Sitting of 6 November 2002

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

    Democratic Republic of the Congo
    Mr. Tom Clarke: If she will make a statement on the peace process and humanitarian efforts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [77692]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The Democratic Republic of the Congo is a highly indebted poor country. Levels of poverty are terrible, and the humanitarian situation in the east is particularly serious. The Congo needs peace and a legitimate Government, which could lead to debt relief and development.
    The United Kingdom has strongly supported the Lusaka peace accords, and applauds the recent engagement of South Africa in helping to drive forward the peace process. Angola, Uganda, Rwanda and Zimbabwe have withdrawn their troops from the Congo. Progress is now being held up by delays in the forming of a transitional Government incorporating all factions. There is a danger that fighting in the east will escalate as negative forces based in Congo seek to invade and destabilise Rwanda and Burundi. The United Kingdom is intensely engaged in trying to drive the peace process forward. We have provided £5 million of humanitarian aid so far this year, and will do more.
    Mr. Clarke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who participated in the recent Inter-Parliamentary Union visit to Rwanda returned feeling gravely concerned about the escalation of genocide in an already troubled region? Does she agree that if the Kinshasa Government fail to speed the process, at a time when urgency is absolutely necessary, the situation will deteriorate further and quite needlessly?
    Clare Short: I agree. The region has been terribly troubled. The history of Burundi and Rwanda, in which there have been outbreaks of genocide or killing since independence—if it can be called that—is really terrible, and the international community has neglected the region.
    266
    As I said in my answer, there is worry about a vacuum following the withdrawal of Rwanda. It is feared that that will lead to genocidal forces seeking to invade Rwanda and Burundi, and an escalation in the killing. My hon. Friend is right: we need the Kinshasa Government to agree with the United Nations, form a transitional Government and secure order throughout the country with a strengthened UN presence. The hold-up is in Kinshasa, which must be pressed to do more.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: I thank the Secretary of State for all that she is doing in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Does she agree that this is a classic example of a country, rich in natural resources, that could create prosperity for its own citizens but, because of bad governance and conflict, has done the opposite? I know that she will do this anyway, but may I encourage her to maintain her close interest in the country? Will she also assure us that she will make good governance a high priority for her Department? In establishing good governance in so many emerging nations, are we not taking the most important step towards giving them prosperity?
    Clare Short: That is true, especially in the case of Africa. Some of the countries with the richest natural resources are the most blighted. Those resources have been misused in the colonial era and since by people who wanted the diamonds and the minerals and did not care about the conditions of the people. The Congo has been misgoverned for those reasons since King Leopold of the Belgians.
    I also agree that good governance is essential, but the hon. Gentleman will remember our Front-Bench exchanges. If we are to build up powerful and effective Government institutions, we need not to fund projects outside Government but to get inside Government systems. What we need are courts that work, finance ministries, and revenue authorities that are transparent, and we have shifted our focus in that direction. Once we have peace in the Congo, it will be an enormous job to build up Government institutions that are now completely lacking.
    Ms Oona King: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the first recommendation of the all-party group's report, which will be published tomorrow? It asks other countries in the region, and those beyond it, to recognise the serious security concerns of Rwanda and the people of the DRC.
    Will my right hon. Friend consider helping the Government of the DRC—the Kinshasa Government—to set up a civilian police force to give some protection to people in the eastern part of the Congo, where 2.5 million people have died since 1998 as a direct and indirect result of the conflict?
    Clare Short: I look forward to reading the all-party group's report, and I agree with my hon. Friend. The Congo is as big as western Europe and full of rich natural resources, but it has no Government institutions and no order. All sorts of militias are being armed by different factions, and there is terrible suffering for the people, especially in the east.

    267
    I have had talks with President Kabila of the Congo to suggest that the UK and France might work with him and the new transitional Government to help establish a proper army. I think that the Kinshasa Government have used some of the militias because they did not have an army that functioned. Then we need to get on with establishing a police force.
    I agree with my hon. Friend's diagnosis, but establishing a transitional Government and strengthening the UN are the first two steps we must take. We must then create a proper national army.

    Afghanistan
    Mr. Hugo Swire: If she will make a statement on the progress with restructuring Afghanistan. [77693]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Much has been achieved in Afghanistan over the last 10 months. There is peace and security in Kabul, a legitimate transitional Government and a new national currency. Nearly 2 million refugees have returned home, and 3 million children are in school. The situation, however, remains very fragile. Afghanistan is a desperately poor country. The south is facing its fifth year of drought, and more than 4 million people are still dependent on food aid. The situation outside Kabul remains insecure. Warlords control large militias, and large parts of the economy depend on narcotics.
    Further progress requires the establishment of security outside Kabul, and an increase in the Government's capacity to deliver services across the country. The UK will remain engaged to support continuing progress and development.
    Mr. Swire: Given the failure to combat the continuing oppression and intimidation against poor farmers by regional warlords operating outside the control of the Afghan interim Government and the resulting eighteenfold increase in opium production since the removal of the Taliban, can the Secretary of State reassure the House that combating opium production in Afghanistan remains a priority of this Government? If it does, when can we expect to see the rhetoric matched by resources?
    Clare Short: I must say that I find it very unappetising that the hon. Gentleman is trying to play games with the fate of a country such as Afghanistan that is trying to—[Interruption.] No. I really disrespect the hon. Gentleman's tone and his question. The situation in Afghanistan is very serious for its people and the future stability of the region. Security in Kabul is very important. We are about to move to agreement on the formation of a national army. That will mean the warlords having to dismantle their militias in favour of DDR—disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration. There was a massive cut in drugs production because of an eradication programme led by the United Kingdom in the first year after the fall of the Taliban, so the hon. Gentleman is also factually wrong—[Interruption.] I do not know why he is becoming hysterical. I have just come back from Afghanistan and I think that I know rather more about it than he does. As we saw in Colombia, a country
    268
    cannot be prevented from producing drugs if there is no order, no justice or national security. Establishing that is the next stage and that is what we will be doing.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: May I tell my hon. Friends that I was in Iran last week with a group of parliamentarians and met some of the 2.2 million Afghan refugees, some of whom have been in that country for more than a decade? The very strong message that they gave us was that they need more reassurance that if they return to Afghanistan they will be able to enjoy a secure environment. May I urge my right hon. Friend to press her colleagues in the international community to deliver the funding and the help that is needed to establish that security as soon as possible and to maintain that support over a long period so that refugees can return and rebuild their lives?
    Clare Short: As I said earlier, 2 million refugees have returned from Pakistan, but there are more than 2 million in Iran and fewer have returned from Iran. I completely agree that, having secured the capital, which is a great achievement—Kabul is bustling with business; there are even traffic jams and little girls going to school—the same security is now needed outside Kabul. I think that we are on the brink of agreement, led by President Karzai, with the US, the UK and Japan involved, with the warlords on a process of forming a national army and disarming the militias. That will be a big process, but it is crucial to security and includes the establishment of regional security teams in the big cities outside Kabul. We will soon move forward to extending security outside Kabul and that is key to economic development. We are about to move to the second phase, which is urgently needed.
    Mr. James Arbuthnot: Does the right hon. Lady agree that one way in which the drugs trade in Pakistan was reduced was by the building of roads to remote areas so that otherwise marginal crops became more valuable and could displace the drugs trade? What progress is being made towards building roads to the remote areas of Afghanistan?
    Clare Short: I do not think that building roads will by itself reduce the drugs trade; indeed, it could assist it. What is needed is security and—I agree with the implication of the right hon. Gentleman's question—alternative legitimate livelihoods so that people can grow a crop, get it to market and have a legitimate life that draws them away from what is often the only crop they can grow—poppies funded by warlords. Afghanistan needs security and then more roads. There are commitments to more main roads across Afghanistan. I agree with his diagnosis and I am happy to say that we are about to move to that stage.
    Geraint Davies: A kilo of opium costs $30 in Afghanistan, $600 in Tehran and $4,000 on the streets of Britain. The Iranian authorities have deployed 42,000 soldiers and police to fight traffickers. Thousands have been killed by an army of people who often have superior equipment, such as ground-to-air missiles and night-sighted rifles. When will the British

    269
    Government give some front-line support to the fight against traffickers as well as encouraging alternative agricultural production in Afghanistan?
    Clare Short: Given my hon. Friend's knowledge of prices, I am surprised that he does not know that we have been heavily engaged in supporting the building of intelligence units. Groups in Afghanistan have the capacity to destroy laboratories and stocks, but that will not work without creating a secure country. Afghanistan became a narcotics-growing paradise because it is a completely failed state without any justice. It is run by corruption—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I urge hon. Members to give the Secretary of State the opportunity to reply to the House. Such noise is bad manners.
    Clare Short: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    My hon. Friend is right to say that there must be interdiction, but justice, security and the chance of a decent alternative life are also necessary, and we are working on all those things.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: On Monday, the Secretary of State for Defence said that it was too early to say what provisions would be made for security in Afghanistan after the expiry of United Nations authorisation for international peacekeeping on 20 December. However, the Secretary of State for International Development has just said that we will remain so engaged. Does that commitment bind her right hon. Friend, and when will she make a statement to the House?
    Clare Short: I am afraid that the hon. Lady is muddling two things. The international security assistance force, which is securing Kabul, is currently led by the Turks. International negotiations are taking place about who will lead the next phase of the force. The second issue that is being discussed is bringing security to the cities outside Kabul. It is not suggested that that will be done by ISAF, but agreement is imminent. The United States will take the lead in most places, and the United Kingdom will engage. However, that issue is not connected with the future of ISAF.

    Sanitation
    Mr. David Chaytor: What plans she has to contribute to the achievement of the 2015 target for access to sanitation. [77694]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Ms Sally Keeble): My Department worked very hard to get international agreement to the sanitation target, and we are now working to achieve the target through partner countries' strategies for poverty reduction. More than half the world's population have no access to sanitation—a situation that contributes directly to diseases that kill more than 2 million children every year. My
    270
    Department's bilateral spending on sanitation, hygiene promotion and clean water has risen from £84.3 million in 1999–2000 to £87.2 million this year.
    Mr. Chaytor: Does my hon. Friend agree that action on sanitation has to be seen in the context of the other millennium targets on poverty reduction, water and energy? Following the sustainable development summit in Johannesburg in September, is she more optimistic that these targets will be achieved, or less optimistic?
    Ms Keeble: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that those targets fit together as a package, and we are achieving more success with some of them than with others. The targets relating to child health and maternal health are probably the most difficult to meet, and sub-Saharan Africa presents more difficulties than other parts of the world. However, we are very confident, and we are working carefully towards achieving the target on sanitation and access to clean water.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: [Interruption.] In welcoming the commitment to provide proper sanitation for 800 million of the world's poorest people, will the Minister admit that, unfortunately, that was one of relatively few specific commitments agreed to at the Johannesburg world summit on sustainable development? Will she have a word with her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development to ask the Leader of the House to do all that he can to provide at the earliest opportunity in the new Session a debate on that summit, which was one of the most important ever?
    Ms Keeble: I am not sure what the reason was for the congratulations offered to the hon. Gentleman at the beginning of his question. As he is an engineer, he will know a great deal about the provision of water—[Interruption.] Okay, he is a building engineer.
    Michael Fabricant: I am an engineer.
    Ms Keeble: I am delighted to hear that. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) knows a great deal about the provision of water and sanitation. Our assessment of the world summit on sustainable development was that it was a great success. The commitment to which he refers was a key one, and it will contribute to improving the health of, and saving the lives of, 2 million children a year—a very substantial achievement. On his other comments, my right hon. Friend has doubtless heard them and will take note of them.
    Ms Julia Drown: Does my hon. Friend accept that debt relief is one of the most effective ways of poor countries reaching the millennium development goals for sanitation? Is she urging her counterparts in other countries and, most importantly, the multinational institutions to match at least the Government's record on debt relief? In particular, does not she think that a list of shame of those countries that

    271
    are not playing their part to ensure that the world's poorest counties reach the millennium development goals in sanitation and other areas should be produced?
    Ms Keeble: I certainly agree that the Government have led the world in the initiative on debt relief and that it is important that other countries fulfil their commitments, too, but, in addition to the spending on sanitation and water infrastructure, it is also important that we have proper management, regulation and educational programmes so that we can achieve the millennium development goal that has been set. My Department has also led the world in the financial commitments and in working with partner Governments to ensure that we achieve that goal.
    Mr. Robert Key: We strongly support the Secretary of State's commitment to reducing by half the number of people in the world without sanitation, but it is most disappointing to hear that there will be only a couple of million pounds extra in the aid budget. Can we really see no more commitment than that? After all, the Johannesburg summit cost £33 million, but all we get is £2 million.
    Ms Keeble: The amount of money that I mentioned was only for the bilateral programme. I did not include, because it cannot completely set out, the amount of money that we spend through the country programme, to which I also referred, and the substantial amount of money that goes through the multilateral programme. We are leading the way in terms of the amount of money and the technical assistance that we provide, as well as the work that we are doing to ensure that not only is the infrastructure provided, but the management, regulation and education that goes with it. We are making a major contribution towards saving 2 million children a year.

    Famine (Southern Africa)
    Mr. Iain Luke: If she will make a statement on the food crisis in southern Africa. [77695]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): In southern Africa, the number in need of food and other urgent humanitarian assistance is growing and will reach 14 million by March next year. The United Nations appeal is only 40 per cent. funded. The United Kingdom is the second largest donor after the United States. I am working to encourage my colleagues in other countries to increase their commitment. This is a very complex crisis. The drought is badly exacerbated by weaknesses in governance and economic management in Zambia and Malawi and by gross misgovernment in Zimbabwe. Levels of HIV/AIDS infection have weakened populations now facing serious malnourishment. The international community has not yet responded adequately to the crisis, and it is likely to escalate badly. I fear that we will see a terrible catastrophe.
    Mr. Luke: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I, like her, have been involved in discussions with non-governmental organisations and have taken part in debates on the unfolding human tragedy in
    272
    southern Africa. I am well aware of the role played by the political leaders of countries such as Zimbabwe and Malawi in adding to the enormity of the famine being faced there. Does she agree, however, that the international community should not use the Government of Mugabe or Muluzi as an excuse to walk away from the peoples of Zimbabwe, Malawi and the southern Africa region?
    Clare Short: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend, and the situation is very worrying. For such a serious crisis, to have only 40 per cent. funding for the UN appeal is very unusual. My guess is that that is because of the reputation of President Mugabe, but the people of Zimbabwe are the victims of President Mugabe, and the international community must not turn its back. One in three Zimbabweans are affected by HIV/AIDS. If those people do not get food and emergency health supplies, there will be catastrophic human suffering. The international community must not turn its back. Unappetising as President Mugabe is, the people deserve our support.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park): The Secretary of State accepts that a major factor in the impending famine in southern Africa is Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Food aid for his people is being diverted to supporters of ZANU-PF. Given that fact, and reports of trouble in Matabeleland, what is the right hon. Lady's view of the US proposals, recently reported in the Washington Times, to deliver food directly to the people of Zimbabwe and, if necessary, to effect regime change in that country?
    Clare Short: There is no doubt that the situation is very difficult. The Government of Zimbabwe are attempting to control which NGOs can work, and their diversion of some food for political reasons makes the problem more complex. The Government, the UN and the whole international community are standing together to resist that. However, we must stay engaged, or vast numbers of people will lose their lives.
    I saw Andrew Natsios, the head of USAID, fairly recently, but I am not aware of any plan to provide food aid in a way that will bring down the Mugabe regime. Keeping people fed and giving them health care is a complex enough problem, and we must focus on that. My hunch is that the disaster will bring down the Mugabe regime, after which there will be an enormous job of reconstruction to do.
    Mrs Caroline Spelman: Does the Secretary of State accept that we also must bear some responsibility for the famine in southern Africa, as our system of subsidised agriculture distorts world markets and prevents African farmers from securing a sustainable livelihood? I remind the Secretary of State that yesterday she said that failure to reform the European common agricultural policy would mean the end of the Doha agreement. Is not that meaningless in light of the Prime Minister's rebuff at the European summit last week?
    Clare Short: The hon. Lady is trying, but I am sorry to say that she is getting things slightly wrong. What happened at the European summit was that France had

    273
    agreed that there should be no increased spending on the CAP when the EU is enlarged. That is good, as far as it goes. Keeping the CAP going and spending more and more would be a disaster. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister caused some irritation, we are told, because he stood up at the summit and insisted that the EU adhere to the commitments made at Doha. That requires progress on the mid-term review of the CAP.
    Mr. Bill Olner: May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that she perhaps ought to revisit the question of food aid in Zimbabwe? There is evidence that food is being denied to people who are not members of ZANU-PF. If that is happening, it is a form of genocide. We will be judged very harshly if we sit back and do nothing and do not question the people in control in Zimbabwe.
    Clare Short: I assure my hon. Friend that we are not sitting back and doing nothing. As I have said, the UK is the second-biggest donor to the emergency fund, and our emergency team has some of the best experts in the world working in the region. We are doing everything that we can to work around a bad Government, to keep people fed and to prevent the abuse of food aid.
    By and large, we are succeeding. The regime is attempting to misuse food aid, but we must keep working so that the regime will not prevent those who did not vote for it from receiving any assistance at all. We cannot allow that to happen.

    Ethiopia
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: If the Secretary of State for International Development will make a statement on the development aid that she is providing to Ethiopia.
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Ethiopia has a population of 67 million people and is one of the poorest countries in the world, with gross domestic product at only $100 per head. We are now building up a development partnership with Ethiopia, which has been delayed by the war with Eritrea. We intend to support Ethiopia's poverty reduction strategy, which provides a strong basis for partnership and dialogue. The Ethiopian Government are showing a strong commitment to poverty reduction, and we plan to expand our programme of assistance significantly over the next few years.
    However, Ethiopia has a history of highly centralised Government, human rights abuse and continued reliance on food aid. The Government are committed to reform and democratisation, but the reform effort will be difficult and will require sustained support.
    Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that response. However, she will be aware that the war with Eritrea has been over for some while now and the Government in Ethiopia are showing a commitment to democracy and reform. Ethiopia is anxious to know exactly how the Government will help with the poverty reduction strategy and when the Department for International Development expects to implement the
    274
    country plan. I am to visit Ethiopia in December and I know that its Government are very anxious to learn in detail how we may be able to help them.
    Clare Short: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the war has been over for such a long time. We had plans to expand our programme in Ethiopia that were delayed by the war, which we also tried to avoid. Nearly 100,000 young men lost their lives and the economies of both countries were damaged in a war over a barren piece of land. That was a tragedy for the people of both countries. We are in detailed discussion with the Ethiopia Government and have advanced plans. They will be published very shortly, and I will make sure that a copy is sent to the hon. Gentleman.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mark Tami: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 6 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
    Mark Tami: Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm the need for a United Nations resolution to secure the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq? What progress has been made to this end and, if progress has been made, as press reports indicate, when can we expect their return?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that at 3.30 today a United Nations resolution will be tabled in the Security Council. I spoke to President Bush about this a few moments ago. I pay tribute to the Foreign Secretary and the United Nations team who have worked so hard to secure this resolution. I hope very much that it is passed and has support. It will be a tough new inspection regime; it will be free from the problems of the past and it will make it very clear that there must be complete and total disarmament in Iraq of weapons of mass destruction—chemical, biological and nuclear—and that if not, action will follow. However, it is not conflict that is inevitable, but the disarmament of those weapons of mass destruction. The best and surest way to avoid conflict is for Iraq to comply with the will of the United Nations, to let the inspectors back in and to have the disarmament process begin.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I join the Prime Minister in welcoming any such resolution that will deliver peace in that region and also the full disarmament of Iraq.

    275
    Will the Prime Minister now rule out legislation in this Parliament for top-up fees—yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: I have made it clear that we shall abide by our manifesto commitment.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister did not answer the question. I specifically asked him if he would rule out legislating in this Parliament for top-up fees. Will he, yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: I have just told the right hon. Gentleman that we will abide completely by the manifesto commitment that we gave. As for the proposals that the Government come up with, I am afraid that he will have to await the outcome of the review.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Before the last election, the Prime Minister said:
    "We will not introduce 'top-up' fees".
    The Prime Minister's answer today indicates clearly to students up and down the country that, because he will not rule out legislation in this Parliament, he will introduce top-up fees costing them thousands of pounds. How can any family believe a word that he ever says?
    The Prime Minister: They can believe it precisely because the language that we used in the manifesto is language that I am happy to repeat now. Before the right hon. Gentleman accuses us of any particular course of action, I suggest that he awaits the outcome of the review, when he may find that some of his strictures are unjustified.
    Mr. Graham Allen: The Prime Minister and other party leaders in this place will represent us and the nation on Remembrance day on Sunday. Will my right hon. Friend take a few minutes before Sunday to review the handful of cases that Members on both sides of the House have on war veterans, most of whom are now in their 80s—some from the Enigma project, the Arctic convoys, Suez and other campaigns. They are still denied the medals and the recognition that they morally deserve because the Ministry of Defence has a mean-minded, pettifogging interpretation of the rules and regulations, some of which are half a century old. Will my right hon. Friend, in the spirit of remembrance, use his power to cleave through that bureaucracy and give those elderly men and women the recognition they deserve, while they are still with us?
    The Prime Minister: First, I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to all those who made such sacrifices during both world wars so that this nation could remain a free and democratic country. He will know that the policy on that has been the policy of successive Governments over a long period. He will know too that we have done a great deal as a Government to improve the position of veterans and their dependants. Of course, we will keep those issues under review. I have heard what my hon. Friend has said—I am sure that the
    276
    Ministry of Defence has too—but must come back to him later as I cannot give him the assurance that he wants today.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Given the proper priority, which the Government continue to claim to give, to the protection of vulnerable people in care in our society, will the Prime Minister explain why 300,000 people providing that care have had their Criminal Records Bureau background checks abandoned indefinitely?
    The Prime Minister: We are trying to focus on those who may have implications for the most vulnerable in our society. It is important to realise that the Criminal Records Bureau is handling far more cases than ever before, and we should concentrate on people in the categories where there may be the most risk. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would agree with that.
    Mr. Kennedy: Surely the thousands of families who have vulnerable relatives in precisely that position of care deserve better reassurance from the Prime Minister? Can he therefore give us a commitment or a time scale? When will those checks be resumed and, most importantly, when will they be completed?
    The Prime Minister: We will do the necessary checks as soon as possible, but we have withdrawn certain categories because we believe that it is important to concentrate on those categories of people where there may be the greatest risk. Incidentally, may I tell the Liberal Democrats that I have no doubt that if we did not take a more flexible and sensible attitude, the right hon. Gentleman would be up on his feet accusing us of unnecessary bureaucracy.
    Vera Baird: After the trial of David Shayler, which ended yesterday at the Old Bailey, will my right hon. Friend consider whether a public interest defence ought to be available to somebody who discloses unlawful conduct by the security services? I am making no comment about Shayler's case, but would not a carefully drafted public interest defence offer a sensible extra means of control over the intelligence community and, at the same time, give protection to people of conscience by allowing a jury to assess whether on the whole the public has been benefited or harmed by disclosure?
    The Prime Minister: With respect to my hon. and learned Friend, I am afraid that I do not agree. It is right that people who work for our security services undertake certain obligations of confidentiality. There is really no way in which we can protect our country otherwise. In these troubled times, it must be clear to people—I will not comment on the individual case—that if they work for the British security services they

    277
    must abide by their conditions of employment and confidentiality. If they do not, I am afraid they will face the full force of the law.
    Mr. John Taylor: The Prime Minister has suspended Stormont. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland says that next May's elections will take place—to what?
    The Prime Minister: The elections are for the Assembly, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I very much hope, however, that we can get the process up and running again. The Executive has been suspended because, I am afraid, we do not have the proper consent to run it at the moment. I very much hope, however, that we can get to a position in which the peace process is up and running again, as frankly that is the only way forward for people in Northern Ireland.
    David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there are legitimate questions to be asked about the case that collapsed last Friday? Why was it started in the first place? Were the Law Officers consulted about the prosecution, and why, apparently, were public interest immunity certificates applied for to the judge? Was it considered that the evidence of the person concerned would be harmful to the state? There should be a statement. There seems to be a lot of mystery about the matter and it should be cleared up.
    The Prime Minister: I think that I am right in saying that public interest immunity certificates did not arise in this case, but I do not really have anything to add to what I said on Monday. Obviously, as I said then, the Crown Prosecution Service will want to learn the lessons of the case that has collapsed in those circumstances, but I do not see any reason for changing our constitutional conventions or precedents.
    Richard Younger-Ross: Does the Prime Minister recall that on 16 July he was presented with a petition, highlighting the fact that Devon schoolchildren are worth £195 a year less of standard spending assessment than the national average? On receiving that petition the Prime Minister told head teacher Helen Nicholls:
    "I will come back to you as soon as I possibly can with a detailed response."
    Can the Prime Minister say when she will receive that response and will he now guarantee that the funding gap between Devon schoolchildren and those in the rest of the country will be closed?
    The Prime Minister: We will announce the outcome of the review of local government funding in early December, as the hon. Gentleman knows. That is when the response will be. When I met people from his constituency and from the county of Devon, they made extremely reasonable points, but I pointed out that reforming the system of local government finance was difficult. I understand their concerns, but I know that he will agree that Devon's education standard spending assessment has increased by nearly £60 million during the past few years. That is an average increase of almost 6 per cent. a year. I understand the issue about the gap,
    278
    but it is worth pointing out that everybody in every part of the country has benefited from the record investment in education.
    Ann McKechin: Does the Prime Minister agree with me and the many constituents who have contacted me this month that it is time that the Government introduced even tougher regulations on the sale of fireworks and, in particular, that they permit the licensing of shops that sell them, in order to control the dangerous and irresponsible behaviour that blights so many in our communities and causes so much distress?
    The Prime Minister: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have similar concerns. My hon. Friend will know that, earlier this month, a number of measures were announced by the Department of Trade and Industry to cut the number of firework injuries. They included such things as a crackdown on illegal markets in fireworks and the use of fixed penalty notices, which are being piloted at present and, hopefully, will be rolled out across the country. We have also launched a national safety campaign.
    We keep the rest of the law under close review. Obviously, we need to balance people's desire for safety and for dealing with the antisocial behaviour aspects with the need not to be overly bureaucratic or regulatory. We are looking at the matter and we keep it under constant review, but I understand my hon. Friend's concern.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: Is the Prime Minister aware that in Plymouth and in various parts of the country waiting times for a heroin addict voluntarily to access detox treatment can he well over six months? Given police estimates that 80 per cent. of all acquisitive crime is drug-related and bearing in mind the misery and concern for the addict, for families and for victims, will the Prime Minister take another urgent look at this matter and, if necessary, redirect resources so that any person who takes the brave decision to kick the habit has immediate access to treatment?
    The Prime Minister: The point that the hon. Gentleman raises is right. We are doing two things about it. First, we have established the national treatment agency to try to ensure that what is available in certain parts of the country is available in all parts. Secondly, we are putting hundreds of millions of pounds extra—that is being rolled out over the next few years—into treatment for drug addicts. The hon. Gentleman is right: it is essential. Although we may be able to do this only in the highest crime areas to begin with, I want to reach a situation where people are tested for drugs when arrested; if they are tested and found positive, they should be given the opportunity to have treatment quickly; but if they refuse that treatment, it should be taken into account when considering their bail or their

