may be held at a local level by national health service employers. Data on violent incidents involving all staff in the NHS were not collected on a national basis prior to 1998.

  The results of the 2000–01 survey of reported violent or abusive incidents, accidents involving staff and sickness absence in NHS trusts and health authorities, in England, have been placed in the Library, along with a report setting out the Government's proposed action in light of the findings. The survey found that there were an estimated 13 reported violent or abusive incidents per 1,000 staff per month in ambulance trusts, compared to an estimated 10 such incidents for all NHS trusts.

  Ambulance Services (Private Functions)
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent guidance he has issued to ambulance trusts on making crews and vehicles available for hire to cover private functions. [78375]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding reply issued on Thursday 31 October]: National Health Service Trusts may provide ambulance services to events such as sporting fixtures if there is no detriment to NHS services and the full cost is recovered.

  Arthritis
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many persons were suffering from arthritis in each of the last 10 years. [77537]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: The information requested is not collected centrally. However, Arthritis Care estimates that there are more than 200 types of arthritis and rheumatic disease, and more than 8 million people in the United Kingdom have long-term health problems due to arthritis or a related condition.

  Bed Blocking
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds in(a) Greater London and (b) Essex were occupied by delayed discharge patients (i) at the latest available date and (ii) in each of the last four quarters. [77148]

  Mr. Lammy
  Information on delayed discharges is collected centrally and is placed in the Library.

  Before 1 April 2002 data were collected at the old health authority level. Health authorities were disbanded on 1 April 2002 and replaced with primary care trusts.

  Health authority level data up to and including Q4 2001–02 (March 2002) are available.

  For Quarter 1 2002–03 (up until the end of June 2002) primary care trust level data are available.

  Care Homes (Closure)
  Mr Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the closure of care homes. [77512]
  122W
  Jacqui Smith
  Department figures show that between 1997 and 2001, the most recent figures available, the number of care homes in England reduced by only 640 or two per cent. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State announced, on 23 July, an extra £1 billion for social services by 2006. Some of this money can be used to boost capacity in the care home sector.

  Child Prostitution
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were identified as being involved in prostitution in each of the past five years. [78015]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Child Protection
  Dr Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the Government intends to ensure that the safeguarding of vulnerable children takes place at a primary care level and that GPs participate to an extent which does not impinge upon them carrying out other clinical duties. [78021]

  Jacqui Smith
  From April 2002, responsibility for securing the provision of the health contribution to child protection services began to be devolved to primary care trusts (PCTs). The particular roles and responsibilities of health professionals for child protection are set out in the Government's core inter-agency child protection guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children. Although this is a new role for PCTs, they are not expected to assume this responsibility without support. Child protection will form a key competency task within the national primary and care trust development programme currently being developed.

  The exercise of responsibility for child protection involves more than the specific clinical service; it necessitates PCTs exercising a public health responsibility for a whole population. It will require good partnership working with all stakeholders, in particular councils with social services responsibilities. Guidance on specific action required was issued to all chief executives of PCTs in January this year. This will be followed next year by supplementary child protection guidance for health professionals. In addition, the national primary and care trust development programme team are currently running child protection seminars for PCT directors with responsibility for children.

  Dr Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he plans to take to ensure that area child protection committees receive sufficient funding to discharge their responsibilities. [78022]

  Jacqui Smith
  Area child protection committee (ACPC) expenditure and administrative and policy support is a matter for local agreement. As a multi-agency forum, the ACPC should be supported in its work by its main constituent agencies, reflecting the investment of each agency in activities which are of benefit to all, in particular inter-agency training.

  The Joint Chief Inspectors' report Safeguarding Children, published on 14 October 2002, contains a recommendation that the Department of Health should

  123W
  review the current arrangements for ACPCs to determine whether they should be established on a statutory basis to ensure adequate accountability, authority and funding. The Government has welcomed the publication of this report. The Government recognises that there is still more to be done to ensure that the highest standards of child protection are applied in every case. That is why it commissioned the Joint Chief Inspector's report. It is also why my right hon. Friends, the Secretary of State for Health and the Home Secretary set up the statutory inquiry, chaired by Lord Laming, into the circumstances leading up to, and surrounding, the death of Victoria Climbie. The Government looks forward to receiving Lord Laming's report later this year. It will respond in full to both reports after it has had the opportunity to consider them fully.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many serious case reviews were carried out by each area child protection committee in each of the last five years. [78023]

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

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

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of accident and emergency departments do not have access to child protection registers. [78024]

  Mr. Lammy
  All accident and emergency departments have access to information contained in child protection registers held by local authority social services departments, subject to the normal safeguards. Access out of office hours is through out of office arrangements with local authority social services departments.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) for what reason the Child Protection Register contains those children who are on social services department client index as a consequence of being regarded as at risk; [78027]

  (2) what the main criteria is for placing a vulnerable child who has been a client of a social services department on a child protection register. [78031]

  Jacqui Smith
  As "Working Together to Safeguard Children", the Government's child protection guidance, makes clear, the sole criteria for consideration by an initial child protection conference, when determining 124W
  whether to register a child's name on the child protection register, is whether a child is at risk of significant harm.

  The test should be that either: the child can be shown to have suffered ill-treatment or impairment of health or development as a result of physical, emotional or sexual abuse or neglect and professional judgement is that further ill-treatment or impairment are likely; or professional judgement, substantiated by the findings of enquiries in this individual case or by research evidence, is that the child is likely to suffer ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development as a result of physical, emotional or sexual abuse or neglect.

  The decision whether or not to register a child's name on the child protection register should not be taken on the grounds that the child is already known to social services.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the role of child and adolescent mental health services is with regard to safeguarding vulnerable children. [78036]

  Jacqui Smith
  Guidance on this is given in "Working Together to Safeguard Children: A guide to inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children", published by the Department of Health, the Home Office and the then Department for Education and Employment in 1999. A copy is in the Library. Paragraphs 3.39–3.41 of the guide relate to all mental health services and 3.42–3.44 to child and adolescent mental health services. The latter includes the role of relevant professional staff in cases where abuse and/or neglect is identified or suspected and the provision, where appropriate, of a range of assessment and treatment services for children with mental health disorders and their families.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to establish area child protection committees on a statutory basis. [78037]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Joint Chief Inspectors' report "Safeguarding Children", published on 14 October 2002, contains a recommendation that the Department should review the current arrangements for area child protection committees to determine whether they should be established on a statutory basis to ensure adequate accountability, authority and funding.

  The Government have welcomed the publication of this report. The Government recognise that there is still more to be done to ensure that the highest standards of child protection are applied in every case. That is why it commissioned the Joint Chief Inspectors' report. It is also why my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Health and the Home Secretary set up the statutory inquiry, chaired by Lord Laming, into the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the death of Victoria Climbie. The Government looks forward to receiving Lord Laming's report later this year. It will respond in full to both reports after it has had the opportunity to consider them fully

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what use child protection registers are put; and how he expects this to change in the next three years. [78038]
  125W
  Jacqui Smith
  A central child protection register should be maintained in each area covered by a social services department. The register should list all the children resident in the area (including those who have been placed there by another local authority or agency) who are considered to be at continuing risk of significant harm, and for whom there is a child protection plan. The principal purpose of the register is to make agencies and professionals aware of those children who are judged to be at continuing risk of significant harm and in need of active safeguarding.

  The Joint Chief Inspectors' report "Safeguarding Children", published on 14 October 2002, contains a recommendation that the Department should review the purpose of child protection registers and issue guidance to local authorities.

  The Government have welcomed the publication of this report. The Government recognise that there is still more to be done to ensure that the highest standards of child protection are applied in every case. That is why it commissioned the Joint Chief Inspectors' report. It is also why my right hon. Friends, the Secretary of State for Health and the Home Secretary set up the statutory inquiry, chaired by Lord Laming, into the circumstances leading up to, and surrounding, the death of Victoria Climbie. The Government look forward to receiving Lord Laming's report later this year. It will respond in full to both reports after it has had the opportunity to consider them fully.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many area child protection committees do not have representatives from youth offending teams; and if he will set a deadline for all area child protection committees to include representatives from youth offending teams. [78039]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  The Joint Chief Inspectors' report, "Safeguarding Children", published on 14 October 2002, contains a recommendation that the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Home Office and the Department of Health should issue immediate guidance to ensure that local youth offending teams and the Crown Prosecution Service are invited to become full members of all area child protection committees.

  Dr Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children in each of the last five years have left local authority care and within five years(a) committed suicide and (b) attempted suicide. [78051]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department does not collect statistical information on committed or attempted suicide for children and young people that have left local authority care.

  Delayed Discharges
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Government will publish their response to the Health Committee's Third Report of Session 2001–02 on Delayed Discharges. [79584]
  126W
  Jacqui Smith
  The Government's response to the Health Select Committee's Third Report of Session 2001–02 on Delayed Discharges has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Free Fruit (Schools)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to introduce free fruit in primary schools; and what estimate he has made of how much such provision would cost. [77011]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 29 October 2002]: The national school fruit scheme will entitle every child aged four to six to a free piece of fruit each school day from 2004. The scheme is currently being expanded to all eligible schools through large scale pilots on a region by region basis with funding of £42 million from the new opportunities fund.

  The expansion began with the West Midlands and is continuing in London this school term. By the end of this year free fruit will be available to up to 600,000 children in around 4,000 schools. The next regions to benefit will be North West and East Midlands.

  We will be closely monitoring and reviewing the experience from the pilots in order to make an accurate assessment of the annual cost of provision on a national scale.

  Health Statistics
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths there were from complications arising from fractured bones in each of the last five years. [78571]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Dr. Lynne Jones, of 4 November 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question asking how many deaths there were from complications arising from fractured bones in each of the last five years. (78571)
  It is not possible from routinely coded mortality data to obtain figures on complications arising from fractured bones. For deaths where an accident or violence initiated the train of events leading directly to death, a code is assigned to the type of injury sustained by the deceased. The figures below indicate the numbers of deaths where that injury was a fracture.

  Number of deaths from fractures1, England and Wales, 1997 to 2001

  Number of deaths

  Calendar year2

  1997

  3,650

  1998

  3,536

  1999

  3,613

  2000

  3,921

  20013

  4,670

  1 The nature of injury was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes 800 to 829 for the years 1997 to 2000 and, for the year 2001, the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes S02, 812, S22, S32, S42, S52, 862, 872, 882, 892, T02, T08, T10, T12, T14.2.

  2 Figures are for deaths occurring in each calendar year

  127W
  3 The introduction of ICD-10 for coding cause of death in 2001 means that data for fractures in this year are not comparable with data for earlier years. The introduction of ICD-10 has led to an apparent increase of 17% in the number of deaths coded to fractures. The figures should therefore be interpreted with caution. The effect of the change in classification in 2001 is described in a report published in May 2002.i

  i Office for National Statistics. Results of the ICD-10 bridge coding study, England and Wales, 1999. Health Statistics Quarterly 14 (2002), 75–83.

  Hepatitis B (Prisons)
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of prisoners have been vaccinated against hepatitis B; and how many had been vaccinated in 2000. [77998]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information is not available in the form requested. Returns from prison service establishments indicate that the number of prisoners who completed a course of Hepatitis B vaccinations in 2000–01 was 3,912. The comparable figure for 2001–02 was 5,463.

  Impersonation of Doctors
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been found guilty of impersonating a specialist in(a) obstetrics and (b) gynaecology in each of the last 10 years. [76616]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 24 October 2002]: The crime of pretending to be a registered medical practitioner is a police matter, and I am not aware of statistics for numbers charged or convicted. The Department has issued guidance on the registration and employment of doctors, stating that employers must ensure that any doctor who is offered employment is suitably registered before taking up their duties.

  Infertility Treatment
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to end postcode prescribing of infertility treatment. [77840]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 29 October 2002]: The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is developing clinical guidelines to cover the treatment of infertility which they expect to deliver in November 2003. The guidelines will make the latest knowledge and best practice available to all parts of the national health service. We expect the fertility guidelines to be implemented consistently across the NHS. Once issued, the uptake of this guidance will be monitored locally and by the Commission for Health Improvement.

  Kava-kava
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish the conclusions of the Food Standards Agency's consultation to prohibit the herbal ingredient kava-kava in food products. [78159]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 29 October 2002]: The Food Standards Agency will advise on action to be taken in relation to foods containing kava-kava when it has considered responses to the public consultation which closed on Friday 27 September.

  Leicestershire Health Trust
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many administrators there are as a ratio of the number of clinical staff in the Leicestershire Health Trust. [77947]

  Mr. Lammy
  The ratio of the number of administration staff to clinical staff at the University Hospitals of Leicester National Health Service Trust is shown in the table.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): Medical and dental and non-medical staff by specified group within the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust as at 30 September 2001

  whole-time equivalents

  headcount

  All staff

  8,340

  10,120

  Admnistration1

  1,680

  1,990

  Clinical staff2

  6,200

  7,520

  of which

  Medical and dental staff

  1,050.00

  1,170

  Clinical (Non-medical)

  5,150

  6,350

  Others3

  460

  600

  Ratio of administrators to clinical staff4

  1 to 3.7

  1 to 3.8

  Notes:

  1 Administration staff includes senior managers, managers, clerical & administrative.

  2 Clinical staff includes medical and dental staff, nursing staff (including learners), allied health professionals, healthcare assistants, and scientific, therapeutic & technical staff.

  3 Others includes maintenance & works, support and other staff.

  4 Based on un-rounded figures.

  Sources:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census.

  Department of Health non-medical workforce census.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the current salary is of the Chief Executive of the Leicestershire Health Trust. [77948]

  Mr. Lammy
  The salary of the Chief Executive of the university hospitals of Leicester National Health Service Trust was published in the Trust's annual report and accounts for 2001–02 as being between £140,000 and £145,000.

  Meals on Wheels
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were in receipt of meals-on-wheels in each of the last five years. [77995]

  Jacqui Smith
  In 2000–01 an estimated 212,000 clients received meals as part of community-based services provided or commissioned by councils with social service responsibilities (CSSR) based on the referrals, assessments and packages of care (RAP) return. Comparable data prior to 2000–01 are not readily available.

  Mid Essex Hospital Trust
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects in-patient waiting lists in the Mid Essex Hospital Trust area to fall below the level that they were at on 31 March 1997. [77156]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 31 October 2002]: Mid Essex Hospitals National Health Service Trust achieved the 2001–02 plan ensuring that no patients were waiting more than 15 months for elective treatment. The trust also exceeded its elective activity while successfully managing an increase in emergency activity.

  Currently Mid Essex Hospitals Trust is following government guidelines with robust delivery plans in place to reduce the waiting times for patients on the waiting list to a maximum of 12 months by March 2003.

  Mixed Sex Wards
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are in mixed sex wards, broken down by trust. [74201]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not collect information on the number of national health service patients treated in mixed sex wards as opposed to single sex wards. NHS trusts are required only to report on total patient throughput per annum.

  NHS (European Doctors)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 21 October 2002,Official Report, column 128W, if he will list the contracts signed by NHS trusts to bring teams of doctors from continental Europe to work in the NHS. [78199]

  Mr. Hutton
  Six contracts to bring over overseas clinical teams have been signed by national health service trusts: two each by Central Middlesex and East Somerset NHS Trust, and one each by South Tyneside Healthcare Acute Trust, and Morecambe Bay Hospitals NHS Trust. A short-term contract was also signed at Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust.

  NHS Direct
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average time it took to get through to NHS Direct was over(a) the last month for which figures are available and (b) the previous six months. [77141]

  Mr. Lammy
  The average time it took to get through to NHS Direct in September 2002 was 55.73 seconds. The figures for the previous six months are shown in the table.

  Month

  Seconds

  March 2002

  74.79

  April 2002

  61.42

  May 2002

  59.45

  June 2002

  69.37

  July 2002

  69.43

  August 2002

  66.87

  130W
  Mr Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the number of nurses working on NHS Direct at each grade. [77603]

  Mr. Lammy
  At present, the number of nurses working on NHS Direct at each grade is not collected centrally. The nurse grade structure for NHS Direct mainly consists of F and G grade nurses offering medical advice. NHS Direct accounts nationally for around 1,100 (whole time equivalent) nurses, a small number against the overall size of the nursing workforce 346,000 -whole time equivalent—in England. The service had and will continue to follow a range of strategies to minimise the impact of its recruitment on other parts of the National Health Service.

  NHS Trusts (Private Operation Bills)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS patients have billed NHS trusts for operations carried out in the private sector; and how many of these were paid and at what cost. [78182]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 29 October 2002]: National health service trusts do not have the power to reimburse patients for operations they choose to have carried out in the private sector. Occasionally circumstances arise in which NHS trusts decide that it is appropriate, on a case by case basis, to make an ex-gratia payment in connection with such treatment. The Department does not hold information on the number of such payments, nor their costs.

  NHS Vacancies (Mid-Essex)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many(a) nurse, (b) doctor and (c) consultant vacancies there were at Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford at the latest available date; [77142]

  (2) how many (a) nurse, (b) doctor and (c) consultant vacancies there were in the Mid-Essex Hospital Trust at the latest available date. [77143]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table. Vacancy information is not collected for specific hospitals, therefore vacancy information is shown for Mid Essex Hospital Trust.

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March 2002 (Vacancies in Mid Essex Hospital Services Trust, doctors, nurses and consultants

  Staff in post

  Three month vacancy rate %

  Number of three month vacancies

  Whole time equivalent

  Headcount

  All medical and dental staff

  3.1

  0

  110

  160

  All consultants

  3.4

  0

  90

  100

  All other doctors and dentists

  2.4

  0

  20

  70

  All nurses

  1.6

  20

  1,290

  1,720

  All qualified nurses

  2.2

  20

  880

  1,170

  Key notes:

  1. Three month vacancy information is as at 31 March 2002.

  2. Three month vacancies are vacancies which trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole time equivalents).

  3. Three month vacancy rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies plus staff in post.

  131W

  4. Three month vacancy rates are calculated using staff in post from the Vacancy Survey and the Consultant Census, March 2002.

  5. Staff in post data are from the Non-Medical Workforce Census, September 2001 and the Mini Consultant Census, March 2002.

  6. Medical and dental figures exclude staff in training.

  7. Percentages are rounded to one decimal place.

  8. Vacancy and staff in post numbers are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Other notes:

  9. Due to rounding, calculating the vacancy rates using the above data may not equal the actual vacancy rates.

  10. Figures may not match previously published data due to a different method of rounding used on the staff in post data.

  Sources:

  Vacancy Numbers and Rates: Department of Health Vacancies Survey March 2002 and Consultant census March 2002.

  Non Medical Staff in Post: Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce census September 2001.

  Medical and Dental Staff in Post: Department of Health Consultant census March 2002.

  Nutrition
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the annual cost of under-nutrition to the NHS. [75701]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 22 October 2002]: The number of finished consultant episodes (FCEs) of in-patient care in national health service hospitals in England in 2000–01 for malnutrition was 321. This figure does not represent the number of patients as a person may have more than one FCE in the year. This is the final figure.

  This information is extracted from hospital episode statistics (HES) system which contains details of patients admitted to and treated in NHS hospitals in England. HES does not hold data on cost of treatment for malnutrition.

  Occupational Therapy
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the underlying reasons are behind the change in the number of occupational therapy first episodes of care from 2001–02 to 2000–01. [78060]

  Mr. Hutton
  Table 2 of "Occupational Therapy Services, Summary Information for 2001–02", England, a copy of which is in the Library, indicates that referrals from some sources to national health service occupational therapy services fell while others rose. Information is not collected centrally on the reasons for these changes.

  Older People (Care)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his oral statement on 23 July on older people's services, how many extra care home places will result from the plans he announced in each of the next three years. [78913]

  Jacqui Smith
  In the recently published national health service and social care planning guidance, "Improvement, Expansion and Reform: The next 3 years", the Government indicated a capacity assumption of an increase of 6,000 in the number of people in care homes supported by councils over the three years to 2006. We expect the majority of the places to be provided from April 2004 onwards.
  132W
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his oral statement on 23 July concerning services for older people, for what reasons he estimates there was a reduction in the number of households receiving home care over the last five years. [78914]

  Jacqui Smith
  Home care is only part of the care and support provided through non-residential social services. This includes home helps and home care, community equipment and housing adaptations, occupational therapy, day care, and direct payments. We are committed to improving the provision of non-intensive care and support as part of better preventive services.

  Organ Retention
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many organs are retained at Leicestershire hospitals from deceased persons. [77962]

  Mr. Lammy
  There are currently 153 organs retained by the three hospitals covered by the University Hospitals of Leicester National Health Service Trust. Their retention complies with the Department's rules on the removal, retention and use of human organs. We have recently consulted on revised procedures and protocols for the taking, storage and use of human organs and tissue, and a code of practice on the import and export of body parts. That exercise will lead to a new Bill on human tissue in due course.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 16 October 2002,Official Report, column 870W, on parliamentary questions, how many statistical tables requested by hon. Members in parliamentary questions have been placed in the Library and not been published in the Official Report this session. [78372]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 31 October 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 16 October 2002, Official Report, column 870W.

  Patient Forums
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health will be able to provide legal advice to patient forums; and whether it will be specifically funded to do so. [77423]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health will be able to provide legal advice to patients' forums. This is within the commission's function of providing advice and assistance to patients' forums.

  It will be for the commission to determine how it spends the money allocated to it—this will be set out in the annual business plan that it produces.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to provide local premises for patient forums in England; and if he will make a statement. [77426]
  133W
  Mr. Lammy
  It is the responsibility of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health to decide where patients' forums in England, and the staff supporting them, should best be located to enable them to discharge their functions. To assist the commission in doing so, a change assessment group is being set up for each strategic health authority (StHA) area. It will comprise stakeholders such as the national health service, community health councils, local Government and local voluntary organisations; and will consider issues such as:

  Mapping of how the NHS is arranged within the StHA area

  Demography

  Relationship between the NHS and local Government

  Recruitment

  ICAS provision

  Accommodation.

  All the information above will help to inform the commission where the most appropriate accommodation will need to be located—in terms of the NHS, the nature of populations, and in relation to other relevant services. It will also enable the commission to form a clear picture of the nature, type and volume of work that will need to be undertaken by the patients' forums for that area and by the staff supporting them.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of staff required to be employed in patient forums to replace community health councils; what his estimate is of the annual cost of running patient forums in England; and if he will make a statement. [77427]

  Mr. Lammy
  The final outcome of the current spending review is not yet known. It is therefore not possible to discuss detailed funding arrangements for patients' forums and the Commission for 2003–04.

  The Commission's chair designate and her interim team, along with the Department, are still considering potential structures for the organisation of and staffing levels for patients' forums. The level of funding available for the Commission and patients' forums will be a key determinant of this, so, as yet, staffing levels have not been finalised.

  It should also be noted that staff working in patient advice and liaison services, staff in local authorities supporting overview and scrutiny committees and other staff that will be commissioned by patients' forums to provide independent complaints advocacy support will also undertake some of the functions currently carried out by community health councils.

  Patient Forums (Staffing)
  Mr Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff that are currently employed by English CHCs are likely not to be employed by the new Patient Forums; and what redundancy schemes have been put in place for those staff. [77973]

  Mr. Lammy
  Recruitment of staff for patients' forums will be through open competition and will be organised by the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health. It is therefore not possible, nor would it be appropriate, to predict who will secure positions and who will not.
  134W
  The Department is working with the trade unions on the arrangements for Community Health Council (CHC) staff in the run up to the abolition of CHCs.

  Patient Prospectus
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which PCTs will have distributed copies of the patient prospectus by the end of October; and if he will make a statement. [77992]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding reply issued on Thursday 31 October]: We do not have information as to which primary care trusts (PCTs) will have distributed copies of the patient prospectus by the end of October. We expect PCTs to have made the necessary arrangements to ensure delivery of the patient prospectus by the end of November. The Department produced guidance on compilation of the prospectus, and this has been available since July. It has also set up a 'Helpline' function, which has since August, been available to provide PCTs with advice about different methods of prospectus delivery. The Department in conjunction with the strategic health authorities, is continuing to oversee progress with general distribution.

  Patient Prospectus Initiative
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Department has to evaluate the patient prospectus initiative. [77991]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding reply issued on Thursday 31 October]: The Department plans to evaluate the patient prospectus initiative by arranging;
  a series of events at which it engages with a cross-section of patients and residents who are in receipt of the prospectus leaflet
  meetings with representatives of primary care trusts who have participated in compiling the documents locally.

  The above exercises are scheduled for completion by early in the new year. By taking part in these interface meetings, the Department is seeking to find out how the prospectus was received locally, and to gain feedback upon its utility. It will also use the information to inform plans for next year's prospectus and to consider potential improvements, for example to content, or in the provision of guidance material.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent by each PCT on the patient prospectus initiative. [77993]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding reply issued on Thursday 31 October]: The Department does not hold information about primary care trusts' (PCTs) expenditure on the patient prospectus. It is for each PCT to make the appropriate arrangements to facilitate delivery of the prospectus.

  Patients Forum (Staffing)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff were employed in English CHCs in each of the last three years; and what the projected number is of staff to be employed by the Patients Forum when they commence. [77969]

  Mr. Lammy
  Community Health Council (CHC) staff in England are employed by seven strategic health authorities and are National Health Service employees.
  135W
  The figures requested are therefore not held centrally. There are currently approximately 700 staff in the 184 CHCs in England.

  The chair designate of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health CPPIH) and her interim team, along with the Department, are still considering potential structures for the organisation of and staffing levels for patients' forums.

  Pharmaceutical Industry
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effects of parallel trading in the British pharmaceutical industry; and if he will make a statement. [77480]

  Mr. Lammy
  Parallel imports are estimated to represent 15 per cent. overall of sales of medicines to the national health service, although the proportion of sales represented by parallel imports differs widely between different products. Conclusive information on the economic effect of this trade on the British pharmaceutical industry is not available, given the uncertainty surrounding such factors as the profits made on sales to the country which is the source of the imports and other discounts offered by manufacturers in the United Kingdom.

  Residential and Nursing Care
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average length of time was that an individual stayed in(a) residential care and (b) nursing care in England in the last 12 months. [77145]

  Jacqui Smith
  The personal social services research unit, in research commissioned by the Department, estimated that the average complete length of stay of older publicly funded residents of residential and nursing homes is around 30 months. These data can not be broken down into types of home. This survey was carried out in the winter of 1995–96.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates his Department has made of the number of people who have had to sell their homes to pay for long-term care(a) over the last 12 months and (b) in each of the last five years. [77146]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not collected centrally. Through the introduction of the 12 weeks property disregard in April 2001 and the deferred payments scheme in October 2001, people have options to help them avoid having to sell their homes on admission to residential care.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residential nursing home beds were available in each social service area in England(a) at the latest available date, (b) in October 2001 and (c) in October 1997. [77147]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on the number of registered nursing home beds is collated as at 31 March each year.

  Data by health authority at 31 March 2001 have been placed in the Library. These data for 2001 were published in a Statistical Bulletin—'Community Care Statistics 2001—Residential Personal Social Services for
  136W
  Adults, England'. This publication is available on the Department's website at http://www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0129.htm.

  Data by health authority at 31 March 1997 have been placed in the Library.

  Data for 2002 are not yet available.

  Single Mumps Vaccine
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the availability of the single dose mumps vaccine in the UK; [76297]

  (2) whether the decision to remove the licence from the single mumps vaccine was taken at a ministerial level; and if he will make a statement. [77094]

  Ms Blears
  Single mumps vaccine is licensed in the United Kingdom, Mumpsvax, Aventis Pasteur MSD, but the marketing authorisation holder does not manufacture this vaccine for the UK market. The Medicines Control Agency (MCA) has taken no regulatory action against the marketing authorisation for this vaccine and the production and marketing of the vaccine is a matter for the company holding the marketing authorisation.

  Importation of unlicensed single mumps vaccine is permitted in accordance with medicines legislation when it is supplied in response to a doctor's prescription, issued on his personal responsibility, to meet the special needs of an individual patient. The MCA will, however, object to importation of an unlicensed mumps vaccine if it has concerns over the safety or quality of the vaccine.

  The Government recommend that children are vaccinated with the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, as the safest way for parents to protect their children against these potentially very serious diseases, and has never recommended single mumps vaccine to be given routinely in the UK.

  Suicide
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to tackle the problem of smoking in prisons. [77997]

  Jacqui Smith
  Individual prisons and their local national health service partners provide various services to help prisoners stop smoking. The range of services provided is determined locally. The Department is sponsoring pilots in five prisons to evaluate the effectiveness of smoking cessation services for prisoners and the best way of providing them.

  TB
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what extra funding and resources he has allocated this year to local primary care trusts which have reported high rates of TB. [78187]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 29 October 2002]: An extra £400,000 will be made available this year to target primary care trusts with higher than average tuberculosis levels.
  137W
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has offered to local primary care trusts who have high rates of TB to help them combat this disease. [78186]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 29 October 2002]: Plans for a national strategic action plan for tuberculosis (TB) have been under discussion this year, and have moved forward more quickly under the auspices of the Chief Medical Officer's strategy "Getting ahead of the Curve" which identified TB as one of the key areas for public health improvement. We have held two national conferences with health care professionals, comments from which will help refine and finalise the TB action plan by the end of this year. This plan will form the framework to be tailored to meet local levels of TB.

  Waiting Lists
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons patients awaiting diagnostic tests such as gastrointestinal endoscopy are excluded from national cancer waiting lists published by the NHS. [75770]

  Ms Blears
  Information is not collected centrally on waiting times for diagnostic tests. Currently published cancer waiting times data include patients urgently referred by their general practitioner (GP) with suspected cancer to first outpatient appointment. This data shows whether a patient was seen in secondary care within two weeks but does not contain information on whether a patient was referred direct for a diagnostic test or for assessment by a specialist. Data are also published on the target of a maximum one-month wait from urgent referral to first treatment for testicular cancer, children's cancers and acute leukaemia. This data will include time for the diagnostic phase but does not contain data on waiting times for individual diagnostic tests. Data is also published on the maximum one-month wait from diagnosis to first treatment for breast cancer. This target measures the waiting time to treatment after the diagnosis has been made. By 2005 there will be a maximum two-month wait from urgent GP referral to first treatment for all cancers.

  Written Consultations
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) in what format his Department has published the results of its 2001 written consultations; [69854]

  (2)how long the Department allowed for consultation on each consultation document it published in 2001 in (a) electronic and (b) printed form; [70089]

  (3)whether consultation documents published by his Department in 2001 carried the consultation criteria as recommended in the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultations; [70090]

  (4)how many consultation documents published in 2001 in (a) electronic and (b) printed form his Department has monitored and evaluated in accordance with the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultations. [69855]
  138W
  Mr. Lammy
  The Department issued 67 consultations in 2001, of which eight had periods given for response of less than 12 weeks. All consultation documents were available in printed form on request, and since March 2001, the results of all consultations have been available on the Department's website.

  The Department has since reviewed its arrangements and has circulated guidance to all managers, which has been drawn to the attention of all staff. In addition, all consultations will now automatically be posted on the Cabinet Office website at UK Online.

  The Department's consultation co-ordinator is Peter Allanson, Head of Corporate Development, Nursing Directorate.

  Public Health Laboratory Service
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what arrangements will be made, and for how long, to ring fence public health laboratory budgets when the service is reorganised to the management of local hospital trusts; [74814]

  (2) what transitional funding arrangements will be in place for the Public Health Laboratory Service during its reorganisation. [74809]

  Ms Blears
  Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) laboratories transferring to the national health service will receive funding from the NHS and from the proposed Health Protection Agency for their diagnostic work. Traditionally, some of PHLS's core funding has supported the routine services provided to NHS trusts. In 2003–04, transferring PHLS laboratories will receive payments, to be known as "residual subsidy", to cover this support. For 2004–05 the subsidy will be passed to primary care trusts as part of general allocations, and contracts between NHS trusts will operate on a full cost recovery basis.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  1901 Census Website
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the 1901 Census website. [78513]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The 1901 Census website went back online as a test site on 27 August 2002. Up to 21 October over 1.4 million people have visited the site. They have conducted 14 million searches and downloaded 600.000 images of the census pages.

  Firefighters' Strike
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what preparations she has made to ensure the safety and continuity of service to the public in the event of a firefighters' strike. [77668]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Minister for Local Government (Greenwich and Woolwich) on 28 October 2002,Official Report, column 527W.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many applications for legal aid have been refused since the new rules were introduced. [77847]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 29 October 2002]: Following the implementation of the Access to Justice Act 2000, which led to the creation of the Community Legal Service on 1 April 2000, 61,921 applications for civil legal representation have been refused up to and including March 2002. However, some of these applications may have gone on to be granted following an appeal.

  2001–02

  2000–01

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  1997–98

  Recruitment (admin costs)

  South Eastern

  17,700

  18,600

  13,800

  10,700

  0

  CSHQ (London)

  75,900

  40,700

  20,000

  71,800

  15,000

  LCD HQ (London)

  195,402

  325,767

  217,442

  148,530

  113,473

  Total

  1289,002

  385,067

  251,242

  231,030

  128,473

  Recruitment (staff costs)

  South Eastern

  373,151

  2—

  CSHQ (London)

  3—

  LCD HQ (London)

  24,683

  Total

  397,834

  Public Guardianship Office (London)4

  121,654

  173,737

  11,376

  1 2001–02 on accruals basis.

  2 Information not available.

  3 Included in figures for South Eastern.

  4 Admin and paybill costs combined.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress she has made on reorganisation of magistrates' courts in Wiltshire; and if she will make a statement. [72612]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 15 October 2002]: I am still considering the representations made to me by the Wiltshire county council and the Wiltshire Magistrates Committee at a meeting together with the hon. Member for Westbury.

  I will write to the hon. Member once I have made my decision on the appeal against the closure of the Courthouses at Trowbridge and Devizes.

TREASURY

  Currency Transfers
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what research he has commissioned regarding the transfer of currency across national boundaries using electronic technology; and if he will publish the results of this research; [79100]

  (2) what research his Department has commissioned into bank charges for the transfer of currency across national boundaries in the European economic area. [79101]
  140W
  It is not possible to provide figures for the number of refused applications for legal help as the decision to grant legal help rests with the Legal Services Commission's suppliers.

  Recruitment
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much has been spent in recruiting staff to his Department in(a) London and (b) the south east in each year since 1997. [78559]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The table provides the information requested, where it is available.

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not commissioned any research into bank charges for the transfer of currency across national boundaries in the European economic area or the transfer of currency across national boundaries using electronic technology.

  Discretionary Trusts
  Pete Wishart
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer how many discretionary trusts there are in the UK. [79353]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested is not available.

  Economic Cycle
  Mr Howard
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer what assumption his Department has made regarding the end date of the current economic cycle; and if he will make a statement. [78649]

  Ruth Kelly
  Budget 2002 (HC 592) included an assessment of cyclical developments, in particular on pages 26 and 190 to 193. This assessment will be updated in the forthcoming pre-Budget report.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to amend his growth forecasts in line with the recent forecast from the International Monetary Fund. [78836]
  141W
  Ruth Kelly
  The Government will publish an updated forecast for the UK economy in the forthcoming pre-Budget report.

  Equitable Life
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his Answer of 22nd October,Official Report, column 220W, on the Penrose inquiry, what criteria have been established in respect of decisions to withhold publication of Lord Penrose's report on legal and commercial grounds; and who will apply such criteria. [78892]

  Ruth Kelly
  It is our intention to make public as much as possible of the results of the inquiry. The presumption is that this will be the full report. However, much of the information being considered by the inquiry is subject to legal and commercial confidentiality restrictions, and such restrictions may also attach to information included in the report of the inquiry. It will not be possible to determine in advance of receiving the report from Lord Penrose whether any such restrictions prevent the report from being published in full.

  Treasury Ministers will decide, on the basis of legal advice, whether it is possible to publish the whole of Lord Penrose's report within the restrictions relating to legal or commercial confidentiality.

  Euro
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer what work is being undertaken by his Department in advance of a decision on whether to join the Eurozone; and if he will make a statement. [78883]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government has said that it will complete an assessment of the five economic tests within two years of the start of this Parliament. 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 underway.

  As we set out in the "Paper for the Treasury Select Committee on the Treasury's approach to the preliminary and technical work", issued on 6 September, "A number of supporting studies will be published encompassing the preliminary and technical work … When the assessment is complete, the detailed supporting studies will be published alongside, all to be subject to intensive public scrutiny and debate." More detail on the supporting studies is given in the 6 September paper.

  Table A: Gross Value Added: £ person

  North East

  North West (GOR) and Merseyside

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  East Midlands

  West Midlands

  East

  London

  1989

  6,614

  7,199

  7,042

  7,621

  7,242

  9,012

  10,135

  1990

  7,033

  7,757

  7,630

  8,149

  7,875

  9,711

  10,935

  1991

  7,433

  8,096

  8,002

  8,464

  8,108

  9,913

  11,422

  1992

  7,811

  8,380

  8,195

  8,722

  8,450

  10,415

  11,930

  GDP Estimates
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) for what reason gross domestic product estimates for the countries and regions of the United Kingdom are two years behind United Kingdom gross domestic product estimates; [79325]

  (2) when gross domestic product estimates will be made for each country and region of the United Kingdom for 2000; [79324]

  (3) what the gross domestic product per capita was of each country and region of the United Kingdom in (a) the most recent year and (b) each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [79323]

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

  Letter from L. Cook to Mr. Alex Salmond, dated 4 November 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your three recent questions on

  (a) the timing of publication of gross domestic product estimates for the countries and regions of the United Kingdom; (79325)

  (b) the date for the publication of estimates of gross domestic product for the countries and regions of the United Kingdom for the year 2000; (79324)

  (c) what the gross domestic product per capita was of each country and region of the United Kingdom in (a) the most recent year and (b) each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. (79323)

  (a) Currently the latest available estimates for the Gross Value Added (GVA*) for the countries and regions of the United Kingdom are for 1999. This publication lag is longer than usual and has been caused by the ONS completing an exceptionally demanding work programme to include a number of new and revised data sources. This additional work led to a deferral of the publication of estimates of GVA from their planned release date in May 2002 and the reasons for this deferral were covered in a ONS News Release of 21 May 2002.
  More usually, estimates of GVA below UK level are published some three to four months after the UK-level estimates are released. One of the main reasons for this delay is to ensure that the sub-UK estimates are consistent with (i.e. add up to) those published in the United Kingdom National Accounts. We plan to meet that goal this year by publishing estimates for the period up to 2001 before the end of 2002.
  (b) The ONS announced in the August edition of Updates that Regional Gross Value Added is to be published for the years 2000 and 2001 on 17 December 2002.
  (c) The estimates of GVA per head for the countries and regions of the United Kingdom for the period 1989 to 1999, consistent with the National Accounts data published in 2000 are shown in table A.
  *While the estimates have been historically referred to as Gross Domestic Product (GDP), under the new European System of Accounts 1995 (ESA95) they are more correctly referred to as Gross Value Added (GVA) at basic prices. From 2002 onwards, the term GVA is being used.
  143W

  Table A: Gross Value Added: £ person

  North East

  North West (GOR) and Merseyside

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  East Midlands

  West Midlands

  East

  London

  1993

  8,216

  8,783

  8,563

  9,102

  8,855

  10,772

  12,494

  1994

  8,441

  9,248

  8,901

  9,519

  9,352

  11,467

  13,088

  1995

  8,796

  9,547

  9,354

  9,944

  9,869

  11,889

  13,406

  1996

  9,111

  9,980

  9,927

  10,673

  10,309

  12,582

  14,107

  19971

  9,301

  10,494

  10,541

  11,371

  10,845

  13,657

  15,266

  19981

  9,741

  10,909

  10,983

  11,848

  11,455

  14,530

  16,532

  19991

  10,024

  11,273

  11,404

  12,146

  11,900

  15,094

  16,859

  United Kingdom

  South East

  South West

  Wales

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  Excluding Extra Regio

  Including Extra-Regio and stat Discrepancy

  1989

  8,805

  7,297

  6,624

  7,544

  5,893

  7,888

  8,053

  1990

  9,586

  7,917

  7,080

  8,321

  6,300

  8,535

  8,712

  1991

  9,866

  8,183

  7,450

  8,814

  6,787

  8,880

  9,050

  1992

  10,242

  8,547

  7,632

  9,217

  7,163

  9,236

  9,404

  1993

  10,834

  8,927

  7,978

  9,614

  7,610

  9,671

  9,852

  1994

  11,441

  9,311

  8,393

  10,168

  8,114

  10,170

  10,372

  1995

  11,918

  9,828

  8,900

  10,818

  8,654

  10,619

  10,842

  1996

  12,761

  10,351

  9,240

  11,162

  8,964

  11,185

  11,462

  19971

  13,634

  11,008

  9,562

  11,429

  9,507

  11,871

  12,118

  19981

  14,510

  11,447

  10,063

  12,117

  9,754

  12,548

  12,750

  19991

  15,098

  11,782

  10,449

  12,512

  10,050

  12,972

  13,213

  1 Provisional

  National Insurance (Armed Forces)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the periods in the last 30 years where the National Insurance Contributions regime for armed forces personnel were different to those that applied to ordinary employees, listing in each case(a) whether such arrangements were (i) voluntary and (ii) compulsory, (b) what rates of contribution applied, (c) whether separate rules applied to (i) men and (ii) women and (d) what benefits accrued in respect of these contributions. [77867]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 29 October 2002]: Prior to 6 April 1996 serving members of Her Majesty's Forces paid National Insurance contributions at a reduced rate. The contributions paid built up entitlement to all contributory benefits although Contributory Jobseekers Allowance and Incapacity Benefit are not payable to serving members of Her Majesty's Forces. The amount of the reductions, which were compulsory, are shown in the table below.

  Reduction in weekly primary (flat rate) NICs

  Dates

  Men over 18

  Women over 18

  Men under 18

  Women under 18

  2 October 1972 to 30 September 1973

  0.11

  0.08

  0.06

  0.05

  1 October 1973 to 4 August 1974

  0.09

  0.07

  0.05

  0.04

  5 August 1974 to 5 April 1975

  0.07

  0.05

  0.05

  0.04

  144W

  Percentage Reduction in Primary NICs Dates

  Dates

  Standard Rate

  Reduced Rate

  6 April 1975 to 5 April 1978

  0.8

  0.2

  6 April 1978 to 5 April 1982

  0.7

  0.15

  6 April 1982 to 5 April 1984

  1.05

  0.5

  6 April 1984 to 5 April 1988

  0.9

  0.9

  6 April 1988 to 5 April 1989

  0.8

  0.8

  6 April 1989 to 5 April 1990

  0.65

  0.65

  6 April 1990 to 5 April 1991

  0.7

  0.7

  6 April 1991 to 5 April 1992

  0.6

  0.6

  6 April 1992 to 5 April 1993

  0.4

  0.4

  6 April 1993 to 5 April 1995

  0.5

  0.5

  6 April 1995 to 5 April 1996

  0.4

  0.4

  Savings Ratio
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps his Department is taking to increase the amount per capita that is saved ahead of retirement each year in the UK economy. [78834]

  Ruth Kelly
  There are a range of policies in place to encourage and enable people to save in pensions. We will publish a Pensions Green Paper later this year.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a person is eligible for working
  145W
  families tax credit, when reapplying, if their average weekly hours worked falls below the 16 hour threshold as a result of the person taking two weeks' paid leave. [77820]

  Dawn Primarolo
  If average weekly hours worked fall below the 16 hour threshold, then a person is not eligible to claim WFTC. Where a person has a "recognised cycle of work" then any periods of paid leave are omitted from the calculation of average hours worked.

  Where there is no "recognised period of work" then the actual hours worked in the five weeks preceding the date of claim are used to calculate eligibility. Longer periods of time preceding the week of the claim may be looked at if this enables the person's average weekly hours to be determined more accurately.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to simplify the claim form for working families tax credit; and if he will make a statement. [79230]

  Ruth Kelly
  From April 2003 Working Families' Tax Credit (WFTC), Disabled Person's Tax Credit (DPTC) and Children's Tax Credit will be replaced by Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit.

  The forms for claiming the current tax credits are being replaced by one new form.

  Filling in the form is a one-off exercise to get people into the new system. Renewal forms will include much of the information already provided by the claimant(s), so people will only have to update or confirm their circumstances and report their last year's income, rather than fill in a form starting from scratch.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Civil Relationships Registration
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the progress of her Department's review on registration of civil relationships. [78354]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 31 October 2002]: Civil partnership registration, and associated rights and responsibilities, raise a number of complex issues which have prompted a growing debate within society. The Government are watching this debate with interest.

  These issues have potentially significant financial and administrative implications. The Government are now examining the issues in detail. My Department coordinates this work across all those Government Departments that have an interest.

  The Government cannot determine its response to any proposal for change before the completion of this work.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the United Kingdom's foreign direct investment share of the EU was in 2001; and if she will make a statement. [75123]

  Ms Hewitt
  Figures for 2001 published in September by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) confirm the UK's premier 146W
  position in Europe. The UK had $496,776 million stock of inward investment, second only to the US. I welcome the UNCTAD findings. These reflect the hard work done by My Noble Friend the Minister for Trade and Investment, Invest-UK in British Trade International and the Regional Development Agencies in seeking out inward investment in these more difficult conditions and promoting the UK as a top venue. A recent example of this work is the announcement by the ICT Group of Pennsylvania of plans to open a new customer contact centre in Uxbridge, West London creating over 200 jobs.

  Beryllium
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 22 October,Official Report, column 247W, on beryllium, what written assurances were given in relation to the use of beryllium by the University of Sciences and Technology in Iran. [78876]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The written assurances that were given in relation to the use of beryllium by the University of Science and Technology were consistent with the model format published on the Department of Trade and Industry's Export Control Organisation website.

  The website address is http://www.dti.gov.uk/export.control

  Citizens Advice Scotland
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the recent Quinquennial Review of Citizens Advice Scotland. [79401]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The review, which started in December 2001, was recently completed and the subsequent report produced by our consultants was extremely positive about both CAS and the CAB service in Scotland. The report concluded that CAS is an organisation that represents significant value for money, has seen a radical improvement in its governance and organisation over the last five years and is making a very useful contribution in terms of the modernisation and e-Government agendas.

  The review demonstrates that both CAS and the CAB service make a significant and positive contribution to individuals and communities in Scotland and Government in all areas and are performing well. The report gives some useful examples of this contribution.

  I am arranging for a comprehensive summary of the report, its findings and recommendations to be made available on the DTI website. Copies of the full report will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Commercial Kiosk Service, Cornwall
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the trials will begin in Cornwall of the new Commercial Kiosk Service; how long the trial is due to last; which companies will be providing the(a) hardware, (b) software and (c) training of staff; and if she will make a statement. [77485]
  147W
  Mr. Timms
  The hon. Member should approach e-Daily, the company behind the proposed commercial kiosk pilots, in order to obtain information about its plans.

  The company's address is:

  The Lansdowne Building

  2 Lansdowne Road

  Croydon

  Surrey CR9 2ER

  (Tel: 07949 189330)

  Exhibitions Abroad
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the(a) budget allocation and (b) staff allocation is for the Support at Exhibitions and Seminars Abroad section; and if she will make a statement. [78104]

  Ms Hewitt
  Trade Partners UK's International Business Schemes run the Support for Exhibitions and Seminars Abroad (SESA) scheme, the Inward Mission scheme and a programme to improve sponsor performance. It has a total budget of £20 million for the financial year 2002/2003 and a staff allocation of 26.5.

  Expo 2000
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what costs were incurred relating to the British pavilion at Expo 2000; and if she will make a statement. [75122]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government provided £7.5 million to fund the UK pavilion at Expo 2000 in Hanover.

  The UK pavilion attracted 2.6 million visitors over five months and took 1,242 trade enquiries. The pavilion itself was designed to have an after-life in the spirit of Expo's theme of sustainability.

  Export Development Counsellors
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many export development counsellors recruited from the private sector were in place in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01; and if she will make a statement. [78112]

  Ms Hewitt
  The number of export development counsellors in post is as follows:

  1997–98: 78

  1998–99: 87

  1999–2000: 83

  2000–01:86

  The current number of international trade advisers from the private sector (formerly export development counsellors) in post is 123.

  Export Market Information Centre
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the(a) operating costs and (b) number of visits were for the Export Market Information Centre in London is in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000 and (iv) 2000–01; what research of customers took place in each of those years; what costs were incurred by that research; and if she will make a statement. [78103]
  148W
  Ms Hewitt
  Operating costs (including Information Resources) and visitor numbers for the years in question were as follows:

  Approximate costs (000) (Running costs and information resources)

  Personal Visitors

  1997 to 1998

  1,423

  24,067

  1998 to 1999

  1,151

  22,597

  1999 to 2000

  1,298

  18,167

  2000 to 2001

  11,974

  12,332

  1 In 2000–01 the Export Market Information Centre was renamed the Trade Partners UK Information Centre and Enquiry Service with the additional role of handling telephone and e-mail enquiries for the organisation. The new unit handled over 36,000 telephone enquiries and 3,000 e-mails in 2000–2001, or a total of 50,000 transactions, the highest figure since 1997–1998.

  Customer Surveys were conducted on behalf of the Centre in December 1997, November 1998 and November 1999. The total cost of the three surveys was approximately 60,000.

  General Agreement on Trade in Services
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive on the impact of GATS on health services in Scotland; [76658]

  (2) what procedures she has put in place to ascertain the views of the health service in Scotland on the possible impact of GATS; [76659]

  (3) what discussions she has had with (a) the Scottish Executive and (b) principals and vice chancellors of Scottish universities on the impact of GATS on universities and other institutes of higher education in Scotland. [76670]

  Ms Hewitt
  Public services (i.e. services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority) such as in health and education are excluded from the GATS. The GATS defines these as services supplied neither on a commercial basis nor in competition with other service suppliers. For services within the scope of the GATS (that is, those supplied by the private sector), countries can choose in which sectors to make, or not make, commitments and any limitations or conditions they wish to impose.

  The United Kingdom has already made GATS commitments, allowing foreign companies to provide private services in the UK in the health and education area. The Government have made clear to the House in the past that we will not make further commitments that could call into question our continued ability to maintain public health and education services.

  My Department has recently issued a consultation document inviting views on requests for liberalisation of services that we have received in the current round of GATS negotiations. The document was drawn up in close co-operation with the Departments of Health, and Education and Skills, with input from the Scottish Executive and other devolved Administrations. Comments are requested by 3 January 2003. My noble Friend the Minister for Trade and Investment has written to all Members drawing attention to this consultation. The document is available on the DTI

  149W
  website www.dti .gov.uk/worldtrade/service.htm and printed copies are being placed in the Libraries of the House.

  DTI and DFES officials are in close contact with universities and higher education institutions and the Scottish Executive is also keeping in touch with Universities Scotland on issues related to GATS.

  Government Expenditure
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much of the Government funding of £35.1 million over four years in the 1998–99 publication Trade and Industry, The Government's Expenditure Plans, Sectoral Activities section 1.2 has been(a) allocated and (b) spent; which projects received funding, with the amount allocated per project; which projects were refused funding; and if she will make a statement. [77903]

  Ms Hewitt
  In May 1997, the Government allocated £35.1 million to the 186 winning bids which resulted from the sector challenge initiative. The budget was derived from both DTI's own funds and contributions from other Government Departments. The winning projects were recommended for support by an independent assessment panel and represented £109.5 million in total budget costs.

  The winning bids were judged by their respective bidders to be focused on:

  Percentage

  People/skills issues

  65

  Improving access to markets

  64

  The better exploitation of technology

  55

  Improving access to finance

  11

  Representation at trade fairs

  4

  To reduce the burden on business, the competition was divided into an outline and a full proposal stage. Some 605 outlines were received by the deadline of 13 November 1996. These were judged by an independent assessment panel against the criteria of impact, strategic fit, relevance, quality of content, partnership, value for money, additionality, financial viability and credibility.

  340 bids were encouraged to proceed to the full bid stage and 307 full bids were received. From these, the 186 winners were selected.

  Information Society Technologies Programme
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made by the Information Society Technologies programme; what costs have been incurred since its start up broken down by financial year; what the budget allocated was in each financial year; when the programme is due to finish; and if she will make a statement. [78108]

  Mr. Timms
  The Information Society Technologies programme within the EU's Fifth Framework Programme (FP5)—which finished in June 2002—was allocated a budget of €3.6 billion for the period 1998–2002. This budget, for the purpose of encouraging innovative research, development and demonstration projects in the 1ST area, has now been exhausted and 150W
  UK companies, in competition with all other member and associated states, have won over £300 million of financial support (around 14 per cent. of the total disbursed) thereby meeting the target set in the 1998 Competitiveness White Paper to stimulate 'strong UK participation in the EU's Framework programmes'.

  The indicative budget allocations for each year of FP5 were:

  € billion

  1999

  1.31

  2000

  1.00

  2001

  0.85

  2002

  0.37

  During the lifetime of the Fifth Framework Programme DTI funded the UKJSHELP service to provide a website, helpline, national contact point, literature and programme of promotional events to help UK organisations make successful applications for funding support. The annual cost of providing this service was:

  £000

  November 1998 to March 2000

  705

  April 2000 to March 2001

  511

  April 2001 to March 2002

  539

  April 2002 to March 2003

  441

  Note:

  Figures include VAT.

  The EU will be launching the Sixth Framework Programme in November 2002. 1ST will again have a budget of 3.6 billion to cover the period 2002–06. DTI officials are currently considering how best to support UK organisations hoping to access this budget beyond March 2003.

  DTI is ensuring that UK organisations have early access to all available information about the development of the FP6—by posting information on the UK/SHELP website (http://www.ukishelp.co.uk), holding information events and undertaking a programme of awareness-raising company visits.

  The Libraries of the House have copies of recently written case studies about successful projects in the IST area, funded under previous European programmes, which demonstrate the potential gains ('European Programme Funding—Case Studies in Information Society Technologies').

  Iran
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the level of(a) exports to and (b) imports from Iran was in 2001–02; and what steps she is taking to expand this trade. [78306]

  Ms Hewitt
  UK exports of goods to Iran in 2001 were worth £432 million while imports from Iran were worth £28 million. In the eight-month period from January to August 2002 UK exports of goods amounted to £283 million. UK imports were £26 million.

  UK exports of services to Iran in 2001 totalled £126 million, imports from Iran were worth £31 million.
  151W
  Trade Partners UK, including the commercial team at the embassy in Tehran, offers a strong package of support for British companies wishing to do business with Iran. In addition to providing up to date information on market conditions, they support a programme of trade missions to the market, help British groups attend key trade fairs, organise inward missions and provide targeted assistance to UK companies in key sectors.