    279
    prison sentence, for example, if they are convicted. I entirely agree that the issue is urgent, but we are working on it.
    Chris Ruane: Has the Prime Minister had the chance to read my speech in a recent Adjournment debate on antisocial behaviour? What measures does he intend to take to ensure that the polices that we are introducing to tackle antisocial behaviour—such as antisocial behaviour orders, antisocial behaviour contracts, parenting orders, stricter tenancy agreements and on-the-spot fines—are being implemented on the ground by crime and disorder partnerships in the UK?
    The Prime Minister: I have not read the speech—[Interruption]. I have not read the speech yet. From what my hon. Friend says—if that was a summary of it—I entirely agree with him. There will be a series of measures on antisocial behaviour. Antisocial behaviour orders have been successful where introduced, but they have been too difficult to introduce. Therefore, we are looking at a series of reforms to make them easier to get, to implement and to enforce.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will the Prime Minister abide by the result of the referendum in Gibraltar tomorrow?
    The Prime Minister: More than that, we have made it absolutely clear that there can be no change in the constitutional position of the people of Gibraltar without their consent. At the moment, there are no proposals on the table. We know what the referendum result will be—[Interruption.] We know because it is very clear. In the end, people in Gibraltar should realise that there will be and can be no change—it is not merely a question of proposals that we come up with now—without their express consent.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister said in this House that he would
    "never consent to any arrangement that goes against the freely expressed wishes of the people of Gibraltar." [Official Report, 16 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 388.]
    Tomorrow, they are going freely to express their wishes. Why will not the Prime Minister stand by the result?
    The Prime Minister: I have just made that clear, and I entirely concur with the statement that he quoted earlier. It is for that reason that I say again that there can be no change to the constitutional position of the people of Gibraltar without their consent. I said what I did about the referendum because there are no proposals on the table. However, let me make it clear to him that the process that we began of discussion with Spain and with people in Gibraltar—a process that began under the last Conservative Government; that is why it is the sheerest hypocrisy for the Conservatives to oppose it now—is right because it is in the interests of people in Britain, in Spain and in Gibraltar. But as I repeated a moment or two ago, it is their free expression of will that has to count.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The people of Gibraltar do not want the Prime Minister's grubby deal. I remind him that the international observers at tomorrow's
    280
    referendum are led by his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who said that this House should
    "not accept the sell-out of Gibraltar by a Labour Government." [Official Report, 12 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 1174.]
    Should not the Prime Minister now bury this shameful deal, respect the referendum and stand up for the people of Gibraltar?
    The Prime Minister: First, if I were the right hon. Gentleman I would not go against grubby deals too much. He may have need of a few of them, I think. Secondly, this is not a grubby deal. We have not actually tabled proposals. However, we have continued—in my view, absolutely rightly—the process that began under the last Conservative Government. We continued it because I happen to believe that it is in the interests of the people of Spain, of Britain and of Gibraltar. Having said that, the one thing that is abundantly clear—I have said it throughout and I repeat it now—is that there can be no change in the constitutional position of the people of Gibraltar without their express consent. I should have thought that that was clear enough, even for the right hon. Gentleman.
    Caroline Flint: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the BBC "Great Britons" poll, and to the number of scientists and inventors nominated? Those people not only contributed to the wealth of the UK but created many jobs for others. Bearing in mind that Doncaster does not have a university yet, and many young people do not see the relevance of science to their future job prospects, how can he ensure that, in future polls, we will still see the importance of science and that it will help to contribute to more jobs in south Yorkshire?
    The Prime Minister: A huge amount of additional resources will go into science over the next few years—about £2 billion. Not only is that more than under the last Conservative Government, but it is investment to which the Conservatives are opposed, as they are opposed to the additional investment in education. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of teaching science in schools. That is one of the reasons why we are not just putting more resources in but allowing specialist schools to develop, particularly in relation to science and technology. That, together with the other policies that the Government are pursuing in science, gives us the best chance of repeating in the future some of the huge successes of British science in the past.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Prime Minister has acknowledged in a recent response that the drugs rehabilitation question is urgent. May I urge on him the need to look again at resources, and particularly at a simple change in current tactics? All drugs money confiscated should be ring-fenced to go into rehabilitation, as there is dire need—at this moment, there are fewer than 40 rehabilitation places available throughout the whole of Wales.
    The Prime Minister: We do need to make sure that there are more rehabilitation places. However, a vast amount of additional resources is going into drug

    281
    treatment, and additional money is going into drug treatment in prison, as that is important, too. Many of the people in prison are drug addicts and desperately need help. I concur with what the hon. Gentleman says, but we are trying to roll out increasingly well-targeted programmes to make sure that people who are on drugs get the chance to go straight—if they do not do so, it is important that we use the force of the law against them.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is unfair that clergy and ministers of religion have no employment rights, and no redress against unfair dismissal? Can I tell the House about my constituent Paul McNab, who was dismissed from the Salvation Army when he was sick without any medical examination. His wife also lost her job in the Salvation Army, and they have no redress to anti-discrimination legislation whatever. Will he extend employment rights to all ministers of religion in all faiths and denominations, so that they have the same rights as all other occupations?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend may know that we are currently conducting a review into the extension of employment rights to give job protection to people who are particularly at risk in certain walks of life. As part of that, we are looking at the issue of those who are employed by religious faiths. I cannot tell him the outcome of the review yet, but clearly the case of Mr. McNab is germane to that review, and I am sure that it will be taken into account.
    Mr. Christopher Chope: Why has the Prime Minister abandoned his support for urban sub-post offices? Two years ago, he said that he would work positively to ensure that all sub-post offices were able to become government general practitioners. He has now abandoned that and is instead bribing sub-postmasters with £180 million of taxpayers' money to close down their services. Is not that a great disservice to the pensioners in Christchurch and many other boroughs?
    The Prime Minister: In fact, we have an agreement with the sub-postmasters, and we will be investing hundreds of millions of pounds in the postal network over the next few years. It is inevitable, I am afraid, that some sub-post offices will close—incidentally, under the last Conservative Government thousands closed up and down the country. It is therefore absurd to pretend that there is an easy solution. However, we are putting in a lot of extra investment so that those sub-post offices that can survive and that have a viable future are given one. The very reason we entered into the agreement with the sub-postmasters is that they recognise, unlike the hon. Gentleman, that there is a genuine problem to be tackled.
    Ms Dari Taylor: A 14-year-old boy, Matthew Sheffield, died in my constituency as a consequence of an accident with an airgun. Will my right hon. Friend outline his thoughts as to how these weapons, which have a potential lethal capacity, can be controlled, if not banned?
    The Prime Minister: May I express through my hon. Friend my condolences to her constituent's family?
    282
    Like other issues to do with antisocial behaviour, that problem is right at the top of people's agenda and it worries Members of Parliament. My hon. Friend knows that we are considering the whole issue of licensing air guns and will have something to announce on that in the next available period of time. Obviously, once again we have to balance the need to take action with the need not to overregulate. The issue is key and critical, and I know that a campaign on it has been going on for a long time in the north-east.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Prime Minister look again at the guidelines given to the national lottery award-giving body, the community fund, so that those organisations that care for groups such as war veterans and the elderly get their fair share of the money? Those are the most vulnerable people in our society and they gave so much to our country. It is about time we repaid their service to Britain, rather than giving to some of the politically correct organisations which seem to be getting large sums of money.
    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman would want to acknowledge that the community fund has given an awful lot of money to veterans' organisations and others. In the end, there is a simple choice: either we can have a body that objectively gives that money out to groups or we can do it by involving politicians. I think it is better that it is done objectively through the community fund. The concerns that the hon. Gentleman expresses have been expressed by other hon. Members too, but we should not let one or two cases mislead us into thinking that the lottery money is not, on the whole, extremely well used for the benefit of community groups throughout the country, including veterans' groups.
    Ian Lucas: How can there be a more important public interest than that a defendant should receive a fair trial? Lord Justice Scott made his position on public interest immunity certificates very clear following the Matrix Churchill trial. Given the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick), can my right hon. Friend confirm that there were no discussions between the Attorney-General and the prosecuting authorities in the case of the Crown v. Paul Burrell to authorise an application for a public interest immunity certificate?
    The Prime Minister: There was no application for a public interest immunity certificate. Obviously, when such a case arises there are all sorts of wild theories about what might or might not have happened, but that is not why the case collapsed. I assure my hon. Friend that the issue of public interest immunity certificates is not relevant to either the case or why it folded.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: On Sunday, it will be six months since the rail crash at Potters Bar in which two of my constituents died. The bereaved, those who were injured and those who travel on that line every day still have no conclusive answers to why that crash happened and how it can be prevented from happening again. What personal steps have the

    283
    Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Transport taken to expedite sufficient answers to why that crash occurred?
    The Prime Minister: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns and those of his constituents. A process needs to be undergone to ensure we know exactly what lessons can be learned. Of course it is important that that happens as quickly as possible, but it is also important that it is as thorough as possible. We simply have to let the process work its way through and come to a conclusion. As soon as we can give answers to those questions that concern the families of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, we will.
    Mr. Tom Watson: Given the fact that there were 20,000 violent attacks on shop workers last year alone, will the Prime Minister support the campaign by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers to make the tackling of retail crime a key performance indicator for the police?
    The Prime Minister: I think I should have a discussion with the Home Secretary before I commit myself to that, but my hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of the issue. USDAW has properly highlighted the problem over the past few years and we certainly believe that action against retail crime is one very important part of the action against crime generally.
    Mr. John Randall: Is the Prime Minister aware of the great concern among hon.
    284
    Members on both sides of the House about the lack of time for consultation on the air services review? Will he please ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to extend that consultation period in the interests of fair play?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. He will know that we are trying to balance ensuring that we have the broadest possible consultation with the urgent need to get decisions. As I think that he will accept, there is a genuine and urgent necessity to ensure that we get decisions on those issues.
    Mr. Eric Illsley: Will my right hon. Friend look again at state assistance for the British coal industry? As he will be aware, in our ongoing review of our energy requirements there is huge doubt about the future viability of that industry and further state aid is required, under the scheme that ended a few months ago. Will he look again at that?
    The Prime Minister: I can only say what, as my hon. Friend will know, discussions are taking place with the coal industry within the Department of Trade and Industry. He will also know that in the past few years we have given additional support to the coal industry. We have to do that against the background of the tight limits on public spending, for reasons that he knows. However, discussions are under way and I hope that they will be fruitful.

Foot and Mouth Disease Inquiry Reports
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Government's response to the foot and mouth disease inquiry reports. That response is being published today.
When the inquiry reports were published in July, I told the House that I accepted that mistakes had been made and that I was determined to learn the lessons of what happened in 2001. The independent inquiry process that concluded in July has enabled us to do that and to move forward quickly to implement the recommendations. We are indebted to Sir Brian Follett and Dr. Iain Anderson, and I pay tribute again to them and to their teams for producing such thorough and useful reports so quickly. The Government accept virtually all the detailed recommendations of the lessons learned report and firmly endorse the lessons that Dr. Anderson draws. The recommendations made by the Royal Society will also play a major role in shaping the Government's work in that area. The Public Accounts Committee is considering a separate report from the National Audit Office.
The Government's response to the inquiries contains a wide range of commitments and actions, including a stronger general framework for emergency preparedness, with special emphasis on response and disease control in an outbreak of animal disease and work on strengthening disease prevention. Alongside publication of that response today, the latest version of our contingency plans is available on our website for comment and consultation.
Inevitably, some of that considerable body of work is work in progress and much requires further development and an open and transparent process of consultation with a wide range of players, including the farming industry, the wider rural community and other key players such as the local authorities.
Dr. Anderson identified three key areas for handling any outbreak: systems, speed of response and the necessity for good science as the basis of that response. As the House may recall from my July statement, some steps, such as the establishment of a civil contingencies secretariat, have already been taken. From next year, they will be supplemented by dedicated contingency planning teams in every region, based in the Government offices.
Plans are being developed for training and rehearsal of contingency plans, together with other players, such as local authorities. In addition, procedures are being drawn up to ramp up organisation should that be required, including the maintenance of a register of staff willing to serve in an emergency, and of their competences and skills.
Both inquiries called for a body to provide advice to DEFRA's chief scientific adviser in emergencies, and for a review of priorities in animal health research. A science advisory group has been set up, some additional funding for veterinary teaching and research has been Identified and the review of priorities is under way. The Government are committed to funding necessary research into animal disease and to increasing spending
286
on that. Work is also under way on how to identify and manage risks as part of DEFRA's own development plans. In particular, a risk assessment report on illegal imports is in preparation, and I hope to receive it before the turn of the year.
In the meantime, we have secured the agreement of Commissioner Byrne to a ban on personal imports of meat. We have put extra resources into detection and enforcement, including piloting the use of detector dogs, and I can announce today that the Government have agreed that responsibility for anti-smuggling checks on animals, fish, plants and their products, including meat, should be placed on one body, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, as soon as that can be achieved.
No import controls can ever be 100 per cent. effective. That is why both inquiries emphasised the role that animal movement controls can play in checking the spread of disease. The Government have accepted the advice that the 20-day standstill rule should remain in place until a detailed risk assessment and wide-ranging cost-benefit analysis have been completed.
We have commissioned the necessary economic and modelling studies from experts outside DEFRA, with the aim of deciding on a proportionate level of controls, and in particular, whether a movement standstill of 20 days strikes the right balance between the disease control benefits and the costs on the industry and livestock markets. Emerging findings from these studies should be available at the end of this month, to feed into decisions on the shape of movement controls to apply from next February. We expect full and final results in the first half of next year. As the inquiry reports recognise, the farming industry, too, shares responsibility for minimising disease risks and has a crucial role to play, particularly with regard to biosecurity. We will work closely with the industry in following up the inquiries' recommendations in this regard.
We also intend to work closely with the industry in developing a comprehensive animal health and welfare strategy, which has been called for by both inquiries and by the policy commission chaired by Sir Don Curry. It is important that we share an agreed vision, which must cover protection of public health, animal disease prevention and control and animal welfare. Informal discussions with stakeholders are already taking place before the launch of a public consultation exercise later in the year across the breadth of the stakeholder community. The strategy will draw on the inquiry reports and will provide a vehicle for implementing many recommendations.
We will also use the consultation on the strategy as a means to discuss with stakeholders the best mechanism to provide regular reports on animal disease preparedness, so that the lessons learned as a result of the 2001 outbreak and the recommendations of the inquiries are implemented and help to ensure that the experience of 2001 is never repeated.
The House will want to know that else would be different in any future outbreak of foot and mouth disease. A national movement ban would be put in place as soon as the first case was confirmed, as my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State announced in the summer when our interim contingency plan was published.

287
Restricted infected areas, so-called blue boxes, would be declared from the start in a minimum 10 km radius around infected farms, but public rights of way would need to be restricted only in a 3 km radius from those farms.
International and European Union rules are based on the need to eradicate a disease that is unpleasant as well as highly infectious. Hence the basic strategy in all FMD-free countries is that, as a first step, animals infected with foot and mouth disease and animals that have had contact with them have to be culled. But both inquiries are saying and the Government accept that in some circumstances, additional action may be needed to control an outbreak. In that case, emergency vaccination will form part of the control strategy from the start, and this would be emergency vaccination to live, provided of course that scientific and veterinary advice is that this would be the most effective course.
The inquiries point out that the use of emergency vaccination to live raises a number of very difficult issues—scientific, logistical and economic—but the Government are committed to tackling those issues in consultation with interested parties, with the aim of being in a position to trigger an emergency vaccination campaign should the need arise. However, the issues are substantial and that process will take some time to complete.
Sadly, that does not mean that wider culling strategies will never again be needed. We must maintain a full armoury of weapons to tackle the diseases; hence our insistence on the flexibility proposed in the Animal Health Bill and in the lessons learned report to allow for pre-emptive culling to enable us to deal with an outbreak more quickly with fewer losses of animals and least disruption to the rural economy. The Government are consulting on a decision tree on foot and mouth disease control that would set out the factors to be taken into account in deciding the best disease control strategy for different circumstances, but we have to remember that each outbreak is unique and that we cannot prescribe in detail in advance how best to meet it. There will still be a need for scientific and veterinary judgment at the time.
For the longer term, the Royal Society recommended that research was needed on a vaccine that could be used routinely, rather than just in an emergency, against all strains of foot and mouth disease virus and for all species. The Government recognise that that would be a desirable long-term goal and will encourage international collaboration to that end, but the House will appreciate that we are some considerable way from achieving that.
In short, some three months only after publication of the inquiry reports, the Government are today able not only to respond formally to those reports, but to identify a massive programme of work and reform that is under way. Nothing can ever erase the horrors and tragedies of the 2001 epidemic of foot and mouth disease in the
288
United Kingdom, but we can all resolve to establish more effective safeguards and, should those safeguards fail, an even more effective response.
Mr. David Lidington: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for her courtesy in letting me have early sight both of it and the accompanying document published by the Government.
We will obviously want to study the Government's response in detail, but on a first reading, I can say that much of what is proposed seems sensible and welcome and that the proposals include measures that we can support. I hope that the open and transparent process of consultation to which the Secretary of State referred will number Members of Parliament among the key stakeholders and that the Government will make an early opportunity available in Government time for a full debate in the House on their response to the various inquiries.
I should like to ask a couple of questions about vaccination. How long does the Secretary of State anticipate that it will be until the Government are in a position to include emergency vaccination in their armoury of measures for tackling a future outbreak? How does the approach outlined today in the response document relate to the draft European Commission proposals for a new directive on the control of foot and mouth disease?
Much of the document deals with the internal workings of the Department. I hope that she will be able to acknowledge that the Government recognise that one of the lessons from the 2001 outbreak was the need for greater freedom to be given to local veterinary surgeons and officials on the ground, so that they could take decisions quickly without always having to refer them back to head office to be second-guessed there.
Although there is much that we can welcome, I want to press the Secretary of State more critically on three subjects. I was somewhat disappointed to find when scanning the document that it contained only seven paragraphs on the illegal import of meat, compared with 14 on media strategy and communications. Does she appreciate that travellers who have been using British ports and airports in the seven months since the Government's action plan was published have found that even the limited and belated targets that the Government set themselves back in March have not made any difference to their experience when they arrive at a British port of entry?
Is she confident that Customs and Excise will give adequate priority to this important new responsibility when it is set alongside the many other responsibilities and targets set for it by Treasury Ministers? As it is now 13 months since the last case of foot and mouth, and seven months since the action plan was introduced, will her Department undertake to tackle the question of illegal imports with a much greater sense of importance, energy and urgency than it has hitherto demonstrated?
Does the Secretary of State appreciate the irony of the Government saying that it is impossible to have 100 per cent. security at our ports while continuing to insist—through their continued insistence on the 20-day rule on livestock movements—that farmers provide a 100 per cent. safeguard against the spread of disease? Does she understand that many livestock farmers now face a

289
stark choice: either they break the law, or they obey it and risk going out of business? Does she recall that both the Royal Society and Dr. Anderson called for urgent and detailed risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses to be carried out? Will she tell the House why we now have to wait until next February or even later for the results of those Government studies that ought to have been commissioned and undertaken a great deal earlier? Farmers are going out of business now; they cannot afford to wait many months more, as the Government seem to expect them to do.
I want to question the Secretary of State about the issues of stock valuation and disease insurance, which were tucked away at the end of the Government's document published this afternoon. The Government describe these areas as work still in progress, but will the right hon. Lady give us an indication of the time scale for decisions on these important matters? Will she give an assurance that she will not try to short-change farmers over compensation—for example, over compensation for the real value of breeding stock that is the fruit of a great deal of effort, sometimes put in over generations to build up a pedigree flock or herd? Farmers often look for a return on such investment over a number of years.
On insurance, do the Government recognise that the level of any disease insurance premium will depend not only on what a farmer does, but on what the market judges to be the effectiveness or otherwise of measures undertaken by the Government, and especially on the market's judgment of the efficacy of the Government's control of the illegal import of meat, given that, in their analysis, that was the cause of last year's epidemic?
Whenever possible, we will try to support the Government in their response to these important inquiries. After our experience last year, however, I believe that both Parliament and the industry will judge the Government not on the promises that they make but on the effectiveness of the measures that they deliver.
Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman asked how long we thought the study on vaccination would take. I believe that Sir Brian Follett thought that it would be at least 18 months before we could get an assessment of what progress we could make. As to how that relates to the new directive, I have already sent Commissioner Byrne a copy of the Government's response, and drawn to his attention this particular aspect of it so as to encourage discussion of the matter in the European Union.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the freedom of local decision making. I accept that concerns were raised about that in some circumstances, although it is not my recollection that it was a major concern. We believe that the process of discussion and trial of the contingency plans that we are now developing will clarify some of those issues and help us to resolve them, so as to obtain the best balance between consistent decision making, which will tackle disease, and decision making where it is most effective.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about how much of the document is devoted to communications; I remind him that a lot of the inquiry report is devoted to communications. That relates, in part at least, to his point about freedom of local decision, which is regarded as a key issue that the Government should address.
290
The hon. Gentleman suggests that what the Government have done so far is belated and has made little difference. I take his point about the fact that travellers coming to and through the UK, particularly returning British travellers, perhaps do not all see some of the evidence, but I can tell him from my own observations that it is certainly the case that there is a great deal more publicity today than hitherto. It is also the case that, over the summer, the Government ran a publicity campaign entitled "Don't bring back more than you bargained for", and there is action through our embassies to ensure that people who apply for visas are given advice.
I have already mentioned our lobbying of the Commission to ensure that bringing in personal imports is now prohibited, and we have increased and are increasing funding at a number of ports to try to encourage enforcement as well as much more effective intelligence sharing on those issues. However, may I remind the hon. Gentleman that, if I recall correctly, the Select Committee suggested that it was reasonably impressed by the speed with which the Government acted on that front?
The hon. Gentleman also talked about movements, but I am not entirely sure what is his position and that of his party. I accept that there is a delicate balance to be struck, so I am not being entirely critical, although he is rather asking for it. The fact is that the inquiry reports both said that the 20-day rule should stay in place unless and until the Government have a detailed risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. I accept that everybody would like to have them the day after tomorrow, but, if they are to be detailed, thorough and pertinent, we have—[Interruption.] We commissioned the work immediately, contrary to the implication of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. We must carry out a proper assessment.
I understand that Sir Brian Follett, for example, said as late as yesterday evening that there is a need for quarantine stops. I know that this is a matter of concern to the industry—I understand and accept that—and we did and we shall consider it as sympathetically as we can, but we cannot ignore either the scientific and veterinary advice or, indeed, the advice of both reports on which I am replying to the House.
There is a working party on valuation and disease insurance, which is discussing those matters with the industry, although it is in its early stages. Exactly the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised on the balance between a more standard approach to valuation, which has been the subject of some criticism, and recognising the needs of particular herds and flocks are being considered.
Andrew George (St. Ives): I, too, am grateful for the courtesy of having advance notice of the statement and the background document. We regret the Government's failure to hold a public inquiry, as they may have found it a good opportunity to test for the existence of a human disease that was running in parallel with foot and mouth. I refer, of course, to benefit of hindsight disease, the symptoms of which are brass neck and short-term memory loss. It is important that we move forward and consider ways of learning lessons from what was a tragic experience for the countryside.

291
On that basis, I welcome the Government's concession on meat import controls and their acceptance, finally, of the Liberal Democrat amendment to the Animal Health Bill. However, what efforts will the Department make to ensure that the chances of illegal meat importation are measurably reduced? A number of questions have been asked already, but how do we measure those changes and improvements that the Government have committed themselves to achieving?
The Secretary of State said that the Government accept virtually all the Anderson report's detailed recommendations, but can she present the House with a timetable for implementing those recommendations? It is great to have the acceptance, but we need a clear indication of how long implementation will take. What action will she take to address the view expressed by Dr. Iain Anderson that
"A reappraisal of prevailing attitudes and behaviours within the Department would"
benefit the climate of decision taking?
What discussions has the Department had with the farming industry about the proposed review of the 20-day rule on movement restrictions? It would be good if the review was completed as quickly as possible. As the Secretary of State probably knows, anxiety is growing in the farming communities.
If the Department is considering farm insurance schemes to share the costs of any possible future outbreaks of animal disease, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with the insurance industry? Is the proposal still under active consideration?
I note that the Secretary of State's friend Lord Haskins has been making his customary attacks on farmers. Will she tell us whether her Department has a genuine joined-up policy on food from plough to plate, given that farmers are receiving a decreasing proportion of the final consumer price? She must know that the British countryside will be turned over to prairie and ranch if Lord Haskins is let loose on the farming community. How many more thousands of farmers will be forced out of business before she and Lord Haskins are satisfied?
Margaret Beckett: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities. I was not sure what he meant by his first point, however. I must confess with deep sorrow that I do not precisely recall the detail of all the Liberal Democrat amendments to the Animal Health Bill, but if what the hon. Gentleman said about meat import controls related to imports for personal use. I must tell him that this is not a Government concession. We have discussed it, and have pressed the European Union to adopt it as an EU rule. We are delighted that the Commissioner has agreed that the present practice should stop.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the timetable for implementation. As he probably recalls, there are about 100 recommendations, and I cannot give a timetable for all of them. I can tell him, however, that when he has a chance to look through the detailed schedule containing the various recommendations and responses, he will gain an impression of where the balance lies. I can also tell him that the Department intends to establish a work
292
programme to show how we are dealing with the different issues, some of which require international action and consultation.
The hon. Gentleman asked about reappraisal of attitudes and behaviours in the Department. A substantial programme of change is under way in DEFRA, and we are consulting other Government agencies such as the Office of Public Service Reform. That has been proceeding for some time.
We are indeed discussing the issue of animal movements with the farming industry. As I have said, we hope and expect to receive some interim indications by the end of the month. We will not have the full report before the new year, but we hope we shall have it in time to look at what the overall regime should be.
I cannot add much to what I have already said about insurance, but we should bear in mind that Lord Haskins is a farmer himself. I think he would strongly reject the notion that either of us wants to see British farming as a series of featureless prairies. I agree, however, that we must try to find ways of enabling the British farming community to secure a greater share of the wealth that accrues from the produce that they rear or grow. That is dealt with in the Curry report and in our response to it.
Mr. Russell Brown: As my right hon. Friend knows, the situation was dealt with much more quickly north of the border. That is because local authorities went into action speedily with emergency planning procedures. I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments about local authorities; I hope she will impress on them the need for regular updates on contingency plans, and desktop exercises in relation to such procedures.
There is heavy emphasis on illegal imports. That problem worries us all, but Conservative Members seem to be suffering from selective amnesia. There was a combination of factors: there was an illegal import, but there was also a farmer who did not prepare swill properly. That should never be forgotten. May I also say that there has been a significant cost, not only in terms of heartbreak, but in terms of finance. We need to look at insurance. This is about plough to plate and the food chain. It is not about hobby farming, which cost us significantly in terms of compensation to many farmers.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Secretary of State replies, I should say that I certainly want brief questions. There is no way that I can get through the list of hon. Members unless they ask brief questions.
Margaret Beckett: Of course I take my hon. Friend's point about the need for greater co-operation and rehearsal with local authorities. That is very much part of the purpose of the rehearsal and training that we intend to undertake in future.
Mr. David Curry: The right hon. Lady is a frequent flier, often over some quite long distances, so she will know that it is entirely possible to pass through a British airport without any sight of the

293
sign warning against illegal imports. The carousels where passengers wait for their baggage are the most obvious places to put the signs, yet they are entirely innocent of such signs. Now that we have a co-ordinated service, will she please make sure that the signs are where passengers can see them, not decorating the back of the arrivals hall where nobody has the time or would think to look at them?
Margaret Beckett: I entirely accept the right hon. Gentleman's point about the carousels. We have been endeavouring to work with the airlines and to encourage them to do more to remind people in-flight about illegal imports and to take other related action. I hope and anticipate that much more will be done to combat illegal imports as I share the right hon. Gentleman's view that it is important that people understand that they must not act illegally in that respect.
Mr. Eric Martlew: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree with me that the real lesson to be learned is never again should we have the disaster that affected Cumbria and other parts of the United Kingdom last year. Nowhere in the EU should people have to suffer as we did. Is not the only way to do that to develop a vaccine and use it routinely? My right hon. Friend said that such a vaccination programme was a long way away, but my understanding is that it could be introduced within 18 months, given the resources. When we have that vaccine, whenever that is, will it be the Government's policy to vaccinate all animals routinely?
Margaret Beckett: I share and understand my hon. Friend's concern for his constituents in Cumbria. There are two separate issues with regard to vaccination. The first relates to emergency vaccination that we hope will be available within some 18 months or so. It may be possible to get validated tests, for example, to distinguish between an animal that is infected and an animal that has been vaccinated, but that still requires some work. The other issue concerns the development of vaccines that could be used in an non-emergency. I fear that a routine prophylactic vaccination for every animal is a lot further away, because, as I think my hon. Friend will be aware, there is a plethora of different strains of the virus and up to now the international community has not shown much interest in such an enormous undertaking. However, I can assure him that the Government are taking seriously the advice of the Royal Society that it is something that we should encourage the international community to re-examine and I have already written to this effect.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: May I start with a quick plug for Herefordshire tourism at the Britain visitor centre? One of the subjects discussed there this morning was the disastrous foot and mouth outbreak, so I am pleased that the three points that the Minister identified—systems, speed of response and the necessity for good science—are in the statement.
On the issue of systems, can the Secretary of State tell us whether people who are wandering around in the countryside will also be in some way responsible for contributing to the biosecurity that farmers will need in order to avoid this disease, should it ever break out again? In terms of speed of response, Dr. Anderson
294
identified the qualifications of veterinary surgeons as being key. Can the Secretary of State explain why, during the summer, after Dr. Anderson reported, there was an embargo on hiring state vets? On the necessity for good science, the gamma inteferon blood test that is currently available for bovine tuberculosis is not being used or trialled yet. Perhaps the Secretary of State might bring that about shortly.
Margaret Beckett: If I may, I shall begin where the hon. Gentleman ended. I believe that a pilot scheme is currently examining that issue, and we hope—
Hon Members: Where?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): It is being rolled out.
Margaret Beckett: The scheme is being rolled out. [Interruption.] I shall write to the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) on the matter, as I am afraid that the geographical location of the pilot scheme is not present in my mind.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the general issue of biosecurity, and we accept that there is a need to remind everyone of the importance of behaving with caution and common sense. On vets and speed of response, unfortunately there was something of a hiatus in recruitment in the summer. Frankly, after all the expenditure of the past year or so, we ran out of money. However, I can assure him that the problem is being overcome.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Does the report state that never again will we see piles of animals being burned or even buried, usually in the wrong place? We witnessed such scenes during the foot and mouth crisis, and many constituents were very concerned about the smell, and about the burying of animals beside streams and schools. Does the report make it clear that such things will never happen again?
Margaret Beckett: I of course accept that distress was caused by the action that had to be undertaken during the outbreak. I did not go into detail about everything in the reports, but I know that Dr. Anderson considered whether there were hazards from such burials. He said that there was no evidence of that, but I fully accept that there is a difference between actual hazards and people experiencing great discomfort and unpleasantness. As a result of reassessment of the handling of the last outbreak, the hierarchy of steps taken in respect of disposal—beginning with commercial incineration and proceeding to rendering—is different from that which applied last time. That means that the issues that my hon. Friend has raised should not, we hope, ever need to be raised again.
David Burnside: If the Secretary of State were to fly into Belfast international airport, in my constituency, she would find out immediately how the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development brands livestock and produce to stop illegal food imports. That is carried out professionally and well, and we would like to offer that lesson to the rest of the