  Iron and Steel Employees Benefits Scheme
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was spent on the Iron and Steel Employees Re-adaptation Benefits Scheme in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–00 and (c) 2002–01; what the budget is for 2001–02; and if she will make a statement. [78290]

  Alan Johnson
  The current Iron and Steel Employees Re-adaptation Scheme (ISERBS) was introduced in May 2001 and the following amounts have been paid to eligible redundant steel industry workers:

  £

  2001 to 2002

  20,182,240

  2002 to 2003

  18,637,920

  1 by 12 November

  of which approximately 45 per cent will be recouped from the European Commission The Government will continue to make ISERBS payments to eligible individuals as necessary.

  Payments relating to the earlier ISERBS scheme, terminated in 1994, but under which there was residual commitment to pay a small number of individuals who attained entitlement in 1994 but whose redundancy was delayed, were as follows:

  £

  1998 to 1999

  193,689

  1990 to 2000

  103,713

  2000 to 2001

  NIL

  Ironbridge Power Station
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with PowerGen over the future of coal-fired power stations in England, with particular reference to Ironbridge Power Station. [78753]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Trade and Industry has not had any recent discussions with Powergen about the future of Ironbridge or other coal fired powered power stations in England.

  Joint Export Promotion Directorate
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) DTI, (b) FCO, (c) other Government Departments, (d) secondees and (e) other staff work within the Joint Export Promotion Directorate; and if she will make a statement. [78113]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Joint Export Promotion Directorate no longer exists. It is incorporated into British Trade International (BTI) in May 1999. BTI is the joint DTI 152W
  and FCO body responsible for trade development and promotion of inward investment. The breakdown of staff currently working for British Trade International is as follows:

  Number of staff

  DTI (HQ)

  704

  FCO (HQ)

  52

  OGD plus Government Office

  162

  Secondees

  75

  Overseas in staff years

  1,522

  UK

  161

  Process Improvement Master Class
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) financial and (b) other support was provided for the Process Improvement Master Class in (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–00 and (iii) 2000–01; what budget there is for 2001–02; and if she will make a statement. [78262]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Process Improvement Master Class (PIMC) is one of the products offered by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Industry Forum, whose remit is to help small and medium enterprises improve their productivity. PIMC was developed for the automotive sector, but has also been used in the aerospace sector.

  The amount of financial support provided for PIMC by my Department is shown in the table:

  £ million

  1998–99

  1.391

  1999–2000

  1.613

  2000–01

  2.298

  2001–02

  1.317

  My Department also provided a secondee, at HEO level, to SMMT Industry Forum over this period.

  Productivity Gap
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the progress she is making on putting policies in place to narrow the productivity gap relative to other industrialised countries. [75912]

  Ms Hewitt
  Following the reviews of my Department's priorities and structure and business support, major changes in the Department took place in April this year geared to focusing policies more effectively on raising the UK's competitiveness and productivity, in particular by focussing on successful businesses, world class science and innovation, and fair markets,

  As part of the evidence base used to monitor progress I have also published on 15 October-the "Productivity and competitiveness indicators—update 2002". This publication benchmarks the UK's performance in each of the five drivers of productivity against that of our competitors.

  Rural Transfer Advisors
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many rural transfer advisors are in place; what plans she has to increase this number; what their objectives are; who is managing them; and if she will make a statement. [77484]

  Mr. Timms
  There are currently 31 rural transfer advisers (28 full time equivalent.) They have been appointed by Post Office Limited (POL) to prevent avoidable closures in the rural network. Rural transfer advisers are employees of POL Staffing levels are a matter for POL, dti Department of Trade and Industry

  Small Business Service
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), of 22 October 2002,Official Report, column 248W, on the Small Business Service, which of the targets to be achieved by 31 October have been met. [78434]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The SBS launched the "Bridges" community development venture fund early in May 2002.

  The six Investment Readiness demonstration projects were under way by September 2002.

  A National Start-up Forum has been established and considered an outline Action Plan at its first meeting in September. The forum will consider a final version at its second meeting in November with a view to publication of the Action Plan in December.

  The SBS strategy for the years 2003–04 to 2005–06 will be published in November.

  Trade Fairs (Promotion)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what programmes she has to promote and disseminate information about forthcoming trade fairs and exhibitions in the UK to potential trade visitors from overseas; and how much such programmes have cost in the past 12 months. [77026]

  Ms Hewitt
  Trade Partners UK (TPUK) promotes forthcoming trade fairs and exhibitions in the UK through the trade fairs and exhibitions website, which is managed by Exhibition Audience Audit (EAA) and sponsored by TPUK at a cost of £2,025 per quarter (£8,100 per year). The website offers a comprehensive listing of all the consumer, public, industrial and trade exhibitions to be held in major venues around the UK.

  The monthly TPUK magazine Overseas Trade, distributed to some 36,000 business readers around the world, includes a page of diary dates with a specific section on UK-based events. The annual budget for the magazine is £240,000.
  154W
  The TPUK Inward Mission Scheme is another effective way of strengthening UK activity overseas. It enables overseas buyers, journalists and business leaders to visit the UK's trade fairs, exhibitions and individual businesses. The annual cost of this scheme is some £400,000.

  TRIPS Implementation
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans the Government have to extend the TRIPS implementation deadlines for all developing countries. [78204]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 30 October 2002]: The TRIPS agreement lays down procedures for extending implementation deadlines for the Least Developed Countries (LDC). The general implementation deadline is 2005 but an extension to 2016 was agreed for pharmaceutical products at the WTO Ministerial Conference in Doha. There is no specific mechanism for extending TRIPS implementation deadlines for all developing countries.

  The UK Government work through the EU on issues relating to the TRIPS agreement. The UK Government support the development of objective criteria to form the basis upon which extensions of TRIPS transition periods should be agreed. The UK Government therefore support the introduction into TRIPS of a mechanism for extending transition periods for individual developing countries.

  Work Permits (IT Workers)
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many work permit holders given leave to enter the United Kingdom in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001 were employed in the IT sector: and what proportion of IT workers employed were admitted for the purpose of taking up a job in the sector. [77936]

  Beverley Hughes
  I have been asked to reply.

  The total number of work permits issued in respect of information technology (IT) workers in 2000 and 2001 is 18,257 and 26,870 respectively, of which 12,548 and 15,976 respectively were issued prior to entry to the United Kingdom. Labour Force Survey figures for the total number of people employed in computer services are 500,000 in 2000 and 547,000 in 2001.

  Pharmacy Dispensing Contracts
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average value of a pharmacy dispensing contract when traded between owners has been in the last two years. [77239]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply. The information requested is not collected centrally.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers —Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

Judicial Appointments
Baroness Howe of Idlicote Baroness Howe of Idlicote asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the "significant concerns about the judicial appointments process" recently identified in the first annual report of the Commission for Judicial Appointments.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, my first response is that these concerns have to be kept in perspective. In the period 15th March 2001 to 31st March 2002, the commission accepted only 10 complaints out of 3,626 unsuccessful applicants. Six of the 10 are covered by the commissioner's first report. Of these six, three were about Silk applications and were upheld; one was about judicial appointments and was partially upheld; two were about judicial appointments and were rejected. All four outstanding at the end of March this year were about judicial appointments. Since the report was published, three of these have been rejected and one remains under consideration. The complaints that were upheld, however, were on the basis of procedural and administrative failings that did not go to the merits of the substantive decisions.
I turn to the concerns. One was that the system may not be fully understood. We publish the most detailed guidance for applicants and provide detailed feedback for the unsuccessful. We shall redouble these efforts.
Another concern is that the quality of responses from consultees is variable. I agree, and I constantly urge that they should be based on stated experience as fully particularised as possible and expressly related to the criteria.
Finally, concern was expressed about the lack of a clear audit trail to show that assessments that should have been disregarded were in fact disregarded. That we shall improve too, and we are putting very substantial further resources into this year's Silks round.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that helpful Answer. However, I want to query a slightly wider aspect of the report. The commission expressed concern not least about the continuing lack of diversity. Should we, for example, be worried that there are not enough suitably qualified women or members of ethnic minorities among the appointments made? Is it now time to involve the commission directly in the actual process of selection and appointment of judges and QCs—as,
472
I believe, was originally envisaged in Sir Leonard Peach's report in 1999? Will the noble and learned Lord further accept that such a change might ensure that the selection and appointment of judges was then perceived as a much more open and democratic process, and above all more plainly independent of Ministers?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I know that the noble Baroness has a keen interest in this subject—and I appreciate the interest of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. I acknowledge the important work that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, undertakes as chair of the Hansard Society Commission on Women at the Top. But, in fact, women are doing very well against the competition. Only this morning, I had the pleasure of swearing in Laura Cox QC as a High Court judge.
It is important not to make false comparisons. A false comparison is: what is the proportion of women in the profession today and why are not the same proportion of women judges today? The true comparison relates to the profile of practitioners of 20 or more years ago. That is the pool from which judges are appointed. Twenty or more years ago, women were a very much smaller proportion of the profession. By this standard—the true standard—women are doing very well at all levels.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, perhaps I may indicate to my noble and learned friend that there is great support for his efforts to make the Bench much more diverse. However, a question has been raised as to whether the appointments might not be better undertaken by a judicial appointments commission. This report was conducted by Sir Colin Campbell with the assistance of a very diverse group of people, half of whom were women and two of whom were from ethnic minorities. It indicated how an independent group of people can bring some real clarity to issues relating to appointment. Would it not be better to have an independent judicial appointments commission rather than have decisions made ultimately by someone—albeit someone whom we greatly respect—who is both the head of the judiciary and a Cabinet member? Is it not time to separate those powers and to create a truly independent judiciary?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I have said a number of times, I have not excluded the possibility of a judicial appointments commission that would have a greater role in the appointments system than the present supervisory commission which is intended, through its reports, to give greater public confidence. However, I believe that we should live with the present commission for some time before considering going further.
Some suggest a judicial appointments commission; others suggest that Silk appointments should be made by the profession—by the Bar Council and the Law Society. But that would have its perils as well. It would be said that the professions were feathering their own nest by appointing too many Queen's Counsel; on the

473
other hand, it would be said that if your face did not fit at the Inn you would not get Silk. Furthermore, a judicial appointments commission which made or recommended appointments would be a quango—which many might not favour—with all the risks of deals, compromises and quotas which would undermine a merits-based system. I have an open mind, but these are serious considerations.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the report of the Lord Chancellor's Department on judicial appointments for 2001-02 indicates that, out of nine new appointments to the High Court Bench in the period under review, none was the appointment of a woman, nor was either of the appointments to the Court of Appeal or to the House of Lords. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that this suggests that something is badly wrong? Will he consider, for example, abolishing the circuit system for High Court judges, which is likely to be a serious deterrent for women who might otherwise be suitable for appointment? Will he accept that the consultation system may place at a disadvantage women who have cut their workload temporarily because of childcare commitments?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord focuses attention on the senior judicial appointments. Certainly, I would like to see many more women in these appointments in the future but without prejudice to a merit-based system. But if we look at judicial office overall, for the fourth year running the number of women appointed to judicial office has increased. Women are doing very well. First, let us take the proportion of successful applicants who were women in 1998–99: it was 23.5 per cent. It is now 34.4 per cent. Let us take the proportion of men and women who apply and are successful: in 2001, 23.5 per cent of women who applied were successful, compared to 20.8 per cent of male applicants. There is a similar pattern in applications for Silk. In every year since 1998, the proportion of women applicants for Silk who were successful has been greater than the proportion of male applicants who were successful. It may, of course, be that women are better judges of their own merits than men are of their own merits.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords—
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we are in the ninth minute now. I am afraid that we have overrun our time.

Children Act Proceedings: Organic Illness
2.44 p.m.
Countess of Mar Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether proceedings under the Children Act 1989 are appropriate where children are known to be suffering from professionally diagnosed organic illnesses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, under Part IV of the Act, local authorities will make an application to court for an order only where they are satisfied that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. In some cases where proceedings are appropriate, the children concerned may be suffering from a professionally diagnosed organic illness.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which is exactly in line with what I expected. He will recall that for the past four years I have been drawing individual cases to his attention by letter and highlighting more general cases in Starred and Unstarred Questions in your Lordships' House. At his request, on 15th January this year I wrote to his friend Jacqui Smith MP in the Department of Health. It took her until 22nd October to tell me that the social workers had discharged their statutory duties and to tell me many facts that I knew already.
I find it appalling that the Department of Health seems unable to grasp the fact that aggrieved parents have sought out Members of the House of Lords to have their problems highlighted and, it is to be hoped, settled. I sent the department a list of 10 parents, none of whom was asked about the problem. Is it not time that parents were spoken to? Will the Minister look at the problem and find out what is going on with social services?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I regret that it took a lengthy time to respond to the concerns of the noble Countess. She gave details of 16 children. Time and care had to be taken to ask the relevant local authorities for their views. We have made a judgment that the proper procedures were followed. It would be inappropriate for my department to talk directly to parents. It cannot be appropriate for Ministers or officials to intervene in individual cases; nor would it be appropriate for them to comment on such cases, especially those that have been the subject of court proceedings. Our responsibility is to ensure that local authorities carried out the proper procedures, and they did.
Earl Howe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the main aims of social workers in this field should be to provide help and support to families who need it? Is he satisfied that in cases such as those cited by the noble Countess, families are being properly listened to rather than being put immediately under a

475
pall of suspicion by social workers? Should not social workers and social services assessments take seriously and address themselves fully to the concerns expressed by parents?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, parents' views must be made known in any childcare proceedings. But I refer the noble Earl to the comments of the Chief Medical Officer's working group on the illness CFS/ ME, which is very relevant to this Question. It concluded that evidence that is clearly suggestive of harm needs to be obtained before convening child protection procedures or initiating care proceedings in a family court. It also makes the point that social services should be made aware that medical opinion in the field of CFS/ME is divided and that consideration should be given to obtaining further opinion from an expert medical practitioner with specialist knowledge of the illness.

Political Parties: State Funding
2.49 p.m.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their views on the report Keeping it Clean—The Way Forward for State Funding of Political Parties, published by the Institute for Public Policy Research.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, while the Government welcome the contribution that the I PPR's report has made to the current lively debate on state funding, it is clear that there remains no consensus as yet about the way forward. The independent Electoral Commission, which is charged with a statutory obligation to review and report on matters relating to the regulation and funding of political parties, has already begun its review of the arguments for and against state funding and a cap on donations. The Government await its recommendations with interest.
Lord Good hart: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. The IPPR has close links with the Labour Party. Does she agree that there is now a great deal to be said for caps on large donations, for a lower limit on election spending at national level and for increased public funding of the political process, particularly through matching funding, or possibly tax relief, for small donations?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord has rightly identified a number of issues of real importance. He will know that there are wide-ranging and differing views about them. I am sure that the commission will fully consider all those issues. That is why I say that we anxiously await the outcome of its deliberations. I am sure the noble Lord will make good use of the procedure for consultation in relation to that report.
Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, can the Minister shed any light on this matter? In their 1999 response to
476
the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life—of which I had the honour then to be chairman—the Government said:
"The Neill Committee, whilst recognising the essential role played by political parties in our parliamentary democracy, came down against any general system of support from public funds for their general activities. The Government agrees with this conclusion".
Has there been any shift in that position?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, your Lordships will know that there has been an active and anxious debate. It was thought right that the commission should now look at this issue again. It will report in 2004. Your Lordships will know that the debate goes backwards and forwards. Those who are in favour of state funding say that it gives transparency, security and a fair playing field. Those who are against ask why the public should pay for political parties that they do not support. These are all deeply interesting and lively issues, which, I am sure, will delight the commission when it considers its report in the final days in 2004.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness has said that she awaits the commission's report with interest. Can she also give an indication that the Government will not change their mind and will not support state funding of political parties?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot give any such assurance, as the noble Earl knows The whole point of having the commission is allowing it to do its work and then doing it the courtesy of listening to what it has to say. Once we hear what it says, we shall make an informed decision.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, although there is much useful analysis in the IPPR report, and there is a case for increased funding on research for political parties, when it comes to trade union contributions, there is a fallacy in supposing that when you have a political fund, a larger union with many thousands of members does not have to give pound for pound a lot more as a contribution than a small union with only a few hundred members?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, these are all valid points. The IPPR says in the back of its report that it does not offer a detailed route, but a basic path to be followed. Its suggestions are only a contribution. It does not pretend to have all the answers. I am sure that that is another issue that will need to be carefully scrutinised by the commission.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, if she cannot speak for the Government, will the Minister at least comment for herself on the fact that the current problem with under-funding of political parties is the simple fact that the public do not identify with politics in Westminster and Whitehall? If we were seen to take more interest in the public and in their hopes and fears—and I am not sure that last night's film did much

477
in that direction—might not they in turn take more interest in politics and be willing to fund it out of their own resources?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, no one can say of anyone sitting in this House that we do not have an active and deep interest in the public. My deliberations in participating with your Lordships have made it clear that we seem to think about nothing else. Your Lordships will know that I cannot but speak for the Government. It is my privilege and pleasure so to do.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it sounds as though the Government have changed their mind since their 1999 response to the report of the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, on state funding. Does the noble Baroness agree that most people would find it abhorrent if all political parties were paid for 100 per cent out of taxpayers' money? Is not a slightly more rounded way of looking at the issue to consider the case for tax deductions for the noble service of supporting those political parties that must be a necessary evil in our political environment?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we certainly have not changed our minds. We have remained open to the evidence that we may be given. That is not changing our minds, it is making informed, proper choices. The noble Lord will know that there were a number of reasons why the Government felt unable to accept the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, on tax relief. We recognise that a certain level of focused financial support in the form of policy development grant should be made available, but we considered that tax relief as then suggested amounted to general state aid by another route. A tax relief scheme would be expensive for both the Inland Revenue and the political parties to administer. The loss of revenue would have to be balanced against other spending priorities. As I have already said, we will be interested to see the Electoral Commission's view on the matter, as on others. Our minds are not closed in the way that the noble Lord would like. We remain open and we remain able and willing to do that which is in the best interests of our country.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is it not true that in the minds of the political activists on the ground, particularly in the Labour Party, there is deep concern about these large political contributions? Is it not also true that for many people in both Houses, the position taken on this issue by the Committee on Standards in Public Life only a few years ago was utterly wrong?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, this interchange demonstrates the breadth of disagreement on the issue. There is much force in what the noble Lord says and in the argument that political parties—particularly the more aberrant nature of certain aspects of some political parties—should not be funded by taxpayers' money. This is a very important,
478
complex, difficult issue. We need a broad and deep discussion about it. I hope that the commission will be able to do just that.
Earl Russell: My Lords, did the noble Baroness notice, in responses from those who were asked why they did not vote in the last election, numerous people complaining that they had received no visit from any political party, nor any literature from them? If, as the noble Baroness says, there is no consensus, is this perhaps because, not for the first time, voters expect more than they are prepared to pay for? Will the Government join the other political parties in making clear to the voters that they cannot have it both ways?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I think the noble Earl has just done that.

Bradford University: "Drinking and Society" module
2.58 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there is any cost to public funds arising from the course available to students at Bradford University relating to beer drinking in Yorkshire.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, the University of Bradford offers a part-time degree programme in local and regional studies, with a module entitled "Drinking and Society". The course is supported by the university's grant from the Higher Education Funding Council for England and by tuition fees paid by students.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Is she satisfied that in general terms universities are not packing their prospectuses with absurd courses such as this one just to keep up their numbers and the public funding that goes with that?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I shall deal slightly more fully with the specific issue of Bradford University. The course has been running for five years and this new module will be offered for the first time after Christmas. Bradford expects 15 of the 55 students currently studying this degree course to take up the module. It is worth noting that the total cost to HEFCE for the 15 students will be £5,700. Universities take enormous care to ensure that the courses they offer are relevant. Sometimes media reports take the courses out of context and perhaps make them sound less than they might be.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in raising the virtues and qualities of the University of Bradford, the noble Lord could alternatively have praised the Department of Peace Studies and its work in conflict resolution?

479
Furthermore, will the Minister join me in congratulating the Rotary Foundation on giving more than £1 million in grant aid to the Department of Peace Studies to enhance its work in conflict resolution?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I would indeed pay tribute to the Rotary Foundation. It is perhaps also worth saying that, since November 2000, the University of Bradford has received excellent scores in various subject reviews covering pharmacy, physiotherapy, radiography, optometry, nursing/ midwifery and archaeological sciences, with top marks for peace studies and interdisciplinary human studies.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, have the Government considered setting up a system of independent quality control in our universities and higher education instead of continuing to rely on the somewhat shaky system of quality assurance, which many of us from outside the universities, but who have worked in the system, believe to be run far too much by academics for academics?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as the noble Lord has indicated, I think, the Quality Assurance Agency—to which he referred—is an independent body funded by subscriptions from universities and colleges of higher education and by contracts with HEFCE. Under this system, the institutions are audited every six years. If there were particular concerns about a university or a course, those could be reviewed separately. We have no concerns at the moment about this quality assurance.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the yeast in beer is very good in alleviating acne, pimples and spots, and that beer drinking is also very good for nursing mothers?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am now, my Lords.
Lord Peston: My Lords, does my noble friend believe that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has much experience of universities if he thinks that this course is absurd? If he had attended any of the courses that I have taught over the years he might not feel as he does. Nevertheless. is this not a very serious topic which should be dealt with seriously, as I am sure that the University of Bradford is doing? Does the topic not also have the merit of possibly interesting students? Those of us who have taught courses to which no one—as we realised years later—was even remotely interested in listening might occasionally learn something from what universities are doing today in trying to do something useful. I should hope that my noble friend will agree with and reinforce what the University of Bradford is doing rather than criticise it.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I was seeking to reinforce what the University of Bradford is doing. Indeed, Bradford University is one of the top 10 universities for graduates moving into work, with 95
480
per cent of year 2000 graduates in employment six months after graduating. Bradford should be credited for that record.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that drinking beer in Yorkshire is one of the great pleasures of life, particularly after a five-mile walk in the dales? On a more serious point, does she accept that the revival of local brewing in Yorkshire and of rural pubs is a very useful part of preserving and promoting employment in dales which are currently suffering very badly from the decline in farming? Is the subject not something that local universities ought to be encouraging the study of and the recruitment of new people into?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord may be interested to know that Heriot -Watt University offers several courses in brewing and distilling specifically in order to support the needs of industry. I therefore very much agree with him.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, is the noble Baroness satisfied that, in general terms, the universities are sufficiently concerned to be offering the courses that our economy and our nation really require and not things that are just headline catchers or catch the fancy of a student who is not particularly concerned to do very much?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am indeed satisfied. As I know that the noble Lord has a great interest in engineering, he will be pleased to hear that I have come prepared with lots of information about engineering courses which I should be happy to discuss with him later. As I said, universities sometimes offer courses that are quite relevant within a given context, as is this Bradford course which provides only 20 credits of the 360 credits required. Sometimes, however, the media make more of those courses than they should. There is always a tension between ensuring that university courses are truly relevant to the needs of students and that they are interesting and perhaps contemporary.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I will not disappoint the noble Baroness because I am going to mention engineering. Does she agree that it does not help the image of higher education when the public hear of degrees in beer drinking, for example, when we also know—I certainly know—of courses in engineering and other near-market occupations for which the Higher Education Funding Council has refused funding?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I cannot comment on the specific courses to which the noble Baroness refers. I reiterate, however, that this is not a course in beer drinking; it is unfortunate that it has been so described in some press reports. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that engineering is a crucial subject, which is why we have been very keen to support engineering courses. It is also worth noting

481
that the specialist school programme now includes engineering colleges. The first four colleges began operating from 1st September 2002. There are many different ways in which we would want to support engineering in our schools and universities, not least by encouraging women to go into engineering as a career.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most important criteria as regards whether a subject is suitable for degree work is whether it produces a serious body of published research? Does she agree further that the country is full of unemployed graduates in subjects which we thought 30 years ago we were going to need?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is certainly not the case in Bradford. Research is very important. I should hope, however, that degree courses enable our young people to develop and to go into careers that provide them and their future families with the type of worthwhile employment and the income levels that are relevant to them. Research is important, but research per se is not the only issue.

Animal Health Bill
3.6 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Foot-and-mouth disease]:
Lord Greavesmoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 5, at end insert
"(5) In section 16(1) of the Animal Health Act 1981 (c. 22) (treatment and exposure to infection) after paragraph (c) insert "; or
(d) which the Secretary of State thinks should be treated in order to create a buffer zone to prevent the spread of foot-and-mouth disease.""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Livsey of Talgarth, is a part of an amendment that we tabled on Report. Its purpose is to clarify the Secretary of State's powers to enforce vaccination—whether a firebreak or other type of preventive vaccination—during a foot and mouth outbreak. What powers does the Secretary of State have under current legislation to enforce such vaccination? The Minister did not satisfactorily deal with that point on Report. He simply said that, in his view, the Secretary of State has such powers. He did not clarify those powers or say where they are provided in legislation.
The only powers for compulsory vaccination that I have been able to locate are found in Section 16(1) of the Animal Health Act 1981. That provision states:
"For the purpose of preventing the spread of disease, the Ministers may cause to be treated with serum or vaccine, or with both serum and vaccine, any animal or bird"—
obviously referring to diseases other than foot and mouth—
"(a) which has been in contact with a diseased animal …
482
(b) which appears to the Ministers to be or to have been in any way exposed to the infection of disease …
(c) which is in an infected area".
During the recent foot and mouth outbreak, the Government consistently said that there were slaughter powers which enabled contiguous culls, firebreak culls and so on. Nevertheless, they have accepted that there is some ambiguity in the matter. Consequently, they are proposing this legislation to provide them with the powers that they believe they need.
Those vaccination powers seem very similar to the slaughter powers also provided in the 1981 Act—although the former include the interesting phrase,
"which is in an infected area".
It appears that there is still ambiguity about what an infected area is. In relation to a preventive vaccination programme that the Government were enforcing in a zone around, or perhaps in a region of the country near to, an outbreak of foot and mouth disease, it would be open to people resisting compulsory vaccination to argue that they were not in the infected area.
It would be helpful if the Minister clearly stated where those powers exist. Without them, the approach that pretty well all noble Lords want to be carried out to a future outbreak—that is, the use of vaccination rather than slaughter as a first-preference option—would appear to be impossible. I beg to move.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and the principle that prevention is better than cure; in this case, the cure is a cut throat. I should much prefer the use of widespread vaccination as a preventive measure. I, too, have looked through the Bill but can see nothing that covers the "buffer zone" principle. I look forward to the Minister's explanation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I hope that I can clarify the situation to the noble Lord's satisfaction. As I said on Report, we do not need to clarify the powers in relation to vaccination as we are required to clarify—and extend—the powers relating to slaughter, so as to provide the Government with all options in preventing the spread of a disease. The noble Lord drew attention to the powers in Section 16(1) of the 1981 Act. The difficulty to which he referred is that the provision covers vaccination in an infected area, which is a wider power than those relating to slaughter. In the event of an outbreak, an infected area will include any or all of the country that is designated a controlled area. In the foot and mouth epidemic, all of the United Kingdom was at one point designated a controlled area. The provision gives one plenty of scope to run a preventive vaccination campaign without amending the Act.
The issue of priority and preference is not dealt with in the noble Lord's amendment or the existing powers. The powers to vaccinate already exist. They are available in relation to whichever part of the country is designated a controlled area. In the recent epidemic,

483
that involved the whole of the country. Those powers already exist to a greater extent than they do in relation to slaughter. Powers to prevent the spread of a disease, as distinct from dangerous contacts or exposure in the strict sense, are already in place in relation to vaccination.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, before the noble Lord concludes, will he clarify the difference between an infected and a controlled area'? During the foot and mouth outbreak, our farm at home was in an infected area and our movements were restricted for a very long period. However, an area a few hundred yards up the road from us was not designated an infected area. I understand that it was in a controlled area; in other words, there were some controls. Is there not a difference between an infected area and a controlled area? The Act refers to an infected area.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the designation "infected area" in the 1981 Act refers to any area that is designated as being subject to controls. During the previous outbreak, the whole country was an area that was subject to controls. The infected area in the immediate ring round where disease was found was subject to a certain degree of controls; other areas at various stages of the disease were subject to different forms of control. The whole country was affected by controls and therefore fell within the designation. That is the distinction between this provision and that relating to slaughter in the 1981 Act.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, it is unusual for those on the Opposition Benches to try to give Ministers more power and for Ministers to resist and say that they do not need them. Having the Minister's clarification in black and white is useful. I still have some doubts about whether what he said is adequate and whether that approach would be adequate in an outbreak if it were subject to legal challenge. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.15 p.m.
Clause 4 [Explanation of preventive slaughter]:
Lord Whittymoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 4, line 15, leave out "for the exercise of the power"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that this a sign of things to come. On Report, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, proposed an amendment about the need to explain why, in particular circumstances, vaccination was not being used. I said then that I accepted the principle of that amendment but that I should bring forward another amendment on Third Reading. This amendment sets out clearly that the Secretary of State must, when publishing her reasons for using the preventive slaughter power, also set out the reasons for not using vaccination. I believe that that meets the objective of the noble Lord's previous amendment. l beg to move.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, I thank the Minister for this amendment but I seek clarification on a couple of
484
matters. On Report, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, explained that in a court of law "conclusive in the appropriate Act" does not necessarily mean "conclusive". He said that,
"if the court was uneasy for whatever reason about the declaration of certification, and believed that it had been made in had faith, it would be able to consider the evidence behind that, irrespective of whether or not it had been deemed conclusive proof. In other words, if there were sufficient doubts, the court could re-open the matter".—[Official Report, 29/10/02; col. 129.]
Having reflected on the ramifications of that statement, I now look behind everything that the Government have tabled today for the hidden meaning. That is of course our responsibility as a revising Chamber. However, the Bill refers to "section 16". Will the Minister confirm that that involves Clause 16, which is about the national contingency plan? Should not the amendment therefore refer more specifically to the relevant subsection—perhaps to subsection (3)?
Lord Whitty: My Lords—
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I do apologise; my attention was being distracted by my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond. I apologise to the House on her behalf and mine.
I thank the Minister for the amendment, which is very much along the lines that were promised on Report.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, is that because much of the Bill amends the 1981 Act, the reference to Section 16 is to that section of that Act, which relates to vaccination. It does not relate to Clause 16, which relates to the contingency plan.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I read the provision as in no way affecting the relationship between Clause 1(3) and Clause 1(1); in other words, the priority—the amendment of the noble Countess was about the priority—is not detrimentally affected by the clause. Am I right? If I am not, I should like to come back at a later stage.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I hope that it is in order for me to reply again. While I am on my feet, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his support for the amendment. The Bill as it stands includes a reference to priority. Noble Lords will recognise that that was agreed to against the advice of the Government; nevertheless, it is in the Bill. Without prejudice to that, if the Secretary of State decided against the priority, having assessed it, he or she would have to give reasons for doing so.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whittymoved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 16, at end insert—
"(a) for the exercise of the power;
(b) for not exercising his power under section 16 to cause animals to be treated with serum or vaccine."

485
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Slaughter of vaccinated animals]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbletonmoved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 37, leave out "infected" and insert "affected"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 5. These amendments are proposed to correct an error in the drafting of the Bill. Removing the word "infected" and inserting "affected" in this part of the Bill is necessary to ensure consistency with paragraph 3(2)(a) of Schedule 3 to the Animal Health Act 1981, which provides for compensation for slaughtered animals where they are affected, or suspected of being affected, with or exposed to foot and mouth disease. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: My Lords—
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I raise just a small point. Should not the noble Baroness's first amendment read,
"leave out 'infected with' and insert 'affected by';
otherwise, the wording would be grammatically incorrect? Perhaps the government advisers could look at this matter and the wording could be changed when it goes back to the other place.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I was going to make a quick point and it certainly was not that. I am very impressed that my noble friend picked up an issue that we missed. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Government for listening to our arguments in Committee and for returning with this amendment.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, the amendment seems logical to me. But does this description occur because the vaccine can have an effect on an animal which might not be quite the same as the animal being infected? It also appears to mean that compensation can be paid for an animal which is affected, and it is rather important for the definition to be precise. Can the Minister give us an explanation on that point?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, is right. If an animal were subsequently slaughtered, the compensation would be the value of the animal before it was vaccinated. At present, this section of the Bill is not clear because it refers only to compensation for infected animals slaughtered. By changing the wording in this part of the Bill from "infected" to "affected", the compensation arrangements take account of vaccinated animals which were slaughtered but not necessarily infected.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for her observation. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, it is just possible that, prior to my admission to your Lordships' House in 1994, the noble Lord was not in the Chamber when the original Act was passed. It may be that, in order to comply with the original Act, we have to use the language in that Act. It is
486
possible that the original Act is defective in that it could state "affected with". I am thinking on my feet and trying to cover my back, if the noble Lord understands that mixed metaphor. I suspect that the noble Lord is right. With that proviso, will he accept that we shall look into the matter?
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbletonmoved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 39, leave out "infected" and insert "affected"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Livsey of Talgarthmoved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
"20-DAY LIVESTOCK MOVEMENT RESTRICTION RULE
In the 1981 Act the following subsection is inserted after section 8(1) (movement generally)—
"(1A) In making an order under subsection (I) restricting the movement of animals in connection with an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, any restriction of 20 days or more shall lapse at the end of a period of 8 weeks following the last confirmed case.""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment concerns the vexed question of the 20-day livestock movement restriction rule. I believe that all Members of the House will be aware of the immense problems that the rule has caused the agriculture industry. Therefore, I make no apologies for tracking through some of the things that have occurred since the last outbreak of foot and mouth disease nor, indeed, for asking how a different scenario would apply in the case of—God forbid!—a new outbreak somewhere down the line.
The amendment refers to any future outbreak of foot and mouth disease in relation to the imposition of a 20-day livestock movement restriction rule. As the amendment states, any restriction of 20 days or more will lapse at the end of a period of eight weeks following the last confirmed case of foot and mouth disease in any future outbreak. The question that must now be asked is: why do we still have a 20-day movement restriction on animals?
That was undoubtedly sensible during the decline and the ending of the 2001 outbreak, and I should have been the first to support the Government when they took that action. But the last confirmed case of foot and mouth disease was on 30th September 2001; the United Kingdom was declared free of foot and mouth disease on 15th January 2002; the OIE gave an FMD-free status to the UK on 22nd January 2002; and the European Union sanctioned UK exports on 5th February 2002. That was exactly nine months ago.
I believe that three factors are closely related to biosecurity. It is my belief that the continuing 20-day rule is closely related to the total inadequacy of meat import controls into the United Kingdom on the one hand and, on the other, DEFRA's time mismanagement of the risk assessment that it commissioned. Livestock farmers have had to shoulder the brunt of the 20-day rule in order to save DEFRA's neck.

487
We all know of the tremendous hardship that livestock farmers have suffered as a result of the 20-day rule. That is especially the case in relation to the movement of breeding stock, where it is absolutely vital to be able to move rams, bulls and young breeding sheep in the autumn markets, let alone in relation to the movement of store lambs, calves and so on.
Why has this huge delay come about in trying to lift the 20-day movement restriction? I believe that it is because the Government had to wait for the Lessons to be Learned report until 22nd July 2002. Secondly, that report advocated the carrying out of a risk assessment. Thirdly, a subsequent delay occurred during the month of August, when farmers are at their busiest and when bureaucrats are on holiday. As a result, there was a delay in putting out tenders and in making appointments. Only in mid-September, almost two months after the Lessons to be Learned report was published, was the risk assessment ready to start. Even then, it was said that it would be completed before the end of October. Now we are told that it may be ready by 'December or January, with a new verdict on the 20-day rule to be given in February.
This is an appalling delay. By February 2003, it will be more than one year since the UK was declared free of foot and mouth disease. This is incompetence of the highest order. It is clear that the risk assessment, variously described in veterinary circles as a "buzz word", can be carried out within two months. If one tracks back through what I have just said, that was already the Government's original target.
We have been told by Ministers on several occasions that lifting the 20-day movement rule is dependent on a risk assessment being carried out. The Lessons to he Learned inquiry indicates the relaxation of the 20-day rule in due course. Given that the timescale predicted for the completion of a risk assessment by the Government is, in any case, eight weeks by my calculation, I refuse to believe that any attempt to alter upwards the timescale in my amendment is acceptable. It stands up to its statement that,
"any restriction of 20 days or more shall lapse at the end of a period of 8 weeks following the last confirmed case",
of foot and mouth disease. That refers to any future outbreak. If Ministers consider that to be reckless, it most certainly is not. It still allows for a restriction of less than 20 days and delays with risk assessments are unacceptable, as are wholly inadequate controls on meat imports. Those three things have a stark bearing on why the 20-day rule is still there.
The amendment seeks far better controls on imports which would have a major effect. There is no doubt that risk assessment can be carried out far more expeditiously. I understand some of the reasons why there has been a delay. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I very much support the principles behind the amendment. I do not underestimate the need for proper biosecurity controls. I do not think anyone does. There is no question of doubt: this 20-day rule creates enormous
488
practical difficulties throughout the countryside. We ask the Minister for a firm commitment that the Government are thinking of alternative methods to overcome this difficult problem.
I do not have the facts in front of me. But in Scotland there is a different system and I believe that the maximum number of days for restriction is six. The Minister shakes his head, so clearly I am wrong. But there is certainly a different system in Scotland which is easier for the farmers to operate on. I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter urgently. It is causing enormous difficulties.
Lord Carter: My Lords, can the Minister say in reply whether he has any information of the effect of the 20-day restriction on sheep dealers as opposed to sheep farmers? I find it hard to know exactly how this hurts a farmer who wishes to bring in and keep stock as compared to sheep dealers who buy sheep and move them around the country. The nearest outbreak to where I live in Wiltshire was in an abattoir in the next village. I think it was about the sixth or the eighth outbreak. It was found in a sheep, which had started in Northumberland, had gone to Cumberland, had then gone to Devon and had then come to Wiltshire to be slaughtered. That illustrates what was happening and it was a major factor we now know in the spread of the disease.
Is there any information on how many sheep farmers of the breeding flock, who wish to bring in new lambs or who have taken in fattening lambs to keep over the winter or whatever, and farmers who are dealers, who wish to move sheep on quite quickly, are affected by the 20-day restriction?
Can the Minister confirm that the 20 days is linked to the 21 days incubation of the disease? It takes 21 days for the disease to incubate and to show itself. I have assumed that the 20 days was linked to that. Also, as we know, the lessons to be learned from the Anderson inquiry report—which your Lordships asked the Government to wait for before bringing the Bill back—recommends that we should keep the 20-day restriction until the risk assessment is completed. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will tell us how the risk assessment is going.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, when I first heard that the Government were introducing the 20-day rule a long time ago, my reaction was, "How wise". I thought that if I still had responsibility for these things I would have been tempted to do much the same thing for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has just explained to us, with animals going from one end of the country and back again. It seemed to me that the movement of animals in certain circumstances from market to market has become an absurdity.
One has since become more aware of the massive problems, to which my noble friend Lord Peel referred, that this rule causes within the industry. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that he is sympathetic to the huge problems that the 20-day rule causes; and that the Government are of a mind as soon as possible to do something about it so that these problems do not

489
become a permanency and that a way can be found of trying to deal with the advantages of the rule, while at the same time dealing with all the problems.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and the noble Earl, Lord Peel, have just said. Perhaps I can give a slight answer to my noble friend Lord Carter. I declare a particular interest. We start lambing on Friday in the West Country. If, as is inevitably the case, there are orphaned lambs which need regular feeding, I would want to move those lambs to my shepherd's farm, which is a short distance away. If I do that he will be unable to sell any of his lambs from his own farm during the 20 days.
That is an absurdity. I am a small hobby farmer. People on a larger scale find themselves pushed to a point where they find it very difficult to stick within the rules. All we ask is that someone in the department recognises the real problem that is being caused and gets to grips with it now. I hope that we shall hear some encouraging response from the Minister.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, has highlighted a point with sheep. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has talked about people buying in ewes while at the same time selling lambs. There is a difficulty in that they cannot sell lambs when they have bought in the ewes. It is the same if one buys a ram. This is the period of time when these things happen.
Also, in the case of beef, where people raise young stock, take it to market and then buy in replacements, there is a problem. The replacements come in as the other ones go out. It is constant. I know that small beef breeders—I declare an interest here although it does not affect us—who go to market, buy calves and then rear them on suffer considerable hardship because they cannot work out their fodder requirements, and their income is affected. They like to have a steady income—like us all. So I support what the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, has said. We need to think about the matter very carefully.
I am sure that the noble Baroness will not forget my question about the male goats.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I share the concern of my colleagues on all sides of the House about this point. Can the Minister explain in some detail the scientific advice that he has been given on the 20-day rule and why it is still in force? I have noticed a number of academics at various conferences—in particular the Moredun Research Institute—saying that there is no justification for keeping the 20 days now. I hope too that he can explain exactly how we stand on cross-border movement between Scotland and England; what discussion he has had with the Executive in Scotland; and how it will work out in practice? Perhaps he could give a clear indication of the present position.
490
There is no doubt at all, as my noble friend Lord Peel said, that farming generally is gravely concerned about the 20-day rule. It makes farming even more difficult than it is at the present moment. All of us, bearing in mind what he said in his original remarks, are very concerned that there is no chance of foot and mouth coming back, but at the same time farming has to go on in a practical way. This rule makes life extremely difficult, particularly when dealing with sheep farming and the movement of cups and ewes.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I can well understand the reasoning behind the amendment. I know of the unpopularity, to say the least, of the 20-day rule. But I am not sure that the amendment is the answer. It is inflexible. Tying in a time limit to the lifting of the restrictions is not terribly helpful. For example, why a period of eight weeks? Why not seven or nine weeks? I am not at all sure that that is needed. I can understand the difficulties that have been raised and the reasoning behind the amendment. But I do not think that this amendment is the answer.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, I fully support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, would say that he has spent more than 20 days discussing the matter with the industry in recent weeks—to some effect, because I know that he has been listening to many of the flock masters and other livestock people, who are extremely concerned. The situation is and has been desperate, especially as concerns the movement of sheep. The Minister may tell us that the 20-day standstill period is fine as a concept for preventing disease spread during an outbreak. It would be accepted if it were not causing so many difficulties in the market-place and so on.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to the problem that arose because of the quantity of sheep moved around the country. But as he and the whole House well know, that system has operated for many years. Sheep and sheep flocks are moved from one area to another and split up en route because of the very numbers moved. But when there is no foot and mouth disease in the country—thank God, we are clear at the moment—the increased cost the standstill period brings to extensive livestock producers, in particular, is far too heavy a burden to inflict on an already hard-pressed sector. It is therefore totally unacceptable in peacetime, and alternative methods must be found that provide biosecurity but allow flexibility for the industry to operate.
As my noble friend Lord Peel and the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, asked: why is the provision different here from in Scotland? Why is there a different attitude towards dealing with the species, as well as regards the number of days for which movement is restricted? Like others, I await the Minister's reply and the scientific advice. Knowing that it is impossible for him today to give us the answer that we want, I hope that he can give us some sort of commitment about how the matter may be dealt with in future—by which I mean the immediate future, not the long term.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, some general issues have been raised about the standstill to which I feel obliged to reply, as well as addressing the specific terms of the amendment.
As my noble friend Lord Carter and the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, have said, the reason for the 20-day rule and the Government's approach was that it was absolutely clear that the devastation of the disease was caused by the rapidity of its spread, and that the rapidity of its spread was caused by a large number of rapid movements—especially of sheep—around the country. That is not in dispute. That was further aggravated by the fact that the disease was not detected for three weeks—it might not be again.
For all those reasons, a regime to restrict movement is a strong recommendation of both veterinary and other scientific advice available to the Government. That is based on two premises. The first relates to the incubation period—in fact, the veterinary advice is ideally for a double incubation period that would take us to 28 rather than 20 days. The second relates to slowing down the movements. So there are two objectives: first, allowing time for detection; and, secondly, in any case slowing down the speed of movement and therefore the rate of infection. Both those arguments still stand.
As noble Lords have pointed out, both inquiries advise that until we have a robust risk assessment recommending that we should change the provision, the 20-day rule should remain in place. We are following that advice. However, there have been considerable modifications to the full-scale range of that rule. The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, referred to my continuous discussions with all sections of the industry on the matter. As a result, a significant number of concessions, relaxations and modifications have been introduced during the past few months. The largest of those relates specifically to the current breeding season and provides exemptions to the movement of breeding animals provided that those animals are on isolated premises on the farm that they enter.
There are differences between our regime and that in Scotland, the principle difference being that the isolation exemption is available for all animals in Scotland, but only for breeding animals in England and Wales. That results from a different judgment made by Scottish Ministers on the basis of similar veterinary arid scientific advice. That clearly causes some problems for cross-border trade, but is one consequence of devolution in this matter.
We are continually considering how the regime may be further modified. In particular, we have commissioned a risk assessment and a cost-benefit analysis, as recommended by the Anderson and Royal Society inquiries, but which we would have commissioned anyway. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, is right to say that there has been some slippage in the risk assessment—although of only about a month, which means that we will receive the results around the end of this month. As we stated when we introduced substantial modifications to the regime in August, the
492
next major change will come before the spring movements—towards the end of February next year. We are currently addressing the matter on the basis of the best possible advice and will consider the information from the risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis.
On parallel activities, the better the biosecurity, the better the position and the further we can consider relaxing the movements regime. Likewise, the more effective the import controls, the less likely it is that diseased meat may enter the country. But, as have always emphasised in the House and elsewhere, no system of import checks provides 100 per cent security that no diseased meat will enter the country. We therefore need a regime to prevent it entering the food chain and spreading among flocks and herds across the land, as happened last time.
It is therefore incorrect to say that there is a tradeoff between the level of import controls and the level of movement restrictions and other biosecurity precautions to be taken internally. We must act on both fronts. I have tightened import controls and there is more to be done on that front, but that is not an alternative; we must move in parallel.
We recognise that the current 20-day rule imposes costs and disruption—on parts of the livestock industry, quite heavy disruption. Substantial parts of the livestock industry can live reasonably well with the 20-day rule. Indeed, in certain respects the rule helps sections of the industry. For other parts, especially the sheep sector, there is grave impact on costs and on traditional methods of trading and operating. That is why we are considering the cost-benefit analysis. The department's figures for costs were not accepted by the industry, but the impact falls substantially on a relatively small section of farmers, rather than across the board of livestock farmers.
All of that will be taken into account in assessing the current regime and considering what would be more appropriate for the longer term—in particular, from next spring. However, the House should recognise that we shall not return to the status quo ante. It is unlikely that there will be no movement control regime.
Whether the 20-day limit applies and whether the precise requirements for isolation in Scotland or England are a feature of the regime is all for discussion. But we do not intend to return to the complete free-for-all of movements—aggravated, as my noble friend Lord Carter implied, by the rapidity of turnover by some dealers, especially in the sheep trade. Whatever regime is in place, it will not involve the complete removal of all movement controls. That is the position on the issue generally.
I accept that some noble Lords will not agree with some of that and that many in the farming community will say, "That is all very well, but, actually, the cost is too high". I recognise that that argument is still there. However, there is another serious consideration about the amendment. Whether or not we agree that the 20-day rule should be there now, it would be extremely reckless to lift that rule only eight weeks after the last confirmed case.

493
As the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, said, the granting of FMD-free status by the EU and the OIE happens at a minimum of three months—not eight weeks—after the last confirmed case. It is clear that, had we been unable, at that point, to say to the OIE and the EU that restrictions on movements—the main cause of the spread of the disease—were still in force, the granting of the exemption at the earliest time allowed by their rules would not have been forthcoming. Therefore, instead of having the ban lifted at the first possible moment under international rules, we would have had a further built-in delay in our trade, had we been required to lift the movement controls within eight weeks.
That is not a killer argument as to whether the 20-day rule should stand now. Wider issues are involved, some of which have been raised by noble Lords and some of which I have discussed. However, to accept the amendment would be to place us in danger, in any future outbreak of disease, of not getting the understanding of the international community and the European Union. It would restrict our farmers from trading for a longer period than was necessary, thanks to their understanding of and co-operation with the biosecurity precautions that we put in place, including, at that point, the 20-day rule. Whether we would always be required to go on with the 20-day rule as long as we have is another issue. Making an amendment to include the eight-week period would border on the reckless. It would not be appropriate for the House to pass the amendment.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, can the Minister say what the situation is in other countries? It is a matter of concern.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are no movement restrictions of that sort in other EU countries, except on intra-Community trade, for which there are restrictions on moving animals across borders. There is a requirement to wait for, in most cases, 28 days. In other countries in which there has recently been disease, there are movement restrictions, although they are not the equivalent of the 20-day standstill.
Your Lordships must recognise that the rapidity of movements in the sheep trade in this country is almost unique. There is a particular problem with the 20-day standstill in this country. However, that is not my main argument against the amendment. My argument is that the eight-week period would damage our international position.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, in summing up the debate on the amendment, I shall make several points. First, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, spoke correctly about the 21-day infection cycle. I agree with him. Like the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, I thought that it was an excellent thing when it was introduced. The problem is that time moves on. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned the activities of dealers. I know them well. Perhaps we should legislate for dealers. The 20-day rule has an impact equivalent to closing part of
494
the Stock Exchange down for nearly 12 months. If we blackballed some of the dealers in the Stock Exchange, we would hear about it within 24 hours, not nine months.
It is normal trading. We depend on the market. The new Labour Government proclaim the market-place. However, there is a risk in the market-place; there have been huge risks in the Stock Exchange in the past six to 12 months. There have also, in another sense, been risks in the livestock market. If we are to rely on a market price, the market must be able to trade under normal conditions. We cannot have one and not the other.
The noble Earl, Lord Peel, and the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, made supportive speeches, and I believe that they fully understand the seriousness of the present situation. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Countess, Lady Mar, stated clearly the difficulties with the movement of lambs or cattle. In a farming community, those are normal, everyday events. Lambs and calves must be moved around. If a farmer has a cow whose calf has died, he must quickly find another one. It would be extraordinary if bringing in that other calf caused all activities to be suspended for 20 days, even though the farmer had 200 lambs to sell the next Friday.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, asked why it should be eight weeks. The Minister tacitly admitted that a risk assessment could be done in that time, when he said that there had been a delay in DEFRA. I would ask, "Why nine months until now?". There is still a 20-day rule in place.
The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, mentioned the movement of sheep flocks and the increased cost to the farming community caused by the delay. As I was not wealthy enough to be a farmer's son, I started life in the agriculture industry as a drover. At the age of 10, I was involved in the moving of sheep from the local market. I hate to think what the Welsh drovers of the nineteenth century would have said about some of the current rules, had they applied when they were trying to get cattle to Northamptonshire, Kent and the rest of the United Kingdom. Times have moved on; they have moved on too far, if we are talking about the restrictions that have been put in place.
We do not know what parameters will be used for the risk assessment. We know that there will be a cost benefit analysis, and we know that imports will also feature in the risk assessment. The Minister rightly mentioned the rapidity of spread and the incubation period, as did the noble Lord, Lord Carter. That is the case at the height of an outbreak. However, it is now over 12 months since the last case of foot and mouth disease. The Scots may have a different system of isolation, but, as the Minister said, better import controls would help. We must act on both fronts. It is possible to carry out a risk assessment within eight weeks, and we must lift the 20-day rule after a future spread. We are wiser than we were: we have had the Lessons to be Learned report and the Royal Society report. We can start to use those reports to create

495
foolproof preventive measures that make sense in the market-place, as well as from a biosecurity point of view.
I have not said that it is not possible to have a period of fewer than 20 days in certain circumstances following an outbreak, if that is the Government's wish. It would be an advantage to run a 20-day restriction for two months, so that we could trade for at least, one month, before getting EU clearance. The amendment would underwrite that for such a situation. It is not reckless. We have learnt from our terrible experiences of 2001, and we cannot put on the are on them now. Therefore, I seek the opinion of the House on the amendment.
4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 165; Not Contents, 128.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Fookes, B.

Addington, L.

Fowler,L.

Alderdice, L.

Freeman,L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gardner of Parkers,B.

Ampthill, L.

Geddes,L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Geraint,L.

Arran, E.

Glentoran,L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Goodhart,L.

Attlee, E.

Gray of Contin,L.

Avebury, L.

Greaves,L.

Barker, B.

Hamwee,B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hanningfield,L.

Blatch, B.

Harris of Richmond,B.[Teller]

Boardman, L.

Hayhoe,L.

Bowness, L.

Higgins,L.

Bradshaw, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abootts,L.

Brittan of Spennithome, L.

Holme of Cheltenham,L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Hooson,L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Howarth of Breckland,B.

Burnham, L.

Howe of Aberavon,L.

Buscombe, B.

Howe of Idlicote,B.

Byford, B.

Howell of Guildford,L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Jellicoe,E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Jenkin of Roding,L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Jopling,L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Kimball,L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Kingsland,L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B

Laing of Dunphail,L.

Chorley, L.

Lester of Herne Hill,L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Liverpool,E.

Craig of Radley, L.

Livsey of Talgarth,L.[Teller]

Crickhowell, L.

Luke,L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Lyell,L.

Deedes, L.

McColl of Dulwich,L.

Denham, L.

Mackie of Benshie,L.

Dholakia, L.

Maclennan of Rogart,L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

McNally,L.

Elles, B.

Maddock,B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mallalieu,B.

Ezra, L.

Mar,C.

Falkland, V.

Mar and Kellie,E.

Fearn, L.

Marlesford,L.

Ferrers, E.

Marsh, L.

496

Masham of liton, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy,Ly.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Sandberg,L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Scott of Needham Market,B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

seccombe,B.

Moran, L.

Selsdon,L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Sharman,L.

Moynihan, L.

Sharp of Guildford,B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Sharples,B.

Naseby, L.

Shaw of Nothstead,L.

Newby, L.

Shutt of Greetland,L.

Noakes, B.

Slim,V.

Northover, B.

Smith of Clifton,L.

O'Cathain, B.

Steel of Aikwood,L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Stewartby,L.

Onslow, E.

Stoddart of Swindon,L.

Oxfuird, V.

Strange,B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Sutherland of Houndwood,L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Swindfen,L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Taverne,L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Taylor of Warwick,L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Tebbit,L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Tenby,V.

Plumb, L.

Thomas of Gresford,L.

Prior, L.

Thomas of Walliswood,B.

Rawlings, B.

Thomson of Monifieth,L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Tope,L.

Razzall, L.

Trumpington,B.

Reay, L.

Tugendhat,L.

Redesdale, L.

Waddington,L.

Rennard, L.

Wade of Chorlton,L.

Rix, L.

Wakeham,L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Walker of Worcester,L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Wallace of Saltaire,L.