295
United Kingdom. Can the Secretary of State give the House some more details on policing resources, which is a major concern? She referred in her statement to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise getting more resources. We in Northern Ireland have a land border, which poses a greater problem than that on the mainland, and the policing of foot and mouth is absolutely crucial. Will she also give the House some information on the reason why very few prosecutions were brought after the foot and mouth outbreak? The two cases in Northern Ireland—in Armagh and the glens of Antrim—resulted from the illegal transfer of animals from the British mainland. Prosecutions were brought but no convictions were achieved.
Margaret Beckett: I am afraid that I do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman's last question. Obviously, the issue of who is prosecuted, and under what circumstances, is a matter not for me but for the relevant authorities. However, I shall inquire as to whether any general information is available that I can give to him.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the additional resources that are being provided, to which I have already referred. Some £ 1.5 million is funding additional enforcement officers at ports and airports. That funding began in October, and is being provided for a number of ports and airports across the United Kingdom, so we are beginning to step up our policing efforts. Of course, we took some relevant action earlier, such as increasing the powers of enforcement officers.
Mr. Ian Davidson: May I raise with the Minister what I believe to be a major omission from her report? One of the most worrying and upsetting elements of the crisis was the way in which some saw the opportunity for price gouging and fraud. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that any fraud in future events is thoroughly punished? What steps has she taken to ensure that price gouging is avoided? What is she doing to tackle the culture of milking the system, which is so prevalent in agriculture?
Margaret Beckett: I accept my hon. Friend's concerns. I am aware of the vigour with which he and other hon. Members raise those issues on the Public Accounts Committee. All I can say to him is that we are looking very carefully at what is being said about those issues and we look forward to the report from the PAC, as well as that from the National Audit Office. Perhaps "looking forward" is not quite the right phrase, but we are certainly in anticipation of them. That is very much the background to some of the issues that are being and have been discussed about how we handle the valuation issue in future.
May I also add for the information of the House that I am advised that there are definitely posters about illegal imports on the carousels at terminal 2, Heathrow?
Mr. James Paice: May I congratulate the Minister on her statement that it is impossible to guarantee that any situation is 100 per cent. risk free? I hope that that heralds a change in attitude for the whole Government because it would
296
save the House a tremendous amount of time legislating. Given that that is the case, as she rightly says, may I emphasise to her that whether there are labels on carousels in terminal 2 is actually a small point, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) was right to make it? However, countless travellers, including myself and some of her hon. Friends, who flew into Heathrow direct from central Africa about three weeks ago not only did not see any notice, but did not even see a Customs officer when we went through Customs control. There was no way that anyone would have been able to stop or deal with us if one of us had been transgressing. May I also repeat the point that was made earlier—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to be brief?
Mr. Paice: Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I simply want to reinforce the point about the number of officers required to police our efforts: £1.5 million is very welcome, but the right hon. Lady knows that it is not a large number when translated into people. We need to match what other countries have in terms of the number people policing imports into our country.
Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman may not have seen the information or the warnings, but I reiterate that our embassies and consulates have been giving out warnings, particularly to people applying for visas. We have been pressing the airlines to use some of the material that we are producing. Very recently, I received an e-mail from west Africa from someone saying, "Congratulations. I have just come through the airport"—wherever it was—"and seen the right kind of warnings. It is about time, and it never happened before."
I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question about why he did not see any Customs officers when he last came through the airport, but may I observe, without prejudice, that, of course, the fact that he could not see them does not mean that they could not see him?
Paddy Tipping: The Secretary of State has made it clear that, in the event of a major outbreak, there will be no blanket closure of footpaths. Is not one of the important lessons to be learned the value of visitors to the countryside in terms of their contribution to the local rural economy? Against that background, will she quicken her efforts to switch payments to farmers from subsidises on production to payments to farmers who lift the landscape, enhance the environment and encourage visitors into the countryside?
Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the fact that the outbreak brought home to people the value of access to the countryside and the contribution that visitors make to the countryside, but it brought home to a lot of people just how much they valued their access, and there was a welcome resurgence of visits to the English countryside and tourism spots in the United Kingdom.
Secondly, my hon. Friend asks whether I can quicken the process. I do not know about that, but I assure him that we are pursuing CAP reform with all the vigour at

297
our command. Although I have not seen the assessment on which the figure is based, I recently heard the chief executive of the Environment Agency observe that, in her judgment, it was possible that farmers were contributing environmental benefit and improvement to our economy to the tune of some £900 million, and that they were not being reimbursed for it.
Mr. A. J. Beith: What is the Secretary of State doing about Dr. Anderson's recommendation that there should be research into compensation for communities where mass burial has taken place? What is she doing to dispel the impression that, although the authorities could find Widdrington in my constituency pretty quickly when they had more than 100,000 carcases to bury, they are not sure where it is now?
Margaret Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that Dr. Anderson suggested that we research the issue of compensation, although I believe that that was in international context. Some work on that is being undertaken.
Mr. Tom Levitt: As a fellow Derbyshire MP, my right hon. Friend will know that High Peak escaped the direct effects of foot and mouth, but that there were indirect effects on farming and tourism. As a result, the measures that she has announced today, especially those to do with rights of way, will be welcome. I talk to my farmers regularly. They have expressed concerns about the 20-day standstill, but I believe that they know in their hearts why that is necessary, and why the industry is being asked to play its part.
However, other hon. Members will recognise the message that my farmers give to me, which is that the restrictions on imports—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get to the point of his question.
Mr. Levitt: Is there not a political imperative to ensure that imports are controlled—and seen to be so—as well as to put in place the practical imperatives that my right hon. Friend has described?
Margaret Beckett: I recognise the concern that my hon. Friend expresses. It will be interesting to see what the risk assessment on this issue produces, although I am pretty confident that it will say that illegal imports pose a risk. However, we shall have to see what balance should be struck between personal imports and bulk imports made illegally. One feels a natural revulsion at many of the personal imports that one hears about, and the introduction of the new procedures has increased protection. However, there are questions about how easy it is for a personal import of that sort to get so far that it is likely to be in contact with a susceptible animal. Illegal bulk imports are perhaps a greater risk, but I have not seen the result of the risk assessment, and that is exactly the sort of issue that it must address.
Mr. Michael Jack: Given the comments made by Sir Brian Follett to the Select Committee, will the Secretary of State say what work is to be done to
298
improve understanding of the pathways of disease spread for diseases such as foot and mouth? That understanding is needed if we are to develop better on-farm biosecurity measures. Also, what is the right hon. Lady doing to deal with the fact that Britain still faces a threat from diseases such as West Isle fever, another problem pointed out by Sir Brian? What is being done to counter other major threats of animal disease?
Margaret Beckett: First, consideration of such matters is very much part of the animal health strategy. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I must say that I had no idea of the range of diseases to which animals are prone until I had the good fortune to occupy this post. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned Sir Brian Follett's recommendations about studies of disease, a matter that I touched on in my opening remarks. Our new chief scientific adviser, with the assistance of the new board appointed to support him, is undertaking a thorough review of all the Department's work. That will involve a thorough reassessment of priorities, and the right hon. Gentleman has identified exactly the sort of matter that will be looked at.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: The Secretary of State will know that the independent inquiries held in Cumbria and Northumberland made some important recommendations based on experience on the front line. Why will she not give a formal response to those reports?
Margaret Beckett: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, we gave a broad general response. Certainly those reports were fed in and enlightened the course of the other inquiries. It is just not possible to go through all the inquiries in the degree of detail that would be required.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the Secretary of State say a little more about the assessment that she is making of the 20-day rule for animal movements? Will that assessment take into account alternative strategies, particularly, for example, thorough animal movement recording as an alternative to the 20-day rule, which is very injurious to farmers in my constituency in west Wales?
Buried in the back of the document is a reference to the Government's response to lessons learned no. 37 in which the right hon. Lady says that she is in discussion with the National Assembly for Wales regarding the devolution of further powers on animals to the National Assembly. Will she support such moves if they prove to be equally or more efficacious than the present situation?
Margaret Beckett: On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, all I can say is that the discussion continues, but it is a very cordial one. On the 20-day rule, I am not carrying out the assessment—it is being carried out by the relevant bodies which are considering what alternatives could provide reassurance.
Mr. John Greenway: Can the Secretary of State give the House regular updates on vaccination? I think that she said that it may be at least 18 months

299
before a vaccination is available, but we would like to know what progress is being made on testing the vaccines.
On the 20-day standstill period, notwithstanding what she has said and what the two reports recommended, she will know that there will be huge disappointment among livestock farmers that there appears to be no progress on this. When will the risk analysis and the cost-benefit analysis be concluded? Livestock farmers need some certainty because they have to plan their businesses too.
Margaret Beckett: I understand that great disappointment will be felt, and I understand that many people in livestock farming simply wish the Government I o abandon all movement controls. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman in all sincerity, given the strong recommendations of the Royal Society inquiry as well as of the lessons learned inquiry that we do no such thing, that I am afraid that the Government did not feel that it would be responsible to take such steps. We have made some minor amendments and exemptions, as he knows, to try to take account of some of the concerns about the movement of breeding stock. However disappointed people may be, I hope that they will understand why we did not feel able simply to abandon the restrictions. We hope that we will have some preliminary results by the end of the month, although we do not expect the full report until into the new year. Of course we will endeavour to keep the House informed about vaccination but I am not sure whether it is as simple as saying every so often that we will have a report on progress.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Now that the right hon. Lady has had a chance to study the reports that she commissioned, what, in her judgment, was the cause of last year's outbreak?
Margaret Beckett: Someone acted illegally in importing diseased meat and someone else acted illegally in not reporting the incidence of foot and mouth disease and in allowing movement, which meant that the disease was spread. If blame there is, that is where it lies.
Mr. Roger Williams: First, may I say how much I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that Her Majesty's Customs and Excise will now be given sole responsibility for the control of animal and animal health products at ports and airports? I have long advocated that approach, and I am glad that it has been accepted by the Government. There remains the issue of what priority Customs and Excise will give that responsibility and what resources will be made available to them to carry it out.
Margaret Beckett: We are discussing increased resources with Customs and Excise. Responsibility for the material remains with DEFRA, but import controls will be the responsibility of Customs and Excise, and I feel sure that they will give the matter the priority that it deserves. That is, in part, something to which Members of the House might turn their attention.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: May I join my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington)
300
in welcoming most of what the right hon. Lady has said? Given the criticisms contained in the Anderson report in particular and the flurry of activity that it has engendered, does she still maintain, as she once said, that the Government's response to foot and mouth had been a minor triumph? Or will she take possibly the last opportunity—that I will offer her anyway—to apologise and say sorry for the trauma of foot and mouth?
Margaret Beckett: I made it plain following the publication of the Anderson report that the Government accept that mistakes were made. I also made it plain, as Dr. Anderson's report clearly shows, that a huge effort was undertaken to try to bring the disease under control. Dr. Anderson has previously identified the huge amount of utterly devoted work by staff in my Department and many others across the country. He pointed out:
"many farmers, local people and government officials made heroic efforts to fight this disease and limit its effects. Through their efforts it was finally overcome and eradicated after 221 days, one day less than the epidemic of 1967–68."
Given the unprecedented nature of the outbreak, that was an achievement. If I used the words "minor triumph", it was against the background of ferocious and unjustified criticism of staff in the field, not least staff in my Department.
Mr. John Burnett: Do the Government's contingency plans include the ability in an emergency to introduce a welfare cull? Does the right hon. Lady accept that they should, and that a welfare cull with fair compensation should be able to function swiftly and efficiently in the early days of an emergency?
Margaret Beckett: It is our hope that there will never again have to be a welfare cull. One aim of the trialling and the work that is being undertaken is try to ensure that we do not find ourselves in circumstances where such a thing has to be contemplated.
Mr. Richard Bacon: Having flown earlier this year from Ascension Island near equatorial Africa into a British airport and entered the country without speaking to a single human being, and having yesterday spent several hours with Customs and Excise at Dover seeing what it does, I am not persuaded that the Government's recently announced publicity campaign has got any traction. Is the Secretary of State aware that the main priorities of Customs and Excise are tobacco, alcohol and class A drugs? Does she accept that while the inclusion in the statement of a ban on personal imports was extremely welcome—although the fact that she has to ask Commissioner Byrne for permission is deeply offensive—what is required is a fundamental step-change in the understanding and psychology of people travelling to this country such as that which occurs when people go to Australia and the United States? Much more is needed, and soon.
Margaret Beckett: I can only repeat that there are posters at Heathrow, regional airports and other international airports. Some 20 international airlines have now agreed to distribute leaflets, either in-flight or at check-in desks and information points—I assure the hon. Gentleman that that has taken some work—and

301
we are looking at other outlets for distributing leaflets, including high street travel agents, vaccination centres and regional post offices. I have mentioned already the advice that visitors get. A radio filler has been distributed to 118 regional commercial radio stations and a couple of campaign videos are due to be distributed soon. A great deal of work is therefore under way, much of which has to done through other people and agencies, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to pursue it.
Mr. Andrew Turner: I welcome the Secretary of State's remarks about the responsibilities of Customs and Excise, but will she make the point to her colleagues in the Treasury that that work needs to be done in uncanalised routes of entry as much as at Dover and the airports? What steps is she taking to enable farmers to take their animals to slaughter locally instead of being forced by supermarkets to drag them halfway across the country?
Margaret Beckett: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the implications of various movements, but I believe that he is talking about commercial contracts, and I am not in a position to interfere with them.
Miss Anne McIntosh: The right hon. Lady will be aware that foot and mouth came late to the Vale of York and that the strongest criticism in the Anderson inquiry concerned the question of a contingency plan. What message can I take back to my farmers to satisfy them that there is a contingency plan for North Yorkshire? Will the right hon. Lady assure them that the high standards of animal biosecurity that apply to everyone else will apply to her own Department? A picture of her departmental colleague, Lord Whitty, appeared in our local newspaper on the same day as an advertisement saying that waterproof overall trousers and wellington boots must be worn, but he was visibly wearing neither.
Margaret Beckett: I am afraid that I am not familiar with the episode to which the hon. Lady refers, nor do I know where that photograph is supposed to have been taken. One of the less attractive features of the desperate attempt to make all of this stick to the Government was the pretence in some quarters that the disease was spread by officials from the Ministry rather than by the type of movement that actually led to its spread.
I realise that it is not much help to say that the contingency plan is available on the website—but it is. We shall of course look for other ways to make it
302
available. The most important thing that we want and need from the hon. Lady's constituents and anyone else with relevant experience is their input to that contingency plan. It is a living document on which we shall continually be carrying out much more training, trialling and rehearsal. What we need most is the input of practitioners in the field to identify the weaknesses before there are any further animal disease outbreaks, not after.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: On behalf of my farmers and constituents, who are deeply concerned, I endorse all the points made about the 20-day rule. The Secretary of State will have noticed that paragraph 4.6.3 of the report observes that the Government do not rule out the possibility of on-farm burial. My constituency was the epicentre of the 1967 epidemic in which there was an enormous amount of on-farm burial, yet there were no after-effects for any animal or person, nor any type of crop distress that proved that infection had resulted. I would recommend burial on farm. How does the right hon. Lady reconcile that possibility with the EU directive that her Government are intent on implementing that would stop on-farm burial in all circumstances from 2003, as a result of the concerns of the Environment Agency?
Margaret Beckett: The phraseology of the report shows that, at present, there are circumstances in which on-farm burial could not be ruled out if it was necessary. It is not a preferred option. The hon. Gentleman knows that there were, and would be, environmental considerations, such as the level of the water table. One thing that was often left out of the discussions of the impact of on-farm burial during the period of the disease outbreak was that we must now take account of the aftermath of BSE.

Foot and Mouth Disease Inquiry Reports
  BILL PRESENTED
    ENERGY-SAVING MATERIALS (REDUCED RATE OF VAT)
    Ms Julia Drown, supported by Dr. Brian Iddan, Mr. Paul Truswell, Tom Brake, Alan Simpson, Brian White, Vera Baird, Norman Lamb, Peter Bottomley, Mr. Simon Thomas. Clive Efford and Joan Walley, presented a Bill to reduce the rate of Value Added Tax levied on the supply of energy-saving materials and the cost of their installation; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 206].

Single European Language
4.33 pm
Mr. Peter Viggers: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to make proposals to the European Council for the establishment of one language as the official language of the European Union; to provide for the development of a single European language; and to establish a date by which the language will become the official language of the United Kingdom.
I have promoted a number of ten-minute Bills over the years. My mind goes back to an occasion in 1979 when I promoted a Bill immediately before Margaret Thatcher, as she then was, moved a motion of confidence in the Government. The good news was that my Bill undoubtedly had the widest audience of any ten-minute Bill in the history of this House; many millions of people watched me live on television introducing my Bill. I did a deal with the Government: if I kept my ten-minute Bill down to three sentences, they would give me what I wanted—pensions for 25,000 service widows. This is a rather different occasion, and the audience for this Bill is more like the normal audience for such Bills.
My starting point is a concern about language differences in the European Union, which are a barrier to communication and trade. As the European Union has sought to deal with the barrier of currency between nations, so it is appropriate for it to address the barrier of language between nations.
It is in the European Union institutions that the problem is the most exposed. There are 11 recognised languages and, currently, the rules of the EU say that any citizen has the right to communicate with any European institution in any recognised language and to receive a reply in the same language. As the Commission has said, linguistic diversity is an essential aspect of the common cultural heritage; in other words, "We agree to differ."
The formula for calculating the number of language combinations within the EU is "n squared minus n" where "n" is the number of languages in question. If we have 11 languages, that is "11 squared minus 11", making 110 language combinations in the EU at the moment. The addition of one extra language would take the number of language combinations from 110 to 132.
The EU spends about £150 million on translation and interpretation; it has about 1,200 full-time interpreters, 600 support staff and about 2,000 contract staff. Their work is to translate about 1.25 million pages that go in the 40-truck convoy that makes its way monthly from Strasbourg to Brussels to Luxembourg.
That is the present situation. As the EU expands, as is planned, and if the number of official languages goes, as is expected, from 11 to 23, the number of language combinations would increase from 110 to 506. Translation and interpretation would more than double—way more. Even if relay languages were used—for instance, translating Greek into English into Estonian, or Slovakian into French into Spanish—the work would be way greater than the total translation resources would bear. We cannot go on like this. For some of the smaller countries, the number of recognised interpreters is quite small. We should be addressing
304
ourselves to the language problem. Our search will logically start in finding the most-used language in the world and perhaps building on that.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Tell us what that is.
Mr. Viggers: It is certainly not Welsh. It is, in fact, Mandarin Chinese, used as a first language by 874 million people. However, not even all the Chinese use Mandarin. I remember meeting a Chinaman once and greeting him "Ni hao ma"; he replied, memorably, "I am sorry. I do not speak Mandarin."
The second most popular first language in the world is Hindi, at 366 million, but that is not much help either. The third language, English—at 341 million—has the advantage of being the first language in 104 countries, which is more than twice as many as the second most popular first language. Adopting English as the official language would reduce the number of language combinations from 110 to 10 and, on expansion, would reduce the number to 22 from 506.
It would be very good if I could sit down at that point, having done my job, and say that English should be the language of the EU, but enormous issues of national pride are involved. First, it is a principle of the EU that all languages are equal and, secondly, the chances of persuading the French to give up French as the second de facto drafting language in the EU must be assessed realistically as zero.
We must look for a European solution, and here we have a precedent to guide us. The EU faced up to a similar problem with its currencies. Instead of choosing the strongest and most widely used currency, the deutschmark—as one would have thought was natural—it chose to create something new and artificial called the euro. Following that precedent, it would be logical to create a European language, which I call Eural.
To those who say that that is fanciful, I say that I agree. But is it any more fanciful than what we have now: a single currency that depends critically upon a stability and growth pact that is ignored by the leading countries and which the President of the Commission refers to as stupid? I think that I am justified in following my fancy for a moment to see where it leads us.
Eural would, of course, be created as an artificial language. If we are scrapping the language of Shakespeare, it is only reasonable to scrap the languages of Voltaire, Dante, Lorca and the rest. Before we enter Eural, however, we would have to produce five tests to decide how and when we join. Clearly, those tests would be artificial, very general and subjective to allow the Government to decide when we join the Eural. We would, of course, need a Minister to decide who should administer the five tests, and who would be better than the Deputy Prime Minister, who speaks in virtual Eural already? I could give a large number of examples, but I shall read a transcript of just one of his speeches:
"Our objectives are clear … The objectives remain the same and indeed it has been made clear by the Prime Minister in a speech yesterday that the objectives are clear. And the one about the removal of the Taliban is not something we have as a clear objective"—

305
there was prolonged laughter at that point—
"but it is possibly a consequence that will flow from the Tallybin clearly giving protection to bin Laden and the UN resolution made it absolutely clear that anyone that finds them in that position declares themselves an enemy and that clearly is a matter for these objectives."
I think we see the thrust of that. He is the man who said in a newspaper interview:
"The Green Belt is a Labour achievement, and we mean to build on it".
Eural will have significant value when it comes to Government promises, as, again, the Deputy Prime Minister said in 1997 and repeated in 1998:
"I will have failed if in five years' time there are not far fewer journeys by car. It's a tall order, but I urge you to hold me to it."
Similarly, a junior Minister in the Home Office who referred to a target of deporting 30,000 failed asylum seekers a year went on to say that
"a target is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end. It is a driver."
Furthermore, when the former Secretary of State for Education was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) whether she would resign if the Government did not reach their literacy and numeracy targets by 2002, she replied:
"Of course I will. Indeed, I generously commit the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), too. We speak with one voice."
Apparently, the time had gone when
"a Secretary of State would promise to resign but the rest of the team would not go too."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 2 March 1999; Vol. 326, c. 948.]
Of course, not only did he not go, but he was promoted to her job.
The use of less precise language will save the Government and the nation from the humiliation of promises being broken without any shame or regret. Eural might therefore appeal to this Government if not to anyone else. My plea, of course, is for greater use of English. If that fails, however, the alternative should be considered. For all those reasons, although not with any great confidence that my Bill will become law in the short time remaining in the Session, I commend my Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peter Viggers.

Single European Language
  SINGLE EUROPEAN LANGUAGE
  Mr. Peter Viggers accordingly presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to make proposals to the European Council for the establishment of one language as the official language of the European Union; to provide for the development of a single European language; and to establish a date by which the language will become the official language of the United Kingdom: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Thursday 7 November, and to be printed [Bill 207].

ANIMAL HEALTH BILL (PROGRAMME)(NO. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order (28 June 2001),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Animal Health Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 12th November 2001:

ANIMAL HEALTH BILL (PROGRAMME)(NO. 2)

  Consideration of Lords Amendments
  1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six hours after their commencement or at Ten o'clock, whichever is later.
  2. Those proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the Table below and shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) in accordance with the second column of that Table.

  Amendments

  Time for conclusion

  1 to 12

  1½ hours after commencement

  13 to 45

  3½ hours after commencement

  14 to 44

  5 hours after commencement

  46 to 74

  6 hours after commencement or Ten o'clock, whichever is later

  Subsequent stages
  3.—(1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question put.
  (2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Mr. Morley.]
  Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Animal Health Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 5, 7, 11, 45, 47 and 49, 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.

  Animal Health Bill
    Clause 1

      FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 3, at end insert—
      "( ) In the Animal Health Act 1981 (c.22) (in this Act referred to as the 1981 Act)
      before paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 insert—
      "(2A) The Secretary of State shall give priority to a "vaccinate to live" policy prior to causing to be slaughtered animals on premises where no infection has been detected.""
      4.45 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Government amendment (a) in lieu and sub-amendment (i).
      Mr. Morley: The House has discussed the Bill in detail. I said that as a result of pertinent points raised in Committee we would give further consideration to amendments, especially in the other place.
      Significant changes have been made to the Bill. We accepted some of them as a result of discussions in the course of the parliamentary process, and I want to pay tribute to my colleague, Lord Whitty, who did a good job in dealing with the Bill in the House of Lords. Other changes result from commitments that we gave in Committee to consider certain aspects in further detail so that we could be more transparent. We also wanted to reassure hon. Members and reflect their reasonable concerns.
      Amendment No. 1 deals with vaccination. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear in her statement that we accept the recommendations of the Anderson and Follett reports that vaccination should have a more prominent role in the decision-tree process of the measures that we would apply to combat any disease outbreak. That commitment has been given. It is also recognised in our revised interim contingency plan, which is being made public today. It is part of a developing contingency plan arising from discussions with the industry.
      Although we understand the reason behind the amendment, we cannot accept it. As we made clear in our response to the reports, we will, ideally, want to use a vaccinate-to-live strategy if emergency vaccination
      308
      is used. There may, however, be scenarios in which, following the appropriate veterinary and scientific advice, culling of non-infected premises is deemed more appropriate than vaccination. We do not want that advice to be restricted artificially in terms of the most appropriate disease control methods that could be applied.
      It is also important to stress that European Union legislation requires slaughter of livestock on premises that have an epidemiological link to infected premises. For example, in some circumstances slaughter will not be the last resort, and we would want to stamp out an immediate outbreak by culling, as identified in the Royal Society and Anderson reports. The amendment therefore runs contrary to EU law. It is unworkable and we cannot accept it, even though we are not necessarily against the reason behind it.
      We have offered a Government amendment in lieu. It has been carefully drafted to address concerns about the role of vaccination in future disease outbreaks. It sets out explicitly on the face of the Bill that the Secretary of State must consider
      "the most appropriate means of preventing the spread of the disease."
      In particular, the Secretary of State must consider whether vaccination is more appropriate in the circumstances. It is not entirely dissimilar to the amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats. I hope they recognise that we understand the reasoning behind their amendment. Although our amendment reflects concerns about restrictions, we are not against the general principle of recognising the changes in the Government's response and our acceptance of the recommendations in the Follett and Anderson reports. We want to emphasise that by putting it on the face of the Bill. Our approach also reflects the inquiry reports and recent European developments, which have underlined the need for vaccination to play a higher profile in future disease outbreaks. The Government response to the inquiry sets out our strategy for taking those recommendations forward.
      Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Will the Minister explain the difference between what he now proposes to put on the face of the Bill and what de facto took place during the foot and mouth debacle? Back Benchers understood that Ministers were considering vaccination at various points.
      Mr. Morley: That is true. We were considering vaccination at a number of points. Traditional methods of dealing with an outbreak on that scale, which were based on the inquiry into the 1967 outbreak, were based on mass culling. What is different about our response to the Anderson and Royal Society reports is that vaccination, which was on the periphery of the responses—we had not resolved many of the issues within the food industry or the agricultural, food and livestock sectors—had not been pushed up the order of priority as regards decision making. It was a specialist application, to be used in certain circumstances, and was considered on a number of occasions, as the hon. Gentleman rightly states.
      The Anderson and Royal Society reports made it clear that stamping out should be the initial response, but that vaccination should go further up the agenda:

      309
      it should be considered right away, in the appropriate circumstances and the appropriate way, as a tool for controlling disease outbreaks. It is a different response, compared with previous contingency plans. That is reflected in our revised contingency plan and in what I am saying today about accepting the concerns about vaccination by putting it on the face of the Bill, which will allow us to take into account a range of options for what method is applied. Vaccination will, however, be more prominent in the decision-making process.
      Paul Flynn: Is it not true that in April 2001 the Government's advisers said that a large number of cattle in the north of England should be vaccinated, but the National Farmers Union, in the shape of Ben Gill, wrecked that decision? He insisted on laying down impossible conditions that could not be met. If the Bill becomes an Act, will it withstand any future wrecking tactics of the NFU?
      Mr. Morley: In Cumbria, our scientific advisory group made a unanimous recommendation that vaccination should be used on cattle, more in relation to disposal than as a disease-control measure. Due to the nature and spread of the disease, the advantage of vaccination would have been to reduce the number of cattle killed and, therefore, the need to dispose of them. There is no denying that there was significant disagreement within the farming sector; concerns were also expressed in the food industry. We are trying to look forward rather than back. What is clear to me, as I have said, is that it is difficult to decide the role of vaccination, where to use it and the priority that it should have in disease-control strategies and response in the midst of one of the world's biggest epidemics. It is difficult to get that agreement. It is much better to debate that matter now, have proper contingency arrangements and reflect the change both in the Government's response to the independent inquiries and on the face of the Bill.
      Mr. David Drew: Does my hon. Friend accept that part of the problem is that there has to be some consensus about the actions that have to be taken? We all know what went wrong last time—there was a great deal of disagreement over policy and actions among farmers. How does he anticipate that we shall be able to reach a stage at which we at least share an understanding of the policy options? As he says, that cannot be done in the midst of an outbreak; it has to be done now, and we have to build that consensus. Is that what the Government are talking about?
      Mr. Morley: I do not want to go into great detail about the various strategies, as that would divert attention from the amendments. However, I am happy to answer interventions from hon. Members on that point. There are still many issues in relation to vaccination that need to be resolved. It is not a simple matter. There are issues such as tests and acceptance by the livestock industry and the food and farming industry, but we want to engage all the stakeholders in discussions on the matter. There is a recommendation from the independent reports that vaccination be considered more prominently as a response. We are not being asked to use vaccination as a response in all
      310
      circumstances. One of the problems with amendment No. 1 is that we need some flexibility, but we accept that vaccination must move up the agenda and that we must address and resolve a range of issues.
      Mr. David Curry: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the problems during the epidemic was that there were announcements by the Government, but a long period elapsed before anything happened in the countryside to implement the announcements? There was a great deal of doubt and public agonising by the Government about which course of action to take. Professor Sir Brian Follett said that the contingency plan should outline clearly to all the stakeholders the various options and actions, but should culminate in parliamentary approval of a contingency plan. Would not that be the way of answering the point made by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), who seems to have disappeared? Farmers should know what the various scenarios are and the responses to them. It is not good enough to put the contingency plan on the website. We need to have sight of it and debate it publicly.
      Mr. Morley: I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. Part of our interim contingency plan is a decision tree, as it is called. One can see clearly the various circumstances and the decisions that one might take about whether or not to vaccinate and what sort of vaccination one might use—suppressive, preventive or ring vaccination. A range of issues and applications is clearly laid out in a decision tree.
      We are still in the process of engaging stakeholders in the development of interim strategies, so that we can have a proper contingency plan in place, probably early in the new year. We very much welcome the scrutiny of bodies such as the Select Committee in the development of a plan, so that it is open and transparent and people understand the reasoning behind it and the options available.
      We are, of course, developing a whole animal health strategy. We are discussing foot and mouth, but the Bill deals with animal health. Inevitably, a great deal of attention will be focused on foot and mouth, but we must think ahead as well. We need adequate contingency plans for a range of exotic diseases, some of which may represent an increased threat because of changes in climate and the spread of insect vectors, for example. The Bill is designed to cope with that and give us the flexibility that we will need in future.
      Mrs. Angela Browning: I am grateful to the Minister, and apologise for the fact that I was not present when he started speaking. Does he recall that he told us in Committee:
      "I want to make it clear to the Committee that vaccinate and slaughter is not an option that I personally support"—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 4 December 2001; col. 171.]
      and went on to explain how he preferred the option of vaccinating animals so that they could continue to live? Is that still his view, and will it influence the outcome of the consultations to which he referred?
      Mr. Morley: The hon. Lady played a prominent part in Committee and she is welcome to intervene. The Secretary of State made it clear in her statement today

      311
      that, generally speaking, if we are going to use emergency vaccination our preference would be a vaccinate-to-live policy. There may be circumstances in which a vaccinate-to-kill-later policy was necessary. That is dealt with in the Bill in relation to compensation, for example, and we accepted some amendments on that. However, I can confirm categorically to the hon. Lady that our preference is for a policy of vaccinate to live.
      I have made it clear why we cannot accept the point made in the Liberal Democrat amendments. However, I am sure that we are not very far apart in our reasoning. We have given an important commitment and I hope that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) will accept that.
      5 pm
      We accept Lords amendment No. 3, which deals with the use of the word "immaterial". We are happy to accept the clarification that it provides. The provision in question enables the Secretary of State, where it is necessary to do so, to use a power to limit the spread of an outbreak and deal with it quickly. Our aim will be to use that power where we believe that it would reduce the total number—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the Minister that the Lords amendment to which he is speaking is in a separate group. At the moment, we are discussing Lords amendment No. 1, Government motion to disagree thereto and Government amendment (a) in lieu, and sub-amendment (i).
      Mr. Morley: Thank you for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am used to dealing with amendments together in Committee and on Report. I do have much more to add.
      Mr. Eric Martlew: I think that I was the only Labour Back Bencher who spoke in favour of the Bill on Second Reading. One of the reasons why I contributed was that it was vague as to whether the Government had the right compulsorily to vaccinate. Does the Bill before us clear that issue up?
      Mr. Morley: The Bill makes the situation clear: the right to vaccinate always existed under the Animal Health Act 1981, but the Bill makes it easier to apply vaccination, as well as culling and serology, more quickly and efficiently.
      There has been much concentration on the Bill in terms of culling—we had the same discussion in Committee—but the issues remain the same. The Bill does not focus entirely on culling. It is designed also to give the powers necessary for speedy entry into and application of vaccination and serology. Those powers are equally important in any application of disease control measures. Indeed, the different emphasis might mean that they become more important, which is a very strong argument for the Bill.
      Andrew George: I seek the Minister's advice on the consumption of vaccinated meat. What
      312
      assessment has his Department and the Food Standards Agency made of that issue? Is the Department clear about how much, if any, vaccinated meat is coming into the country?
      Mr. Morley: We are certainly aware that some vaccinated meat is coming into the country, but vaccines are used in the livestock industry for all sorts of things. As is made clear in the Government's formal written response to the independent inquiries, we certainly believe that there is no reason why vaccinated meat, in this case in relation to foot and mouth disease, should not be placed on the market. There is no safety reason why that should not happen.
      I ask the House to disagree with the amendment, but I hope that it will accept that we have recognised the arguments behind it and tried to give some reassurance by allowing in the Bill for the fact that the issue of vaccination will certainly be considered more prominently in future, along with a range of options, bearing in mind the proper scientific and veterinary advice and the fact that there are still some issues to resolve before we can successfully use it on a large scale.
      Mr. James Gray: I welcome the fact that the Minister has been ready to listen to all the discussions that occurred in Committee, in the House and during the progress of the Bill in the other place. His tabling of an amendment in lieu of the Lords amendment demonstrates that the Government are ready to listen. I understand the Minister's confusion about speaking to the other groups of amendments, but in those, too, the Government have demonstrated that they are ready to listen to the arguments that have been put forward here, in Committee and, particularly, in the other place, by granting a number of concessions on some of the important matters that were raised.
      I understand much of what the Minister said about Lords amendment No. 1. None the less, we shall argue the case in favour of the amendment. The first groups of amendments—including those relating to slaughter, to which the Minister referred a moment ago—bring us to the heart of all that we found wrong with the Bill when it left the House of Commons. Its name is the Animal Health Bill, but as my noble Friend Baroness Byford so memorably said on Second Reading, it would have been better to call it the "Animal Death Bill".
      The Bill was originally introduced to allow the Government to kill animals, whether or not there was a real need to do so and whether or not farmers were prepared to allow it to happen, and to give those farmers unfair compensation for the cull once it had happened. The groups of amendments in this first, one-and-a-half hour debate are designed to correct the Bill's asymmetrical imbalance in favour of death, and to create a Bill that is, wherever possible, in favour of life—a true Animal Health Bill. This remains a bad Bill, but, thanks to these amendments and to the others that we shall debate later, it is a slightly less bad Bill than it was when it left here. We therefore welcome the Government's readiness to accept their Lordships' amendments, which, if time allows, we shall debate later.
      The amendments in the first group relate to the vaccinate-to-live policy. Rather than accepting them, the Government are seeking to water them down. The

      313
      Minister justified that by suggesting that, under EU law, vaccination on farms that had epidemiological connections with farms that were being culled out could not be allowed. I am certain that that is true, and I would not for a second question the Minister's understanding of EU law; I am sure that he is a great expert on it. However, many of the contiguous culls that took place during the crisis two years ago did not involve farms that were epidemiologically connected with farms being culled out. Rather, those farms simply happened to be next door to them. According to my understanding of the matter—I am ready to be corrected—EU law would allow vaccination on neighbouring farms.
      What animal lover could have failed to be affected by the devastating images of the pyres of perfectly healthy animals, just two years ago? Who would not wish to find a way of avoiding that happening again? The unamended Lords amendment offers a means of doing exactly that. The Royal Society's report, which was published in July and to which the Government have rushed out their response today, acknowledges that fact. I remind the House that the report states:
      "It is clear that the long-term solution is to develop a vaccine against FMD (and other diseases such as classical swine fever) that confers lifelong sterile immunity against all strains of the virus. An international research effort is required to develop such a vaccine."
      On short-term planning, it states:
      "Given recent advances in vaccine science and improved trading regulations, emergency vaccines should now be considered as part of the control strategy from the start of any outbreak of FMD. This means 'vaccination to live' rather than vaccination to prevent spread and then culling."
      The Royal Society is, therefore, perfectly clear on the matter. In the National Farmers' Union's response to that report, its president, Mr. Ben Gill, said:
      "The NFU supports the report's recommendation that emergency vaccination should be considered as an option alongside the slaughter of infected animals and dangerous contacts as part of an overall control strategy during any future FMD outbreak."
      The Royal Society, the Follett report and the NFU support the principle of vaccination becoming part of the hierarchy of weapons at the Secretary of State's disposal in the event of another outbreak.
      It might be informative to glance at the way in which Uruguay tackled foot and mouth disease in 2001, to see what can be done using vaccination without subsequent slaughter. Uruguay vaccinated 10 million cattle and eradicated the disease within 15 weeks. Only 7,000 animals were slaughtered, compared with the millions that were culled here, and the human impact was therefore absolutely minimal. The Minister might be keen to hear that the total cost to the Uruguay Government—vaccines, disinfection and compensation to farmers—totalled some $13.6 million, which is a tiny amount compared with what we had to spend here. So, there is a huge amount to be said for vaccination.
      Of course I accept that scientists have begun to understand some of the questions surrounding the effectiveness of vaccination only in the past few months. For that reason, I pay particular tribute to Cross-Bencher Lord Moran, whose determined efforts ensured that the Bill's over-hasty progress through the other place was delayed so that it could be informed by the Royal Society and other reports as well as by those
      314
      scientific advances. It is curious to think back to the Minister and his colleagues in the other place arguing that the Bill must go through terribly quickly as it was terribly important. Here we are, discussing their response to the Royal Society report on the same day as we consider Lords amendments to the Bill.
      Mr. Martlew: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his party opposed the Royal Society report and wanted a public inquiry, whose results we would not have had for at least three years?
      Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman is not quite right. We were certainly not opposed to the Royal Society report or the Follett report. We would indeed have welcomed a public inquiry in addition to the Royal Society report, although we understand that the Government did not want that—plainly, it would have been extremely embarrassing for them—and that they used their self-defence mechanism to avoid such an inquiry. However, to suggest that a public inquiry was an alternative to the Royal Society report is quite wrong.
      It is curious to think of the Government trying to rush the Bill through the House and the other place, despite the fact that they knew that these two vital reports were due in the summer. The Government wanted the Bill to become law in advance of the reports becoming known.
      Mr. Morley rose—
      Mr. Gray: The Minister wants to correct me.
      Mr. Morley: Hindsight is a wonderful thing. When we introduced the Bill, the epidemic had only recently stopped. In all honesty, many people, including us, thought it likely that there would be further outbreaks, and it was important that we had a range of measures to deal with that. Of course, one can never tell when an outbreak might occur. I am glad that there have been no further outbreaks, but we cannot be complacent. I have to say, however, that the hon. Gentleman sounds very complacent.
      Mr. Gray: I am astonished to hear the Minister suggest that my remarks are complacent. I would like to think that his Department had contingency plans in place and that, had there been another small outbreak during that period, it could have dealt with that a great deal more effectively than last time, which was an absolute shambles. Let us hope that the Department has learned a few lessons without any new legislation. I am also astonished that he thought it very likely that there would be more outbreaks. I heard no public announcement from the Department that further outbreaks were very likely, but the Minister has now said that.
      Paul Flynn rose—
      Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman is keen to intervene.
      Paul Flynn: The disease was contained in Uruguay, France, the Netherlands and Ireland, but not here. That was because of the excessive number of animal movements following the first infection. More than I

      315
      million animals were exposed, as animals travelled to at least six markets. Is it not vital that the Bill is passed as quickly as possible, so that the farming industry is protected not just from another foot and mouth outbreak, but from he possible outbreak of many other diseases such as blue tongue virus, vesicular stomatitis and swine vesicular disease? The limitations on animal movements are crucial.
      Mr. Gray: I entirely sympathise with the point about animal movements, and I think that Members on both sides of the House would seek always to restrict animal movements as much as possible, and find ways to use local abattoirs and to sell meat locally, but the truth is that the large buyers of meat buy from across the nation. Of course, a religious cull for certain purposes was the biggest single reason for the movement of elderly ewes that occurred immediately before the main outbreak.
      I have heard the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Murphy) several times on the issue. Of course we agree—[Interruption.] Halal meat is the answer. Most of the old ewes that were brought down to Devon from the north were used for halal meat in Birmingham.[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) is making squeaking noises from a sedentary position, but halal meat was the main reason.
      If I may, I shall return to the main point of today's discussion—Lords amendment No. 1, which has the specific purpose of dealing with vaccination. It would not be right for me to allow hon. Members to ramble on about other matters, as it is important to focus on the particular issue. I was making the point that the Government tried to rush the Bill through the House—it was introduced to this place 12 months ago—and that I am glad of the delay, which has allowed us to consider the outcome of the two reports. The science on vaccination is developing all the time.
      For example, tests to differentiate between vaccinated animals and those that are infected are now fully available to us. That allowed the OIE—the Office Internationale d'Epizootic—to reduce the time for a return to disease-free status from 12 months to six. It happened very recently, and it allowed the EU temporary committee's draft report in September to advocate emergency vaccination as a tool of first resort.
      5.15 pm
      I presume that the EU foot and mouth disease directive, due to be published shortly, will also endorse emergency vaccination as the primary means of control, but if there is no similar presumption in favour of vaccination in the United Kingdom we will be at an immediate competitive disadvantage compared with EU countries where vaccination is preferred. Both the EU report and the directive will doubtless recognise the advances and validation of NSP-free vaccines and the differential tests, and make provision to deal with FMD in line with the new OIE ruling. As the Minister has acknowledged, and as was acknowledged in the earlier statement, the Department is also moving towards being broadly in favour of a degree of vaccination. I welcome that.
      We all accept that there are potential problems with vaccination. An obvious practical difficulty with mass vaccination is the large number of animals involved. The
      316
      views of the international community, especially on meat exports from a vaccinated country, need further clarification and will doubtless also need further negotiation. At present, vaccination cannot be carried out very easily, which is a great worry. We must ensure that we preserve our disease-free status and the ability to export around the world.
      As the Royal Society report notes, the effectiveness and durability of vaccines require much more work. The costs associated with mass vaccination should also be considered, although they are nothing in comparison with the costs of an extensive cull. I accept that there are downsides to vaccination, but at least the amendment offers the Government the opportunity to use it in the event of another outbreak.
      The Minister seemed to suggest that the amendment would require the Government to use vaccination. It does not; it merely requires them to make it a priority—to put it at the top of their tree. Of course a contiguous cull would still be allowed. What we are saying is that, whereas in the old days the cull was the presumption, we want vaccination—at the very least, ring-fenced vaccination—to become the presumption.
      Problems would be involved in moving to the next stage and making vaccination a more permanent prophylactic, but it should not be beyond the wit of man or the expertise of science to demonstrate to the world that vaccinating to live guarantees a disease-free herd. It is possible to differentiate between animals carrying antibodies as a result of infection and those carrying them as result of vaccination. I personally have been vaccinated against yellow fever, smallpox, measles and, no doubt, a variety of other diseases. That does not make me a global health pariah; on the contrary, it allows me to travel abroad with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union and other such useful organisations. Surely the same principle can apply to vaccinated animals.
      Moreover, as the Minister mentioned, the meat that we eat today comes from animals that have been vaccinated against all kinds of disease. The notion of vaccination is not necessarily a bad thing. The Food Safety Agency could quite reasonably reach an early conclusion on whether FMD-vaccinated beef is as good as non-vaccinated beef.
      We believe that vaccination against FMD, both as a firebreak and potentially, in the longer term, as a more general prophylactic, has real possibilities for the future, although we accept that more work is needed on many aspects. The Lords amendment moves our thinking towards vaccination and away from slaughter in a way that we do not think is achieved by the Government's much weaker amendment to it. We are glad that the Government have moved some way in our direction, but we are disappointed that they cannot accept the Lords amendment. We believe that it truly changes an animal death Bill into what we all want it to be, an animal health Bill.
      Mr. Martlew: It is a year since I spoke in the Second Reading debate. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) keeps talking about the outbreak being two years ago, but I remind the House that the week before we introduced the Bill a flock of sheep was killed in south Cumbria on suspicion of being infected, and that

      317
      was just over a year ago. We must not forget how devastating the outbreak was—the millions of animals that were killed, the devastation on the farms, the crippling of the tourist industry in many parts of the country and the fact that we spent billions of pounds that could have been spent elsewhere. I am sure that we can all think of how we could have spent the money. To prove how serious it was, we should remember that the general election was postponed because of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. So the politics of having another outbreak have to be taken into consideration.
      In Cumbria, I was right in the middle of the argument about vaccination. The farmers were in favour of vaccination, but the National Farmers Union and the food industry were against it. The milk factory where I worked for 20 years was threatened with closure if we vaccinated. I do not accept the idea that if we have another outbreak and introduce a policy of vaccinate to live, we will not have these arguments again. We will still have a problem with the food industry as it will be frightened that consumers will be turned off a particular product if we have a policy of vaccinate to live.
      A policy of vaccinate to kill is absolute nonsense. In December, the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee and I attended a conference in Brussels and listened to the Dutch agriculture Minister, who was still shell-shocked by the anger of the people of Holland having found out that 750,000 pigs there had been vaccinated and then all killed. The idea that we should have a policy of vaccinate to kill is nonsensical. An emergency policy of vaccinate to live still raises great worries, as we will have the same arguments with the farmers and the food industry. The way to go is to introduce routine vaccination that becomes part of the culture of farming, rather than being introduced in a crisis. The consumers will accept it. It must be a Europe-wide policy. In animal welfare terms, the benefits will be tremendous, but the spin off to other industries, including the tourist industries, of knowing that we can never go back to the devastation of last year will also be valuable.
      When I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State during her statement, she gave me some assurance that the matter was being looked at, but if European Governments do not show real commitment to routine vaccination, industry will not spend billions of pounds on developing a vaccine, particularly if EU politics are not committed to using it.
      We need guidance from the Government. I believe that a vaccine is not far away. When the Select Committee questioned members of the Follett committee, they expressed the same view. I remind the Minister that Britain persuaded the rest of the EU to stop the routine vaccination of animals, so it was done in the past.
      I believe that false information has been disseminated about carrying animals. There is no evidence that an animal that has had the disease and recovered passes that disease on to other animals. If we look at the history of foot and mouth disease in this country, some animals who had had the disease must have escaped the cull and survived, but fortunately we have had no more outbreaks this year. I supported the Bill on Second Reading because it gave us the option of vaccination. I was quite impressed by the response from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I would warn the
      318
      Minister that the idea that in a crisis we can introduce a policy of vaccination to live will he fraught with the same dangers that we faced last time.
      Mr. Curry: I understand the reasons why the Government introduced a Bill so rapidly after the epidemic, but it had a very punitive air, and its measures were draconian. The pause has helped, and it is now much more balanced. On vaccination, the Government have got the balance about right. The other place has gone too far—it has run a little ahead of the science. We must ensure that the Government retain the flexibility to apply measures appropriate to particular circumstances—probably a range of measures—without necessarily being predisposed towards a particular set of measures.
      As far as vaccination is concerned, there are three crucial factors. First, we must have a vaccine that is polyvalent—that can deal with all the strains of foot and mouth disease. Secondly, there should be a field test to distinguish vaccinated animals from those that are genuinely infected. In the circumstances of an outbreak, there is no point in sending samples to laboratories and having to wait three days or so for the results. Finally, there is the requirement that international trade rules should deliver the acceptability of vaccinated product and, indeed, that the various people in the industry should accept it.
      5.30 pm
      Interestingly, in Holland—the Dutch experience did involve vaccination—all vaccinated animal product was destroyed: none of it went into the food chain. The National Farmers Union may have had concerns about vaccination and the possibility of a two-tier market opening up, but as the Minister said, the food industry also had hesitations about the acceptability of vaccinated product. It is all very well saying that all animals have been vaccinated and various steps have been taken—we know that that is so—but as certain other episodes have shown, consumer reaction does not necessarily follow what we would describe as logic. It is entirely for consumers to decide what they wish to buy.
      Mr. Drew: As always, the right hon. Gentleman talks eminent good sense. Does he accept that one problem with having a vaccination policy in the midst of an outbreak is that, in effect, there would not be one policy? One might well choose ring-vaccination, but to ensure the most effective policy—and to ensure that animals were being vaccinated to live—it would almost certainly have to be linked to the prophylactic vaccination of virtually all other stock. What are the right hon. Gentleman's views on mixing policies during an outbreak?
      Mr. Curry: There would inevitably be a mix. A great deal depends on how rapidly one gets to an outbreak before significant movement occurs. If such movement does occur, a vaccination strategy becomes difficult to apply because of the sheer problems of tracing. I am very doubtful about prophylactic vaccination. There have been instances right across the uplands of trying to count animals for the purpose of making claims on the support systems. It is very difficult indeed to get hold of

      319
      every single sheep, so the answer is, "First, find your sheep." If it were felt that even just a handful of animals had not been caught by prophylactic vaccination, significant difficulties would arise in terms of regulation and marketing.
      Why does not the Minister ask Sir Brian Follett to keep a watching brief on this issue? Why is not Sir Brian asked to make an annual report to the Department, and to Parliament, on where the science has taken us? The Department could then add an annexe, stating the policy implications of where we are in terms of vaccines. Very few Members are scientists, and we need someone to translate the science into sensible terms. Sir Brian did an outstanding job in the report; he has credibility, and he would be a good person to take on that task. That, combined with the policy implications and comments from the Food Standards Agency, would be an example of the joined-up government of which we hear a great deal, but see a good deal less.
      The Liberal Democrat amendment adds a little in declamatory terms, but absolutely nothing of substance, and I hope that they will not press it to a vote. The sensible thing is for the House to accept the amendment as formulated by the Government—it strikes a sensible balance according to the current state of our knowledge—provided that they set in motion the machinery to ensure regular updating of knowledge, and that they draw the conclusions publicly, for us all to see.
      Andrew George: I suppose that I should move amendment (i) in the name of my right hon. Friends and myself.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may speak to the amendment; it will be moved formally later.
      Andrew George: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for clarifying the issue, and I apologise for being out of order.
      I welcome the efforts made by their lordships in amending the Bill. Some significant and comprehensive work was done in Committee and on Report in the House of Lords, and the Bill, as amended, is considerably better than when the Commons sent it to their lordships. I welcome the opportunity for their lordships to demonstrate that they can be an effective revising Chamber.
      I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted some of the amendments originally tabled by my noble Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches in the House of Lords—for example, that on an annual report in respect of meat imports and the related regulations and surveillance. I also welcome the fact that the Government have shifted their position and are prepared to open their eyes to the opportunity of introducing an amendment that would at least allow a vaccination policy to be used if an outbreak occurs in future.
      However, perhaps harping back to today's statement, some lessons should be learned, one of which is that the Government should not attempt to rush through such
      320
      Bills and that they must provide themselves with a greater opportunity to request reports, such as the two on which we have just considered the Government response, before introducing legislation.
      Mr. Roger Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that if ever a Bill would have benefited from pre-legislative scrutiny, this was it?
      Andrew George: Absolutely. Although the Select Committee considered aspects of the foot and mouth outbreak and proposals in the Bill, the fact is that a number of important factors were not taken into account. The Bill has benefited from the delay as a result of considering the Anderson and Follett reports, and even the Government could not deny that. Among the lessons that need to be learned generally is the fact the Government need to reflect on the way in which they treat the industry. It is fundamentally important that the Government recognise that they must build a climate of trust between themselves and the industry in any future legislation or action that they take in relation to any future outbreak. What worries me about several of the Government's proposals is that the Bill is based on a lack of trust and forcing the Government's will on farmers.
      I welcome the Minister's statement at the commencement of the debate that he is not against the general principle of our amendment, although he did not go on to argue specifically against the practice of our amendment. Is it a question of priority, or does he accept the principle that a vaccinate-to-live policy should be applied wherever possible and that wholesale farm slaughter should be used as a policy of last resort? If he fundamentally agrees with the principle that that policy should be applied, why will he not agree to its inclusion in the Bill? He did not answer that question.
      Mr. Morley rose—
      Andrew George: I will happily give way to the Minister—perhaps he will have an answer.
      Mr. Morley: First, amendment No. 1 is unnecessary, as the Government have tabled amendments to respond to the problem. Secondly, it states that vaccination should be the option of first resort, but EU law covering infected premises and dangerous contacts places on us an obligation to slaughter. The amendment is therefore technically flawed. It would enable a person to mount a legal challenge against the Government for implementing normal disease control methods.
      Andrew George: I am grateful for that clarification. However, the amendment would not undermine the Government's ability to demonstrate that they had looked at a vaccinate-to-live policy properly. Government amendment (a) in lieu states that the Secretary of State
      "must consider whether in relation to the occurrence treating animals with serum or vaccine is more appropriate".
      The Secretary of State might consider that problem, but dismiss very quickly employing treatment with serum or vaccine. That decision cannot be challenged at present. The aim of the amendment is to require the

      321
      Government to be more specific. Despite claims to the contrary, it does not commit the Government to a vaccinate-to-live policy. It would require the Government to make every effort to ensure that the option had been considered properly. It would also require them to be able to show that they had considered the matter before another approach was adopted.
      Mr. Drew: Who would decide whether the Government had made an appropriate evaluation of a vaccination or serum policy? Would it be the courts, or would an independent agency be established to make that adjudication? I am genuinely confused about how the proposal would work.
      Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. If he accepts the principle behind the amendment, his question suggests that he thinks that the Bill should be further amended to clarify the way in which the decision would be made. There are many opportunities for Parliament in that respect. If the Secretary of State had to demonstrate that proper consideration had been given to a vaccinate-to-live policy, it would be possible for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee, for example, to give that decision proper scrutiny. Without that safeguard, the decisions could be made behind closed doors. We know that it is possible that the decision to use a slaughter policy rather than a vaccination policy could be made on the basis of what is convenient for the Department. The reasons for such a decision could be extraneous and not based on principle.
      Mr. Martlew: Both of the reports that the House discussed earlier today accuse the Government of having a slow decision-making process, and identified it as a major problem in the most recent foot and mouth outbreak. The amendment would slow that process even further. Why change the Bill in a way that would make sure that that fault is still present when the next outbreak comes along?
      Andrew George: I do not believe that the requirement to demonstrate that the Secretary of State has properly considered implementing a vaccinate-to-live policy would slow decision making. The Minister said that he agrees with the proposal in principle, but the hon. Gentleman implies that the Secretary of State should be given a way not to give proper consideration to the policy—he would not have to give full consideration to all the implications of the decision that is eventually made.
      I cannot see how it will in practice delay the process, but it may result in better outcomes. Rather than arguing that it may delay a worse outcome, surely it would be better to allow for a proper process that might result in a better outcome with better and quicker control of the disease.
      Mr. Curry: Is not the truth that the hon. Gentleman's amendment will not make the blindest bit of difference? There is no way for him to know the nature of the consideration that the Minister has given. In any foreseeable circumstances, it is inconceivable that a Minister would take a decision to slaughter without considering the alternatives, given the sort of public disquiet that that would inevitably raise. I am afraid that
      322
      although the hon. Gentleman's amendment has a jolly political purpose, it has no practical or political substance at all.
      Andrew George: The right hon. Gentleman says that it is inconceivable for Ministers to conclude that it would be better to use a slaughter policy rather than vaccinate if they have properly considered the issue, but during the last outbreak it was conceivable. One of the concerns throughout the outbreak and a reason why a lot of the processes were delayed was that many farmers did not feel that they had been properly represented or that the Government were on their side. It became conceivable that decisions were taken for reasons that were not directed towards the best possible outcome. If we want better and quicker outcomes in any future outbreak, we need transparency in the way in which Government processes work and the decision-making process operates.
      The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) rightly spoke about the impact on the retailing of vaccinated meat. No doubt next time that will be a matter for consideration.
      This debate has given us an opportunity to bring forward some excellent proposals, such as the one put forward by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) for an annual report to be made to Parliament and DEFRA on progress to identify a vaccine. I would be interested in the Under-Secretary's response to that proposal because I hope that we could take it forward.
      I do not want to detain the House unnecessarily on this matter; I am sure that I have spoken for far too long and I know that many others wish to speak. However, Liberal Democrat Members believe that it is important to be more explicit in the Bill and to be clear that there is a decision-making stream. If the Under-Secretary agrees with the principle of the amendment, it should feature in the Bill.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: May I give some support to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) in supporting the amendment from the other place? I think that we would all like to support it, because it is the ideal for which we strive. Sadly, however, I have to side with my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) in challenging the practicality of the Lords amendment. The Government's amendment is a reasonable compromise between what we would like and what we can work with in practice, so I hope that my hon. Friend does not push this to a Division. If he does, I might be in a different Lobby from him, and that is rather a dangerous occupation for a Conservative Member of Parliament at present.
      I am no great expert on the intricacies of vaccination, but the farming community would face difficulties if a system of prophylactic vaccination were introduced. As we have heard, it is virtually impossible—indeed, it is impossible—to ensure that all stock is collected and vaccinated. It is estimated that there are 30 million sheep in the United Kingdom, with 3 million or 4 million in my constituency. Even in normal circumstances it is virtually impossible to get all the sheep down from the fields for dipping.