Roper, L.

Walmsley,B.

Rotherwick, L.

Wamock,B.

Russell, E.

Watson of Richmond,L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Wigoder,L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Wilcox,B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Williamson of Crosby,B.

Williamson of Horton,L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Dixon,L.

Ahmed, L.

Dormand of Easington,L.

Alli, L.

Dubs,L.

Amos, B.

Elder,L.

Andrews, B.

Evans of Parkside,L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting,L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Falconer of Thoroton,L.

Bach, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton,B.

Barnett, L.

Farrington of Worcester,L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Filkin,L,

Berkeley, L.

Fitt,L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Gale,B.

Bhatia, L.

Gavron,L.

Blackstone, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen,B.

Borrie, L.

Gilbert,L.

Bragg, L.

Gladwin of Clee,L.

Brett, L.

Goldsmith,L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Gordon of Strathblane,L.

Brookman, L.

Goudie,B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gould of Potternewton,L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Grabiner,L.

Carter, L.

Graham of Edmonton,L.

Christopher, L.

Gregson,L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Grenfell,L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Grocott,L.[Teller]

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hardy of Wath,L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Harris of Haringey,L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Harrison,L.

Crawley, B.

Haskel,L.

David, B.

Hayman,B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Hilton of Eggardon,B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld,L.

Desai, L.

Hollis of Heigham,B.

497

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Richard,L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Islwyn, L.

Rooker, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Sawyer, L.

Jeger, B.

Scotland of Asthal,B.

Jones, L.

Sheldon,L.

Jordan, L.

Simon,V.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Stallard,L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Lipsey, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.[Teller]

Temple-Morris, L.

Thornton, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Turnberg, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Varley, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe,B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Weatherill, L.

Mitchell, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Morgan, L.

Whitaker, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Whitty, L.

Orme, L.

Wilkins, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Pendry, L.

Williams of Mostyn,L.(Lord Privy Seal)

Peston, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.11 p.m.
Clause 7 [Treatment: power of entry]:
Lord Greavesmoved Amendment No. 7:
Page 6, line 3, at end insert "and of the reasons for that decision including a copy of the sworn information;
( ) he has been provided with an opportunity to make representations to the justice of the peace about whether the warrant should be issued;
( ) he has been provided with the opportunity to present sworn information in person or in writing to the justice of the peace who is to consider the application for a warrant."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Livsey. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has also attached her name to it. In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group, Amendments Nos. 11, 16 and 33, which are identical in seeking to amend what have become uniform parts of the Bill since the Minister moved a series of generally helpful amendments to that effect. The amendments refer to the question of warrants for entry in different circumstances where the Secretary of State may require entry to land in order to carry out various measures in connection with animal diseases.
Three of the amendments relate to foot and mouth. The first refers to treatment; that is to say, vaccination. The second, Amendment No. 11—in many ways the crunch amendment—refers to slaughter. I am grateful to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and to the noble
498
Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, for adding their names to that amendment. The third, Amendment No. 16 refers to test and samples, while the fourth, Amendment No. 33, refers to the part of the Bill concerned with the elimination of scrapie. So, in a sense, they are the same amendment. But they apply to different parts of the Bill.
The Bill removes existing procedures by which people can go to court and appeal against the man from the ministry who wants to slaughter their animals, test them to see whether they should be slaughtered, or, in the future—it is to be hoped—vaccinate them. The amendments would not replace existing provisions. We have deliberately gone as far as we believe reasonable in the direction that the Government would wish us to go to speed up procedures, especially as regards a foot and mouth outbreak. The amendments would redress the balance somewhat in the face of what have been widely seen as draconian powers to enter land without giving people any real opportunity to argue and put forward their case when someone comes along and says, "Right, you are next on the list".
We are not, essentially, talking about infected animals on infected premises; we are talking about the whole question of what have come to be known as "contiguous", "contact", or "ring-fence" culls. The amendments would not slow down the process, nor would they cause undue difficulties in tackling the disease. However, they would put back into the Bill some element of fairness and balance. As I have said previously, the fact that people are farmers does not mean that they do not also have human rights in relation to what happens to their livestock. In particular, the powers of entry for slaughter are quite different from most existing powers of entry because, quite literally, they are terminal.
I do not wish to say more at this stage. We discussed these matters in great detail at both previous stages of the Bill. I believe that the issues are well understood and well known. The amendments are put together as a compilation and a compromise. They relate to amendments previously tabled by the Conservative Front Bench, by noble Lords on these Benches, and by noble Lords from other parts of the House. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the amendment and those relating to it. Having moved Amendment No. 211 in Committee and supported Amendment No. 212 moved by my noble friend Lady Byford, there is no cause for repetition save to say that if the "sworn information" does not set out the reasons for rejecting the priority of vaccination under Clause 1(1), and other reasons for the decisions to seek entry for the purposes of slaughter under Clause 1(3), that sworn information will be defective, the warrant will be defective, the entry will be unlawful, and the slaughter will be unjustified.
One is dealing with a situation that wants a little care; it wants an opportunity for a measure of natural justice to be applied. This amendment, and the related amendments, would afford the minimum measure of

499
natural justice to safeguard the use of this warrant as a rubber stamp for slaughter. These are the very tests that would be applied by the High Court on judicial review after slaughter; but that is too late. Under the amendment, this opportunity would be confirmed expressly on the face of a statute—primary legislation—by reference to,
"the justice of the peace",
and so on. I f it is not done that way, it would have to be done in the other way set out under Amendment No. 10. But the amendment now before the House is more comprehensive. I shall move Amendment No. 10 only if this amendment does not commend itself to the House as a final longstop safeguard.
I have one further point to make. It is an important point because it would be the position that the High Court would take on judicial review. The reasons set out in the proposed subsections (4) and (5)(a) afford no substitute whatever for having a copy of the sworn information with the grounds on the face of it. It is no use just leaving paragraph (a) on the face of the statute because justice cannot he done to the occupier.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, my name is attached to this group of amendments, and to Amendment No. 10 to which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has just referred. Both in Committee and on Report the issue now before us challenged the House the most and, perhaps, brought the strongest reprimand, if I may put it that way, to the Government for not having, in our view, a built-in balance of what is fair as regards the control of diseases, the total open access policy, and the taking away of rights from those concerned. We feel it is important that there is a balance; that is why we support the amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, we are not talking about infected animals; we have said all along that infected animals should be culled. We are talking about contiguous culls. It is important that people are properly represented.
The four amendments relate to the Government's power to go o a magistrate to seek a warrant to treat, to take samples or to carry out tests to see whether anything needs to be done; or, in extremis, to slaughter. The only amendment that does not necessarily involve the handling of animals is the one that relates to the power of entry for the purposes under the scrapie part. That is non-urgent and the arguments for swiftness advanced by the Minister on 22nd October would not apply in this case.
Our argument is that reasonableness must be built into the procedure. That requires further examination today. For example, how is the magistrate to know whether what the inspector tells him is reasonable, unless he can be satisfied in the first place that no one is challenging that interpretation? How can he balance the inspector's view against that of the owner of the premises to which the inspector requires access if he
500
has not heard the other side? I add our strong support to the amendments and I hope that under the circumstances the Government will accept them.
Lord Carter: My Lords, this is a difficult area. Three parties must be considered; first, the farmer who risks his stock being slaughtered as a result of inspection; secondly, the tens of thousands of farmers whose animals do not have the disease, which the Government's actions are intended to prevent; thirdly, the Government, who have a responsibility to ensure that the process moves as quickly as is practicable and fair to deal with the problem.
We have to strike a balance between those three responsibilities. It is interesting how we increasingly seem to be turning Third Reading into another Report stage, but that is a matter of definition. As I said before in Committee and on Report, we have seen throughout the Bill from the Opposition and the Cross Benches a concern about the farmer who may have his animals slaughtered, vaccinated or whatever, but less regard for the tens of thousands of farmers whose animals do not have the disease.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, shakes her head, but all the amendments are intended, entirely fairly, to respect the rights of the individual farmer who may be inspected and even slaughtered out. If we are erring on the side of toughness with individual farmers, we should think about the tens of thousands of farmers whom we are trying to protect.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, at no stage has there been a question of trying to put weight in favour of farmer A against farmer B. Nor has there been any suggestion that our amendments do not have due regard to the seriousness of the spread of disease. The noble Lord should recognise that. He is a little unfair to many of us in this House who are fighting strongly for a balance in the Bill between the control of disease and the rights of individuals. Whether that is one or 30 individuals, we are not in any way decrying the rights of the other farmers. The noble Lord is being rather naughty.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am talking not of the rights but of the protection of the other farmers. The amendments are understandably and properly concerned with the rights of the farmer who is to be slaughtered out or whatever. But we sometimes overlook the other rights. I repeat, if we are erring on the side of toughness on individual farmers, we should think about the tens of thousands of farmers whom we are trying to protect from disease.
The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, in moving the amendment said that he did not think it would cause any delay. But he did not produce any evidence or proof. I understand that there will be delay in taking action if representations are made. That is common sense.
The noble Lord also referred to human rights. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has said that the procedure is fair and does not contravene human rights. We have read previously a quotation from the

501
committee. It is a powerful committee, certainly as powerful as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The House is understandably always anxious to call in aid that committee's reports when it does not support the Government. It also has a responsibility to support the committee's arguments when it does support the Government.
I understand the concern of those noble Lords who have spoken to the amendment, but it is a heavy responsibility if the Joint Committee on Human Rights have said that the procedure is fair and we vote to say that it is not.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he realise that he is arguing in blinkers? The right of one farmer is the right of all farmers. They are all in the same generic condition. Let us forget about the Joint Committee on Human Rights for a moment. The noble Lord said that the procedure had to be fair. How can you have fair administration if no one can make representations?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I have already said that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I believe the noble Lord is a member, has said that the procedure is fair and does not contravene human rights.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I have put my name to some of the amendments. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and other noble Lords have said. I am not a lawyer, but I believe the noble Lord, Lord Carter, does not understand the fine distinction between natural justice and the legal human rights aspects. Natural justice dictates that we should consider these matters in a balanced situation. After all the coming and going in the various stages of the Bill we have the balance in the amendments. I am happy to support them.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment No. 11. I would have put it to all the amendments in the group if I had been quicker before the Marshalled List was printed. Everyone must accept that mistakes were made during the last outbreak. Whole farms were slaughtered out that should not have been. One thinks only of the luckily isolated incidents of postcode errors to see that in many cases injustice was done. It is now clear to all of us that a large part of the slaughter was wholly unnecessary and did nothing to halt the spread of the disease.
If there is one lesson to be learnt above all others, it is that there is little confidence that future decisions on slaughter in the unfortunate event of any other major animal disease outbreak will be made correctly by the department. What surprises and saddens me about the Government's refusal to accept these amendments or similar ones tabled at earlier stages, is that I would have thought that they would accept that where a decision is made within the department to slaughter, it must be prepared to justify at an early stage what it has
502
decided to do; to give reasons; to have the opposite view heard, if there is one; and to have an independent decision taken.
That can be done by the magistrate when the warrant is issued if the farmer is given an opportunity to be present or to be represented. It was said on the previous occasion, and I expect it will be said again, that that will cause delay. We are not dealing with infected animals or animals that are dangerous contacts, but with animals beyond that area. There will be some delay, but it will be a minimal delay in arranging for a solicitor to attend the appointment that has been fixed.
If there is not to be such a provision, in my judgment the alternative would be likely to be greater delay. The farmer will make an ex parte application for an injunction. There will have to be a full hearing at a later stage at which the department will be represented. Greater cost and greater delay is likely to result.
I am applying my mind to slaughter, as that amendment stands in my name. It cannot be right to take a decision about slaughter and to deny someone the right to be represented and have their views put forward in a decision which is likely to destroy possibly a lifetime or even generations of work.
It is not the case that people are normally represented when an application for a warrant is made. We are normally dealing with the power of search and with an arrest and if a mistake is made it can be corrected. In this case, the mistake cannot be corrected because the animals are lying dead on the barn floor. I am surprised and saddened, but I would be astonished and delighted if even at this late hour the Government could see their way to accepting the amendments.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. Before doing so, I want on behalf of the House to express commiseration to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford who witnessed the tragic death of his daughter. I know that he would have been here had that not happened. It is a very sad occasion.
I concur with what the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said. I cannot believe that if it were not for the prospect of delays he would not in principle accept the reasons behind the amendment. I would have thought that natural justice would have demanded that such an amendment would be accepted.
Apart from anything else, I would have thought that the justice of the peace would have welcomed the opportunity of a balanced presentation. As the noble Countess, Lady Mar, said at a previous stage, mistakes were made; false grid references were given; animals were slaughtered which should not have been slaughtered. Yet the farmer to whom that happened did not have the opportunity to put his case to the justice of the peace.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, made a valid point when talking about the need to protect other farmers. However, I say to him I am certain that if one were to

503
consult any of the tens of thousands of farmers to whom he referred, they would welcome the amendment. There can be no question about that. As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, the prospect of a farmer watching a lifetime's work go down the plughole under his nose and not having the right to be able to present his case to a justice of the peace in such dire circumstances seems totally unjust.
Therefore it is a question of balance. From the evidence we have heard from all sides of the House, I do not believe that the delays will be that substantial. At he previous stage we heard an impassioned speech from my noble friend Lord Jopling, a former Minister of Agriculture. We have also heard the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, with all her legal knowledge and experience. They clearly believe that such an amendment will hardly delay the processes about which the Minister feels strongly and for which he has responsibilities. However, if those delays will not be serious and the opportunity of justice can be placed on the face of the Bill through the amendment, it is imperative that we support it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, can he deal with the point I made that the Joint Committee on Human Rights stated that the procedure is fair and does not contravene human rights?
Earl Peel: My Lords, I never mentioned the words "human rights". I was talking simply about normal, every-day justice.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the point here is that we are not dealing with an every-day situation. We are dealing with a situation which is life and death to the livestock industry of this country. The Government have heavy responsibilities to ensure that any future epidemic is controlled as rapidly and effectively as possible.
If one is in the Government's shoes, and the inquiries have underlined that view, there is a need for us to sharpen up our powers in terms of preventive measures and there is a need to ensure that those measures are carried out as rapidly as possible. As we know to our cost, in the previous epidemic the failure to act quickly and to engage in control measures as rapidly as we should have done led to a wider epidemic than might otherwise have been the case. Indeed, in such situations hours matter, not days. The spread of a disease from one part of the country to another over several miles can be affected by the fact that one has not carried out those preventive measures in the time one has set.
It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, to say that he has accepted that we need to speed up the process, but he is reintroducing a provision which cannot but delay the process again. Whatever arguments one puts forward for the measures to provide for representation, it is undoubtedly the case that in almost all situations the time for representation will delay the time for action. In this situation, the Government's responsibility is clear. The powers that
504
the Government need are clear. The protection of the tens of thousands of farmers, as my noble friend Lord Carter said, is clear.
It is not as though we were removing from the situation all natural justice or all powers of redress. As my noble friend Lady Mallalieu said, the individual farmer still has the right to go to the court for an injunction. The procedure provides for the right of the occupier to make representations to the DPM and the warrant procedure requires the magistrate to judge whether the request for such powers is reasonable. Ultimately, admittedly post facto, there is a judicial review. Therefore, it is not as though we were taking away the human rights and the rights to natural justice of an individual farmer. We are providing powers in the Bill which enable future governments to take decisions and disease-control measures which effectively protect the vast majority of farmers from infection by this disease or indeed any other.
I do not believe that the arguments on human rights stand up. As my noble friend Lord Carter said at least twice during the debate and several times previously, if we are to take seriously our procedures in relation to human rights, the Joint Committee which we have established for that purpose does not suggest that the provisions contravene that purpose.
The reasons adduced for providing the additional representation, the additional delay, in the process have not been accepted in any other warrant procedure. And I disagree that this is entirely different from other warrant procedures. Other warrant procedures can put people out of business and can mean that a lifetime's business is destroyed. Often the situations are not as acute as trying to control the kind of epidemic that we saw last year.
I know that it is a leap of imagination, but I ask the Opposition Front Benches to put themselves in the position of a future government trying to control this disease. The powers are necessary for that control. If they were undermined by the kind of provision that the amendments indicate, they would be a less effective means of providing that control. How would they. as government Ministers, explain to the farming community and to the taxpayers faced with an enormous bill as a result of the failure to control the disease as rapidly as possible that they had failed to take those powers at a time when it was possible to take them?
While the amendments may be well-motivated in one sense, they are extremely blinkered. They see the situation through the eyes of lawyers and those who defend individuals in entirely different situations, where the consequences of those procedures do not mean devastation for whole communities and for the economy as a whole.
I repeat: we are not taking away all rights from those affected. We are simply speeding up a procedure that will defend the rights, property and livelihood of tens of thousands—possibly hundreds of thousands—of other people. That is a central responsibility for government in relation to disease control. To remove that power would be reckless and irresponsible. If the

505
Opposition parties wish to go down that road, I regret it. They show a lack of imagination, given that they may find themselves in this position in the future. It is not sensible for this House, which must cover all future contingencies—including, regrettably, the possibility of a recurrence of this or a similar disease—to place such restraints on those who carry out government policy. It will not be in the interests of the farming community and it is not in the interests of the country. I therefore beg those who are pursuing these amendments to reconsider the position and not to press them.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, the Minister has perhaps uncharacteristically gone slightly over the top in his response. If our proposals were a reversion to the status quo, his remarks might be justified—although many people believe that what the Government are doing to change the status quo is wrong. We are not saying that. We have bent over backwards to look for a suitable procedure by which people can have their say without causing substantial delays. That is surely the most basic right that people ought to have. The Minister himself has said that people can appeal via the veterinary route. That in itself will cause some delay. So he is not advocating a totally draconian immediate response.
I am grateful to noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber who have supported these amendments. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who has said that he will support this amendment and will not press his own if it is accepted. That is helpful in terms of achieving a uniform response across the four amendments.
I do not want to repeat anything that has been said previously; therefore, I shall concentrate on two or three specific points. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to tens of thousands of farmers who are not affected. In an outbreak of foot and mouth disease, it is not tens of thousands of farmers that we are talking about but those who are near enough to an affected area to be in fear of God that they will get the disease on their farm. I accept that in the last outbreak there were movements across the country, but most of those whose animals were taken in contiguous culls were, by definition, near to affected areas. It is because we are concerned about such farmers, as a result of our experience of the last outbreak, that during the course of the Bill many of us have argued for vaccination. It would provide such people with the necessary protection for their animals. In the last outbreak some farms were slaughtered out, but there was always the next farm, where people sat, embattled, wondering whether their animals would get the disease. Vaccination is the way to give them the kind of protection and peace of mind that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was talking about.
I do not accept the arguments about delay. Any delay built in as a result of these proposals would be minimal. Whatever the Minister says, our proposal would allow the procedures to be much faster than they were during the previous outbreak when people
506
went to court. We accept that the process needs to be speeded up but we are including absolutely minimal necessary safeguards.
Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the Minister say, large numbers of farmers do not believe that the Bill as it stands is fair. Whether or not noble Lords like it, if future procedures are to be carried out with the minimum amount of aggravation and obstruction on the ground—warrants can be obtained but people can still try to barricade their farms—those concerned must have a sense that they are being given the most basic right of all; namely, the right to be heard. There must be a basic sense that the procedure is fair.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Joint Committee on Human Rights sees the procedure as fair and as not contravening human rights.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I dealt with this matter in response to the noble Lord on Report. I accept that the Joint Committee has said that. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, suggested, the legal framework of human rights is not the be-all and end-all of everything. It is a floor beyond which matters should not be allowed to fall. That does not mean to say that in many circumstances we should not aim to give people more rights than are laid down as an absolute minimum. The noble Lord is shaking his head. We disagree in this case.
When the Minister suggests that all the problems last time were due to the Secretary of State's lack of legal powers, we are back to square one—we have come full circle to our discussions at Second Reading. In the last outbreak, as we all know, most of the failures to act quickly had nothing to do with legal powers—they were all due to operational incompetence. I do not use the word "incompetence" in a pejorative way. People did not act in a way that was competent to deal with the outbreak. The whole process can be speeded up enormously in any future outbreak if the contingency plans and protocols are in place and if everyone concerned knows how the process is meant to operate. If that is there on the ground, 95 per cent of the problems referred to by the Minister will be sorted out.
The Minister says that I am blinkered and am looking at the matter through the eyes of lawyers. I have never in my life looked at anything through the eyes of lawyers. I certainly do not regard myself as being among the ranks of lawyers. I experienced the last outbreak on the ground in my part of the country. I am not blinkered. These amendments are necessary so as to redress slightly the balance in the Bill, so that it is seen to be fair by those involved. If it is seen to be fair, the procedures will be much more readily accepted, there will be less aggravation and the whole process will work better. I should like to test the opinion of the House.
4.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 174; Not-Contents, 132.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Addington, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Alderdice, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Jacobs, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Jellicoe,E.

Ampthill, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Jopling, L.

Arran, E.

Kimball, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Attlee, E.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Avebury, L.

LiverPool,E.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Barker, B.

Luke, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Boardman, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bowness, L.

McNally, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Maddock, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Mallalieu, B.

Brittan of Spennithome, L.

Mar,C.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L

Mar and Kellie,E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marlesford, L.

Burnham. L.

Marsh, L.

Buscombe, B.

Marsh, L.

Byford, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Chalfont, L.

Moran, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Chorley, L.

Moynihan, L.

Colwyn, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Naseby, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Newby, L.

Craigavon, V.

Noakes, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Northbourne, L.

Cuckney, L.

Northbrook, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Northover, B.

Deedes, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Denham, L.

O'Neil of Bengarve, B.

Dholakia, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrov Bay, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Onslow, E.

Elles, B.

Palmer, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Ezra, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Falkland, V.

Peel, E.

Fearn, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Ferrers, E.

Perry of Walton, L.

Fookes, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Fowler, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Freeman, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Plumb, L.

Geddes, L.

Prior, L.

Geraint, L.

Rawlings, B.

Glentoran, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Goodhart, L.

Razzall, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Reay, L.

Greaves, L. [Teller]

Redesdale, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Rennard, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Higgins, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Roper, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Hooper, B.

Russell, E.

Hooson, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

508

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Tenby,V.

Sandberg, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, L.

Seccombe, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Selsdon, L.

Tope, L.

Sharman, L.

Trumpington, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Tugnedhat, L.

Sharples, B.

Waddington, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Wakeham, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Walmsley, B.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Stewartby, L.

Weatherill, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Wigoder, L.

Strange, B.

Wilcox, B.[Teller]

Strathclyde, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Swinfen, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Taverne, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gregson, L.

Ahmed, L.

Grenfell, L.

Alli, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Amos, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Andrews, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Harrison, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Haskel, L.

Bach, L.

Hayman, B.

Barnett, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Howarth of Breckland. B.

Blackstone, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Boothroyd, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Borrie, L.

Hoyle, L.

Bragg, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Brett, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Brookman, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

IsIwyn, L.

Carter, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Christopher, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Jones, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Jordan, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Layard, L.

Crawley, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

David, B.

Lipsey, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Desai, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.[Teller]

Dixon, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Dubs, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Elder, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Mitchell, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Morgan, L.

Filkin, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Gale, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Gavron, L.

Orme, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Gilbert, L.

Pendry, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Peston, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Goudie, B.

Radice, L.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Grabiner, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Richard, L.

509

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Rooker, L.

Turnberg, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Sawyer, L.

Uddin, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Varley, L.

Sheldon, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Simon, V.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Stallard, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Whitaker, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Whitty, L.

Symons of Vernham Dcan, B.

Wilkins, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.(Lord Privy Seal)

Thornton, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.59 p.m.
Lord Plumbmoved Amendment No. 8:
Page 6, line 23, at end insert "which fall within section 16(1) of the 1981 Act and which are susceptible to the disease which is the subject of the inspection"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 14, 19 and 37.
We discussed this matter at length in previous debates. The amendment refers to the suggestion that the Bill be amended to describe animals in these sections as affected animals. The Minister pointed out that the definition of animals in the 1981 Act does not include horses, fish or dogs, and that they are not, in any case, "susceptible to the disease"; that is to say, foot and mouth disease.
A more careful study of the 1981 Act has revealed that if the Minister so chooses, the definition of "animals" can be amended to include anything but humans. Normally, when a Minister uses statutory powers under negative resolution, the period for praying against the resolution ends after the date on which the resolution takes effect. That means that should a Minister decide to redefine "animals" he might well be able to act on the redefinition before Parliament was able to stop him.
The purpose of all four amendments is to ensure that, no matter what the problem is and no matter under which section—the treatment, slaughter, test and samples or TSEs—inspectors may deal only with animals susceptible to the disease of the day. Furthermore, the proposed new schedule that the Bill inserts in the 1981 Act covers many scourges other than foot and mouth disease. I beg to move.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, this is a logical set of amendments that tidy up the provisions on other diseases. They affect the person in charge of the animals and incorporate requests for assistance by the inspector in the circumstances described by the noble Lord, Lord Plumb. The amendments are right and proper. I see no reason not to support them and I have much pleasure in doing so.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I raised this issue on the first day of Report stage when I drew the attention of
510
the House to the fact that the provisions could include people who kept dogs, cats and fish. The Minister said that,
"we were working on the basis of the Animal Health Act 1981 in which animals are defined as animals being susceptible to the disease. That does not include horses, fish or dogs".—[Official Report, 22/10/02; col. 1316.]
I quoted those words last Tuesday in relation to the provisions of the 1981 Act, to which my noble friend Lord Plumb has just referred. The Minister can extend the definition to any animal except human beings. I am very glad that my Front Bench colleagues have taken up this point. I am grateful to them, because this is an important issue. We have to protect against a future government who might extend the provisions of the Act to cover any other sort of animal. That would be unfair. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, throughout the passage of the Bill the Minister has being singing the song, "If we'd only had the powers we're now asking for, there wouldn't have been any trouble last time, or the trouble would have been cut down". It came to my attention not long ago that in Devon a small number of alpacas had been slaughtered, despite the fact that, I understand, there has never been a case of an alpaca being infected with foot and mouth in this country. That seems an extreme case, but it increases people's anxiety considerably. They do not want it to happen again.
I do not want to be boring or to go on at length, but my fear is that in our procedures Ministers find themselves becoming ever more in loco parentis to a Bill. It is almost like adopting a child. They get to love the thing. I am glad that the Minister laughs. I agree that it is ridiculous that Ministers should get to love their Bills, but they certainly defend them line by line. Equally, oppositions get to hate Bills. I hope that the Minister will relax on this occasion and disregard the word "Reject" that is probably written at the bottom of his brief. It is very unhelpful. I am sure that accepting this modest amendment would be a valuable step forward.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, although I have supported the Minister against the Opposition in the past, I support this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, might be relieved to know that the 1981 Act specifically excludes fish, reptiles and crustaceans from the power to extend the definition of "animals". His fish are still safe in the goldfish pond. However, I support the amendments, which are rational and reasonable.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have two or three assurances for the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. I have never said that everything would have been all right had we had the powers in the Bill. I have said that these powers would have been useful in certain aspects of the control of the disease and could have been effective in controlling the spread of the disease. Various disease control issues need to be addressed; this is one of them.