      323
      5.45 pm
      During the foot and mouth culling, I attended a number of culls, including one on some large open-range farms where several thousand ewes were slaughtered over a couple of days. Not a single ewe or lamb was left on the hills, but the next day another hundred came out of hiding to see where their colleagues had gone. It is sadly impossible to guarantee that all stock is slaughtered.
      Mr. Martlew: I understand the hon. Gentleman's train of thought, but if the vast of majority of the flock is immunised we will not have a major outbreak, will we?
      Mr. Atkinson: I am advised that that is not the case. I have been told that if a single animal is not vaccinated, it could travel through the firebreak and spread infection. We were talking about the Dutch experience—there were three quarters of a million pigs in one unit, so there was no problem getting to them and vaccinating them. The situation with sheep and hill cattle is very different. Hill cattle are extremely wild and are hard to round up, as we discovered during the foot and mouth cull. Wild deer are common in many parts of the United Kingdom now, and are potential carriers of foot and mouth—the Minister will threaten me if I am wrong—and there is no point having a prophylactic vaccination system if a large section of the animal population is not vaccinated.
      Mr. Martlew: The reality is that we did not kill all the wild deer after the last outbreak, but we have not had any further outbreaks.
      Mr. Atkinson: I accept that. I do not know the risks of foot and mouth being transmitted to the wild deer population, but in a fail-safe vaccination system we must consider the chance of wild animals moving within a vaccinated animal community. That possibility has not been properly addressed.
      I understand the hon. Gentleman's desire to avoid the unpleasant scenes that he and I witnessed at first hand, but that is a distant eventuality. We may one day achieve it, but in the meantime the Government amendment is the most practical compromise.
      Mrs. Browning: Another aspect of the problem was touched on in Committee, but we did not get a definitive answer from the Minister. Any vaccination policy must deal with the question of the right to enter premises to enforce vaccination. That power needs to be looked at carefully.
      Mr. Morley: It is in the Bill.
      Mrs. Browning: I believe that the Minister is trying to help me, as he is usually helpful. However, a policy of prophylactic vaccination raises the question whether or not the Government will enforce it.
      Mr. Atkinson: I agree entirely. How would we ensure that all animals were vaccinated? It would not be practical to test them to see whether a farmer was telling
      324
      the truth. It would be pretty easy, however, for him to claim that all his animals were vaccinated, but not vaccinate them.
      Mr. Bill Wiggin: I am afraid that my intervention will not be particularly helpful for my hon. Friend, but it is possible to vaccinate with a bolus that can be traced, so there is accountability.
      Mr. Atkinson: I am sure that my hon. Friend is correct, but I mentioned that there were 30 million sheep in the UK, so he will recognise the size of the problem. Obviously, if a farmer was suspected of not vaccinating his flock, that could be checked. My hon. Friend surely cannot be considering random tests in a national flock of that size.
      Will the Minister consider vaccination for rare breeds and species? There is certainly a case for prophylactic vaccination of herds of wild cattle, such as the Chillingham cattle in Northumberland, as their meat will never enter the food chain.
      I have to say, reluctantly, that their lordships' amendments are too ambitious and that the compromise that we have been asked to support is correct.
      Mr. Wiggin: I am in a quandary because I hate to disagree with my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson). I welcome the Lords amendment to a part of the Bill that initially gave the Minister the right to slaughter anything he felt like slaughtering. Indeed, the Minister defended that admirably in Committee, despite our protestations. However, the current emphasis on "vaccinate to live" is the right line to take. Vaccination is right. Unfortunately, the Government's amendment does not seem to put a strong emphasis on vaccination to live. Instead, they revert to previous arguments about what they would do to prevent the spread of disease. I have no objection to the Government wanting to prevent the spread of disease; that is entirely laudable and their right. However, they have missed the point of the Lords amendment: the vaccination policy puts the emphasis on the right to live.
      The provision would make a difference because the vaccinate-to-live policy would apply to animals that were not infected or that had not been in contact with infected animals. The Lords amendment is sensible and helpful. The Government's proposals fail to incorporate the laudable parts of the Lords amendment, which is a great shame. Last year, there was an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the state of Rio Grande du Sol in Brazil and all bovine animals in the region were vaccinated. Thirty days after completion of the programme, the European Commission lifted its previous ban on meat imports from the area.
      Vaccination is getting better and better. It is laudable and offers the right way forward. The Government's proposals miss the point of a helpful amendment from the other place. I hope that the Minister will stop living in the nightmare of the past and that he will grasp the potential for more and better vaccination to live.
      Mr. Drew: One point that has not yet been made is that one reason for keeping animals alive is to sell them.

      325
      I am worried about whether there would be a market for vaccinated animals. As the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) pointed out, if we do not carry out prophylactic vaccination, there will be unvaccinated animals. Might not that problem undermine the proposal?
      Mr. Wiggin: That is not a problem. We face problems with vaccination in our own lives every day. I have a one-year-old daughter and I am going through the MMR vaccine dilemma. We all have to live with such things. We are constantly told that the technology is improving. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but there is no problem because foot and mouth disease would not pass into the food chain through vaccinated animals.
      I hope that the Minister will bear my comments in mind and that, if the technology exists, he will implement the positive sentiment that he expressed in his speech and that the Government will not retreat behind a policy of slaughtering to prevent the spread of disease when they could be vaccinating against a threat from abroad, even if there was no threat in this country.
      A vaccinate-to-live policy offers huge opportunities, and the Government are failing to grasp that helpful olive branch.
      Mr. Morley: I welcome the hon. Members for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and for St. Ives (Andrew George) to their new roles and responsibilities for their respective parties. There have been some useful and thoughtful contributions to the debate. Several Members spoke with some authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) was a strong and consistent advocate of vaccination throughout the recent outbreak. Like many Members who spoke, he had firsthand experience of it. He pointed out that the Government's changing response was significant in dealing with some of the problems that arose during the outbreak, especially in Cumbria.
      One claim that has come up time and again is that the Bill is all about culling. It is not. My hon. Friend is right to point that out. During the last outbreak, a minority of people objected strongly to the contiguous cull and there were many appeals to the district veterinary manager, many hundreds of which were upheld, according to circumstances.
      If we moved to emergency vaccination, however, there would also be a minority of people who would not wave flags when they saw the vaccination teams coming down the road. A minority would vociferously resist vaccination for all sorts of reasons. My hon. Friend is right about that.
      Mr. Drew: As I pointed out earlier, I am worried about how far it will be possible or practical to build a consensus. The farming industry is so differentiated that some people will vaccinate come what may, while others will do everything possible to avoid vaccination. What strategy does my hon. Friend anticipate to cope with those different forces?
      Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) referred to the disagreement about the vaccination strategy. That must he resolved both by addressing
      326
      some of the technical issues that were raised by hon. Members and by engaging the food and livestock industries in the debate. Many of the problems can be resolved, but we must do so at present while we are developing animal health strategies and reviewing our contingency plans. We should deal with the issues in a cool and calculated way rather than in the middle of an epidemic.
      Mr. Martlew: Are those negotiations taking place? Are the Government talking to the NFU and the food industry? Have there been any discussions about compensation if the value of meat and milk from vaccinated animals is less than it would be from those that had not been vaccinated?
      Mr. Morley: We are talking to industry groups about all the issues: We set up a stakeholder group that was active throughout the epidemic and successfully gave all interested parties in the livestock industry the opportunity to discuss the issues with Ministers, the chief vet and Government scientists. My hon. Friend's last point is difficult for the Government to address, not least because it has been agreed to use vaccination in a range of cases. There is no reason that the vaccinated product should not go into the food chain. That was certainly agreed by the Food Standards Agency during the outbreak.
      6 pm
      Paul Flynn: Is not the objection to eating meat that has been subject to vaccination an irrational and unscientific one? The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said that he had had a bumper bundle of vaccines. The difference is that no one is planning to eat him; even in the Conservative party, cannibalism has been ruled out. However, there is a feeling that many shoppers might object. During the foot and mouth epidemic, the result of the virtual collapse of the flow of meat from British farms was that more meat, much of which had already been vaccinated, was sucked in from overseas? Will the Department campaign to ensure that the fear of vaccinated meat is removed?
      Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is right. It is ironic that when vaccination was being considered during the epidemic, some of the product that came into this country to make up the shortfall was vaccinated. Consumers are not concerned about vaccination as long as it has been demonstrated to be safe, and as long as bodies such as the Food Standards Agency have looked into it in some detail.
      Mr. Drew: Is my hon. Friend talking to the milk industry about the impact of vaccinating cattle for other diseases, as we may be faced with the same question in relation to bovine TB? Will he say something about that matter, as it will become an issue in addition to whether people eat the meat?
      Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is right. We are trying to develop a vaccine against TB and I hope that we make the breakthrough. We are committing resources to that and it is one of the criteria within the terms of reference of the independent scientific group. He is right that if we

      327
      use vaccination, we must reassure people that its use is safe. That will be part of the vaccine development and I have no doubt that the issue will be addressed.
      Mr. Wiggin: At the moment, TB vaccine is about 60 per cent. effective. What target is he looking for before the vaccine is introduced? I believe that £60 million has gone into TB research, of which £1.6 million has gone into bovine TB. What will the target be?
      Mr. Morley: The vaccine certainly will need to be a lot more effective but a considerable amount of work is yet to be done. Scientists are confident that it is possible to develop a vaccine for bovine TB. The difficulty is the time scale. However, a vaccine is our avowed objective and we are proceeding with it.
      The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said that balance was important in terms of vaccination. That is where amendment No. 1 from the other place and the Liberal Democrat amendment are flawed, as they restrict the Government and are open to arguments of interpretation. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) wondered who would interpret and decide on these matters, but his answer was a little vague. That is exactly where one can start to get into difficulties.
      I understood the point raised by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon about Sir Brian Follett. We have set up a scientific advisory group chaired by the Department's new chief scientist. That gives us an opportunity to bring in a range of opinions on taking things forward. There should be periodic reports on progress, as we want to be as open and transparent as possible.
      The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon and the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) are right that there are still issues to be resolved. The issue of vaccination is not simple and a range of criteria must be taken into account. They referred to hill sheep and the problem of getting them down and vaccinating them. There is also the risk of stress for the animals, which can have all sorts of problems.
      Mr. Martlew: I understand my hon. Friend's comment about fell sheep, but is it not Government policy to tag them? Will we not have to keep a record of them? The animals will suffer stress then; I do not understand the difference.
      Mr. Morley: I was talking about the practicality of vaccinating those sheep. All these issues can be addressed, but the Government are trying to strike a balance by recognising that there is an increased role for vaccination. We concede that there have been changes in technology that make the situation easier. Also, we recognise that there may be circumstances in which we want to use stamping-out policies as a first-strike response. By law, we have to do that with respect to infected premises and dangerous contacts.
      The Liberal Democrat amendment calls for a vaccinate-to-live policy to be taken into account as a first issue. There may be circumstances where, as part of
      328
      a disease control strategy, we may want to use a vaccinate-and-kill policy. For example, there might be an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in an intensive pig unit. In such an outbreak, a considerable plume of virus will be downwind from the unit. There may be another unit, smack bang in that virus plume. That is more than a dangerous contact; it is almost certain that those pigs will develop the virus. That unit may have 10,000 or 20,000 pigs. In relation to disposal and humane culling, we want to control that outbreak. The best of way of doing that is to vaccinate the whole herd and then to cull in a controlled way. The amendment would take away that option.
      Andrew George: The Under-Secretary has perhaps not read the amendment correctly. It does not discount that option. The fact that the amendment does not specifically list all of the options that might be considered does not mean that a vaccinate-to-kill policy cannot be pursued by the Secretary of State. On the question of to whom the evidence for the decision-making can be shown, I would regret any Department not wanting transparency in the decision-making process. Whether the evidence is shown or not, it is still open to legal challenge and the Secretary of State could still be challenged by a lawyer on behalf of a farmer.
      Mr. Morley: We are open to legal challenge on a range of subjects at any time; that has cost a lot of people a lot of money in recent months and years. I do not dispute the reasonableness with which the hon. Gentleman has made his case, or that he genuinely recognises that there are circumstances in which we might want to take a different approach. However, once we start writing into legislation measures that we regard as flawed, we may find that there are many people who are not as reasonable or as helpful as who want him to challenge us.
      The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon and the hon. Member for Hexham recognised the balance that the Government are trying to strike by recognising that emergency vaccination has a role, but also that there may be a range of options and circumstances in which we take a different approach.
      I want to reassure the hon. Member for Hexham on rare breeds, of which Chillingham cattle is one. During the last outbreak, we sought and obtained permission to use vaccination for rare breeds and some rare zoo animals if the circumstances dictated that that should be the case. In relation to our detailed response to the Follett and the Anderson reports, we have made it clear that vaccination remains an option for breeds. If they are under threat, we can consider vaccination. However, use of vaccination in relation to disease control is a different issue.
      The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) made a very strong case for vaccination, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). I strongly disagree with him, however, in relation to his comments about Lords amendment No. 1, with which we cannot agree. As I have emphasised, it is not that we do not agree with the principle. The Government are showing that we recognise the change in circumstances and technology and are responding to the recommendations in the two reports on the basis of the amendment that we have tabled. That has been recognised by the hon.

      329
      Member for Hexham, who has first-hand experience of the epidemic in his area, and by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, who is a former Minister and current Chairman of the Select Committee. I hope that the hon. Member for Leominster gives careful thought to their wise counsel.
      In relation to the amendment, we are trying to respond to the debate in Committee. I accept the comments of the hon. Member for St. Ives that we have moved a long way in relation to the original Bill. That reflects the reasonable points made by Members on both sides of the House, and the commitments that we gave in Committee and on Report that we would address them.
      Mr. David Kidney: As my hon. Friend appreciates, I have been listening quietly to this debate. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) made the point about involving Sir Brian Follett in the future with follow-up reports. My hon. Friend said that the answer is the science committee that he has set up, and that he is all in favour of transparency. Clearly, however, this matter will develop over time, and there is an issue of public confidence for the future. Will he comment a little on what information we will receive in the guise of transparency, and what information the public will receive?
      Mr. Morley: First, on the contingency plans, we are making them public and involving a range of stakeholders in the debate and the formulation of those plans. Secondly, in relation to the scientific group, which, as I mentioned, has been set up, we will want to keep in touch with Sir Brian and with Dr. Anderson on the way in which these issues develop. We are also committed to bringing forward and developing the animal health strategy, on which we are consulting with a range of groups. We want all of the documents to be living documents, as we will come back periodically to review and revise them, and to make sure that they address the relevant points for which they are designed. Some exercises and tests will be necessary in relation to the contingency arrangements, too.
      We therefore want to involve a range of experts, some of whom are outside the Department, in terms of their advice and involvement in the development of strategies and future plans. A huge amount of work is going on, and we propose to make public the progress on these issues and the time scales for reporting. That is also part of our commitment to transparency and openness.
      Mr. Kidney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. May I move the discussion on one stage further? One of his objections to the Lords amendment was that it could contravene European law. As we make discoveries, developments, explain matters, and develop policy, what would be the position in Europe? Would we be able to carry Europe with us in making similar changes?
      Mr. Morley: I believe so. There has been a change in attitude from the EU and the Office Internationale d'Epizootic. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle joined me at the conference in Brussels that was cosponsored by the UK and Holland to look at the whole issue of foot and mouth disease. The experience that we
      330
      had in the last outbreak has changed the thinking in all countries: it has also changed the thinking in relation to the international organisation and the European Union. Incidentally, that change makes the vaccination options easier: it addresses some of the issues and problems that we came across in the course of the last epidemic.
      I hope that I have demonstrated that the Government have responded to the thrust of the arguments in terms of the role of vaccination, that the Lords amendment is flawed, and that we cannot accept it. I call on the House to support the Government.
      It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day]
      The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 190.

      Division No. 355]

      [6:15 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clelland, David

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Ainger, Nick

      Coaker, Vernon

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Alexander, Douglas

      Coleman, Iain

      Allen, Graham

      Colman, Tony

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Connarty, Michael

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cooper, Yvette

      Austin, John

      Cousins, Jim

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Baird, Vera

      Cranston, hon. Ross

      Barnes, Harry

      Cruddas, Jon

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Battle, John

      Cummings, John

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Benn, Hilary

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Berry, Roger

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Best, Harold

      David, Wayne

      Betts, Clive

      Davidson, Ian

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Borrow, David

      Dawson, Hilton

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Doran, Frank

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Bryant, Chris

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Burden, Richard

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Burgon, Colin

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Burnham, Andy

      Edwards, Huw

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Efford, Clive

      Cairns, David

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Etherington, Bill

      Caplin, Ivor

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Caton, Martin

      Fisher, Mark

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Challen, Colin

      Flint, Caroline

      Chaytor, David

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Clapham, Michael

      Follett, Barbara

      Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Foulkes, rh George

      331

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Linton, Martin

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Gardiner, Barry

      Love, Andrew

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Luke, lain (Dundee E)

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gilroy, Linda

      McCabe, Stephen

      Godsiff, Roger

      McCafferty, Chris

      Goggins, Paul

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Grogan, John

      MacDonald, Calum

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McDonnell, John

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      MacDougall, John

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hanson, David

      McIsaac, Shona

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      McKechin, Ann

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      McNulty, Tony

      Healey, John

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      McWalter, Tony

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Hendrick, Mark

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mallaber, Judy

      Heppell, John

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Heppell, John

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Hermon, Lady

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Heyes, David

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hodge, Margaret

      Martlew, Eric

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Merron, Gillian

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Michael, rh Alun

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Miliband, David

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Mole, Chris

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Morgan, Julie

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Morley, Elliot

      Hutton rh John

      Mullin, Chris

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Jamieson, David

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Jenkins, Brian

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Olner, Bill

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Owen, Albert

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Perham, Linda

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Picking, Anne

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Pound, Stephen

      Kemp, Fraser

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Kidney, David

      Prescott, rh John

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Purchase, Ken

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Purnell, James

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Rammell, Bill

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Lepper, David

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Leslie, Christopher

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

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

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      332

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Thomas Simon (Ceredigion)

      Rooney, Terry

      Tipping, Paddy

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Trickett, Jon

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Truswell, Paul

      Ruane, Chris

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Salter, Martin

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Sawford, Phil

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Ward, Claire

      Sheerman, Barry

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Watts, David

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      White, Brian

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Singh, Marsha

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Skinner, Dennis

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Wilson, Brian

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Winnick, David

      Soley, Clive

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Spellar, rh John

      Squire, Rachel

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Woodward, Shaun

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Wyatt, Derek

      Stringer, Graham

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Charlotte Atkins and

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mr. Phil Willis

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Allan, Richard

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Amess, David

      Cash, William

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Bacon, Richard

      Chope, Christopher

      Baker, Norman

      Clappison, James

      Baldry, Tony

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Barker, Gregory

      Collins, Tim

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Cotter, Brian

      Barrett, John

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Bercow, John

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Boswell, Tim

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Dodds, Nigel

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M

      Brady, Graham

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Doughty, Sue

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Evans, Nigel

      Burnett, John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Burns, Simon

      Flook, Adrian

      Burnside, David

      Forth rh Eric

      Burstow, Paul

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Burt, Alistair

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Butterfill, John

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Garnier, hon. Edward

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Cameron, David

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      333

      Gidley, Sandra

      Page, Richard

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Paice, James

      Goodman, Paul

      Paterson, Owen

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Grayling, Chris

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Randall, John

      Greenway, John

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Rendel, David

      Gummer, rh John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hancock, Mike

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Harvey, Nick

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Heath, David

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Hendry, Charles

      Sanders, Adrian

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Selous, Andrew

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Hunter, Andrew

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Jack, rh Michael

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

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Soames, Nicholas

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Keetch, Paul

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Spring, Richard

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Steen, Anthony

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Streeter, Gary

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Stunell, Andrew

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Lamb, Norman

      Syms, Robert

      Lansley, Andrew

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Leigh, Edward

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Thurso, John

      Lidington, David

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Lillev, rh Peter

      Tredinnick, David

      Trend, Michael

      Loughton, Tim

      Trimble, rh David

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      MacKay, rh Andrew

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Maclean, rh David

      Viggers, Peter

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Walter, Robert

      Malins, Humfrey

      Waterson, Nigel

      Maples, John

      Watkinson, Angela

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Mates, Michael

      Wilkinson, John

      Maude, rh Francis

      Willetts, David

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Willis, Phil

      Mercer, Patrick

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Norman, Archie

      Young, rh Sir George

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Mr. David Wilshire and

      Ottaway, Richard

      Mr. Mark Francois

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.
      Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to.
      334
      Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 12 agreed to [some with Special Entry].

    New Clause
    Lords amendment: No. 13, after clause 4, to 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 (1) 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.""
    Mr. Morley: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 45 and Government amendments (a) and (b) thereto.
    Mr. Morley: The Bill is important. It deals with crucial animal health issues. In light of that, I am sorry that the Lords made the amendment. No one disputes the fact that there are serious problems of movement control and stock movement. However, I emphasise that the 20-day standstill rules are supported by firm scientific and veterinary advice and represent the Government's current best view of an appropriate precautionary peacetime control. The main purpose of the Lords amendment is to protect against future outbreaks, rather than deal with the aftermath of past ones. That is one of a number of reasons why we strongly disagree with the amendment, which seems to imply that movement controls should be applied only in the course of an epidemic. That is not the way that the Government see it and it is not the way that the independent reports see it. Furthermore, it is not the way that the majority of those in the livestock industry see it—they recognise that there is a sound argument for movement controls.
    There is a legitimate debate about the extent of the controls and how they should be applied. In my experience, however, the vast majority of people in the livestock industry accept that there is a case for such controls as a routine measure to reduce the risk of disease.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: I agree that the Lords amendment is flawed in that respect, but there is a principle behind it. The Minister mentioned the need for movement controls and, in principle, I agree. Does he accept, however, that the present 20-day rule is a restriction, not just a control? It is an overhang from the previous foot and mouth outbreak. Will he take this opportunity to give advance notice to the farming industry of how he sees that control system working? We cannot have a restriction that is so deadly, in particular to stock rearing and to the sheep industry?
    Mr. Morley: I sat down with industry representatives during the summer to talk about the implications of the

    335
    20-day rule. The hon. Gentleman is right to the extent that that rule was strictly applied during the epidemic as a disease-control measure. However, the way in which it is being applied at present reflects changes that I agreed with the industry—a range of relaxations have been put in place and we have tried to strike a balance between my recognition of the industry's concerns and the detrimental impact that the rule can have on them, which I and the Department try to take into account, and the need to reduce the risk of disease spreading.
    A large percentage of the livestock industry can work within the rules that we have amended. Some sections of the industry may find it difficult to do so. We take those issues seriously. We want to examine them and we will do so in the light of the independent risk assessments, which will be published towards the end of the month. That will allow us to consider movement controls in time for the spring movement regime and to put whatever recommendations are made in place.
    Mr. Curry: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the problems with the controls and the way in which farmers see them is that, in practice, they seem leaky and contradictory? For example, I can buy sheep and put them in a field next to my neighbour's sheep, separated by a bit of wire fence, and I am stuck with them for 20 days, but he can sell his sheep on. Farmer Morley and Farmer Curry can take sheep to market and they can be in adjacent pens talking to each other. I can take Farmer Morley's sheep home but, because I have put them in quarantine, they are not caught by the 20-clay rule. I cannot take my own sheep home without being caught by the rule. Those are the contradictions that bring the measure into disrepute. Those are the problems that the Minister has to solve if he is to get farmers to consent willingly to accept a measure that we all agree is necessary.
    Mr. Morley: As always, the right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, although there is supposed to be a separation distance between the fields as part of the isolation conditions. I accept that there are anomalies that need to be addressed. It is a case of balancing the risk and of taking measures to reduce risk. Whatever the regime that is put in place, there are likely to be a few anomalies. We have to try to square those anomalies while achieving an adequate balance. The independent risk assessment from the Veterinary Laboratories Agency will help us to deal with that issue.
    Paul Flynn: The report makes it clear that if a 20-day movement rule had been in place when foot and mouth came to this country, the disease would have been confined to a tiny area. There were only a few cases of airborne infection; the rest resulted from animal movements. There are about half a dozen deadly diseases that could come into the country at any moment. It would be too late to impose a movement ban once they had done so; we must have the ban in place now.
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is right. If we had had the 20-day rule in place when the incident took place in Heddon-on-the-Wall—the outbreak in the pigs there
    336
    and the fact that it was not reported—the disease still would have spread, because of the two-week delay, but the consequences would not have been anywhere near as bad as they were as a result of the huge movement of sheep that took place. It is a question of trying to reduce the chances of that happening.
    There has to be some sort of movement control. The principle is not hugely controversial. A minority will always want to return to the situation before FMD. I have made clear that that is not an option. We are not going back to the situation before FMD. Many of the measures in the Bill—vaccination, compensation and a range of other issues—are a recognition that, after FMD, the situation has changed for ever and that we must try to minimise the impact of dreadful epidemics. I am not talking only about foot and mouth: we must be on our guard against other exotic diseases. The control of animal movements is one of the tools in our armoury. We must accept that.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: The Minister is elaborating on the thoughts behind the present movement restrictions. Does he accept, nevertheless, that the millions of animal movements that took place prior to the outbreak were perfectly legal and reflected the market livestock at the time. There may be flaws in that market. Many of us want a market that is much closer to home—that will minimise the transport of meat, whether live or on the hoof. Nevertheless, that market was legal. If it is his view and that of the Curry report that we have to open up markets for farmers—if farmers are going to have to be more commercial, to sell their produce more directly—that must be squared with the right of farmers to move their livestock and get the best value out of it.
    Mr. Morley: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman—the vast majority of those movements were legal and no criticism should be made of the people who were moving livestock because it was their legal right and they were not breaking any laws. On the periphery, there were concerns about traceability and out-of-ring sales—wider issues that need to be tackled. I am glad to say that we were successful in obtaining funding, in our bid in the 2002 spending review, to develop more sophisticated traceability and sheep-tagging systems. We want to move to electronic tagging and to develop that in conjunction with the industry. There is much support in the industry for that as well as for improving traceability. Those are all issues to which we must apply ourselves. That does not get us away from the fact, however, that the lessons learned inquiry recommended that the 20-day standstill should be retained while a wide-ranging cost-benefit analysis and a risk assessment was carried out, and that is what we are doing.
    I find it puzzling that although the other place suspended progress on this Bill to allow consideration of the independent reports, it ignored one of the key recommendations in the reports—the stop on movement. I emphasise that we are applying the 20-day standstill with variations and exceptions to recognise the needs of the industry, as an interim measure until we have the risk assessment and the cost-benefit analysis. When we have those, we will reconsider the issue and decide what is most appropriate in terms of risk of disease, taking into account the impact on the industry. We must presuppose, however, that there will still be a standstill period.
    Mr. Curry: Will the Minister spell out the timetables for the assessment and the possible responses? As he said, people understand that it is important to make sure there is no recurrence of the disease, and that it is important to deal with the conditions that may have contributed to the spread of the disease. However, the hon. Gentleman will equally appreciate that the movement of livestock is an integral part, especially of upland farming and breeding. If people feel that there is a programme of evaluation followed by policy responses, I am sure that they will accept circumstances more willingly than if they think they are just knocking their head against a back wall, while the sheep are sucking the pebbles dry.
    Mr. Morley: I understand that point. I can give an assurance that we expect the risk assessment and the evaluations towards the end of this month. We will then hold public consultation on that, and consultation on any potential changes or recommendations that flow from that. I can also give an assurance that, whatever regime is put in place, the intention is to have it agreed in time for the spring movements in early spring next year. That is a clear timetable, which takes account of the needs of the livestock industry.
    As I said, I am surprised that Members in the other place have pre-empted the studies that are still going on and have gone against veterinary advice about the minimum proportionate movement restrictions. They have passed primary legislation which requires that a 20-day standstill would have to lapse eight weeks after the last confirmed case of an outbreak. Even if I thought that the measure was serious and proportionate—I appreciate that it gives an opportunity for a debate on the 20-day rule, and I understand why people may want to discuss that—the eight-week period does not make much sense to me. Eight weeks is not very long after the last known outbreak of a major epidemic. There could well be further risks, which could last beyond eight weeks. It is an arbitrary cut-off point, which we cannot accept.
    I accept on behalf of the Government that there need to be strict controls on movements during the outbreak, and that those will be different afterwards. I accept the reasoning behind that, and it is what we have done through the range of exceptions from the 20-day rule that have been progressively introduced during the year, which have relaxed the controls. Some veterinary advisers feel strongly that we have gone too far. Again, it is a question of balance, recognising and responding to the legitimate concerns and needs of the livestock industry, while following the best veterinary advice and minimising risk. We are reviewing the rules.
    I agree with the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) that the amendment is not serious and does not belong to the Bill. It is certainly a vehicle for discussing the 20-day rule and we have no objection to debating the issues, because they are serious. However, the amendment is flawed and I ask the House to reject it.
    Mr. John Hayes: I start by acknowledging that the Minister has made it clear that sensible people believe that in the case of a crisis such as the one that we endured during the foot and mouth epidemic, movement must be restricted. He is right to say that, with the exception of a very few
    338
    people, the entire House and the whole industry would acknowledge that. The issue is for how long movement should be restricted.
    The 20-day rule was imposed to deal with what the Secretary of State described during her statement as the horror and tragedy of foot and mouth and with the problems that movement would have caused by exacerbating that crisis. The logic was that by preventing livestock from leaving a holding for 20 days after new animals had arrived on it, the disease would be confined to an individual farm, so the rule became part of the interim foot and mouth arrangements.
    Some 10 months after the last confirmed case, the industry recognises that the need for the rule must be debated again. We should not underestimate the effect that it is having on the livestock industry. Hon. Members in all parts of the House will have heard from farmers in their constituencies who are suffering because of the continuing imposition of the 20-day rule. The Minister said—revealingly, I thought—that had the 20-day rule been in place before the outbreak, its spread would not have been so great. That is a self-evident truth, but from that we surely cannot make the judgment that we should have as an on-going precaution for all time a 20-day rule, just in case there is an outbreak of foot and mouth or any of the other diseases to which it might apply.
    A restriction on movement cannot be a permanent precaution; it can only be a reaction to a problem that may arise when we hear about a confirmed case or outbreak of a significant disease. I would be very worried if the Minister were considering the imposition of such a rule as a permanent precaution against possible outbreaks. Perhaps he will intervene to reassure me.
    6.45 pm
    Mr. Morley: I make it very clear that we are indeed considering permanent movement restrictions. Such restrictions are designed to deal not just with an epidemic, but with future animal disease risk. I do not think that the majority of the agriculture industry is against the idea of movement restrictions. People want to discuss measures that they consider to be proportionate and effective, and which take account of the other points that have been raised. I must make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the Bill is about reducing risk for the future and protecting our livestock industry, following advice from our chief veterinary officer, our chief scientist and two independent inquiries. Is the hon. Gentleman saying, on behalf of the Conservative party, that he would ignore the advice from those bodies?
    Mr. Hayes: What I am saying on behalf of the Conservative party is that if the 20-day rule in its current form was allowed to continue in perpetuity—
    Mr. Morley: I am not saying that.
    Mr. Hayes: I am glad that the Minister is not saying that. If the rule were allowed to continue in that form, the British livestock industry would be decimated.