511
Nor do I think I have ever given the impression that I am in love with the Bill. If that is the case, it must be a peculiar form of love. I would love not to need these powers. I greatly hope that none of my successors in the department ever has to use them. However, were we to be in that unfortunate situation, the powers would be necessary. My flexibility is therefore more limited than the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, desires. I also have to tell him that camelids, which include alpacas, are susceptible to foot and mouth. It was therefore not outwith the susceptibility criteria that they were slaughtered.
Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, said, these amendments are not a logical grouping. Amendment No. 8 relates to powers relating to vaccination, but the other three—Amendments Nos. 14, 19 and 37—do not. It is therefore not logical for them to refer to Section 16 of the 1981 Act. Amendments Nos. 14 and 19 should refer to Section 62 and Amendment No. 37 should refer to Part II of the 1981 Act, not to Section 16. Whatever we do about Amendment No. 8, the others in the group are misplaced.
Amendment No. 8 relates to whether animals are susceptible. The definition of "susceptible" exists in the 1981 Act. That cannot be extended beyond the area to which that Act applies except by resolution in respect of a particular disease to which other animals may be susceptible. If an inspector was coming to a premises, the only animals that could be affected by the vaccination proceeding would be those susceptible to the disease for which the visit was proposed. That might cover a different range of animals from those susceptible to foot and mouth.
On every occasion that we have debated these provisions, we have said that assistance must be reasonably required. In various amendments, we have also defined those of whom assistance can be required: occupiers, those in charge of animals, and those who are working for them. I think that to go further and appear to restrict those requirements beyond that would be to create an ambiguous definition of those in charge of animals. I therefore cannot accept Amendment No. 8. I think that the other amendments are inappropriate for the reasons that I have explained.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response, which was not entirely unexpected. On various occasions he has referred to the importance of flexibility and told us that there is no intention of building into the legislation the degree of compulsion that many of us seemed to be reading into it. As my noble friend Lord Peyton has quite rightly said, however, the ultimate concern is that the Bill seems to make demands that those affected could regard as promoting the nanny state. Although those making the demands have no responsibility themselves, they seem to be saying that they know exactly how to deal with the particular problem. However, the Minister has made the position clear. I thank those who supported Amendment No. 8. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whittymoved Amendment No. 9:
Page 6, line 36, leave out from "date" to end of line 37 and insert "specified in the warrant as the date of its issue"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will recall that, on Report, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, moved an amendment which was very similar to her Amendments Nos. 13, 18 and 36 on today's Marshalled List requiring magistrates to put a date on the warrant. It is clearly necessary that whatever is stated in relation to this warrant procedure should he consistent throughout the Bill. I have therefore taken further legal advice on how that should be done. Although the noble Baroness's amendments are in a later group, I understand that she has agreed that, for convenience, we can take them with this group.
My legal advice is that the form of the amendment that I have tabled—which is consistent at all points where the warrant procedure applies—is the most legally appropriate form. My amendment also has the same effect as the noble Baroness's amendments and will avoid any disputes or ambiguity in the warrant process. Although I shall listen to her remarks, my legal advice is strongly that our form of words is the appropriate one to meet the objectives which she has set out. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for moving his Amendment No. 9, speaking to his subsequent amendments and referring to my Amendment No. 13—which, on Report, was my Amendment No. 23. As noble Lords may recall, we debated my Amendment No. 23 very late in our consideration on Report, and it was intended to add the words that I have included in amendments on today's Marshalled List. In replying to that debate, the Minister said that he could see no reason why he could not accept this rationally argued amendment. We therefore face two problems, the first of which is that the Government have accepted my Amendment No. 23. As I understand it, as they have accepted the amendment and it has been accepted by the House, they cannot alter it. Noble Lords should be aware of that fact.
Secondly, and this is my fault, in moving Amendment No. 23, I failed to deal with subsequent amendments—Amendments Nos. 28, 35 and 54— which were relevant at that stage. I am therefore left with a slight difficulty, and the Minister and I are trying to agree on how to proceed. I gather that he is not able to alter my Amendment No. 23, although he could challenge my three other amendments which I did not formally record as consequential to it. Those amendments were not consequentially agreed to.
The Minister says that his legal advisers tell him that his wording is legally more acceptable than mine and that there is very little difference between our two versions. I think that there is a difference. Our debate on Report was short, but it was purposeful. I also specifically pointed out that we had debated the same subject in Committee, where the issue of whether the warrants were pre-signed was again raised. However, I do not want to revisit that issue.

513
If the Minister wishes to press his amendments, I shall oppose them. My response, however, will hinge on the Government's response to my Amendment No. 13 and subsequent amendments. Nevertheless, regardless of how the Government respond to my other amendments, Amendment No. 13 must stand. My understanding is that the Government cannot alter it. Perhaps the Minister can clarify the point for the benefit of the House.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, on the procedural issue—which is obviously germane here—as with many procedures in your Lordships' House, there is no seriously clear advice. However, I think that the noble Baroness has at least an arguable case that we cannot overturn on Third Reading a provision that was agreed to on Report. My legal advice is that our amendments are preferable to hers. However, the consequence of that interpretation is that we would have her wording at this point in the Bill but different wording—if I were to press other amendments and they were accepted by the House—later in the Bill. I think that that would probably be the worst of all worlds.
I therefore suspect that, were the noble Baroness to press the procedural point, she would receive the support of the House. I think that she has at least a procedurally arguable case here, and I would not wish the House to fall into inconsistency in the Bill. On procedural grounds, therefore, I would withdraw Amendment No. 9. The logical consequence of that, I think, is that I should not press the other amendments in this group. It will be for me to discover what trouble that lands me in with the lawyers. However, partly because I accepted the amendment in good faith in the first instance, and partly because I think that the noble Baroness's procedural point is on balance correct, I think that that will have to be the outcome. It should therefore be the noble Baroness's amendments that stand when we reach that point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Slaughter: power of entry ]:
Lord Campbell of Allowaymoved Amendment No. 10:
Page 7, line 30, at end insert "and has been afforded an opportunity to apply for a stay of execution of the warrant on the ground that the first condition has not been satisfied"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have moved this amendment only to ask the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for clarification. Does he accept Amendment No. 11 to Clause 8 in view of the Division on Amendment No. 7 to Clause 7? I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government accept that Amendment No. 11 is consequential on Amendment No. 7.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am very much obliged. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Greavesmoved Amendment No. 11:
Page 7, line 30, at end insert "and of the reasons for that decision including a copy of the sworn information;

(d) he has been provided with an opportunity to make representations to the justice of the peace about whether the warrant should be issued;

(e) he has been provided with the opportunity to present sworn information in person or in writing to the justice of the peace who is to consider the application for a warrant."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[ Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Baroness Byfordmoved Amendment No. 13:
Page 7, line 39, leave out "issue" and insert "approval by the justice of the peace, which date shall be clearly visible on the warrant"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Tests and samples: power of entry]:
Baroness Byfordhad given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 15:
Page 9, line 8, leave out from "premises" to "infected" in line 9 and insert "is"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I thank the Minister for a letter that he sent me.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Lord Greavesmoved Amendment No. 16:
Page 9, line 35, at end insert "and of the reasons for that decision including a copy of the sworn information;
( ) he has been provided with an opportunity to make representations to the justice of the peace about whether the warrant should be issued;
( ) he has been provided with the opportunity to present sworn information in person or in writing to the justice of the peace who is to consider the application for a warrant."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Baroness Byfordmoved Amendment No. 18:
Page 10, line 2, leave out "issue" and insert "approval by the justice of the peace, which date shall be clearly visible on the warrant"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Lord Whittymoved Amendment No. 20:
Before Clause 15, insert the following new clause—
"BIOSECURITY GUIDANCE
In the 1981 Act the following sections are inserted after section 6 (eradication areas and attested areas)—
"6A BIOSECURITY GUIDANCE
(1) The Secretary of State must prepare guidance on the appropriate biosecurity measures to be taken in relation to—

(a) foot-and-mouth disease;

(b) such other disease as the Secretary of State by order specifies.

515
(2) After preparing a draft of the guidance the Secretary of State—

(a) must send a copy of the draft to such persons and organisations as he thinks are representative of those having an interest in biosecurity measures;

(b) must consider any representations made to him about the draft by such persons and organisations;

(c) may amend the draft accordingly.

(3) After the Secretary of State has proceeded under subsection (2) he must publish the guidance in such manner as he thinks appropriate.
(4) The Secretary of State must from time to time review the guidance and if he thinks it appropriate revise the guidance.
(5) Subsections (I) to (3) apply to a revision of the guidance as they apply to its preparation.
(6) But if the Secretary of State thinks that it is necessary to revise the guidance urgently he may publish revised guidance without proceeding under subsection (2).
(7) Biosecurity measures are measures taken to prevent the spread of causative agents of disease.
(8) Causative agent includes any virus, bacterium and any other organism or infectious substance which may cause or transmit disease.
(9) The power to make an order must be exercised by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(10) It is immaterial that anything done for the purposes of subsections (1) to (3) is done before the passing of the Animal Health Act 2002.
6B BIOSECURITY COMPLIANCE
(1) A person having a function under this Act relating to foot-and-mouth disease or a disease specified by order under section 6A(1) must not exercise the function unless the guidance under section 6A has been published and has not been withdrawn.
(2) Any act which is done in contravention of subsection (1) is done without lawful authority.
(3) If a person to whom subsection (5) applies fails to comply with the guidance he is not by reason only of that failure liable in any civil or criminal proceedings.
(4) But the guidance is admissible in evidence in such proceedings arid a court may take account of any failure to act in accordance With it in deciding any question in the proceedings.
(5) This subsection applies to—

(a) any person having functions under this Act;

(b) any person who is the owner or occupier of premises on which animals are kept;

(c) any person who has charge of animals;

(d) any person who is under the direction of a person mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c)."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the position relating to biosecurity. Noble Lords will recall that on Report I committed myself to bring forward an amendment addressing the concerns raised on biosecurity measures. The amendment sets out clearly that the Secretary of State must draft and consult on biosecurity guidance, and that that must be reviewed from time to time.
New Section 6B states that any person carrying out an activity on behalf of the Secretary of State must not exercise the function unless the biosecurity guidance has been published and has not been withdrawn. On Report, noble Lords were keen for a statutory fine to be imposed on officials who failed to comply with biosecurity rules or guidance. That is touched on in later amendments. Having taken advice on that
516
matter, I am advised that it would be inappropriate to target such an offence solely at officials. We have therefore set out that if anyone to whom the provisions apply fails to comply with the guidance, that failure would be admissible as evidence in any subsequent court case. I believe that that conforms with the usual procedure in relation to codes of practice and that it is an appropriate sanction, which covers those employed by or acting on behalf of the Secretary of State.
We have a responsibility while drafting the legislation to ensure that we do not produce unrealistic and unworkable requirements. To put in place a requirement that all those working on behalf of the Secretary of State must be "conversant" with biosecurity rules implies that there would be some test, requiring regular and time-consuming assessment. It would be impractical to put that into place in relation to all field staff and contractors.
I agree that we must do more to address the issue of biosecurity. We will consult stakeholders to seek their views on the production of a long-term strategy for biosecurity publicity and awareness that will be aimed at the totality of the livestock industry, not just at farmers.
It may help the House and save some time if I comment on some of the amendments that are grouped with this amendment. Amendment No. 22 stands in the name of the noble Countess. She should consider what its effect would be. It could limit the number of people with whom we may need to communicate. However, if she feels it appropriate to press the amendment, we should have no objection to it.
I could accept Amendment No. 23, which stands in the name of the noble Countess, but I am not prepared to accept the other amendments in the group. I could go into further detail when it becomes clear which amendments are being pressed. I beg to move.
The Countess of Marmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 20, Amendment No. 21:
Line 13, after "those" insert "listed in section 6B(5)"
The noble Countess said: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for saying which amendments he is prepared to accept. I ask him to forgive my rather feeble voice. It is the result of being vaccinated; never again.
Lord Carter: My Lords, to live?
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I do not feel very much like it at the moment, to be quite candid!
Noble Lords will recall that I tabled an amendment on Report, which was mentioned by the Minister. When he promised to take my amendment away and to come back with a similar one, I expected that it would bear some semblance to mine. Who was it on television who used to say, "I don't believe it!"? That is what I felt when I first read the Minister's amendments.

517
After all our discussions during the somewhat painful passage of the Bill through its stages in this House, noble Lords will, I believe, agree that the importance of biosecurity has been stressed repeatedly. The Minister mentioned it today on a number of occasions. It has taken this long for the Government to produce a loosely worded amendment—one that fails to meet the needs of the argument. There is now no need for me to dwell on the amendments at length. They are, in the main, tweaking amendments.
The Minister did not mention Amendment No. 21. It specifies those who should be consulted in the drafting of the biosecurity guidance. Last week, I had no inkling that there would be today's press announcement and radio coverage of the formation of a new organisation, called "Farm". I was merely expressing my own dissatisfaction with the Government's apparent dependence on one or two organisations, with apparently large memberships, which I believe provide wonderful insurance and legal advice but which fail dismally to represent all but a minority of their members. If the Minister "thinks" that the NFU and the NSA—the two organisations that he has cited most—are representative of persons and organisations that should be consulted, I ask him to think again. Seventy per cent of farmers apparently do not believe that their interests are currently being represented. With modern communications, that need not be an expensive exercise. Not everyone contacted will respond, but they should be given the opportunity to comment. Indeed, the Minister may be surprised by the amount of constructive assistance that might be forthcoming. The list merely helps the Secretary of State to think.
The Minister said that he was minded to accept Amendment No. 22. I have had bitter experience of the publication of,
"guidance in such manner as he thinks appropriate",
from guidance note MS17 by the Health and Safety Executive on organophosphate poisoning. Noble Lords who have been in the House for a long time will remember that I have asked a number of questions about MS17. It is all too easy for government publications to gather dust on a shelf somewhere. I want to see on the face of the Bill the Government's stated intention that never again will we see such events as occurred during the recent epidemic of foot and mouth disease. Every registered individual concerned with keeping or handling animals must have the requisite biosecurity information. If there is to be certainty of distribution, that information can only be supplied centrally. It is then up to the individuals who receive the guidance to read and follow it. Penalties obviously follow if they do not.
I am pleased that the Minister is prepared to accept Amendment No. 23. Amendment No. 24 relates to new Section 6A(10). That is retrospective legislation and he should know that we do not accept such legislation in your Lordships' House. I shall press that amendment.
518
Amendment No. 25 goes with Amendment No. 22. How is a person to know about biosecurity if he has not seen the guidance?
The Minister's amendment to new Section 6B(3) contains a remarkable provision. How does that fit in with Clause 12(1)? That states:
"A person commits an offence if without lawful authority or excuse (proof of which shall lie with him) he knowingly does anything"—
I stress that word—
"which causes or is intended to cause an animal to be infected".
After all that has been said, are we now to let off the hook those who disregard biosecurity measures? My amendment would restore the situation to its previous state.
Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 extend the list of those who should be consulted and receive guidance. Such people are all concerned with animals. Those whom I have added have temporary concerns and may not be remembered. Amendment No. 30 is self-explanatory and follows from our debate on Report. Having said that, and having run out of puff, I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I support the amendments referred to by the noble Countess, Lady Mar. I believe that they add flesh to the biosecurity compliance part of the new clause inserted by the Minister's amendment. Indeed, I believe it is important to spell out who will be involved and who will be consulted. We must ensure that guidance is in place for all the people involved in the chain of animal production so that they know what the rules are. That is most important.
In previous debates, many of us were critical of the lack of control in situations where contractors who carried out certain work did not seem to adhere to sensible biosecurity. I consider the list of consultees to be reasonable. I am sure that, when they are armed with the information, they will attempt to comply with it. I am sure that naming people or organisations will assist in ensuring that compliance is carried out more effectively.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for coming forward with his amendment, which, although long, is not sufficiently detailed. I believe that the noble Countess, Lady Mar, should be congratulated on bringing forward the amendments to which she spoke earlier. I am glad that the Minister has indicated that he will accept her Amendments Nos. 22 and 23. Obviously I hope that he will also accept Amendment No. 25, which, as the noble Countess, said, is linked directly to Amendment No. 22.
During the last outbreak of foot and mouth disease, it was obvious that different advice was being given at different times to different people. While we support the Government's amendment, which gives greater guidance to a whole range of people, I believe that the amendment tabled by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, is far more specific. We believe it is our bounden duty

519
to ensure that people who are legitimately trading when outbreaks occur have full knowledge of what is required of them. They should not be able to say, "Well, we didn't know". That, importantly, is what the amendment seeks to achieve.
During the recent outbreak, there was undoubtedly much uncertainty as to the best way to proceed. Different advice was given by DEFRA staff in different offices. In some ways, I cannot blame them, although, in others, we do so strongly. At times, when supplies of, for example, the best disinfectants ran out, there was misinformation about the most effective substitutes. Farmers sought advice and were told or sold what was available rather than what might have been preferred. If farmers had information in the first instance, then they would have only themselves to blame if they chose wrongly.
Therefore, I welcome the Government's amendment and thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, because much thought has obviously gone into it. However, our view is that it is good so far as it goes but that it needs the additional amendments which the noble Countess, Lady Mar, has tabled today. In our earlier debates, the Minister said that he recognised that several times during the passage of the Bill concerns had been raised about the fact that DEFRA officials did not appear to be subject to the same requirements and movements as others.
I believe that the amendments of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, add enormously to Amendment No. 20. I hope that, in responding, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will be able to consider including some of the other amendments tabled by the noble Countess. I shall be interested to hear why he is not able to accept some of them. He said that he did not consider them to be necessary.
Lord Carter: My Lords, when he moved Amendment No. 20, my noble friend the Minister said that, even though he could accept Amendment No. 22, he believed that it would be restrictive. It strikes me as odd when I read it. Subsection (2)(a) of Amendment No. 20 states that the Secretary of State must send the draft guidance to,
"such persons and organisations as he thinks are representative of those having an interest in biosecurity measures"—
that is, anyone. It includes vets, scientists, farmers, members of the NFU and whoever. But, when we add Amendment No. 22 in the name of the noble Countess to the list of those to whom the guidance is distributed, it includes only,
"registered owners and keepers of animals, registered animal hauliers, and any owner or manager of a registered slaughterhouse or slaughtering premises".
Perhaps I am not reading the amendment correctly, but it seems that all those organisations are consulted on the draft guidance but then, when the guidance is completed arid is ready to be published, it is sent only to the people listed in Amendment No. 22. That does not seem to be logical.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may explain to the noble Lord,
520
Lord Carter, that, during the recent outbreak, those people had difficulty enough in knowing what the word "biosecurity" meant, let alone what the biosecurity measures were. Those are the people who need to be specifically targeted. If the Minister wishes to send the guidance to other people, there is nothing to stop him. I simply want to ensure that those people receive the information.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in respect of the point to which several of the amendments relate, Amendment No. 21 refers to those listed in new Section 6B(5). That does not include some of the people to whom my noble friend Lord Carter referred but it would be sensible to distribute the guidance to them. I do not believe that the guidance should be restricted to those listed in the amendment.
With regard to Amendment No. 22, the noble Countess raises a valid point in relation to those who felt that they were excluded from the information circulated during the course of, and following, the recent epidemic. Therefore, there is an argument for including specific reference to them. However, there is also the danger, of which we must always remind the House when we discuss lists, that, in specifying certain people, it is possible that others will be excluded.
On balance, I believe that there may be an argument for including them, and I shall not resist that if the noble Countess wishes to press it. But she must recognise that, in doing so, she will exclude others. That becomes more acute when we relate the issue to Amendment No. 27, which effectively lists the same sort of people. The effect of that would be to include those at that part of the Bill but not others. I believe that that would be more damaging in terms of restriction of future interpretation than the list of people to whom the guidance would have to he circulated.
As I indicated, I accept the arguments in relation to Amendment No. 23 and I can agree to the amendment. The noble Countess referred to Amendment No. 24 as being "retrospective". It is not; it merely states that we should be able to use work on biosecurity that has already been carried out. It does not make retrospective any action against or towards people. That will only be prospective from the passage of the Act. But it refers to the need or desirability to take into account valuable work which has already been done and which, otherwise, would be wasted. I do not believe that the accusation of retrospection is appropriate. It relates to the work and not to the effect of the Act.
So far as concerns Amendment No. 25, again, I believe it is important that we do not restrict distribution to those listed. That would create an even greater restriction than referring to new Section 6B(5) in the earlier clause.
Amendment No. 26 seeks to remove from the biosecurity amendment the provision which confirms that if a person fails to comply with the guidance he is not, by reason solely of that failure, liable in any civil or criminal proceedings.

521
I was careful in moving Amendment No. 20. I indicated that the normal practice is to make the existence and adhesion or non-adhesion to the codes of practice admissible in a court of law. That is the normal way that we translate codes of practice into being effective in court proceedings. That is an important part of making sure that people take notice of this biosecurity practice. Those people include the officials of DEFRA or other government departments and those contractors and others working on their behalf. I think therefore that the purpose of the amendments of the noble Baroness, and indeed her subsequent Amendment No. 30, is met by Amendment No. 20 as it stands.
I have referred to Amendments Nos. 27 and 28. A possible interpretation that this was a restriction to those listed in the amendments could be quite damaging because other people should be included at a subsequent stage. I would therefore resist that, not because I do not want to make sure that such people are included under this clause but because it could limit the Secretary of State's ability to include others.
Can I clarify whether the noble Baroness referred to Amendment No. 30?
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, before the noble Lord goes on, I should be grateful if he would call me the noble Countess rather than the noble Baroness. I know that I am the only one in the House. I do have to keep reminding him. I did speak to Amendment No. 30.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I apologise. Amendment No. 30 is intended to make sure that everyone follows the guidance. It is not an amendment which we would be able to enforce in primary legislation. There is no method by which the Secretary of State could ensure absolutely that the guidance is followed by everyone.
The amendment provides the objective, but gives no sanction should the agents of the Secretary of State fail to comply. Therefore, it is incomplete in itself. In any case, the requirement in the amendment that I propose—that the terms of the code of practice would be admissible in court, and the failure to adhere to those terms would be admissible in court—provides that degree of control over the actions of the servants or contractors of the Secretary of State. It therefore follows that they must have regard to it and that that would be admissible in the case brought against them by anyone who had a complaint about the way they carried out that action.
I therefore can accept, if the noble Countess presses it, Amendment No. 22. I accept with a light heart Amendment No. 23. But I resist the remainder of the amendments of the noble Countess. I apologise unreservedly for failing to call her the noble Countess at various points in my response. I shall try my best to avoid that mistake again.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Perhaps he would appreciate being called the Secretary of State when he is not.
522
I still feel that we need to expand the list in proposed new Section 6B(5). It is already an extensive list. I have added groups of people who are likely to be forgotten. They do not have permanent care of animals. They are kind of will-o'-the-wisps: they pass in the night. I think they should be added to the list. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
5.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 21) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 167; Not-Contents, 139.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Geraint, L.

Alderdice, L.

Glentoran, L.

Allenby of Megiddo,V.

Goodhart, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Greaves, L.

Arran,E.

Greenway, L.

Astor,V.

Hamwee, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Attlee,E.

Hayhoe, L.

Avebury, L.

Higgins, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Barker, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hooper, B.

Biffen, L.

Hooson, L.

Blackwell, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Blatch, B.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Boardman, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Bowness, L.

Hylton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Jacobs, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Bridgeman,V.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Jopling, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Kimball, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Kingsland, L.

Burnham, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Byford, B.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Lindsay, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Liverpool, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Chalfont, L.

Lucas, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Luke, L.

Colwyn, L.

Lyell, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Craigavon,V.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Crickhowell, L.

McNally, L.

Cuckney, L.

Maddock, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Mancroft, L.

Deedes, L.

Mar, C. [Teller]

Denham, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Dholakia, L.

Marlesford, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Elles, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Erroll,E.

Monson, L.

Falkland,V.

Moran, L.

Fearn, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ferrers,E.

Moynihan, L.

Fookes, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Freeman, L.

Naseby, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Newby, L.

Geddes, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

523

Noakes, B.

Sandberg, L.

Northbrook, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Northover, B.

Seccombe, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Selsdon, L

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Sharman,

Onslow, E.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Park of Monmouth,B.

Sharples,

Peel, E.

Shaw of Northstead,L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Stewartby, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Plumb, L.

Swinfen, L.

Prior, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Rawlings, B.

Thatcher, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Rarzall, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Reay, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Redesdale, L.

Trumpington, B.

Rennard, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Renton, L.

Waddington, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Wakeham, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Roper, L.

Walmsley, B.

Rotherwick, L. [Teller]

Watson of Richmond, L.

Russell, E.

Weatherill, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Wilcox, B.

Saatchi,L.

Williams of Crosby,B.

Saltoun of Abernethy,Ly.

Willoughby de Broke,L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting,L.

Ahmed, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Alli, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Amos, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Andrews, B.

Filkin, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gale, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Gavron, L.

Bach, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Barnett, L.

Gilbert, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Berkeley, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Billineham, B.

Goudie. B.

Blackstone, B.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Boothroyd, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Borrie, L.

Grenfell, L.

Bragg, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Brennan, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Brett, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Harrison, L.

Brookman, L.

Haskel, L.

Burlison, L.

Hayman, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Carter. L.

Hogg of Curnbernauld, L.

Chandos, V.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Christopher, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hoyle, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Crawley, B.

Islwyn, L.

David, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Davies of Coity, L

Jay of Paddington, B

Davies of Oldham, L

Jones, L

Desai, L.

Jordan, L.

Dixon, L.

Judd, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Dubs, L.

Layard, L.

Eatwell, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Elder, L.

Lipsey, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

524

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Rooker, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.[Teller]

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Sawyer, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Sheldon, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Simon, V.

Marsh, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Strange, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Taylor of Blackburn,

Mitchell, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Morgan, L.

Thornton, B.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Turnberg, L.

Moser, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Uddin, B.

Orme, L.

Varley, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Pendry, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Peston, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Whitaker, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Whitty, L.

Radice, L.

Wilkins, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Richard, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment No. 21, as an amendment to Amendment No. 20, agreed to accordingly.
5.55 p.m.
The Countess of Marmoved, as amendments to Amendment No. 22, Amendments Nos. 22 and 23:
Line 19, at end insert "and distribute it to registered owners and keepers of animals, registered animal hauliers, and any owners or manager of a registered slaughterhouse or slaughtering premises"
Line 26, at end insert "provided that, in such a case, he includes in the guidance an explanation of why this was necessary"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 24, as an amendment to Amendment No. 20, not moved.]
The Countess of Marmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 20, Amendment No. 25:
Line 41, after "published" insert "and distributed to all those listed in section 6A(3)"
5.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 25) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 169; Not-Contents, 130.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Attlee,E.

Alderdice, L.

Avebury, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Barker, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Arran, E.

Biffen, L.

Astor, V.

Blackwell, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Blatch, B.

525

Boardman, L.

Mar, C. [Teller]

Bowness, L.

Marlesford, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monson, L.

Bumham, L.

Moran, L.

Buscombe, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Byford, B.

Moynihan, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Naseby, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Newby, L.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Noakes, B.

Chalfont, L.

Northboume, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Northbrook, L.

Chester, Bp.

Northover, B.

Colwyn, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Onslow, E.

Craigavon, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Peel, E.

Cuckney, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Deedes, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Denham, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Dholakia, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Plumb, L.

Elles, B.

Prior, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rawlings, B.

Erroll, E.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Falkland, V.

Razzall,L.

Fearm, L.

Reay,L.

Ferrers, E.

Redesdale, L.

Fookes, B.

Rennard, L.

Freeman, L.

Renton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Geraint, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Glentoran, L.