    339
    That is the simple fact of the matter. If the Minister does not believe me, perhaps he will listen to the National Farmers Union.
    Paul Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hayes: I shall quote from the NFU. I am sure that that will inform and inspire the hon. Gentleman's intervention and make it even more incisive and cogent than his interventions usually are.
    The NFU states—I am sure that this reflects the views of farmers with whom I have dealt around the country, and I am sure that it reflects the opinions expressed in the Minister's communications with farmers:
    "The 20-day rule, which in nearly all cases restricts the movements of any of the animals on a farm once some animals have been brought on to the farm, is causing considerable practical difficulties for many farmers. Particular problems in the production of sheep are being experienced, given their natural breeding cycle. The unnecessary complexities of the restrictions and the adverse effects they are having on the running of farm businesses are profound."
    As I said at the outset, I do not pretend that we do not have to consider movement restrictions. We need a sensible balance. The Secretary of State said earlier that there must be a proportionate level of control and a balance between costs on industry and necessary precautions. Most of us would accept that.
    Paul Flynn: The NFU is, not unexpectedly, as conservative as ever and refuses to accept change where change is essential. If the 20-day rule becomes permanent, why does not the hon. Gentleman encourage non-contact ways of marketing animals, which worked successfully during the foot and mouth epidemic? I refer to marketing through direct sales, video links and the internet, which not only reduces the risk of infection but reduces the suffering of animals by reducing the number of journeys.
    Mr. Hayes: That is a good point, but it would require massive change in the livestock industry. The hon. Gentleman is right that some change is taking place. There are new and more innovative ways of trading, but the idea that that could be switched on like a tap, and that suddenly the livestock industry can change the habits not just of a lifetime but of generations, many of which are embedded in local culture and local business practice, is fanciful. He is right to suggest that we should aim at such additional means of selling products. However, it will not happen tomorrow, and unless we do something quickly to ease the burden that the 20-day rule is placing on the industry, there will be much less of an industry to regulate. He would not want that to happen any more than I would; I know that he is a generous and intelligent man who shares many of my perspectives on these issues. He is right that we need to consider more innovative ways of dealing with these matters, but they cannot be used immediately, although we are faced now with a significant problem in the livestock industry, as is reflected in the comments of the NFU.
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Perhaps he can defend the NFU from the
    340
    brickbats that have been travelling in its direction from Newport. I remind him of what the NFU said about the movement scheme:
    "We have urged the development and introduction of a new permanent control regime to be introduced as early as possible."
    That is the NFU's view.
    Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I said, there is widespread consensus about the need to be moderate and practical in these matters, but that consensus must strike the very balance that the Secretary of State identified in her statement between sensible precaution and the costs and burdens imposed on the industry. My suggestion to the House, which is reflected in the Lords amendments, is that that burden is currently falling too heavily on the industry.
    We have heard once again from the Minister that a detailed cost-benefit and risk-assessment analysis will be considered. We are aware of that, although it is not likely to be implemented until February. I understand from him and the Secretary of State that we are likely to know more about that later this month. That is good and healthy, but it will not please the industry or impress those who are currently struggling to maintain businesses, many of which are on the very edge commercially. We should not view this matter outside the context of the overall problems that farmers face. I do not need to remind the Minister or the House of how profound those difficulties are, especially in the less-favoured areas and among sheep farmers and some of the people represented by the hon. Members who are present in the Chamber. Those people will not receive well a conclusion to the deliberations that does not recognise that the existing regime is too punitive, costly, regulatory and burdensome for them.
    I should like to refer to a matter that has not been aired in detail so far this evening, although it may be as we continue. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, in many cases the rigidity of the 20-day rule is encouraging abuse. Farmers face an unpalatable choice between breaking the 20-day rule and going out of business. That is not an acceptable choice for us as responsible Members of this House to impose on the industry.
    Mr. Drew: I concur with the hon. Gentleman. In answer to a written question, I was told that trading standards authorities have identified almost 2,000 cases of abuse. Of course, those involved in trading standards are themselves under pressure, so I suspect that there are more such cases. The crux of the matter is the need to separate the work of farmers from that of dealers. I have asked for that to happen throughout; if only it could be done. I know that some farmers are dealers, but not all dealers are farmers. Let us deal with the real problem. That is where the industry is at fault: it has failed to realise that the fault lay with those dealers who drove animals around the system spreading the disease and would do the same again, unless we do something about it. What does he have to say about that problem?
    Mr. Hayes: I am reminded of the comments made by Countess Mar in the other place, where she made a similar suggestion to that of the hon. Gentleman. I think that she used the phrase "wheeler dealers" in referring to people with small pockets of land all over the place,

    341
    whose regard for biosecurity is at best limited. He is right that we must recognise that, as well as the vast majority of dealers and farmers who are responsible, straightforward and honourable business men, there are always people who will try to get around the law and breach it to their advantage. We need to be mindful of that, as any responsible Government would be.
    When I speak of breaking the 20-day rule, however, I am speaking not especially about that minority, but about the perfectly reasonable and sensible farmers who are now obliged against their instincts and judgment to face up to either going out of business or breaking that rule. That is a matter of profound concern. Countess Mar—I remind the House that she is a Cross Bencher and not a Conservative peer—also said:
    "There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that the 20-day standstill rule is being flouted, simply because it is unreasonable, unworkable and unenforceable."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 October 2002; Vol. 639, c. 1223.]
    I say to the Minister that, when that proper, independent study on cost benefit and risk assessment has been published, the resulting Government action must be based on those three factors; it must be reasonable, workable and enforceable. It must be bought by the industry.
    It is perhaps worth saying at this juncture that this whole debate has to be founded on the basis of a partnership between the industry and the Government. If we do not have such partnership when something as catastrophic as foot and mouth disease occurs, our job in controlling, containing and dealing with it will be all the more difficult. The Americans formed a national strategy—we will debate this matter later, so I will not test your patience too much, Mr. Deputy Speaker—to deal with such problems that is very much rooted in the sort of partnership-based and collaborative approach to which I referred. In a sense, the 20-day rule is relevant to those matters, as it is emblematic of the tensions that they involve.
    The Minister always speaks with authority, knowledge and conviction about these matters, but I disagree with him that we are examining an aspect of the Lords' consideration that is somehow exceptional. The 20-day rule is intrinsically linked to biosecurity, which we will debate in due course. However, I think that the separation of the 20-day rule and movement from biosecurity is rather artificial. I shall put it no more strongly than that. The issue needs to be seen as part of an integrated strategy to deal with the problems. If we had had a more cohesive and integrated strategy, it may well be that we could have handled foot and mouth more effectively. While Anderson certainly makes the point to which the Minister drew attention in respect of the 20-day rule, he also rightly expresses significant concern about the cohesiveness, coherence and integration of the strategy. Ministers should now acknowledge those concerns and I hope that they will bear them in mind in developing their national strategy.
    For me, that issue is at the very heart of the tension that I believe underlies the matters before us. The Lords have got it right in wanting to be more flexible in respect of the 20-day rule. In that respect, I draw the attention of the House to the situation in Scotland. Hon. Members will know that, as my right hon. Friend the
    342
    Member for Skipton and Ripon pointed out about a week ago when we debated agricultural matters, the 20-day rule is applied much more flexibly in Scotland.
    Mr. Morley: It is the same.
    Mr. Hayes: The process by which one can obtain an exception in Scotland is more flexible. Incidentally, the Minister will be aware of the worry that, when we draw up a national contingency plan, there may be some need to make the Scottish experience rather less flexible in order to deliver a degree of consistency. Clearly, cross-border trade has to be taken into account in that regard. The border does not necessarily prevent animals from being moved across from England to Scotland, so there are issues of consistency involved in the traffic of livestock.
    7 pm
    The important thing is that the Scottish experience shows that exceptions can be implemented without significant risk. There is not much evidence that those risks have caused problems. The question must therefore be asked: if that can be done in Scotland, why can it not be done in England? Lord Plumb made that point when these matters were debated in the other place.
    Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: My family farms in the borders of Scotland, and all our cattle go over the border to Berwick-upon-Tweed. We now find that much more difficult to arrange because of the difference between the two countries. We are only four miles over an open border. In fact, our land runs up to the border, so if the cattle get through the fence, they go into England. The whole position is, therefore, ambiguous, because if we want to get them back, we have to go through another system. Does that help my hon. Friend?
    Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend speaks with the perspicacity and incisiveness for which he has become well known in the time that he has been here. He makes precisely the point that I was making about the need for a consistent policy across the two countries, given that normal business practice means that livestock will be transported between the two.
    It is worth saying a bit about the Scottish experience, because it is relevant to the amendments. Subject to the agreement of the Scottish Environment and Rural Affairs Department, farmers can get a separation authorisation for any animal. Their premises are not checked when the licence is issued, but there are spot checks, which represent a significant deterrent to those who might not be following the rules as carefully as they should be. The separation authorisation means that when brought-on animals are held separately from other animals on the farm, the 20-day standstill will apply only to those animals and not to any others. Additionally, when a farmer identifies animals to be moved off his farm and holds them separately from animals that have been brought on and mixed with other animals, those animals to be moved off will not be subject to the 20-day standstill.
    Those are important differences between Scotland and England, because they afford the flexibility that allows trading and dealing. Although I acknowledge the

    343
    point made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) that not all dealers are farmers, many farmers are dealers. I was in conversation with one such person in Nottinghamshire last week, who did precisely what my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) does, in moving animals between Scotland and England. He emphasised the difficulties that the inconsistency and the inflexibility of the 20-day rule caused for his business.
    It is important for us to learn from that experience. The Minister will know that, in England, it is possible to get such an exception only for individually identified breeding rams and bulls bought at market, or sale bulls and rams returning unsold from a market or sale, which are isolated. There is room for manoeuvre here by the Government. The House of Lords has identified that fact, in looking studiously and carefully at the matter. Some flexibility in the application of the quite proper restrictions on movement that the Minister has identified—the need for which responsible Members will acknowledge in the light of the crisis—needs to be taken into consideration. For that reason, I am sympathetic with the Lords, and—I know that this will come as a great blow to him—less sympathetic with the Minister.
    Mr. Drew: I do not want to speak for long on this matter, but this is the crux of how we proceed with the Bill. As someone who suffered, along with others, on the Bill when it was going through the Commons, I wonder whether I am experiencing déjà-vu, given that we started a year ago. Never let it be said that legislation is rapid in this place. Sometimes it is helpful to have the benefit of hindsight, and we now have the benefit of the hindsight of the Follett and Anderson reports. It needs to be put on record that those reports were, to a large extent, supportive of much of what the Government were trying to do.
    I think that there is room for compromise here, although my hon. Friend the Minister has said that, until we get the results of the cost-benefit analysis, the 20-day rule will remain in place. Inevitably, that will need to be reconsidered regularly. We can look at the causes of the foot and mouth outbreak and at who was to blame, but what made it such a major outbreak was that the animal movements had an effect similar to pouring petrol on a fire. They completely took away any ability to control the disease.
    My worry is that, unless we acknowledge two fundamental features of what went wrong and do something about them, that could happen again. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) said, it might not be foot and mouth next time; it could be blue tongue. Questions have also been asked about bovine tuberculosis. We face an epidemic of that in my part of the world, and I want to make a connection between those diseases, because the issues are not completely separate.
    There are two matters to which I want to draw the attention of the House. First, there were people who were either acting illegally or, at best, recklessly—as they had been doing day in, day out—because of the way in which the process encouraged them to perform their duties. I referred to dealers earlier. I used that as a fairly pejorative term, but I would not insult everyone by
    344
    using it. What went wrong in relation to animal movements was that the dealers were driving the process rather than responding to it. I am not talking about a person who deals with 20 or 30 animals; I am talking about people who deal with thousands of animals.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman spoke of the dealers driving the process. I know what he is trying to say, but it is surely the supermarkets that are driving it. On the whole, the dealers are responding to a supermarket-set agenda when it comes to beef and sheep meat.
    Mr. Drew: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman, in that we have to acknowledge that the operation of the food chain is too centralised. I have long argued that we need to re-localise it, but people say that that option has now gone away from us and that we have to be realistic and realise that the chain is now fundamentally different.
    Paul Flynn: Does my hon. Friend think it false of the Opposition to blame the Government and the supermarkets for all the problems of the farming industry? Is it not true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) said, that one group of animals bought by a farmer just before the foot and mouth epidemic was discovered, to his horror, to have been on 11 different holdings in the previous three months? That was all about fraud, and about maximising the number of payments made for those animals. That practice for sheep—bed and breakfasting, as it is called—was rife in the industry, and the 20-day rule is the answer to the problem.
    Mr. Drew: I cannot speak with the same knowledge as my hon. Friend, although I have made allegations about my own area. Farmers there have been very clear with me about where some of the blame—we are talking about a minority of people—needs to be laid in relation to the dreadful legacy of foot and mouth.
    My second point relates to that matter. We have created a monster that has now come back to haunt us, in that the subsidy regime encourages the movement of animals in a foolhardy way. At the moment, we have not dealt with that. We have to deal with the fact that people make money by operating this process—whether at the behest of the supermarkets or because of what the industry has become—and that they are being encouraged to do so by the subsidy regime, through bed and breakfasting or through the way in which the common agricultural policy encourages animal movements.
    Mr. Wiggin: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's argument. He has described farmers as reckless for moving sheep—those are his words—but now he suggests that the blame lies not with the farmers, but with the subsidy-driven system and the rules under which farming is governed, which contain loopholes that encourage people to benefit from sheep movements. Unfortunately, he cannot have it both ways. Not for one second do I believe that people who are moving sheep around the country are reckless; they are living with

    345
    market forces. Does he really think that the Government cannot control how subsidies are paid, except through this Bill?
    Mr. Drew: I am not saying that at all, and the hon. Gentleman is doing my argument a disservice. In the main, I would call the people involved dealers, although some farmers are dealers, and the recklessness relates to the number of times that the animals are moved. I am also arguing that people are encouraged to do this by the subsidy regime that has been put in place. I would remove that subsidy regime tomorrow, but, unfortunately, that would have to go through European negotiations. Clearly, other parts of Europe undertake such movements more successfully in that they have not encountered the same number of breakdowns as us. However, they should learn from our mistakes, which is why, in essence, we need restrictions until we have dealt with that problem.
    What is wrong with the amendment from the other place? I could understand the point of it if it provided some discretion, but it would allow a time scale of only eight weeks, come what may. To me, that would be the most unrestrictive restriction possible.
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: I am puzzling over the allegation that, somehow, the subsidy system prompts movements; I am having difficulty following it. I realise that hill farmers and sheep farmers receive an area payment and that there is a sheep annual premium payment, but I do not understand how that encourages them to move animals about.
    Mr. Drew: It depends on how the animals are counted and who counts them. We know that in certain parts of Europe—between the Republic and Northern Ireland, for example—sheep are moved to derive the benefits of subsidy. The figures may be exaggerated, but anyone who knows anything about that part of the world knows that it is notorious for such exploitation. The figures for the mainland may also be exaggerated, but the people I talk to lead me to believe that they are not. Some people make a living in this way, although I would much prefer that not to be the case. That is why I say that, until we can deal with the problem, we must be able to put restrictions in place.
    I speak rather a lot about bovine TB, because it is an ever-present worry in my constituency. The linkage occurs, I am led to believe, inasmuch as some work that the expert group is undertaking is considering cattle-to-cattle transfer, which also depends entirely on how regularly cattle are moved, who buys them and which parts of the country they go to. Unless we acknowledge that we must have some restrictions in place, the worry will be not just foot and mouth, but other diseases that we must also face up to. There is room for compromise here. We need a more realistic figure, as eight weeks is unrealistic.
    7.15 pm
    Adam Price: The hon. Gentleman is very generous in giving way. I tend to agree about the eight weeks and the drafting of the Lords amendment is unfortunate, but should not the Government introduce a compromise solution? I am
    346
    sure he agrees that continuing a 20-day rule long into the future will render livestock farming in upland areas virtually unviable.
    Mr. Drew: I agree. If I read what the Minister said correctly and given that the Government are trying to base their response on science, they are taking particular account of the Follett report, although they have also taken account of the Anderson report, which considered the practicalities. The Minister will no doubt come back on the point, but clearly he will consider the cost-benefit analysis, which will be principally a scientific evaluation. If and when it is possible to change the 20-day rule, let us change it, because it is causing my farmers some grief, although not to the extent of that faced by farmers in upland areas, even though such grief is part and parcel of how they earn their living.
    I reiterate that we must keep learning from what went wrong until we can deal with the adverse consequences and we must have those protections in place. It may not be foot and mouth next time, but it could be something else. We must protect the people whom we want to keep in farming. They understand all that, even though they are finding it very hard in the short run.
    Mr. Roger Williams: First, I draw the House's attention to my entries in the Register of Members' Interests involving livestock farming. It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who was a fellow sufferer on the Standing Committee a long, long time ago, as well as a thoughtful and open-minded person about agriculture.
    The Minister said that it is a great pity that the amendment was passed by the other place, but he will accept that it represents recognition of the despair and despondency in the livestock industry resulting from the continuing imposition of the 20-day rule. It is more than a year since the last confirmed case of foot and mouth and nearly a year since Britain was declared free of the disease, so farmers are concerned that we still have one of the most rigorous forms of control that they have ever experienced. They are concerned not just because such control causes them difficulty in running their businesses, but because the evidence on which the rule was imposed has never been made clear to them.
    The Minister referred to evidence from the chief veterinary officer and other scientific advisers, but farmers always complain to me that there is no logic or rationale behind the 20-day rule, except, of course—we all understand this—that reducing the number of animal movements reduces the chance of disease being spread. Everybody accepts that and the fact that we cannot return to pre-foot and mouth times. There will be regulations and some form of control. As has been said, the NFU also accepts that.
    Such is the absolute despair of farmers, particularly in the area that I represent, that 200 of them met one night last week in Brecon market and decided to travel down to the National Assembly the next day for a symbolic burning of licence forms and applications. Quite honestly, those farmers have plenty to do, so that is an example of the exasperation that they feel over the controls. They believe that there is a disproportionate burden on the livestock industry, because the risk lies not in the industry—this is foot and mouth-clear

    347
    country—but at the point of entry at ports and airports.—[Interruption.] The Minister disagrees, although I am grateful for today's announcement by the Secretary of State that the Government will reconsider how responsibility is exercised by Customs and Excise. One authority would certainly achieve greater cooperation over intelligence to be used at such points of entry. Farmers still believe that the controls are disproportionate. That, for them, is the crux of the issue.
    The hon. Member for Stroud talked about dealers. It seems to me that the main burden of such regulation is falling on farmers. Dealers often run large and sophisticated businesses. They operate from a number of locations and sites, and they also have a number of holding areas, so they can circumvent the 20-day rule without breaking it. The rule has little effect on their operation, although it has great effect on the family farmer. I shall give examples of how family farmers have found it difficult to operate.
    Last weekend, I was approached by two constituents. J.W. Hammond and Sons is a farming business in my constituency, run by a man with his two sons and their families. They operate from a number of farms, but they have a well-integrated and sustainable method of production: they produce hardy ewes on one farm, and the lambs and breeding ewes are passed to other farms. DEFRA has told them that they must have only one holding, which means that when they buy stock for a farm that is 15 miles away from another they cannot move that stock. Because they have accepted DEFRA's advice, it is impossible for them to continue a well-thought-out and efficient operation that produces good stock. Unless the 20-day rule is changed, they will be unable to continue.
    I was approached by another young farmer who had just taken on a tenancy. We want to encourage people like him to join an industry in which I think the average age is well into the fifties. He told me that because he had been unable to move 20 cattle, he would lose an extensification premium that was a key part of his cash flow and the profitability of his farm.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: I, too, could give examples from my constituency illustrating the problem of the 20-day rule, but there is a further confusion in Wales. It has been announced today that there will be a review in February, but the hon. Gentleman's colleague, Mike German, announced that it would take place in Wales in January. Does that suggest that Mr. German does not have a grip on the situation, or that he needs more time to fill in his credit card slips?
    Mr. Williams: I do not accept either suggestion, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for leading me to my next point.
    Farmers are fed up because it is going to take so long to complete the risk assessment and the cost-benefit analysis. We are told that the preliminary results will be produced in November, and that there may be some relaxation and modification of the restriction in February. It appears that the full results will not be known until June. Many vets have suggested to me that the process could be accelerated. Does the Minister
    348
    think there is any way of putting the results in the public domain more quickly, allowing us to conduct a thorough study?
    I took a number of farmers on a delegation to meet Lord Whitty, but I also took the head of animal movements from Powys county council's trading standards department. He told Lord Whitty that any restriction of movements must be one with which farmers could comply, otherwise the whole arrangement would be brought into disrepute. We have been told that a number of people have directly abused the system. Many farmers have told me, almost in confessional mode, that they believe they have broken the regulations, but because those regulations are so complex they do not understand what is required of them. I ask the Minister to speed up the process and produce clear guidelines allowing farmers to continue their business.
    Paul Flynn: What unites us is a desire to avoid the dreadful human and animal suffering that took place during the foot and mouth epidemic, but the Government must stand firm. The recommendation of the best scientists, of the Royal Society and the Anderson report, was not for a 20-day but for a 28-day standstill, because that represents the incubation period of the disease. The Government have already been conciliatory. They have made a compromise in that instance, and in a number of others.
    Let us look at the risks. No one dreamt up the threat of blue tongue virus; it is spread by vectors, but it is a deadly disease that could destroy a third of our livestock, as it has elsewhere.
    Mr. Roger Williams: I know that the hon. Gentleman is an expert on blue tongue disease, but has it not been absent from Wales since 1997, when Wales last had a Conservative Member of Parliament?
    Paul Flynn: The disease is certainly alien to our shores. Conservative Members are similarly alien to Wales, and long may that last. But we are now being warned that because of climatic and other changes, blue tongue virus is a serious threat. There are other diseases too, such as vesicular stomatitis, which is similar to foot and mouth, and there is the possibility of vesicular swine fever. The threat is real, and is not being exaggerated.
    Nevertheless, the farming industry should know that we are looking at the reality of the spread of foot and mouth. I know that the Opposition parties are wedded to the idea that it was all the Government's fault, but they should look at the map showing movements all over the country before the disease was detected. We can see the spread from the far north to Devon, and from the east to Wales. That is why we had a problem that was not experienced in Uruguay, in the Netherlands, in Ireland or in France. In fact, the outbreak in Ireland was caused by the illegal import of an animal to Northern Ireland.
    It cannot be ignored that all sorts of people—people in the farming industry, for instance, and civil servants—turned a blind eye to illegal movements by those wishing to increase the number of claims for subsidies.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: What the hon. Gentleman is describing constitutes fraud. If it was fraud, it should be investigated by the police. The 20-day rule does not help when people are behaving illegally.