Roper, L.

Goodhart, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Greaves, L.

Russell, E.

Greenway, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Hamwee, B.

Saatchi, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hayhoe, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Higgins, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Sandberg, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Hooson, L.

Seccombe, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Selborne, E.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Selsdon, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Sharman, L.

Hylton, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Jacobs, L.

Sharples, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Jopling, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Kimball, L.

Stewartby, L.

Kingsland, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Strange, B.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Thatcher, B.

Lindsay, E.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Liverpool, E.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Lucas, L.

Trumpington, B.

Luke, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Lyell, L.

Waddington, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Wakeham, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Walmsley, B.

McNally, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Maddock, B.

Wilcox, B. [Teller]

Mancroft, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

526

Williamson of Horton, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Alli, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Amos, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Andrews, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Islwyn, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Bach, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Barnett, L.

Jones, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jordan, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Judd, L.

Billingham, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Borrie, L.

Layard, L.

Bragg, L.

Lipsey, L.

Brennan, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Brett, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Brookman, L.

Burlison, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Carter, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Christopher, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mitchell, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Morgan, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Crawley, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

David, B.

Orme, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Pendry, L.

Desai, L.

Peston, L.

Dixon, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Donoughue, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Puttnam, L.

Dubs, L.

Radice, L.

Eatwell, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Elder, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Richard, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Rooker, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sawyer, L.

Gale, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gavron, L.

Sheldon, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Simon, V.

Gilbert, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Goudie, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Thornton, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Grenfell, L.

Turnberg, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Turner of Camden, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Uddin, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Varley, L.

Harrison, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Haskel, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Hayman, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Whitaker, B.

Hogg of Cumbemauld, L.

Whitty, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wilkins, B.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Howie of Troon, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment No. 25, as an amendment No. 20 agreed to accordingly.
6.9 p.m.
[Amendment No. 26, as an amendment to Amendment No. 20, not moved.]
The Countess of Marhad given notice of her intention to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 20, Amendment No. 27:
Line 54, at end insert—
"(ca) any animal haulier;
(cb) any owner or manager of any registered slaughterhouse or slaughtering premises;"
The noble Countess said: My Lords, I believe that Amendment No. 27 is consequential on the other amendments and should be accepted.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government do not accept that Amendment No. 27 is consequential.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I have spoken to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. He said that the amendment seemed to be consequential. I apologise if I am wrong. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 27, as an amendment to Amendment No. 20, not moved.]
[Amendment No. 28, as an amendment to Amendment No. 20, not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, before putting the Question that Amendment No. 20, as amended, be agreed to, I have to inform your Lordships that we must deal with Amendment No. 29.
Baroness Byfordmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No.20, Amendment No. 29:
Line 56, at end insert—
"( ) any other person having cause to be in the countryside in a designated area."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I apologise for this amendment being taken separately. It is a small point upon which I do not intend to divide the House. Following last year's foot and mouth outbreak the Countryside and Rights of Way Act has come into effect and the Government have indicated that in any future outbreak they will not close footpaths and rights of way unless they are in infected areas.
The amendment draws the Government's attention to the problem of how to inform people who visit the countryside that they are in or near an infected area if such areas are not to be closed. The amendment seeks to discover whether the Government have considered a problem that arises under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, particularly as in future the Government want to bring in a revision of how to compensate farmers for disease outbreaks. There is also the possibility that farmers may have to take out insurance policies or pay a levy.
528
I do not intend to divide the House, but I want to highlight a future problem and one which was not included in the biosecurity clause. With those few comments I hope that the Minister has followed my gist. I beg to move.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, last year, during the foot and mouth outbreak, a party of about 30 people came to the Brecon Beacons National Park apparently unaware that part of it was in an infected area. Officials had to turn them away. The amendment addresses such a problem and spells out the situation for the future.
Baroness Masham of Ilion: My Lords, is the Minister aware that during the foot and mouth outbreak someone, walking through stock, when challenged by a farmer, said, "I am all right; I am a vegetarian"? Many people just did not understand the situation.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I too support the amendment. My anecdote is of someone who was responsible for the burial of infected animals. When driving home, he stopped to walk his dog, which was on a lead, in a field containing sheep. He openly admitted that he had not thought about what he was doing. It is important that such people are included.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, those who carry out duties under the Act are covered by the amendment as it stands. While we would not close down the countryside, as we did last time, in the area immediately around any infected premises the footpaths would be closed. The situation would depend on what we meant by "infected area" if the footpaths within three kilometres of that area did not have footpaths or rights of way open under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act.
I understand the concern of the noble Baroness about others in that situation. Clearly we need to ensure that biosecurity provisions are as widely understood as possible. Anyone visiting the countryside—that is the intention of the amendment, because, as under the first amendment, designated areas could include the whole of the country—being made aware in the same way that contractors for the Government or occupiers of farm premises are made aware, is not appropriate and would be unenforceable.
The noble Baroness has a point about wider awareness. However, I do not believe that it would be appropriate to add such a broad list of people to the list of those who have specific responsibilities and requirements to understand biosecurity provisions in detail. She has indicated that she will not press the amendment. Therefore, I ask her to withdraw it.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. He recognises that there is a problem. My intention was to highlight the matter. Under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act we spoke of having information centres so that in non-disease

529
times people know what is or is not open. The matter needs to be addressed. I am glad to have on the record the fact that the Minister recognises that there is a problem. I hope that the Government will bring forward a system to cover the point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 29, as an amendment to Amendment No. 20, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, as Amendment No. 30 is grouped with Amendment No. 20, we must deal with that amendment first.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 20, as amended, agreed to.
The Schedule [scrapie]:
The Countess of Marmoved Amendment No. 31:
Page 17, line 8, after "genotypes" insert "and phenotypes"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is another attempt at an amendment that I tabled on Report. It would enable the Secretary of State to specify phenotypes as well as genotypes. Sheep can be genetically susceptible to scrapie, although some such sheep may never contract it. In the country a number of areas and a number of breeds of genetically susceptible sheep have never had scrapie. As the science is still young, perhaps the Secretary of State would consider the phenotypic properties of sheep as well as the genetic properties. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we recognise that the noble Countess has concerns about this issue. However, no scientific evidence or basis exists to suggest that phenotypic characteristics contribute in any way to resistance or susceptibility to scrapie. Resistance and susceptibility to scrapie are linked to variations in amino acids encoded at three specific points of the PrP gene—that is, the genotype—that confers genetic resistance or susceptibility to scrapie in each individual sheep.
We are aware that there are those who claim that beneficial traits, as the noble Countess said, will be lost through breeding for resistance, but there is no hard and fast evidence to support that view. However, we are currently funding research—I hope this reassures the noble Countess—to see whether scrapie-resistant sheep have different production traits—for example, carcass weight at slaughter—than scrapie-susceptible sheep. Further research is also planned to extend that to look at more breeds and to consider the effects of breeding for scrapie resistance on biodiversity, sheep health and welfare and production traits.
In the absence of any scientific justification, we believe that it would be inappropriate to accept the amendment.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation. I hope that she and her colleagues will keep an open mind on the
530
matter and bear in mind that there can be new developments in science. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Lord Greavesmoved Amendment No. 33:
Page 21, line 13, at end insert "and of the reasons for that decision including a copy of the sworn information;
( ) he has been provided with an opportunity to make representations to the justice of the peace about whether the warrant should be issued;
( ) he has been provided with the opportunity to present sworn information in person or in writing to the justice of the peace who is to consider the application for a warrant."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the fourth amendment in the group led by Amendment No. 7. Following the Division on Amendment No. 7, Amendment No. 33 is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 not moved.]
Baroness Byfordmoved Amendment No. 36:
Page 21, line 22, leave out "issue" and insert "approval by the justice of the peace, which date shall be clearly visible on the warrant"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 not moved.]
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Enterprise Bill
6.21 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN OTHER LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF LORDS AMENDMENTS AND MOTIONS TO BE MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS AND REASONS
[The page and line refer to HL Bill 92 as first printed for theLords.]
LORDS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 5, after "corporate" insert "with both a chairman and a chief executive"
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
1A Because it is inappropriate to make express provision about the chief executive of the Office of Fair Trading.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 and 176 to 186 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 1A.
The amendments would provide for a statutory post of chief executive of the Office of Fair Trading. As originally drafted, the Bill provided for the OFT to consist of a chairman and no fewer than four other members, appointed by the Secretary of State, with the Secretary of State consulting the chairman before appointing any other member. That is a real depersonalisation of consumer and competition regulation. Instead of power being concentrated in the post of Director-General of Fair Trading, it will be vested in a statutory authority with at least five members, including the chairman. We expect the OFT to have a majority of non-executive members. That is an important change.
In our debates on whether the OFT should have a separate chief executive, noble Lords have referred to reports on corporate governance that advocate a separation of those roles. The combined code produced by the Hampel committee in 1998 is the most current of those reports. The code makes it clear from the outset that it is aimed at public listed companies. The OFT will not be a public listed company, nor will it be a commercial organisation. It will have no shareholders. There is no automatic read-across from the code to a public authority such as the OFT. We should not automatically assume that what is right for the private sector is right for all public authorities.
That said, the overriding principle of the code in relation to the roles of chairman and chief executive is to prevent a dominant individual from running a company unfettered by others. The code states:
"There should be a clear division of responsibilities at the head of the company which will ensure a balance of power and authority, such that no one individual has unfettered powers of decision".
It goes on to say:
"Whether the posts of Chairman and Chief Executive are held by different people or the same person, there should be a strong and independent non-executive element on the Board, with a recognised senior member other than the chairman to whom concerns can be conveyed".
By creating a statutory authority with a majority of non-executive members who will collectively be responsible for the OFT's performance, we are already ensuring that one person could not assume a dominant position at the OFT. Because members of the OFT will be appointed by the Secretary of State, following a fair and open competition, it will not be possible for the chairman to appoint a board in his own image that, he feels sure, will automatically support him at every turn. That is real de-personalisation. We envisage that one of the non-executive members of the OFT will be designated as a deputy chairman, to whom concerns can be conveyed and who will fulfil the role of a recognised senior member, as advocated by Hampel.
It is also important to remember that the chairman will be accountable for the OFT's performance to the Public Accounts Committee and the Trade and
532
Industry Select Committee. There will be rigorous accountability and scrutiny of a kind through which public listed companies need not go. As a public body and government department, the OFT will be subject to public law considerations. For example, its decisions could be referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—the ombudsman—and/or for judicial review. Companies are not subject to such restraints.
The OFT's particular circumstances have been critical to our decision not to separate the roles of chairman and chief executive at this time. The Secretary of State will appoint John Vickers as chairman of the OFT for the remainder of his term as Director-General of Fair Trading. That honours the commitment that the Government made to him when he was appointed to that post. John Vickers will work together with the other members of the OFT to lead the organisation.
Given John Vickers's position, and in order to provide for an important degree of continuity through this period of great change, the OFT should not separate the roles of chairman and chief executive at this time. However, I emphasise that that does not mean that the OFT will never be able to have a chief executive. If, at any time, the OFT wishes to create such a post, it can do so and select the appointee. The Bill leaves open that possibility. I shall repeat a commitment given by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Competition, Consumers and Markets in the other place on 30th October. My honourable friend said that she envisaged that the arrangements at the top of the OFT would be considered again when John Vickers retired in 2005, in order to establish whether they would still be appropriate after that time. So. we are making it clear that what is appropriate now for the OFT may not necessarily be appropriate in the future.
Your Lordships' amendments would create a post of chief executive appointed by the Secretary of State. In contrast, the approach that we propose would allow the OFT itself to appoint a separate chief executive in the future. That is consistent with the approach taken towards the OFT throughout the Bill and with the approach adopted for other regulators. The chief executive of Postcomm is appointed by the chairman. who is a Secretary of State appointment, and the chief executive of Ofcom will be appointed by the board. It would not be appropriate to create a statutory post of chief executive of the OFT in the Bill, for the reasons that I have given.
The House has now played its role of making the other place think again about the matter. On 30th October, it did just that and the elected Chamber did, of course, confirm its view. For all those reasons and in view of the reassurance given by my honourable friend the Minister for Competition, Consumers and Markets in the other place, which I am happy to repeat in this House this evening—she envisages that the arrangements at the top of the OFT will be considered upon John Vickers's retirement in 2005—I beg to move.

533
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 and 176 to 186 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 1A.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS EASON NO.1A
1B Lord Hunt of Wirral rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason Number. IA, leave out "not".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Minister and his colleagues have underestimated the widespread concern that exists on the question of who regulates the regulators. I refer not just to the newly-created Office of Fair Trading, because I have received several representations from others affected by regulators, including David Green, the director of the Combined Heat and Power Association, in respect of Ofgem.
One way to meet that widespread concern would be to ensure that corporate bodies such as the OFT, created by the Bill, had a separate chairman and chief executive. As Melanie Johnson said in the other place last week, there are two separate roles: they should be carried out by two separate people. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A, leave out "not".—(Lord Hunt of Wirral. )
6.30 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, this House is often and very rightly concerned when Ministers take powers to themselves in a Bill that are more appropriate for Parliament—for example, the wide legislative powers in so-called Henry VIII clauses.
Your Lordships will recall that only last week there was a major controversy on that score on Second Reading of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. This amendment—passed by your Lordships on Third Reading and disagreed with by the other place—does the opposite. It seeks to give Parliament power that is more appropriate to the executive, in terms of either the Government or the government agency concerned. The amendment passed in this House on Third Reading sought to compel Ministers to appoint two persons to head the Office of Fair Trading—one as chairman and the other as chief executive.
The Bill as originally drafted and to which the Government amendment proposes a return was more flexible in setting up the new corporate body, the Office of Fair Trading, to replace the original Fair Trading Act position of the Director-General of Fair Trading. The Bill as it originally stood meant that there would be a chairman and at least four other persons appointed by the Secretary of State. The Government said openly and in the advertisement for non-executive directors, which has been referred to many times, that they wanted to appoint the present
534
Director-General of Fair Trading, John Vickers, as both chairman and chief executive for the remainder of his five-year term.
Thereafter, it would be possible—my noble friend the Minister repeated this today—to separate the two roles or not as thought best at the time, in 2005 or whenever. The amendment passed by this House wants an inflexible rule that the roles be separated embodied in legislation. That, to my mind, is Parliament engaging in unduly detailed and prescriptive legislation.
The emphasis placed by spokesmen for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition on corporate governance for public listed companies was rather beside the point. In any case, as they did not admit in the course of debate, the rules such as they are—recommendations as they really are in the combined code for plcs—are not embodied in legislation. It is only a code of practice. Nobody can deny that several public limited companies considering their own circumstances—rightly or wrongly you may think—have combined the offices of chairman and chief executive or, increasingly, have separated them.
It is important that the board of the Office of Fair Trading and for that matter of all regulators should be adequately accountable for its work. The question of who regulates the regulators has been put in relation to this debate in both Houses and it is a perfectly valid question.
Who will regulate the Office of Fair Trading under the Bill? There is a very long list and I will not try to make a comprehensive one. It will be accountable in various ways and in various circumstances to the courts, the parliamentary ombudsman, through its annual plan and report to the Public Accounts Committee, and to Select Committees. There are references to and appeals to the Competition Commission and Competition Appeals Tribunal. For its budget, it is accountable to the Treasury. In the graphic phrase of Melanie Johnson, my honourable friend the Minister in another place, there are also the mad and bad provisions whereby the Secretary of State can dismiss members of the board for incapacity or misbehaviour.
There are, very properly, numerous ways in which the Office of Fair Trading and its board will be accountable under the Bill. The inflexible approach of Her Majesty's Opposition in desiring to insist and compel by law that there be two people, as it were, at the top of the Office of Fair Trading is prescription by legislation too far.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend. This issue has been widely discussed and forked over at least twice before in this House, so I do not wish to go through the corporate governance arguments. Nor do I wish to go through the question of the separate roles of the chairman and chief executive—about which the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, made a powerful speech the last time we discussed it.

535
The Government's argument seems twofold. First, the argument that the Minister puts forward is that the Bill does not prohibit a separation of the two roles. It merely does not make a separation mandatory. When one creates a body as powerful as this, permitting the two roles to be held by one person, there has to be the danger that it becomes established practice. Furthermore, it is very unlikely that a person having taken up this role will want to give up half his particular task. Listening to the Minister today, it seems to me that we are really doing this to get the Government off the hook over a commitment made to John Vickers.
The second argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is that there is no read-across between the plc sector and these types of regulatory bodies. The noble Lord has a good point. Read-across does not necessarily occur but can occur. I draw the Minister's attention to a recent report, Private Action, Public Benefit—a review of charities and the wider not-for-profit sector produced by the Strategy Unit in September.
Chapter 7 suggests the establishment of a new, more powerful Charity Commission to oversee that huge slice of British public life. Chapter 7.64 talks about governance and the dangers of a small board. Some of the arguments made earlier about the size of the board are addressed in a very direct way:
"A small board…has the advantage of manageability and ease of decision-making, but is open to the accusation that it is narrowly focused and that the interests of some groups of stakeholders arc not fully represented in discussions".
The real point is at paragraph 7.66:
"The Chief Commissioner is currently both Chair and Chief Executive of the Commission…With the…higher public profile that the Commission is to adopt, there is a strong case for introducing separate Chair and Chief Executive posts. The Chair's particular role would be in ensuring good corporate governance and the smooth functioning of the enlarged board, and in representing the Commission in public and at high level within Government and the charitable sector".
I could not have put the argument better myself.
The Government, by sticking obstinately to their position, are flying in the face of good practice in the private sector. It is also clear from the Strategy Unit report produced by the Government that, when governing a non-statutory body, they believe that the roles should he split as part of the way forward. In those circumstances, I do not see how the Government can object to my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, as the Minister will understand, I rise to indicate the complete agreement of noble Lords on these Benches with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I have two small points to make. First, on Third Reading I raised the analogy of the BBC. I was not then persuaded by the Minister's response. I am sure that noble Lords recognise the outrage that would be expressed at any suggestion that Mr Greg Dyke should be both chairman and chief executive of the BBC.
The Minister's argument—namely, that the BBC is a trading entity with large commercial interests—is not the point: the BBC is clearly a public body. We believe
536
that public bodies appropriately have both a chairman and a chief executive. Secondly, unlike his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, it appears from an article in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph that Mr John Vickers agrees with us.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may correct him on his latter point. I believe that John Vickers was wrongly reported in the Sunday Telegraph. His view is that what goes into this Bill is a matter for Parliament. He rightly, therefore, does not wish his own views to he brought into the debate. I can assure the House that the Government appointed John Vickers as head of the OFT as executive chairman for a period of five years. That is the post that John Vickers accepted, and that is the position that he hopes to continue to carry out. His views were not correctly reported.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, this has been a useful debate, but it has taken place over well-trodden ground. I wish to press my amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the original Question was that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1 A, since when an amendment has been moved to leave out "not". The question is that this amendment be agreed to.
6.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1 B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 148; Not-Contents, 136.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Alderdice, L.

Chester, Bp.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Colwyn, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Arm, E.

Craigavon, V.

Astor, V.

Deedes, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Denham, L.

Attlee, E.

Dholakia, L.

Avebury, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Barker, B.

Elles, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Biffen, L.

Elton, L.

Blatch, B.

Feam, L.

Boardman, L.

Ferrers, E.

Bowness, L.

Fookes, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Freeman, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Glentoran, L.

Brittan of Spennithome, L.

Goodhart, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Goschen, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Greaves, L.

Burnham, L.

Greenway, L.

Buscombe, B.

Hamwee, B.

Byford, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Henley, L.

Chalfont, L.

Higgins, L.

537

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Hooson, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Howe, E.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Plumb, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Prior, L.

Jacobs, L.

Rawlings, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Jopling, L.

Razzall, L.

Kimball, L.

Reay, L.

Kingsland, L.

Redesdale, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Rennard, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Renton, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Lindsay, E.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Liverpool, E.

Roper, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Luke, L.

Russell, E.

Lyell, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Saatchi, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

McNally, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Maddock, B.

Selborne, E.

Mancroft, L.

Selsdon, L.

Mar, C.

Sharman, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Marlesford, L.

Sharples, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Monson, L.

Stewartby, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Swinfen, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Thatcher, B.

Moynihan, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Naseby, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Newby, L.

Trefgame, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Trumpington, B.

Noakes, B.

Vinson, L.

Northbrook, L.

Waddington, L.

Northover, B.

Wakeham, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Walmsley, B.

Onslow, E.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Wilcox, B.

Peel, E.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Ahmed, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Alli, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Amos, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Andrews, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Crawley, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Bach, L.

David, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Berkeley, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Desai, L.

Billingham, B.

Dixon, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Donoughue, L.

Borrie, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Bragg, L.

Dubs, L.

Brennan, L.

Eatwell, L.

Brett, L.

Elder, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Brookman, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Burlison, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Burns, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Carter, L.

Filkin, L.

Chandos, V.

Gale, B.

Christopher, L.

Gavron, L.

538

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Mitchell, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Morgan, L.

Goudie, B.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Moser, L.

Grenfell, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Orme, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Pendry, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Harrison, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Haskel, L.

Puttnam, L.

Hayman, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hogg of Cumbemauld, L.

Richard, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Sawyer, L.

Hoyle, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Sheldon, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Simon, V.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Smith of Leigh, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Islwyn, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jones, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Jordan, L.

Thornton, B.

Judd, L.

Tomlinson, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Turnberg, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Layard, L.

Varley, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Warner, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Weatherill, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Whitaker, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Whitty, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Wilkins, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.52 p.m.
LORDS AMENDMENT
2 Page 1, line 8, at end insert—
"(4) In managing its affairs the OFT must have regard to the generally accepted principles of good corporate governance."
The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—
2A Line 2, leave out from "OFT" to end of line 3 and insert "shall have regard—
to such general guidance concerning the management of the affairs of public bodies as the OFT considers appropriate;
subject to any such guidance and only to the extent that they may reasonably be regarded as applicable in relation to a statutory corporation, to generally accepted principles of good corporate governance."
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 2, but do instead agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2A.

539
Amendment No. 2A accepts the principle of the Lords amendment, that the OFT should have regard to the generally accepted principles of good corporate governance in its affairs. However, the Commons amendment makes two important changes. First, it ensures that the OFT should have an overriding regard for general guidance concerning the management of the affairs of public bodies. Secondly, it ensures that the OFT will have regard only to the principles of good corporate governance which may be reasonably regarded as being applicable to it. Perhaps I may deal with each of these.
Your Lordships' amendment would not allow the OFT to take prior account of guidance specifically aimed at public bodies. I am not surprised that the Conservatives are unable to understand this distinction, but I find it amazing that the Liberal Democrats should be unable to understand that a public body should take account of public concerns. The OFT will not be a company, and it cannot be right that principles aimed at such companies should take precedence for the OFT over guidance, rules and procedures for public bodies; for example, Treasury rules on public accounting. Additionally, the management of the government department of the OFT will be subject to public law considerations; for example, its decisions could be referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—the Ombudsman—and/or for judicial review. Companies are not subject to those restraints.
Secondly, many of the principles of good corporate governance are aimed at business practices which do not have obvious equivalents in government. The OFT will he a non-ministerial government department—a public body—not a company or commercial organisation. Perhaps I may give some examples to illustrate how corporate governance principles do not necessarily relate to public bodies.
The code contains a section devoted to relations with shareholders covering the dialogue between the company and institutional shareholders, the use of annual general meetings and the counting of votes at such meetings. The OFT has no shareholders and so the section is irrelevant to it.
The code also recommends that all directors should be subject to election by shareholders at the first opportunity after their appointment and to re-election thereafter at intervals of no more than three years. Again, I make the point that OFT has no shareholders. Non-executive appointments to the OFT will be for specified terms of no more than five years under the Bill and will be made following Nolan procedures. Under these procedures, reappointment is a matter for Ministers following an assessment of the performance of the non-executive and second reappointments are not normally permitted.
So a quite different system of checks is in place for appointments to the OFT than would apply for a listed company. Another section of the code is concerned with directors' remuneration; both the policy of performance-related pay and the mechanics of remuneration committees. Again, the practice in
540
public bodies is subject to different checks. The salaries of non-executive members of the OFT will be determined by the Secretary of State, while any civil servants serving as executive members of the OFT will have the salary determined in the usual way for OFT civil servants.
I believe that Commons Amendment No. 2A reflects the will of this House that the OFT should have regard to the principles of good corporate governance, but achieves this in a way which is fully appropriate to the OFT as a public body. To revert to your Lordships' amendment would be to impose a set of principles on the OFT which are not entirely relevant to a public body and which do not recognise the existence of other guidance and procedures directed at public authorities. I do not think that would be right. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 2, but do instead agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2A.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
LORDS AMENDMENT
2 Page 1, line 8, at end insert—
"(4) In managing its affairs the OFT must have regard to the generally accepted principles of good corporate governance."
2B Lord Hunt of Wirral rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 2A, leave out from "House" to the end and insert "do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 2A, and do insist on Lords Amendment 2".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2B I point out to the Minister that the amendment originally agreed to in this House was taken directly from the Government's own words in the Financial Services and Markets Act. The Government's amendment asked the Financial Services Authority to have,
"regard to the generally accepted principles of good corporate governance".
That is a direct read-across to this position. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2A, leave out from "House" to the end and insert "do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2A, and do insist on Lords Amendment No. 2".—(Lord Hunt of Wirral.)
Lord Sharman: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I was present for the majority of the debate on this issue at the time the Financial Services and Markets Bill was before your Lordships' House. The amendment previously accepted here says "have regard to". That is not the same as "must adhere to". To have regard to is to take into account. It was evident to me from the time I looked at audit and accountability in central government that elements of generally accepted corporate governance do indeed read across.
6.59 p.m
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 147; Not-Contents, 129.

Division No.6

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kingsland, L.

Alderdice, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Lindsay, E.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Liverpool, E.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Arran, E.

Luke, L.

Astor, V.

Lyell, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Attlee, E.

Avebury, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Barker, B.

McNally, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Maddock, B.

Blatch, B.

Mancroft, L.

Boardman, L.

Mar, C.

Bowness, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marlesford, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Brittan of Spennithome, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Monson, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Burnham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Burns, L.

Moynihan, L.

Buscombe, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Byford, B.

Naseby, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Newby, L.

Chalfont, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Noakes, B.

Colwyn, L.

Northbrook, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Northover, B.

Courtown, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Craigavon, V.

Onslow, E.

Deedes, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dholakia, L.

Peel, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Elles, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Elton, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Feam, L.

Plumb, L.

Ferrers, E.

Prior, L.

Fookes, B.

Rawlings, B.

Freeman, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Razzall, L.

Glentoran, L.

Reay, L.

Goodhart, L.

Redesdale, L.

Goschen, V.

Rennard, L.

Greaves, L.

Renton, L.

Greenway, L.

Roberts of Convey, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Roper, L.

Henley, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Higgins, L.

Russell, E.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Hooson, L.

Saatchi, L.

Howe, E.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Selborne, E.

Jacobs, L.

Selsdon, L.

Jenkin of Roding L.

Sharman, L.

Jopling, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Kimball, L.

Sharples, B.

542

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Trumpington, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Vinson, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Waddington, L.

Stewartby, L.

Wakeham, L.

Swinfen, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Walmsley, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Wilcox, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Haskel, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hayman, B.

Alli, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Amos, B.

Hogg of Cumbemauld, L.

Andrews, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bach, L.

Hoyle, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Billingham, B.