    349
    Will the hon. Gentleman at least accept that the disease was able to spread so quickly because it had been introduced into the country in the first place? Will he accept that our primary responsibility must be to prevent it from coming in, and to adopt bio-preventive measures to ensure that the spread is contained if it does ever come in?
    Paul Flynn: It was fraud, but both Governments turned a blind eye on the pretext that it had happened elsewhere in Europe and they could see no reason why there should not be a multiplication of subsidies here. As for stopping the disease at source, I am afraid that that is another myth. It came here because one farmer did not pre-heat the swill he was using; if he had followed proper advice, he would not have used the swill anyway.
    It is also absurd to think that we can build a wall around the country and keep out any contraband. Despite the heroic efforts of Customs and Excise, billions of cigarettes and thousands of gallons of alcohol are smuggled in, as well as a huge amount of illegal drugs. There is no way of ensuring that the country can remain free of illegal or bad meat.
    Mr. Richard Bacon: I spent several hours with Customs and Excise in Dover yesterday. In fact, it has reduced illegal tobacco imports from £1.7 billion to £400 million worth in the last few months. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman has identified a contrast that no one else is seriously identifying. The Minister tried to do the same. I do not think that any Member on either side of the House has suggested an open-door policy enabling anyone to bring in anything at any time, or a hermetically sealed country. We are certainly not suggesting either. We are saying that a higher profile can change the mindset of most of the people who are engaging in such action, many of whom are doing so innocently. That can be seen in Australia and the United States.
    7.30 pm
    Paul Flynn: That was an extremely helpful intervention as it makes the point that whatever we do we cannot stop imports coming in and bringing diseases into the country. So what should we do? The farming industry is reluctant to do anything as it is set in its ways. Farmers want to do their job in the same way as their parents and grandparents, but they must understand that this rule must stay. There is an easy, simple, cheaper alternative that has already been used. That is to use the methods that were used during the foot-and-mouth epidemic whereby animals were sold directly or through simple technology such as video links and the internet. That method avoids the expense of taking animals to market and the journeys and the animals can pass from farm to farm or to the slaughterhouse or where ever else they are going without contact with other animals. That is what we should all be encouraging.
    Mr. Wiggin: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that even with the 20-day rule, disease can be transmitted through illegal acts, so that although the more rules the Government make, the more likely it is in theory that disease will be prevented, what really happens is that law-abiding farmers go out of business, and farmers who break the law continue to spread disease.
    350
    The weakness in the 20-day rule, which has value directly after an outbreak, is that it will put law-abiding farmers and livestock markets out of business and affect the infrastructure on which all farmers depend to earn a living. Does the hon. Gentleman not see that even if the Government insist on it, the bad guys will continue to break the law?
    Paul Flynn: I am following the best advice of the two bodies that I mentioned. No one made any suggestion that they were wrong in suggesting this essential deterrent.
    I represent farmers and there were three outbreaks of foot and mouth in my constituency, but my constituents are overwhelmingly industrial workers who work mainly in the steel and aluminium industry. They have suffered terribly in the past two years and more than half their jobs have disappeared. All those families contributed £5 per week last year to pay for foot and mouth, in addition to the £10 per week they pay the farming industry in subsidies. If another disease comes along, is it reasonable that taxpayers—including the steel and aluminium workers in my constituency—should pick up the bill? If the farming industry is not prepared to take these sensible, modest precautions, why on earth should taxpayers pick up the bill for the next epidemic?
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: I am not sure whether or not it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), who has clearly missed his vocation. He should have been a 19th-century non-conformist Welsh preacher predicting Armageddon—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is."] Perhaps he is. He reminds me of a character from a Dylan Thomas poem. I think it was Organ Morgan, but hon. Members will correct me if I am wrong. I should stress to the hon. Gentleman that Opposition Members are not against having some form of movement restriction—we are simply opposed to the particular restriction.
    Let me begin by doing a Conservative thing and defending the dealers. We have had a lot of mud slung at the dealers in the course of the debate so far. Dealers are perfectly respectable people; they are simply using the market. The way that the livestock market has developed in the United Kingdom has encouraged the intervention of dealers. The reason is that we have a very large number of centralised meatpacking firms or abattoirs that require large numbers of animals on a regular basis. They get them from dealers who collect them from different parts of the country. Dealers make a turn on the price while fulfilling the needs of the abattoirs for a regular supply of animals. For better or worse, that is where we are with the market.
    Mr. David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he will agree with me that it is one of the structural problems of the industry that we have a concentration of livestock and a concentration of kill within abattoirs purely at the behest of the large supermarkets and their demands on the industry. We have to address that at some stage.
    Mr. Atkinson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it has to do with the structure of the industry, but I am not sure whether we can change it. What the

    351
    hon. Gentleman is saying is the equivalent of suggesting that we ought to scrap large car plants and that all motor cars should be built in small back-street garages as they were in past centuries. The meat processing business is hugely capital intensive, requiring people working 365 days a year in two shifts. That is the way it is. A meatpacking plant in the hon. Gentleman's part of the country will eventually have to source lamb from my constituency in the north of England. That is a feature of the industry. Whether or not it is desirable, it is not easy to change. The dealers are providing for modern economics.
    The Minister was critical of the amendment and I do not believe it is a particularly good one, but it provides us with an opportunity to debate a serious matter that is affecting farmers in my constituency very badly. It gives us the opportunity of expressing our concerns, hopefully in a vote. The Minister said that a large proportion of the livestock industry can cope with these regulations, but many farmers cannot. We have heard tonight that upland farmers in particular will find it extremely difficult. Certainly in the north of England, in the Pennines, the livestock buying and selling year is contracted into September and October. It has a very tight span. Farmers who breed sheep and suckler cows need to move breeding replacements on to the farm and to sell lambs and ewes at the autumn sales. If animal movements are restricted, those farmers have to hold stock on their farms which means extra expense and if the weather is particularly bad—fortunately it was not too bad this autumn—it would cause welfare problems. These are enormous costs to farmers who are already struggling. At the risk of being slightly out of order, farmers are facing not only the economic problems caused by the 20-day rule but the economic problems caused by the slowness of the Rural Payments Agency to pay up and the muddle caused by so many mistakes at the British Cattle Movement Service in Workington which means that cattle which are going into the over-30-months scheme are now being disqualified because of administrative errors that are not their fault. Perhaps the Minister will look at that in due course.
    As I said, we accept the need for a traceability scheme and that would be the final answer. We also accept the need for some form of movement restriction, but it has to be very much more relaxed than it is currently. Farmers have suffered this autumn; they do not want to suffer next autumn. It is absolutely imperative that whatever scheme the Minister introduces, it must be properly in place early in the year so that the spring movement of livestock from winter quarters to summer quarters can begin. In particular it must be up and working at the end of the next back-end season.
    Other suggestions have been made which the Minister did not consider for long enough. The simple scheme produced by auctioneers whereby farmers have three dyes and dye sheep with one colour one week, the next colour the following week and another for the third week means that no animal can be sold or brought to market until it has reached the three-week period. That is an incredibly simple system which would have carried us over until a proper system was put in place.
    352
    Let me reiterate that the real cost of this 20-day movement restriction falls on a particularly vulnerable group of farmers. While they all appreciate that some form of movement is needed, they need a more liberal regime, which will allow them at least to hang on to their lives and their work for a few more years.
    Mr. Curry: Perhaps we can first get one or two historical facts in place. The movement of livestock is not some sort of modern aberration; it is at the absolute heart of the agricultural economy throughout Europe. Transhumance is one of the oldest practices of the human race. I refer the House to one of the great books—Ferdinand Braudel's "The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Phillip II". Although not particularly imaginative, Phillip II was an assiduous and meticulous monarch who ruled a very large empire. The culture of the Mediterranean world is based on the principle of transhumance, so let us get away from the idea that a bunch of wicked dealers have intruded on a pastoral scene characterised by William Cobbett, and brought it kicking and screaming into a bizarre modern world.
    Let us also be clear that the consequences of the foot and mouth epidemic highlighted the importance of such movements, which are traditional, rather than bizarre movements designed to rig the system. When foot and mouth struck in my constituency, animals that had been sent to the lowlands to over-winter should have been coming back up to the hill. In fact, they could not be moved—they were caught in fields full of mud. In Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire, where some farmers specialise in looking after animals over the winter, the resulting welfare conditions were serious. Of course, the sale of breeding stock off the hills forms part of the backbone of the uplands economy, and it is also one of the major sources of livestock for the lowlands. Those are traditional movements that are intrinsic to agriculture, and we have to find a way in which to accommodate them.
    I should point out to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) that I realise that, in many ways, auction marts must appear to be some sort of Dickensian throwback—part of the world of "One Man and His Dog", or a television series about vets. However, in the light of his concerns and comments, he should not underestimate the role of the auction mart in combating the social exclusion experienced by those who live remote lives. They do not often meet their fellow human beings, and they derive benefit from meeting in the fug of the fish and chip shop or the pie shop.
    Paul Flynn: During the recess, I visited Llanrwst market, which is outside my constituency, and spoke to the farmers assembled there. The strongest argument that they made in favour of the continuation of the mart was that it was the day on which families came to Llanrwst for social reasons. One understands that entirely, but there must be some way to improve their social life and reduce their isolation other than by getting animals together in a traditional but very dangerous way.
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman and I may not be very far apart. In practice, we will see a more integrated

    353
    food chain, farmers contracting to retailers, and the pre-selection of animals, which go straight to the abattoirs. In fact, some auction marts are acting as intermediaries in order to organise that trade. So the role of the auction mart is changing.
    Mr. John Gummer: Is it not true that, when we get to that stage, many of the Members who complained about dealers will be complaining that we do not have dealers any longer, and saying how much better things were in those days? One cannot ever get it right.
    Mr. Curry: That is certainly true, and they will also complain that they have received planning application for the building of 93 desirable houses on the site of the auction mart, including a complement of social housing, which will doubtless occasion concern for other parts of the village. I speak from some experience, but I shall not go further down that route.
    We should also admit that there were dreadful examples of negligence during the foot and mouth outbreak. In North Yorkshire, many farmers have several scattered holdings. Indeed, the Department found it difficult to come to terms with the fact that many farmers owned plots of land that were quite close together, but not contiguous. Some of those farmers moved stock from one farm to the other without any semblance of precaution. That was clearly criminal in spirit, if not in practice. The miracle of the foot and mouth outbreak was that the disease never reached the pig herds in Humberside. Had it done so, we would have got into vaccination to slaughter. The sheer volume of slaughter could have been coped with and brought under order only by the introduction of vaccination.
    7.45 pm
    I make those preliminary points because I want to ensure that the Minister, for whom I have a lot of respect, understands the issue. I know his brief, and I also know how difficult it is under the 20-day rule to operate normal farming practice on a mixed beef and sheep farm in the uplands. People have to move animals around—to market, to pasture—and the high hills will not sustain them throughout the year. There are also practical problems. The Minister has said that there has to be a form of cordon sanitaire around a holding, but one cannot establish an isolation unit with a 50 m boundary for 300 sheep on a hill farm. In practice, it is very difficult to deliver that and then service the sheep with the tup.
    As I pointed out to the Minister, under the problematic anomalies of the 20-day rule, I could buy 300 sheep and put them in a field next to sheep owned by my neighbour. If we are lucky, there are dry-stone walls and the sheep will not mingle. However, it is just as likely that the sheep will be separated by a few strands of wire, so they will mingle and converse, as it were. My neighbour, who is not caught by any restriction, could immediately sell off sheep that had been in contact with restricted sheep. Equally, in some cases the rule has the perverse impact of promoting the use of dealers. Let us consider the example of a farmer in Cumbria or North Yorkshire, who used to be able to buy young calves in the autumn from various local farms in a 40 mile radius.
    354
    All those farms are now caught by the same restrictions as he is, so the way to get round that is to buy the animals from a dealer who is shipping them from 250 miles away. In other words, the farmer is actually forced into an alternative pattern of procurement. According to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), that increases exposure to the transmission of illness.
    In making my final point, I shall use the example, if I may, of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). Farmer Gummer and I can both send our sheep to market, and the sheep can sit in adjacent pens in the auction mart. As we know, they are mere tubular structures, and communication can take place between pens. Let us say that I decide to buy Farmer Gummer's sheep, and I take them home. As long as I put them in an isolation unit, I will not be caught by the restriction. However, if I do not sell my sheep and I want to take them home, they will be caught by the 20-day rule—even though they have been in contact only with Farmer Gummer's sheep—and I will be unable to sell them on.
    I appreciate that there are bound to be such anomalies; it is very difficult to establish schemes without them. However, in talking about trying to get the farming community to accept the necessity of restrictions, it is important to ensure that farmers cannot say, "Hang on, has anybody who has devised the restrictions thought about how we practise in reality—how we live and get through the working day?" As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) pointed out, the scheme in Scotland operates somewhat differently. I accept that those differences are in the detail, but the regime is slightly more liberal in respect of, for example, applications for licences. There is spot-checking, as opposed to the prior approvals that have to be obtained in England. In Scotland, any animal can be put into segregation without triggering the provision; in England, however, only breeding animals can qualify under that criterion.
    As a result of devolution, practices are diverging. Premium payments are now different on the two sides of the border, because the British Government—on behalf of England and Wales—decided to retain an element of the payment for a general kitty. That decision was not taken in Scotland, however. I imagine that that rule could be modified for Scotland under the powers of devolution, so that it becomes more different from that which applies in England. The argument would then arise of level playing fields within these shores, rather than simply between these shores and elsewhere.
    I agree that the Lords amendment is not particularly well thought out, but it has served its purpose by enabling us to bring to the Minister's attention the practical problems experienced by farmers who want to make the system work, who are not out to dodge the system, and who have been through a tremendously rough time.
    In my constituency, the second worst category of farmer was those whose animals got foot and mouth disease; the worst category was those whose animals did not because they could not move their cattle or earn a living, and the sheep were sucking the stones dry on the hills. Those farmers are now entering a further period of severe restrictions.

    355
    The Minister should spell out the programme and the scenarios that he hopes to be able to apply and acknowledge that he may want to retain some form of permanent restrictions, but ones that go with the grain of farming practices. He should show that he is seeking, as is inevitable across the field of such activities, to find the balance between the necessary precaution and enabling the industry that he is seeking to preserve to be able to continue to earn a living so that it can help to preserve itself.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who has just given some very good examples that are particularly pertinent to upland Wales, which experiences the anomalies and some of the perverse incentives in the present system that work against what many Labour Members have talked about tonight.
    On behalf of Plaid Cymru, I want to make it clear at the outset that we find the amendment to be particularly awful in its drafting. Nevertheless, it has given us a useful opportunity to debate this vital issue and the way in which it is affecting farmers, particularly those in Wales and England, but not so much those in Scotland. It gives us an opportunity to raise a very basic principle about how we will cope in the future not only with the spread of foot and mouth, but its introduction into the United Kingdom.
    Plaid Cymru strongly supports the principle of movement control. We must know what is happening to the movement of agricultural animals in this country. We must know where the animal is, where it has been and its intervening journey. However, there has been much talk in the debate about movement restrictions, and I should like to draw a distinction.
    The term "restrictions" suggests a predetermination of the cost-benefit analysis that will be done on the 20-day rule. It suggests that people already accept that farming must be restricted in that way. An alternative should be considered and certainly thoroughly analysed whereby animal movements are controlled using the detailed information that we have on those animals. The case has been made powerfully that, certainly after the foot and mouth outbreak in the north of England, it was not just the movement of animals that created difficulties, but the fact that people did not know where those animals had been, how they had been kept and the way that biosecurity measures had been applied to them.
    I accept that things must be very different in future, but we have to go with the grain of farming practice, as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon said. There has been a lot of talk this evening and outside the House about movements and restrictions that simply do not go with the grain of farming practice and therefore will not work because people will not want to follow them, or because they will go out of business if they do follow them.
    We must remember that the two inquiry reports that have been much mentioned in the debate said that the 20-day rule should apply until the cost-benefit analysis has been carried out. In response to a question that I asked during today's statement, the Secretary of State
    356
    made it clear that that cost-benefit analysis would include alternatives to the 20-day rule. I welcome that, and I hope that that will be clear.
    What are the principles in applying any sort of movement control? First, we must prevent disease in the first place. Secondly, we must deal with the spread of disease if it were ever to occur. The main priority for preventing disease is, of course, stopping it coming into the country in the first place. We have heard some messages of doom and gloom and been told that we cannot stop disease or illegal imports, but the fact is that the Government have not been doing enough on illegal meat imports. Only now is there a realisation of the need to take co-ordinated action. That must be the main priority.
    Of course if disease comes into the country, we must consider how to stop or at least limit its spread. Plainly, we must therefore consider not only the 20-day rule, but the whole question of biosecurity. That is the key. Good biosecurity being practised on all farms at all times will limit the spread of any disease, whatever it is. Some diseases are more virulent than others. The problem in the west Wales dairy industry at the moment is TB, not blue tongue or foot and mouth.
    Any restriction, control or measure that we place on farming has to be proportionate to its ability to meet it practically and financially. The income of each upland farmer in Wales was about £4,200 last year, so they do not have much scope to invest in any system or to bear its costs.
    The hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) is very keen to remind everyone of the massive subsidy—£10 a week—that every family pays to each farmer, but that money does not go into farmers' pockets. Their pockets were not stuffed full of those tenners in Llanrwst, and he knows it. The money goes into the wasteful, awful common agricultural policy. Farmers do not want to be part of that any more than we do, but that is the price that we pay for cheap food—the second or third cheapest food in the developed world.
    The fact is that the consumer does not really pay the price of their food; they pay in a round about way. Not only do they pay when they go into the supermarket or shop and pay 40p, 37p, or whatever, for a pint of milk; they pay subsidy as well. So we in this country pay for our food twice if not three times over. If we want a better relationship between farmers and consumers and to make this aspect of the Bill work better, the price of biosecurity on food has to be included at the consumer end. It is not just the farmers who bear the weight; the consumer has to face the real cost of food production as well.
    Paul Flynn: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the report by the Consumers Association stating that a basket of food was bought in the United Kingdom and in New Zealand and that it was discovered that the price in New Zealand was half the price here? Farmers in New Zealand have not had any subsidy for the past 16 years.
    Mr. Thomas: If there is so much waste in the CAP, food prices will decline, but I was making the point—the hon. Gentleman has to accept this—that the consumer

    357
    does not just pay for food when he or she goes into a supermarket; they pay through their taxes for the CAP as well, and reforming the CAP is the key.
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: The hon. Member for Newport. West (Paul Flynn) mentions New Zealand, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know that in New Zealand the grass grows 12 months a year, so cattle can stay out all year and do not need to be fed inside. Of course that makes New Zealand products much cheaper.
    Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning that aspect of farming, which the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon also mentioned.
    If we are to encourage farmers to go more directly to market, which is part of the answer to dealing with foot and mouth, by cutting away all the wasteful journey times, we have to ensure that farmers are able to market more directly by moving livestock. We cannot take livestock movements out of the market. Some of the dealers may be slightly less than above board, but they generally meet the requirements of the market.
    The largest abattoir just outside my constituency—it is in that of my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price)—Oriel Jones in Llanybydder, meets the demands of the supermarkets. The input into that abattoir is more than the local market can bear, so dealers must feed that abattoir. That is part of a wider question, but it is wrong to place on farmers the whole pressure of biosecurity under the 20-day rule. My concern is that farmers may bear all that pressure, but we should consider the wider context of how to ensure that the whole of the farming industry is safe, clean and free from disease.
    Mr. Wiggin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that not only are farmers expected to bear the costs, but, given the implications of some of the comments made by Labour Members, they are to blame for the entire foot and mouth outbreak? It simply cannot be the case that the disease was imported by the farming community in the first place.
    Mr. Thomas: I certainly reject any suggestion that farming was to blame for the disease entering the country in the first place, but legitimate farming practices, approved by the Government and previous Governments for many years, may have exacerbated the disease. There is a lesson to be learned, but nevertheless they were legitimate practices.
    I well remember the astonishment when the Government announced that X million journeys were made by animals during two or three weeks and everyone took a breath as they thought that that practice was illegal and that a scandal had been found. Did they not know that that happened all the time and that it was a natural part of farming practice? As the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon said, farmers in Wales have moved livestock around not just for years, decades or centuries, but for millennia. In Wales, the drovers' roads, some of which we still travel on to get to the House, follow the path taken from my constituency to London. Cattle, geese, pigs and sheep were moved around the country. That is nothing new, and it is a vital part of farming. As the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) said, the environment and climate in Wales are not suitable for year-round farming.
    358
    8 pm
    I hope that the Minister will accept that some movement of animals is part of sustainable farming practice. If we want to ensure that artificial fertilisers, pesticides and feed are not used—and we must remember the feedstocks that are used in America, the other place where food is cheapest—we must support sustainable farming. An element of animal movement is part of that.
    Paul Flynn: Animal movements take place in Uruguay, the Netherlands, France and Ireland, but the disease did not spread in those countries as it did here. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that excessive and unnecessary animal movements take place in this country, and that only the 20-day rule will eliminate them?
    Mr. Thomas: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in asking for the reopening of local slaughterhouses. They have been going down like nine pins in my constituency. I agree with the central point, but in his comments this evening the hon. Gentleman has put the responsibility for the outbreak directly on farmers. The problem is much more complex. There is a whole industry, driven by the retail side, which affects what happens.
    Adam Price: We are discussing a Bill about animal health, and there is an animal welfare aspect to the problems caused by the delay. Of necessity, upland farmers need to trade stored animals. Any delay could cause animal welfare problems because of the lack of food and shelter. That has a knock-on effect in terms of the availability of food for breeding stock.
    Mr. Thomas: I agree. My constituency was not directly affected by foot and mouth, but some areas were restricted. I had an awful case involving a farmer who could not move stock because of restrictions, even though the RSPCA was investigating what was going on.
    Mr. Gummer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he was far too kind to the hon. Member for Newport West, (Paul Flynn)? Although the movements of animals in this country may be rather longer than they would be in an ideal world, there could he no fewer movements if we returned to the system that the hon. Member for Newport describes. Movement is part of the normal way of dealing with animals. It is only the ignorance of people locked up in towns that causes them not to understand that.
    Mr. Thomas: I shall not reiterate the points that the right hon. Gentleman has made. There is a saying in Wales that we knock the gatepost for the gate to hear: I hope that the hon. Member for Newport West, heard what the right hon. Gentleman said.
    I shall conclude by enumerating the basics that should underpin the debate. First, we need to prevent disease coming to the country in the first place. That is primarily a matter of dealing with illegal meat imports and production. There have been of cases of meat being produced illegally for the smokies trade in west Wales and London. That is a real concern of mine.

    359
    Secondly, if disease breaks out again, we must ensure that it does not spread. That is a matter of biosecurity in the farming industry, which must be constant, rather than a one-off response to disease. We must identify the animals that have been moved around, and where they have been moved to, which means that we must have a proper animal movement identification system. If disease is present, we must deal with the animals involved, and contiguous animals. We debated earlier whether the best way to do that was by culling or vaccination. I support movement control, but it can be achieved only in co-operation with the industry and farmers, and only if it does not destroy or undermine the livestock industry. After all, we do not want the countryside to be free of disease if that means that we have to import all our meat, do we?
    Mr. Morley: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to the debate.
    Lords amendment No. 45 is important. It is inevitable that the House will want to concentrate on it, given the interest in the 20-day animal movement limit. The Government accept the main thrust of the amendment. We want to make some small technical changes, which I shall explain in a moment.
    The hon. Members for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) and the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), and my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) all made fair points about the impact of animal movements on the industry. They accepted the need for movements, which the Government recognise, but all speakers conceded that some movements have to be stopped as one of a range of a disease control measures.
    The question is where that stop should fall, which is why an independent assessment is being conducted. The House of Lords asked for time to consider the independent reports, so I am surprised that their lordships have ignored their recommendations. That is why I am asking the House to reject this amendment. It has been useful as a platform for debate, but it does not really add to the Bill. It is inappropriate, and we should wait for the proper assessment as we continue the debate with industry.
    The Government do not disagree with the arguments advanced in the other place that biosecurity must apply to everyone in the livestock industry. It must include the Department's staff, contractors, hauliers and everyone who goes on to farms. However, we have two small differences of opinion when it comes to the amendment.
    First, it is unnecessary to make specific provision that the Secretary of State must send final guidance on biosecurity to those persons and organisations listed in the amendment's compliance provisions, which are very specific. It is a standard requirement for the Department that written consultations are sent out to such persons or organisations as the Secretary of State considers to be representative. The provision is worded in broad terms in the Government's proposal, so that the Secretary of State is not unnecessarily restricted. For example, the
    360
    Secretary of State might want to seek the views of vets or scientists. They do not fall within the very strictly defined categories in proposed new subsection 6B(5).
    Secondly, proposed new subsection 6B(1) deals with the distribution of guidance to all those listed in proposed new section 6A(3). It is significant, because it would mean that the exercise by the Government of functions under this legislation would be unlawful if the Government, for whatever reason, did not distribute guidance to all those listed, regardless of whether the guidance was relevant or applicable to them.
    Clearly, it would not be acceptable for the Government to have their power to act removed in that way for failing to distribute guidance to everyone on the list. There is always someone who might claim that they did not receive the guidance. The list is so specific and narrowly defined that it would leave the Government open to all sorts of difficulties.
    That is not to say that the Government are against distributing information and guidance. We are committed to openness and transparency, and to communicating relevant information about all policies and about the proportionate action that we would take to prevent the spread of animal disease.
    That is why we have ensured that the requirement already in the Bill to publish the biosecurity guidance will ensure that it is available to all the people, organisations, and stakeholder representatives who need to know about it. We want to make sure that people get the information, but the amendment is unduly restrictive.
    I hope that the House will accept the minor amendment that the Government propose.
    Mr. Hayes: With the leave of the House, I shall say a word about biosecurity. As the Minister said, we did not debate it at the start of the discussion of this group of amendments. However, it seems to be linked intrinsically with the 20-day rule, as I said earlier. In many ways, preventing animals from spreading foot and mouth has to go hand in hand with the dispersal of information among everyone who might have contact with livestock during a disease crisis.
    That was the subject of consideration in the other place. The Lords was determined to ensure that the information was comprehensible, coherent, and distributed as widely as possible. If people are going to make lots of movements in and out of infected areas that requires them to be informed about risk as fully and well as possible. That is part of risk management, as the Minister acknowledged in his brief remarks. However, the Lords would like a specific list of organisations that the Secretary of State is obliged to contact on biosecurity measures. The Minister said that that is standard practice, that it is done all the time, and that he was sure that the Secretary of State would use her judgment. That is fine and good, but I think that the Lords are right in saying that distributing and publishing such information and sending out draft material needs to be specified clearly in the Bill. To that end, we support the Lords amendment.
    Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 178.

    Division No. 356]

    [8:10 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

    David, Wayne

    Ainger, Nick

    Davidson, Ian

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

    Alexander, Douglas

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Allen, Graham

    Dawson, Hilton

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Dismore, Andrew

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Doran, Frank

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Austin, John

    Drew, David (Stroud)

    Bailey, Adrian

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Baird, Vera

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Barnes, Harry

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Battle, John

    Edwards, Huw

    Bayley, Hugh

    Efford, Clive

    Beckett, rh Margaret

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Bell, Stuart

    Etherington, Bill

    Benn, Hilary

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Bennett, Andrew

    Fisher, Mark

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Berry, Roger

    Flint, Caroline

    Best, Harold

    Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

    Betts, Clive

    Follett, Barbara

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Foster, rh Derek

    Borrow, David

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Foulkes, rh George

    Brennan, Kevin

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Gardiner, Barry

    Burden, Richard

    George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

    Burgon, Colin

    Gerrard, Neil

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    Cairns, David

    Gilroy, Linda

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Goggins, Paul

    Casale, Roger

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Caton, Martin

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Challen, Colin

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Clapham, Michael

    Hanson, David

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

    Clelland, David

    Healey, John

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hendrick, Mark

    Coleman, Iain

    Heppell, John

    Colman, Tony

    Hesford, Stephen

    Connarty, Michael

    Heyes, David

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Cooper, Yvette

    Hodge, Margaret

    Cousins, Jim

    Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

    Cox, Tom (Tooting)

    Hoon, rh Geoffrey

    Cruddas, Jon

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Cummings, John

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

    Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Darling, rh Alistair

    Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

    362

    Hutton, rh John

    Picking, Anne

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Pickthall, Colin

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

    Jamieson, David

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Prescott, rh John

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Primarolo, rh Dawn

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Purchase, Ken

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Quin, rh Joyce

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Rammell, Bill

    Keen, Ann (Brentford)

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Kemp, Fraser

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Kidney, David

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Rooney, Terry

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

    Salter, Martin

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Lepper, David

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    Sawford, Phil

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

    Sheerman, Barry

    Love, Andrew

    Sheridan, Jim

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Luke, lain (Dundee E)

    Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Singh, Marsha

    McCabe, Stephen

    Skinner, Dennis

    McCafferty, Chris

    Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    MacDonald, Calum

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    McDonnell, John

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    MacDougall, John

    Soley, Clive

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Spellar, rh John

    McIsaac, Shona

    Squire, Rachel

    McKechin, Ann

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Steinberg, Gerry

    McNamara, Kevin

    Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    McWalter, Tony

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    Mallaber, Judy

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    Mandelson, rh Peter

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Trickett, Jon

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Truswell, Paul

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Martlew, Eric

    Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

    Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

    Merron, Gillian

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Michael, rh Alun

    Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

    Mole, Chris

    Vis, Dr. Rudi

    Morgan, Julie

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Morley, Elliot

    Ward, Claire

    Mullin, Chris

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Munn, Ms Meg

    White, Brian

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Naysmith, Dr. Doug

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Olner, Bill

    Wilson, Brian

    O'Neill, Martin

    Winnick, David

    Owen, Albert

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Perham, Linda

    363

    Wood, Mike (Batley)

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Woodward, Shaun

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Woolas, Phil

    Wyatt, Derek

    Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

    Mr. Ivor Caplin and

    Derek Twigg

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Greenway, John

    Allan, Richard

    Grieve, Dominic

    Amess, David

    Gummer, rh John

    Arbuthnot, rh James

    Hammond, Philip

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Hancock, Mike

    Bacon, Richard

    Hayes, John (S Holland)

    Baker, Norman

    Heath, David

    Baldry, Tony

    Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

    Barker, Gregory

    Hendry, Charles

    Baron, John (Billericay)

    Hermon, Lady

    Barrett, John

    Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

    Beith, rh A. J.

    Hogg, rh Douglas

    Bellingham, Henry

    Horam, John (Orpington)

    Bercow, John

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Jack, rh Michael

    Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Brady, Graham

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

    Keetch, Paul

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

    Burnett, John

    Burns, Simon

    Key, Robert (Salisbury)

    Burnside, David

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Burstow, Paul

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Burt, Alistair

    Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Butterfill, John

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Lamb, Norman

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Lansley, Andrew

    Cameron, David

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

    Leigh, Edward

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Letwin, rh Oliver

    Cash, William

    Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Lilley, rh Peter

    Chope, Christopher

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Loughton, Tim

    Collins, Tim

    Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

    Cotter, Brian

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Cran, James (Beverley)

    MacKay, rh Andrew

    Curry, rh David

    Maclean, rh David

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Maples, John

    Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Maude, rh Francis

    Dorrell, rh Stephen

    Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

    Doughty, Sue

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

    Mercer, Patrick

    Evans, Nigel

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

    Murrison, Dr. Andrew

    Norman, Archie

    Flook, Adrian

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Forth, rh Eric

    Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Fox, Dr. Liam

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

    Ottaway, Richard

    George, Andrew (St. Ives)

    Paice, James

    Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

    Paterson, Owen

    Gidley, Sandra

    Portillo, rh Michael

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

    Goodman, Paul

    Gray, James (N Wilts)

    Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Randall, John

    364

    Redwood, rh John

    Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Rendel, David

    Thomas Simon (Ceredigion)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Thurso, John

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

    Tonge, Dr. Jenny

    Trend, Michael

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Trimble, rh David

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Sanders, Adrian

    Viggers, Peter

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Walter, Robert

    Selous, Andrew

    Waterson, Nigel

    Simmonds, Mark

    Watkinson, Angela

    Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    Soames, Nicholas

    Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Wiggin, Bill

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Wilkinson, John

    Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

    Willetts, David

    Spring, Richard

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Stanley, rh Sir John

    Willis, Phil

    Streeter, Gary

    Wilshire David

    Stunell, Andrew

    Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

    Swayne, Desmond

    Young, rh Sir George

    Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Syms, Robert

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Chris Grayling and

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Mr. Mark Francois

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    It being three and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, Mr Deputy Speaker put the remaining Question required to be put at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
    Amendments proposed to the Lords amendment No. 45: (a) and (b).
    Question put, That the amendments be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 174.