Boothroyd, B.

Islwyn, L.

Borrie, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Bragg, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Brennan, L.

Jones, L.

Brett, L.

Jordan, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Judd, L.

Brookman, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Burlison, L.

Layard, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Carter, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Chandos, V.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Chester, Bp.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.[Teller]

Christopher, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Masham of Eton, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Crawley, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Mitchell, L.

David, B.

Morgan, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Desai, L.

Moser, L.

Dixon, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Donoughue, L.

Orme, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Dubs, L.

Pendry, L.

Eatwell, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Elder, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Richard, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Filkin, L.

Sawyer, L.

Gale, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gavron, L.

Simon, V.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Goudie, B.

Strange, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Symons of Vemham Dean, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Grenfell, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Thornton, B.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Turnberg, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Harrison, L.

Varley, L.

543

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Whitaker, B.

Whitty, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
7.9 p.m.
LORDS AMENDMENT
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause—
7 "Tribunal: regulations
(1) The Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State may together make regulations—
empowering the courts to transfer to the Tribunal for determination by it any issue arising in any civil proceedings the determination of which depends on whether provisions of Chapter I or II of the 1998 Act or of Article 81 or 82 of the Treaty have been infringed where, in the opinion of the court making the transfer, the transfer would he conducive to the efficient conduct of the proceedings;
making any rules that the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State may deem to be appropriate as ancillary to the power to make such transfers or to be reasonably required in connection therewith and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, to the effect that—
on making such a transfer, the court making the transfer may state facts that the Tribunal shall then treat as established for the purposes of determining the issues transferred to it;
after having made its determination, the Tribunal shall remit the matter to the court that made the transfer to it, declaring the determination of that issue by the Tribunal, which, subject to any clarification or amplification by the Tribunal of its determination that may be requested by the court that made the transfer, shall then be treated as a determination of that issue by that court;
enabling courts that have made, or have in contemplation the making of, such transfers and the Tribunal to cooperate together in any way that they deem to be appropriate to enable issues arising in the proceedings before then to be determined as efficiently as possible.
(2) The Lord Chancellor may appoint as president and as chairman of the Tribunal judges of any of the courts provided that, before appointing a judge of the Court of Session or sheriff courts under this subsection, the Lord Chancellor shall first consult the Lord President of the Court of Session.
(3) In this section references to "the courts" are to the High Court of Justice and the county courts in England and Wales and Northern Ireland and the Court of Session and the sheriff courts in Scotland.
(4) The power to make regulations under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu thereof—
7A "After Clause 15
Transfers of certain proceedings to Tribunal
The Lord Chancellor may by regulations—
make provision enabling the court—
to transfer to the Tribunal for its determination so much of any proceedings before the court as relates to an infringement issue; and
to give effect to the determination of that issue by the Tribunal; and
make such incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional or saving provision as the Lord Chancellor may consider appropriate.
(2) The power to make regulations under subsection (1) is exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(3) Rules of court may prescribe the procedure to be followed in connection with a transfer mentioned in subsection (1).
(4) The court may transfer to the Tribunal, in accordance with rules of court, so much of any proceedings before it as relates to a claim to which section 47A of the 1998 Act applies.
(5) Rules of court may make provision in connection with the transfer from the Tribunal to the High Court or the Court of Session of a claim made in proceedings under section 47A of the 1998 Act.
(6) In this section—"the court" means—

(a) the High Court or a county court; or

(b) the Court of Session or a sheriff court; and"infringement issue" means any question relating to whether or not an infringement of—

(a) the Chapter I prohibition or the Chapter II prohibition; or

(b) Article 81 or 82 of the Treaty,has been or is being committed;but otherwise any terms used in this section and Part 1 of the 1998 Act have the same meaning as they have in that Part."

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 7 and 209 to which the Commons have disagreed but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7A and 209A.
Amendment No. 7 would give the Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor a power to make regulations allowing the courts to transfer to the Competition Appeal Tribunal issues arising in civil proceedings that require a determination of whether there has been an infringement of competition law. This House debated the merits of providing a specific power in the Bill in Committee, on Report and again at Third Reading. My noble friend Lord McIntosh and I expressed the view that such a power was unnecessary and that the courts should and would be capable of building up the necessary expertise to determine competition law matters arising in civil proceedings.
However, we recognised the strong views expressed on the matter by noble Lords and by others in the competition law community that an explicit power should be provided in the Bill to allow regulations to be made allowing the courts to transfer competition law matters to the CAT.
On reflection, we now agree that an amendment along the lines of Amendment No. 7 would represent prudent future proofing and should be made. If the

545
proponents of the amendment are right and the courts are now not able to handle competition issues efficiently and effectively, then specific powers will be there to allow matters to be transferred. If the Government are right, the powers need never be used.
There are, however, some technical shortcomings with Amendment No. 7 as currently drafted. That is why we propose to replace it with Amendments Nos. 7A and 209A in lieu of Lords amendments. Perhaps I may highlight the main changes.
First, the redraft provides that the Lord Chancellor alone would exercise the power to make regulations rather than jointly with the Secretary of State. There is no particular significance to this change. It is simply more appropriate for the Lord Chancellor to have sole responsibility for this kind of matter in what is a reserved area. Secondly, the amendment in lieu refers not only to the regulation-making power, but also makes it clear that rules of court may be made in connection with a transfer. Thirdly, the amendment removes the power for the Lord Chancellor to appoint judges directly to the key positions on the CAT. I believe that it was widely accepted that this power was not needed. The power exists already in other legislation and is therefore unnecessary. To reinstate it here would cut across the policy of the Lord Chancellor's Department—a policy which is widely supported—that all appointments to tribunals should be by way of open competition.
Finally, the second amendment in lieu, Amendment No. 209A, makes a corresponding adjustment to the scope of the tribunal rules so that it may make provisions in connection with the transfer of proceedings from a court. Amendment No. 209, which was a government amendment, is superseded by the amendments in lieu. I believe that these amendments in lieu improve on the original amendment. That was certainly the view when they were debated in another place. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 7 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7A in lieu thereof.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for explaining the amendment in lieu. I accept entirely that, in some respects, it is an improvement on our own. In any case, it appears to me to reflect the intention of Lords Amendment No. 7. In those circumstances, for our part we are extremely happy to accept the noble Lord's proposal.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on proposing in the other place an amendment to replace the one passed at Third Reading in this House on the initiative of the Opposition parties.
At Third Reading, I expressed the belief that there was merit in the Opposition amendment enabling High Court judges to transfer cases to the Competition
546
Appeal Tribunal when the greater expertise of that body in competition law suggested that such transfer would be sensible.
No one expressed a desire at Third Reading, nor has anyone done so now, to compel such transfer, or even to compel the Government to introduce regulations to make such transfer possible. However, the Government clearly recognise that such power could be valuable, especially when—as the Liberal Democrats pointed out—following implementation of the so-called modernisation project that is likely in 2004, more civil cases will come from the European jurisdiction to the UK jurisdiction.
Government Amendment No. 7A is an improvement on the one passed by this House, in part because it leaves out the unnecessary power regarding the appointment of judges.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, we on these Benches are content with the amendment in lieu. We are grateful to the Minister for explaining the differences between the two. We support the government amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
20 Clause 22, page 12, line 4, leave out "£45 million" and insert "£100 million"
The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—
20A Line 1, leave out "£100 million" and insert "£70 million"
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 20 but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20A.
Amendment No. 20A replaces the £100 million turnover threshold for mergers with a figure of £70 million. This amends the change made in this House which replaced the Bill's original threshold of £45 million with a figure of £100 million.
The turnover threshold is one of two jurisdictional tests which make a merger eligible for investigation by the Office of Fair Trading. The other is where a merger would create or enhance the 25 per cent share of supply.
It is important to emphasise at the outset that these are eligibility thresholds only. If a merger involves the acquisition of a business with a UK turnover above the relevant threshold, the OFT is entitled to inquire into it. It does not mean that the merger will be referred or blocked. It simply means that the OFT can consider whether the merger raises sufficient competition concerns to justify a reference.
The great majority of qualifying mergers are not subject to any further action by the competition authorities, but it is important that they can be assessed. The purpose of the threshold is to strike a balance between excessive and necessary regulation. It should ensure that mergers of real concern are capable of examination while avoiding interference with cases of no material competition concern. Getting the levels right is necessarily a matter of judgment. The turnover

547
threshold replaces the existing assets threshold. There is wide support for that. Turnover is generally a more reliable indicator of the economic significance of a merger.
We have said all along that our goal in setting the level of the new threshold is to bring within the scope of the merger regime broadly the same number of companies as would currently qualify under the assets test were they to be involved in a merger. Our research indicated that a level of £45 million would have a neutral effect in this regard. However, we acknowledge that this is not an exact science and that the CBI has come up with different figures.
It is very difficult to achieve a direct comparison between a world-wide assets threshold and a UK turnover threshold. We are not comparing like with like. We also do not know whether companies that will be brought within the scope of the merger regime on the basis of turnover have a greater or lesser propensity to engage in merger activity than those caught by the assets threshold. This could affect the number of mergers that the OFT will be able to look at. We are conscious, too, that the assets threshold of £70 million has not been adjusted since 1994. Although we had no plans to do so, a review of that figure might have been appropriate before long.
We recognise that it would be unfortunate if the new regime unintentionally caught too many cases. In the light of these considerations and the arguments that have been made for a higher figure in this House and elsewhere, we now believe that it would be appropriate to set the turnover figure at £70 million. We believe that this would have a tangible deregulatory effect.
On the basis of the same database, moving to a £70 million threshold would result in a 31.5 per cent reduction in the number of companies that would meet the turnover test. We believe, none the less, that this is unlikely to undermine the pro-competition nature of the Bill to a significant degree.
The Bill, of course, provides powers for the Government to adjust the figure up or down if we have got it wrong. Clause 27(5) requires the OFT to keep the sum under review and to advise the Secretary of State from time to time whether the sum is still appropriate. If experience shows that a significant number of harmful anti-competitive mergers are escaping scrutiny altogether, the Government will have to reduce the threshold to an appropriate level. Conversely, the threshold could be raised if too many harmless mergers were brought within the scope of the regime. We shall need to keep the matter under review and to learn from experience.
I hope that the amendment to the Lords amendment will be acceptable. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 20 but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20A.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENTS
176 Clause 22, page 191, line 5, after "chairman," insert "a chief executive,"
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
176A Because it is inappropriate to make express provision about the chief executive of the Office of Fair Trading.
177 page 191, line 7, after "chairman" insert "and the chief executive"
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
177A Because it is inappropriate to make express provision about the chief executive of the Office of Fair Trading.
178 Page 191, line 10, after "chairman" insert ", the chief executive,"
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
178A Because it is inappropriate to make express provision about the chief executive of the Office of Fair Trading.
179 Page 191, line 12, after "chairman" insert ", the chief executive"
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
179A Because it is inappropriate to make express provision about the chief executive of the Office of Fair Trading.
180 Page 191, line 14, after "chairman" insert ", chief executive,"
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
180A Because it is inappropriate to make express provision about the chief executive of the Office of Fair Trading.
181 Page 191, line 16, after "chairman" insert ", chief executive"
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
181A Because it is inappropriate to make express provision about the chief executive of the Office of Fair Trading.
182 Page 191, line 21, after "chairman" insert ". chief executive"
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
182A Because it is inappropriate to make express provision about the chief executive of the Office of Fair Trading
183 Page 191, line 22, leave out "either" and insert "any"
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
183A Because it is inappropriate to make express provision about the chief executive of the Office of Fair Trading.
184 Page 191, line 23, after "chairman" insert ", chief executive"
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
184A Because it is inappropriate to make express provision about the chief executive of the Office of Fair Trading.
185 Page 191, line 29, after "chairman" insert ", chief executive,"
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
185A Because it is inappropriate to make express provision about the chief executive of the Office of Fair Trading.
186 Page 191, line 33, after "chairman" insert ", chief executive"
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
186A Because it is inappropriate to make express provision about the chief executive of the Office of Fair Trading.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 176 to 186 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 176A to 186A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 176 to 186 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 176A to 186A.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
Lord Hunt of Wirralrose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 176 to 186 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 176A to 186A, leave out "not".
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 176 to 186 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 176A to 186A, leave out "not".—(Lord Hunt of Wirral.)
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
209 Schedule 4, page 205, line 1, leave out from "provision" to ", in" in line 2 and insert "in connection with the transfer of a claim to which section 47A of the 1998 Act applies"
The Commons disagreed to this amendment, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
209A Page 205, line I. leave out paragraph 25 and inser—
"25 Tribunal rules may make provision in connection with the transfer of any proceedings from a court mentioned in paragraph 24 to the Tribunal under section (Transfers of certain proceedings to Tribunal)."
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 209 to which the Commons in their Amendment No. 209A in lieu thereof.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 209 to which the Commons have disagreed but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 209A in lieu thereof.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) (Elected Representatives)Order 2002
7.21 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthalrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th July be approved [38th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the draft order deals with a problem that was drawn to the Government's attention by Members of the other place. They are concerned that the Data Protection Act 1998 prevents them from carrying out their constituency functions properly. There are two related problems, which are different sides of the same coin. The first problem occurs where MPs taking up constituents' cases need to disclose the constituents'
550
personal data to, for example, a government department. If the constituents have not expressly authorised the MPs to disclose the constituents' personal data, the Act will normally require them to seek the constituents' explicit consent to the disclosure. The second problem is the mirror image of the first. It occurs where organisations, such as government departments, need to disclose individuals' personal data to MPs who are acting at the request of the individuals. Again, in most cases the individuals' explicit consent must be sought before the disclosure can be made.
It is important to recognise that the Data Protection Act does not have this effect in every case. As required by the 1995 EC Data Protection Directive, to which it gives effect, the Act distinguishes two categories of personal data: sensitive and non-sensitive. Sensitive personal data cover information about race, political opinions, religious beliefs, trade union membership, health, sex life and criminal activity. All other categories of personal data are regarded as non-sensitive for the purposes of the directive and the Act. The problems I have described arise only with sensitive personal data. But your Lordships should bear in mind that when any information, however trivial it may appear, falls into one of the categories of sensitive data, problems are likely to occur.
The Data Protection Act applies to personal information about individuals that is held in electronic form or on certain manual records. It is not the purpose of the Act to prevent the processing of personal data. Its purpose is, rather, to establish good practice rules with which those processing personal data must comply. I fear that the Act uses some technical terms. I should make clear that the term "processing" as used in the Act means doing anything at all with personal data, from collecting them right through to destroying them, including disclosing them and even merely holding them.
Consistent with the directive, one of the Act's requirements is that the processing of personal data must meet one of various general criteria if it is to go ahead. For non-sensitive data, these criteria pose no problems to MPs in dealing with constituency casework. But the Act sets narrower criteria for the processing of sensitive data. It is with these that problems arise. Among the criteria set out in the Act, and in an order already made under it, the only one that is likely to be relevant is that the individual has given his or her explicit consent to the processing.
Acting on the basis of explicit consent is a very strong safeguard for individuals. The best practice will normally be for elected representatives to seek consent. But there are circumstances in which it is neither necessary nor desirable to seek explicit consent. MPs and other elected representatives will be acting on the basis of requests from their constituents. Constituents will expect elected representatives to take the action necessary to deal with their requests. If they have written to their elected representatives asking them to take up a matter with the authorities, they are likely to be surprised and confused to find that the first action is a response from the elected representatives asking

551
them to confirm that they may disclose their sensitive personal data. Most will surely have thought they had already given the necessary consent by making a request in the first place.
A requirement of explicit consent may also be harmful to individuals' interests, particularly where urgent action is needed. In one case, which led to the preparation of this draft order, a prisoner asked his MP to find out why he could not be given temporary release to at tend his aunt's funeral. The prison refused to give the MP the information without the prisoner's explicit consent. By the time the consent had been obtained, the funeral had taken place. The draft order would overcome that problem by allowing Members of the other place and all other elected representatives to process sensitive data without having to seek their constituents' explicit consent. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th July be approved [38th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the order was welcomed by Members of all parties in the other place because it makes it easier for Members of Parliament and those of other elected bodies, such as the Scottish Parliament and local authorities, to help their constituents. It does not apply to your Lordships' House, which is entirely understandable, because it concerns elected representatives taking action on behalf of their electorate. This House is not elected; therefore, we do not represent anyone. We do not have regular casework.
There are circumstances in which it would be useful for this order to extend to your Lordships' House. For example, when we are dealing with issues raised by Bills such as the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, we may be contacted by individuals or organisations acting on behalf of individuals who tell us about their cases with a view to our making use of them in debates. I suspect that few Members of your Lordships' House—including myself, until today—were aware that, in doing so, we might be in breach of the Data Protection Act unless we get explicit consent from the data subject. We cannot rely on inferences. Have the Government considered extending this exemption, in any circumstances, to your Lordships' House? If so, why have they decided not to proceed? If, as I think is more likely, they have not considered extending the exemption, might they consider it, regardless of the outcome? We on these Benches will be happy to support this order here as we did in the other place.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, as happens so frequently, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has said what I wished to say. As a consequence of so speaking, he has rendered any further contribution by me wholly superfluous.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, any comments by the noble Lord will never be wholly superfluous.
552
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, the Government have considered the position of your Lordships' House. It was decided that this order should refer specifically to elected representatives, of which there are none in this House. We have yet to see whether that will remain the case in the long term. It is correct that the most important elements of the Data Protection Act are the principles that apply. Your Lordships may find that the distinction between sensitive and non-sensitive data is helpful. The majority of information that comes to Members of this House tends to fall into the latter category and not the former. I am sure that noble Lords have made judicious use of that distinction in the past.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Maximum Number of Judges Order 2002
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthalrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th October be approved [38th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order is made under Section 2(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1981. It raises the statutory ceiling for Lords Justices from 35 to 37. This ceiling was last increased, from 32 to 35, by the Maximum Number of Judges Order 1996. The purpose of raising the ceiling is to provide some flexibility to respond to changing workload patterns and increased pressures.
Due to changes in the type of cases coming to the Court of Appeal since the last increase there is a need for the court to sit 10 or 11 courts to deal with the workload. Over the past few years, it has had to make increasing use of High Court judges sitting in the Court of Appeal and of retired Court of Appeal judges in order to maintain these sittings. Both those practices offer positive benefits in moderation. However, they cannot go too far. The Government consider that it is now necessary to make a small addition to the permanent strength to give the court the flexibility to meet the demands on its time.
The most notable change in the workload of the Court of Appeal following the last increase has been in the complexity of the cases now being dealt with. As a result of the filter, provided by the Civil Procedure Rules' requirement to apply for permission to appeal, and the diversion of less complex appeals to the High Court since the passage of the Access to Justice Act 1999, the appeals dealt with in the Court of Appeal are of increasing legal complexity, requiring judges to spend more time in preparation and in writing judgments. So, while there has been a marked decrease in the number of county court appeals and interlocutory appeals coming to the Court of Appeal, High Court commercial appeals have more than doubled and appeals from the administrative court have gone up by more than 50 per cent. This change in the nature of the court's work is clearly evidenced by the steady increase over the last years in the percentage of appeals where judgment is reserved. Taking 1999 as

553
the base, appeals increased by 44 per cent for 2000, then went up 52 per cent during 2001 and 54 per cent in 2002.
In addition, while the total number of appeals filed shows a slight decrease of approximately 3 per cent in the past three years, the number of appeals settled by consent—cases that will not involve a substantive court hearing—has decreased by more than 20 per cent in the same period. Moreover, the number of applications for permission to appeal shows no sign of diminishing and continues to make serious demands on the time of the court.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor believes that increasing the capacity of the court by two further judges will provide the flexibility needed to make additional appointments if they are required. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th October be approved [38th Report from the Joint Committee]. (Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we have no objection to the increase in the number of Lords Justices. We have serious concerns about the way in which members of the Court of Appeal and other members of the judiciary are appointed. We have been pressing for a considerable time for the creation of a judicial appointments commission that will choose the judges and not just oversee the process of selecting them, as the present body does.
We are also concerned about the slow progress in the increase in the number of judges who are women and members of ethnic minorities. However, we had a chance to air those issues briefly on the Starred Question asked earlier today by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, so I shall not raise them further.
However, I have one brief point to raise. The Court of Appeal now sits wholly in London to hear appeals from the whole of England and Wales. We are now to have 37 members of the Court of Appeal, together, as I understand the figures, with 12 retired Lords Justices or Law Lords, who are available to sit up to half time. With those numbers available, sitting in 10 or 11 courts, I wonder whether the time is not shortly coming when we should seriously consider whether it would be possible to have one or two places outside London in which the Court of Appeal could sit permanently.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, as your Lordships are aware, Her Majesty's loyal Opposition do not entirely share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on a judicial appointments commission. However, I shall not dwell on that, as our views are already well known.
I have two brief observations about the order. We support the increase in the number of judges from 35 to 37; but in contemplating a further increase, as no doubt the Lord Chancellor's Department will have to do in years to come, will some analysis be made of the relative value of an increase in numbers as against an increase in the productivity of each judge?
554
I refer to the question of productivity in the context of two issues: first, the number and quality of research assistants available to each judge; and secondly, the quality of IT resources available to each judge. Next time the Lord Chancellor's Department is faced with pressures on the workload of the Court of Appeal, before it comes to your Lordships' House with a further request for an increase I hope it will do its sums on those two matters to see whether money is more usefully spent on improving the performance of each Court of Appeal judge, in terms of the volume of work satisfactorily produced, rather than simply adding to the number.
My second point relates to the criminal appeal work of the Court of Appeal. I pay tribute to the remarkable work done by Lord Justice Rose on criminal appeals. He has made an outstanding contribution to the work of the Court of Appeal and the development of criminal jurisprudence.
However—I hope this will not be seen as a criticism of the Court of Appeal's criminal work in general—its jurisprudence has flowed less mellifluously than the civil jurisprudence of the Court of Appeal. The reason is not hard to discern. The membership of the courts hearing criminal appeals tends to turn over rather more swiftly than the membership of courts hearing civil appeals. Hence, particularly on sentencing, we find the cases less easy to interpret in, for example, the Crown Court.
There is no easy solution. I recognise that the volume of work entailed in dealing with criminal appeals is often considerably greater than the volume of work entailed in civil appeals. However, in the allocation of resources between civil and criminal work, I hope that the noble Baroness will bear in mind that there may be a need for some readjustment of resources in the years to come.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course I shall bear in mind all that has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Kingsland.
I shall answer the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, first on regional sittings. The Lords Justices of Appeal do not just sit on appeals. They do many other worthwhile undertakings as well. For example, Lord Justice Auld was withdrawn from the work of the court for 18 months over the past two years to prepare his major report on the future of the criminal justice system. Such demands are vital in helping the Government's drive to improve the administration of justice and services in other areas. Additionally, Court of Appeal judges sit at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and fulfil commitments to the Judicial Studies Board, not to mention the great administrative duties required of the heads of division and other senior members of the court. These are not new requirements, but they obviously are a severe burden.
Your Lordships will be aware that we now have regional sittings of the High Court. We shall take the noble Lord's arguments into account, but I cannot promise him anything in that regard.

555
As for the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, on the productivity of judges, there is no question but that the productivity of the Lord Justices of Appeal is very fine indeed.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, that was certainly not my suggestion. I think that the Lord Justices of Appeal do a quite remarkable job in the circumstances in which they have to work, with almost no judicial assistance and a very uneven quality of IT equipment. I am suggesting that, when the cost of future appointments is considered, the Lord Chancellor's Department ought to set an increase in the number of judges against the potential increase in the productivity of each existing judge. I am not for a moment suggesting that the Lord Justices of Appeal are doing anything other than magnificently.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am most grateful for the noble Lord's clarification. I can
556
certainly reassure him that the need for IT equipment, and the need for training so that their Lordships can take advantage of that equipment, is very much at the forefront of the plans of the Lord Chancellor's Department. We shall continue to do all that we can to support the judges on that issue.
I join the applause from the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for Lord Justice Rose and his work on criminal appeals. I note what the noble Lord says about turnover and take all those comments into account. I also reiterate my endorsement of his evaluation of the high quality of the work done by the courts in this regard.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before eight o'clock.

  Crown Dependencies: Constitutional Changes
  Crown Dependencies: Constitutional Changes
  Declining Birth Rate
  Declining Birth Rate
  Women's Refuges
  Women's Refuges
  WTO Negotiations: State Services
  WTO Negotiations: State Services
  US Doctrine on Potential Aggressors
  US Doctrine on Potential Aggressors
  Terrorism and Governments Who Harbour Terrorists
  Terrorism and Governments Who Harbour Terrorists
  Detainees at Guantanamo Bay
  Detainees at Guantanamo Bay
  Middle East: Crown Prince Abdullah's Initiative
  Middle East: Crown Prince Abdullah's Initiative
  Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal
  Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal
  Discrimination on Grounds of Age: Cabinet Committee Responsibility
  Discrimination on Grounds of Age: Cabinet Committee Responsibility
  In vitro Fertilisation Incident
  In vitro Fertilisation Incident
  Medical Treatment: Consent of a Child Under 16
  Medical Treatment: Consent of a Child Under 16
  Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection and in vitro Fertilisation
  Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection and in vitro Fertilisation
  Surplus Donated Embryos
  Surplus Donated Embryos
  Fertility Treatment
  Fertility Treatment
  Morning-after Pill
  Morning-after Pill
  Medical Negligence Claims
  Medical Negligence Claims
  Organ Transplants
  Organ Transplants
  Renal Services
  Renal Services
  Primary Care Trust Patients' Forums
  Primary Care Trust Patients' Forums
  Salmonella: Import of Eggs
  Salmonella: Import of Eggs
  Acute Hospital Services
  Acute Hospital Services
  Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health
  Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health
  NHS: Information Technology
  NHS: Information Technology
  Dorset Ambulance NHS Trust
  Dorset Ambulance NHS Trust
  Overseas Treatment Pilot
  Overseas Treatment Pilot
  Independent Healthcare Providers
  Independent Healthcare Providers
  NHS Management
  NHS Management
  Health Select Committee Report: Delayed Discharges
  Health Select Committee Report: Delayed Discharges
  Clandestine Entrants to the UK
  Clandestine Entrants to the UK
  Commission for Racial Equality
  Commission for Racial Equality
  Oakington Reception Centre
  Oakington Reception Centre
  Asylum Detainees: Pregnant Women
  Asylum Detainees: Pregnant Women
  Leave to Remain in the UK: Application Forms
  Leave to Remain in the UK: Application Forms
  Gulf War Veterans
  Gulf War Veterans
  ISAF
  ISAF
  Footpaths
  Footpaths
  Urban Foxes
  Urban Foxes
  Defra: IT Delivery Service
  Defra: IT Delivery Service
  Public Spaces
  Public Spaces
  Rural Payments Agency Annual Report
  Rural Payments Agency Annual Report
  Sudan
  Sudan
  Intra-state Conflict
  Intra-state Conflict
  Ivory Coast
  Ivory Coast
  Islamabad: High Commission Visa Services
  Islamabad: High Commission Visa Services
  Taiwan
  Taiwan
  Pakistan: Human Rights
  Pakistan: Human Rights
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Sudan: Radar System
  Sudan: Radar System
  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Women, Peace and Security: SCR 1325
  Women, Peace and Security: SCR 1325
  Broadband
  Broadband
  Cyber Crime: Computer Viruses
  Cyber Crime: Computer Viruses
  IT Security
  IT Security
  Age Discrimination
  Age Discrimination