    Division No. 357]

    [8:23 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Ainger, Nick

    Burden Richard

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Burgon, Colin

    Alexander, Douglas

    Burnham, Andy

    Allen, Graham

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

    Cairns, David

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Casale, Roger

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Caton, Martin

    Austin, John

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Bailey, Adrian

    Challen, Colin

    Baird, Vera

    Chaytor, David

    Barnes, Harry

    Clapham, Michael

    Battle, John

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

    Beckett, rh Margaret

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Clelland, David

    Bell, Stuart

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Benn, Hilary

    Coaker Vernon

    Bennett, Andrew

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Coleman, lain

    Berry, Roger

    Colman, Tony

    Best, Harold

    Connarty, Michael

    Betts, Clive

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Blears. Ms Hazel

    Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

    Borrow, David

    Cooper, Yvette

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Cousins, Jim

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Cox, Tom (Tooting)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Cruddas, Jon

    Brennan, Kevin

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    365

    Cummings, John

    Hutton, rh John

    Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Ingram, rh Adam

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Jamieson, David

    Darling, rh Alistair

    Jenkins, Brian

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    David, Wayne

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Davidson, Ian

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Keen, Ann (Brentford)

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Kemp, Fraser

    Doran, Frank

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Kidney, David

    Drew, David (Stroud)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Drown, Ms Julia

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Edwards, Huw

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Efford, Clive

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Etherington, Bill

    Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Fisher, Mark

    Lepper, David

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    Flint, Caroline

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

    Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

    Follett, Barbara

    Love, Andrew

    Foster, rh Derek

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Luke, lain (Dundee E)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    McCabe, Stephen

    Foulkes, rh George

    McCafferty, Chris

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    McCartney, rh Ian

    Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Gardiner, Barry

    MacDonald, Calum

    George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

    McDonnell, John

    Gerrard, Neil

    MacDougall, John

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Gilroy, Linda

    McIsaac, Shona

    Godsiff, Roger

    McKechin, Ann

    Goggins, Paul

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    McWalter, Tony

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Hanson, David

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

    Mandelson, rh Peter

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Healey, John

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Hendrick, Mark

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Heppell, John

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Hesford, Stephen

    Martlew, Eric

    Heyes, David

    Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Merron, Gillian

    Hinchliffe, David

    Michael, rh Alun

    Hodge, Margaret

    Milburn, rh Alan

    Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Hoon, rh Geoffrey

    Mole, Chris

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Morgan, Julie

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Morley, Elliot

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

    Mullin, Chris

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Naysmith, Dr. Doug

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    O'Hara, Edward

    Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

    Olner, Bill

    366

    O'Neill, Martin

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Owen, Albert

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Perham, Linda

    Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

    Picking, Anne

    Pickthall, Colin

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    Prescott, rh John

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Primarolo, rh Dawn

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Tipping, Paddy

    Purchase, Ken

    Trickett, Jon

    Quin, rh Joyce

    Truswell, Paul

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Rammell, Bill

    Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

    Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

    Rooney, Terry

    Vis, Dr. Rudi

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    Ward, Claire

    Ruddock, Joan

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

    Watts, David

    White, Brian

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Salter, Martin

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Wilson, Brian

    Sawford, Phil

    Winnick, David

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Sheridan, Jim

    Wood, Mike (Batley)

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Woodward, Shaun

    Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

    Woolas, Phil

    Singh, Marsha

    Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

    Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Soley, Clive

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Spellar, rh John

    Mr. Ivor Caplin and

    Squire, Rachel

    Derek Twigg

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Burstow, Paul

    Allan, Richard

    Burt, Alistair

    Amess, David

    Butterfill, John

    Arbuthnot, rh James

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Bacon, Richard

    Cameron, David

    Baker, Norman

    Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

    Baldry, Tony

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Barker, Gregory

    Cash, William

    Baron, John (Billericay)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Barrett, John

    Beith, rh A. J.

    Chope, Christopher

    Bellingham, Henry

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Bercow, John

    Collins, Tim

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Cotter, Brian

    Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

    Cran, James (Beverley)

    Curry, rh David

    Brady, Graham

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

    Burnett, John

    Burns, Simon

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Burnside, David

    Dorrell, rh Stephen

    367

    Doughty, Sue

    Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

    Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Evans, Nigel

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Ottaway, Richard

    Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

    Paice, James

    Paterson, Owen

    Flook, Adrian

    Portillo, rh Michael

    Forth, rh Eric

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Fox, Dr. Liam

    Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

    Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

    Pugh, Dr. John

    George, Andrew (St. Ives)

    Randall, John

    Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

    Redwood, rh John

    Gidley, Sandra

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Rendel, David

    Goodman, Paul

    Robathan, Andrew

    Gray, James (N Wilts)

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Grieve, Dominic

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    Gummer, rh John

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Hammond, Philip

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Hancock, Mike

    Sanders, Adrian

    Hayes, John (S Holland)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Heath, David

    Selous, Andrew

    Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

    Simmonds, Mark

    Hendry, Charles

    Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

    Hermon, Lady

    Soames, Nicholas

    Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Hogg, rh Douglas

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Horam, John (Orpington)

    Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Spring, Richard

    Jack, rh Michael

    Stanley, rh Sir John

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Streeter, Gary

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Stunell, Andrew

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    Swayne, Desmond

    Keetch, Paul

    Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

    Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

    Syms, Robert

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Key, Robert (Salisbury)

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Thomas Simon (Ceredigion)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Thurso, John

    Lamb, Norman

    Tonge, Dr. Jenny

    Lansley, Andrew

    Trend, Michael

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Trimble, rh David

    Leigh, Edward

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Lilley, rh Peter

    Viggers, Peter

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Walter, Robert

    Loughton, Tim

    Waterson, Nigel

    Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

    Watkinson, Angela

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    MacKay, rh Andrew

    Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

    Maclean, rh David

    Wiggin, Bill

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Wilkinson, John

    Malins, Humfrey

    Willetts, David

    Maples, John

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Maude, rh Francis

    Willis, Phil

    Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

    Wilshire, David

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

    Mercer, Patrick

    Young, rh Sir George

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Murrison, Dr. Andrew

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Norman, Archie

    Chris Grayling and

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Mr. Mark Francois

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 45, as amended, agreed to [Special Entry].

    Clause 6

      TREATMENT: POWER OF ENTRY
      Lords amendment: No. 14.
      Mr. Morley: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 15 to 21, 22 and Government amendment (a) thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 23 to 29, 35 and Government amendment (a) thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 36 to 42, 65 and Government amendment (a) thereto and Lords amendments Nos. 66 to 72.
      Mr. Morley: The amendments deal with warrant provisions. In the other place, the Government accepted a series of changes to warrant provisions that reflect the concerns expressed about powers of entry under the measure.
      We understand that the issue is sensitive and we would not use powers of entry unless there was justification for doing so. The main justification is the need to take swift and rapid action in order to prevent the spread of disease. The provisions were recommended in the independent reports to ensure that the Government can take speedy and effective action on disease control. These provisions cover entry to farms for the purposes of vaccination, slaughter, testing and sampling, and the scrapie provisions of the Bill.
      The Government listened carefully to the arguments about the warrant conditions that were made in Committee, on Report and in another place. The Government amendments tabled in another place introduce further safeguards to reinforce substantially the conditions that must be satisfied before any warrant can be granted. Again, that is because we recognise the importance of the issue. Taken as a whole, the changes satisfy the need to ensure that the powers are subject to a rigorous and transparent test of reasonableness and that the overall balance of public interest takes proper account of the private interests and rights of farmers and landowners.
      However, the Opposition amendments provide for representations to a magistrate; that would be legally unprecedented and unwelcome, in the sense that it would be difficult to make such a system work. The previous system also led to delays in some circumstances. There are no precedents in legislation for providing a right to make representations during the warrant-issuing process. I want to emphasise that.
      If we were to allow representations to the magistrate, there would have to be a reasonable period in which to make them and the opportunity to seek legal advice before making them. That condition would have to be applied. The risk is that we would have further delays if the court then required additional or expert evidence, or if there were an application for legal aid. We cannot delay disease control by several hours, or even days in some cases, while this goes on. That would undermine one of the principles of the Bill. If we are to deal with disease control—whether by culling, vaccination or serology—we must get on with it as quickly and

      369
      effectively as possible. We will not do that by overriding people's rights, because the occupier does have the right to make representations to the divisional veterinary manager, as we discussed in Committee.
      It may be worth noting that the final figures from the 2001 outbreak show that there were a total of 584 appeals against slaughter, of which all but four were dealt with by the local DVM. Of the 584 cases where animal owners challenged decisions to slaughter livestock, 534 were appealing against contiguous culls. In total, 376 of those appeals were upheld, 336 of which were appeals against contiguous culls.
      I mention the figures because there has been a tendency for one or two people to say that appealing to the DVM will not get anyone far, as the DVM is part of the machinery of the process. However, the figures demonstrate that, during the 2001 outbreak, hundreds of people made appeals that were upheld. The request to review a decision to slaughter is an effective mechanism by which farmers are able to challenge such decisions. I recognise that it is not a formal appeal process, but it can lead to people making representations and to the decision being reconsidered. There are hundreds of examples of where that has been the case. I should emphasise, as I did in Committee, that the subsequent right to seek judicial review also remains.
      Mr. Heath: The Under-Secretary is just coming to the important point of judicial review. Is not it also correct to say that a farmer could seek an injunction from the High Court for a stay of the operation until such time as the judicial review was held, which could create a much greater delay than the one the hon. Gentleman is trying to avoid by the process that he is describing?
      Mr. Morley: That is a possibility, and I shall come to it in a moment. However, the processes are different, and it would be rather extreme to seek injunctions in such cases. It has been argued that the speed of the judicial review process might mean animals being vaccinated, blood-tested or culled. That is true; nevertheless the Department is still subject to that judicial review. That is a serious issue and one that the Department must take into account. We must make sure that whatever we do is proportionate and applied properly. Those legal rights remain. The hon. Gentleman is right in the sense that the Bill does not take away a farmer's right to seek a High Court injunction blocking the warrant. The warrant procedure also has fundamental safeguards built in, and the magistrate must always be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for an inspector to enter the premises. That issue, too, was discussed in Committee. One cannot just ask for a warrant and expect to get it automatically: one must have a reasonable case to present to the magistrate to be granted that warrant.
      Mr. Bacon: It is a relief to hear that the Government are not proposing to abolish judicial review of administrative action. The Under-Secretary described that as rather extreme, and it would be extreme if a farmer had to go to the High Court to get an injunction to stop the action before it had occurred. Is not the whole point of the amendment that simply being able to go before a justice of the peace and argue the toss at the time would obviate what he calls extreme?
      Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman, who knows a thing or two about law, knows well that such duplication of the legal process does not currently exist. It would be unique in law to have such a procedure in front of a JP when seeking a warrant. There is no precedent for that, and it would have implications for the whole question of issuing warrants. That cannot be conceded, and he will recognise the reasons for that, too. In amending this part of the Bill, we are trying to reassure people that whatever measures are applied in the Bill, it is not just about culling, which people focus on because it is an emotional and important issue; it is about serology, taking samples and vaccination. I am absolutely certain that when applying some of these measures in future disease epidemics, a warrant will have to be sought in some cases to enter people's property to vaccinate and blood-test. I repeat to Members the example of one individual who delayed the lifting of restrictions in a whole region because he would not allow the Department to take blood samples from his goats on the grounds that it would upset them. That had far-reaching detrimental effects on the whole area. We therefore need measures for a range of techniques in terms of disease control, and culling is only one of them.
      Andrew George: In that case, surely the Under-Secretary would want to avoid a situation in which a farmer might seek to use a much more lengthy legal process to delay the matter further. Given that he says that a reasonable case would need to be made to a magistrate, does he accept that the point of the original Lords amendment was that that reasonable case need not be one-sided, and that the facts about the farm from the farmer's perspective should be put to the magistrate, too?
      Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman has returned to the problem that, if there is to be such a process, the Department may want its lawyers and vets to make a case, but the farmer may want to make his case, take legal advice, consult on his legal advice, and apply for legal aid. The delays would therefore go on and on. We need to avoid that while taking into account the issue of people's rights. That is what we are trying to do with the measure, as we have made significant changes during the passage of the Bill to take into account the concerns that people have raised. I appreciate that going for a High Court injunction could also cause a delay, but that is a much bigger step than going to the High Court, and I doubt whether many people would want to do that. It does not take away people's rights, however, which we cannot do in relation to seeking such an injunction—that right is not removed. We are trying to give people the right to appeal to DVMs, who know the local area and the local circumstances, and who, as I demonstrated, upheld the cases of hundreds of people who made representations to them during the last outbreak, all around the country. The system acknowledges that when a case needs to be taken into account and investigated, the DVM is prepared to do that.
      8.45 pm
      I also emphasise that the Joint Committee on Human Rights reported that the procedure for making

      371
      representations to the DVM and with regard to existing legal rights is fair and does not contravene human rights. It stated that
      "the provisions of the Bill are in principle unlikely to be incompatible with either the right in national law under ECHR Article 6(1) to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal in the determination of civil rights and obligations, or the right in international law to an effective remedy before a national authority for violations of Convention rights under ECHR Article 13."
      That is unequivocal guidance. It is clear that the measures are considered fair and proportionate.
      The provision for farmers to make representations to magistrates as part of the warrant process would be unprecedented. Hon. Members might recall that that was raised in Committee. I was not sure whether the procedure could be supported. However, after receiving proper legal advice and consulting other Departments, it is clear that the process would be unprecedented and make a fundamental change to the nature of warrant provisions.
      Andrew George: On a technical matter, can the Minister clarify how the new procedure will work if the Government amendment is accepted? Will the farmer have a right to appeal to the DVM after a warrant has been granted?
      Mr. Morley: That is an interesting point. It might be a bit late to appeal to a DVM after a warrant is issued. We want to ensure that farmers are aware of the provision and understand how to make representations to the DVM. That is dealt with in the slaughter protocol. I promised that we would include clear guidance on the procedures to be followed when culling policies are applied so that farmers are aware of their right to make representations to the DVM, so I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that.
      Mr. Browning: The Minister will recall that in Committee I raised the legal basis on which he was introducing the Bill and suggested that it might be subject to legal challenge. I hear what he said about having taken legal advice. He will know that such things are ultimately challenged in the court, which ends up the determinant in such matters. However, I am glad that he took further legal advice and hope he understands the underlying concern—the gravity—with which people view the powers that he is taking to himself.
      Mr. Morley: I understand that, but the way in which the powers will be exercised has been exaggerated. People have ignored the fact that a Minister will have to apply a power proportionately and responsibly. It is not possible simply to go and ask for a warrant; it is necessary to make the case and demonstrate why a warrant to go on someone's property is needed. The Department would not take the decision to apply for a warrant lightly and I am sure no magistrate would take the decision to grant a warrant lightly.
      Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being patient with us as we try to understand the process. Having heard representations from a
      372
      farmer, would the DVM be required to provide that information to the magistrate when seeking a warrant and proving the correctness or otherwise of an application? That would allow the magistrate to be in possession of information from people on both sides of the case when he makes an assessment. A response to that would help enormously in ascertaining whether the process is satisfactory.
      Mr. Morley: On the detailed questions, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am not a lawyer and I am careful not to offend lawyers—it can be an expensive business. People will have the right to make representations to the DVM. It would not be unreasonable for the magistrate to ask whether the farmer's representations had been taken into account. The magistrate would have the right to ask that. Of course, we are making sure that people are aware of their rights. It is entirely up to individuals whether they avail themselves of the right to appeal to the DVM, but it is a provision. As I outlined to the House, many hundreds of farmers did so and the DVM recognised and conceded the cases of many hundreds of farmers, which demonstrates that the system works and that, if people have a reasonable case, the DVM will take note of it and respond—the evidence is there for all to see.
      Mr. Browning: May I put to the Minister a case that was common during the foot and mouth outbreak? It concerns farms that were in a contiguous area and were due to be culled out, but the cull did not take place immediately. He kindly saw me about two farms in my constituency. In those cases, we had reached day 19 before they received notification that they were going to be culled out. Surely, it must be obvious to the DVM that that is unreasonable. As it happens, the four farms in my patch that fell into that category are still alive and doing well. However, when that sort of thing happens, unless a Member of Parliament or some other such person intervenes, orders can be executed in an unreasonable time frame.
      Mr. Morley: That is not an unreasonable point. However, we are talking retrospectively about something that happened at the height of an epidemic, when there was a real need to get to grips with the situation and people were under enormous pressure. We have learned a lot of lessons from the epidemic. It would be very irresponsible of us had we not learned them and had we not recognised that there were things that we could do better. That is why the protocols that have been agreed give clear guidance, for example, to the DVM on dealing with contiguous culls and on how the guidance should be applied.
      Indeed, there is an argument for taking local conditions into account and for more flexibility. Those are some of the issues that people have put to us and we are not unsympathetic to them. I believe that we have responded in the Bill and, in particular, in putting in place the protocols, which are also published. People can see the sort of guidelines and procedures that our DVMs and vets have to follow.
      Ms Joan Walley: In view of what my hon. Friend the Minister has just said about the protocols that are now in place and the lessons that the

      373
      Government are learning, is he convinced that the Government now have the balance right? The introduction of SI 843, Animal Health, England, which applied to BSE, caused some alarm because of provisions on forced entry—indeed, my constituent Mrs. Jones shared that concern. Does he think that there are now safeguards and that people need not be concerned about that power of entry in view of the raft of measures that we are introducing?
      Mr. Morley: Absolutely. My hon. Friend is referring to the statutory instrument dealing with the TSE regulations, which we debated in Committee and which was carried with no opposition. I made it clear to the Committee that there had been an enormous amount of disinformation as regards that regulation, which has somehow got tied up with the measures in the Bill. The TSE regulations deal with BSE and TSE. There are no entry powers within that regulation. It deals with BSE and cohort cases—if a cow goes down with BSE, the cohort is slaughtered to safeguard public health.
      One of the more incredible allegations was that the TSE order had been sneaked in by the back door, despite the fact that we consulted nearly 1,000 organisations about it, none of which expressed any concern. That shows that even well-meaning people can sometimes get carried away with the wrong interpretation of the Government's actions and intentions. I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend and that she can reassure her constituent. I have answered one or two letters on the matter, and have made it clear that people have been misled. I am sure that that is true in the case of my hon. Friend's constituent.
      Mr. Bacon: Will the Minister confirm that the amendment requiring warrants to be executed only at a reasonable hour unless the inspector thinks that the case is urgent is the result of an amendment tabled by the Government? If so, does the Minister accept that no one would expect such a condition to apply to a warrant for a drugs bust, when one would not want to give advance notice to drug dealers? His earlier argument that the amendment fundamentally undermines the nature of warrant issue is therefore flawed.
      Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman's example is very different from the warrants under discussion. We are not dealing with criminals. We are trying to deal reasonably with people. The amendment was a Government amendment, tabled in the light of representations that we received in Committee and in the other place. It is a genuine attempt to allay people's concerns. We understand that if we are taking powers to go on to someone's property in order to carry out disease control measures, whatever they are—not necessarily culling—people need to be reassured that they would be used only if it were absolutely necessary, and that they would be applied in a proportionate and reasonable way. That is what we are trying to do.
      Mr. Bacon: Of course I realise that we are not dealing with criminals; that was precisely my point. The Minister, if I understood him correctly, was arguing that we could not accept the amendment because it would set a precedent and would have far-reaching implications
      374
      for the issue of warrants. I was arguing that it was surely possible to distinguish between different kinds of warrants issued for different reasons, so there is no reason not to accept the amendment.
      Mr. Morley: I repeat that I am not a legal expert, but from my knowledge of warrants I know that they are issued in different ways for different circumstances. What is proposed in this case is a fundamental difference—an unprecedented change in the way in which warrants are issued. It suggests that the farmer and DEFRA officials can stand in front of a magistrate and almost have a mini court scene. If there is to be such a facility, people must be given reasonable time to prepare, to make applications for legal aid, and all the various aspects of representation, which is unprecedented—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
      Mr. Morley: That can be done by a High Court judge, but it is a completely separate matter from the issue of a warrant by a magistrate. The hon. Gentleman, who is familiar with legal procedures, knows that to be true. If the positions were reversed, I do not believe that he would want to change fundamentally the precedents and the entire procedure for the issue of magistrates warrants. That is why we must reverse the amendments.
      There are amendments with which we do not disagree. Amendments Nos. 15,25, 38 and 68 expressly permit an inspector to take on to premises equipment that he or she requires. It may be presumed that an inspector will carry relevant equipment, but there is in theory the potential for disputes over whether an inspector may take equipment on to premises. The amendments are required to avoid any doubt.
      We support amendments Nos. 16, 18, 26, 28, 39, 41, 69 and 71. They deal with the requirement to give assistance to officials carrying out functions under the vaccination, slaughter and serology entry provisions, and with the issue of those from whom assistance can be requested. They again reflect concerns expressed by hon. Members. We do not want to make demands in respect of assisting officials that would be unreasonable or go beyond what an individual could be expected to provide. An inspector could not, therefore, make unreasonable demands on people who were not qualified to help, such as children or elderly people.
      9 pm
      We are, however, sympathetic to the suggestion that, for the sake of clarity, the powers should be limited to the occupier of the premises, the keeper of the animals or persons under the control of people in those two categories. In Committee, concerns were expressed about visiting friends or relatives, or people who merely happen to be on the premises and might be dragooned into providing assistance.
      We do not have that intention. We are prepared to amend the Bill to make that very clear and to remove the perceived risk of any bystanders or even children being requested or required to assist. Such an amendment also responds to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that, for the sake of

      375
      clarity, the powers should be explicitly limited to the protection afforded by convention rights and in keeping with it.
      Lords amendments Nos. 17, 27, 40 and 70 deal with the requirement to give assistance to officials carrying out functions under the vaccination, slaughter and serology provisions. They are also designed to allay concerns that the requests for reasonable assistance would not involve unreasonable legal demands on people who are not qualified to help.
      The purpose of Lords amendments Nos. 19, 29, 42 and 72 is to ensure that, in the event of a warrant being granted, an inspector will serve a copy on the owner of the premises or, in their absence, leave a copy in a conspicuous place. That ensures that people are aware that the warrant has been issued. Given the weight of argument about the warrant conditions, we tabled the amendments to introduce more safeguards to ensure that the powers are subject to a rigorous and transparent test of reasonableness and that the overall balance of public interest takes proper account of the private interests and rights of the farmer.
      That last comment sums up the Government's approach to dealing with warrants and access. We firmly believe that the disease control measures are necessary. Let me emphasise again that we are not talking only about culling, but about vaccination and serology. The need for speed and very clear measures was recognised in the independent reports, and we are responding to that in the Bill. We are trying to reassure people that the powers would be applied only in a reasonable and proportionate way.
      I think that the House will agree that we have moved a long way in the amendments to reflect people's concerns. While we are trying to be as reasonable as we can to ensure the appropriate checks and balances and to be open and transparent, we cannot concede on setting down unprecedented legal changes in relation to the issuing of warrants by magistrates, although we have conceded a number of significant changes to reflect hon. Members' concerns.
      Mr. Hayes: The Minister is right to say that the Government have accepted a number of the suggestions made in the other place. They have done so in line with the suggestions made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It might be useful for the House to hear what the Committee said:
      "legislation which confers apparently wide powers or imposes apparently wide liabilities should make clear the limitations which are imposed by Convention rights. This is desirable in the interests of legal certainty and the notion of the rule of law, ideas which are central to effective guarantees of human rights."
      The Minister has acknowledged that some of the proposals that were made in the Lords amendments were necessary to comply with those demands. Having said that, there is still disagreement between the two Houses over the balance between the rights of the individual, to which the Minister rightly paid attention, and the need to effect the speedy delivery of measures to deal with a crisis such as the one from which we suffered recently.
      I will return in a moment to the point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) about the presentation of information to a justice of the
      376
      peace. Before I do so, I emphasise that, when examining this group of amendments, we must bear it in mind that we are dealing with animals likely to be slaughtered as part of a ring-fenced cull—not with animals already infected in their own right—in circumstances in which a firebreak policy has been adopted around an infected area to protect the health of the wider national animal stock. As Lord Greaves pointed out in the other place, the issues involved in these amendments are pertinent to that point.
      The Minister and the whole House will be aware that the tactics relating to such culling caused immense controversy during the foot and mouth epidemic. Much of the bitterness that ensued is still felt in many rural communities, and many hon. Members will have farmers in their constituencies who still feel the effects very deeply. Given that, and given that the strategy for dealing with these outbreaks should be based on a partnership approach and on collaboration between the industry and the Government, the issue of warrants seems to be a particularly sensitive one. After all, we are talking about going on to someone's property and slaughtering healthy animals, albeit—arguably—for the necessary purpose of preventing the spread of disease.
      The National Farmers Union has commented on this issue. I do not want to become the lackey of the NFU, but it is important that we consider what it has to say. It states that it regrets
      "that the Government has decided to overturn the amendments … which provide for farmers to be informed of the reasons for the authorities applying for a warrant to a JP and to have an opportunity to make representations to a JP including the presentation of sworn information."
      That point was raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome when he questioned the Minister on the ability of a farmer to make such a representation directly to a justice of the peace. It is a matter of grave concern that a JP could issue a warrant on the basis of information from the Ministry that could not be challenged. If I were the Minister, I would want checks and balances here, because we are all fallible. Those checks and balances are important in regard to the hearing of the cases of people directly affected by the events that I am describing. The amendment would afford protection for individual farmers; but—more subtly, perhaps—it would give some protection to Ministers from their own powers.
      Mr. Heath: If a farmer had made representations to the district veterinary manager before a warrant was applied for, there would be a duty on the DVM to share that relevant information with a magistrate—not, as the Minister said, as a result of a request from the magistrate, but as part of his duty to the court. It would be a matter of disclosure.
      Mr. Hayes: In respect of the information being provided, that is the nub of the issue. The difference between us and the Government is that we believe that the farmer affected should have a right to present that information in sworn form to a magistrate. The Minister, however, while trying to be helpful, was suggesting that that would probably take place—that local circumstances would probably mean that the magistrate was aware of the information—without

      377
      guaranteeing a firm and comprehensive right for a farmer to make that information available. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that matter later.
      Mrs. Browning: There is another aspect. Farmers remain on-farm in the throes of a foot and mouth outbreak, so their ability to make personal representations is limited. They need a third party—either a lawyer or an NFU representative—so the right for information to be put before a magistrate is important, as it would be very unusual for farmers to come off-farm to deliver it in person.
      Mr. Hayes: That is right. Farmers, in addition to being physically isolated, would be intimidated, bewildered and frightened by such circumstances. Frankly, people who are running a business that is under threat, especially those who live on site, as farmers frequently do, might not be in a position to argue their case as comprehensively or persuasively as they otherwise might. All those considerations reinforce the spirit of partnership that I have recommended in the debate as the prerequisite to an effective national strategy.
      That is the core of the issue, which was addressed in the other place by a number of Members, not least my noble Friend Baroness Byford.
      Mr. Morley: Before the hon. Gentleman refers to his quote, may I deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), which, again, is not unreasonable? Sometimes, it is important that people who are worried or under stress or who perhaps feel that they are too shy to make representations have someone to speak on their behalf, but there is no reason why NFU officials, or even a solicitor, could not make a case to the DVM on behalf of a particular farmer. There is nothing to prevent them from doing that, nor would we want to prevent them from doing it. Indeed, we want to encourage the NFU and other farming organisations to have the information to make such cases on behalf of their members if they so choose.
      Mr. Hayes: Once again, the Minister is helpful and cooperative, but he has not gone as far as the Lords would ask him to travel. In that respect, the Lords probably have it right and it may be useful to hear some of what they said. In particular, I shall quote the Minister's noble Friend Baroness Mallalieu, who speaks not only with legal training and expertise, but with a keen interest in and knowledge of countryside matters. Before I do so, I want to refer to the remarks of my noble Friend Baroness Byford.
      It is perhaps worth adding that my noble Friend has played an essential role in improving the Bill. The Minister, with his usual grace, will want to acknowledge that a bad Bill has been made better by the work done in the Lords, particularly by Conservative and, though it pains me to say it, Liberal Democrat Members of that House. In the words of Baroness Byford, they have made a bad Bill a better bad Bill. In a number of respects, she played a crucial role in that process. She said that it is surely reasonable that the magistrate should be satisfied that, in the first place, no one is challenging the interpretation that has been put to him by the Ministry, adding:
      378
      "How can he balance the inspector's view against that of the owner of the premises that the inspector requires access if he has not heard the other side?"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 November 2002; Vol. 640, c. 499–500.]
      That is a fair point, which was reinforced by a number of speakers in the Lords, not least Baroness Mallalieu. I hope that I may beg the House's indulgence and quote her at length, as she summed up the whole matter:
      "One of the lasting legacies of the foot and mouth outbreak, which has led to continuing resentment, was the sense of powerlessness in the face of the authorities on the part of those faced with people attempting to get into their premises to slaughter their stock.
      I accept that a balance has to be struck between the need to control disease urgently and the rights of the owners of animals—the landowners and farmers. I appreciate that the paramount consideration in the Minister's mind—stung as he and his colleagues were by criticisms of their department—is that they should have the powers to act as swiftly as possible."
      We are not talking about diseased animals, however. We are talking about healthy animals that would be part of a ring-fence, firebreak approach to try to stop the spread of disease.
      9.15 pm
      Lady Mallalieu said that once the application had been made, the farmer should be given a chance to be heard. She summarised her argument thus:
      "But surely, if you are going to destroy someone's healthy stock, which is the proposal here, you must give that person the opportunity to be heard at an early stage of the warrant."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 October 2002; Vol. 639, c. 1304.]
      We have heard from the Minister that there is the option of judicial review, and that of course exists; but, as a number of their lordships pointed out, the stock would be dead. The satisfaction of knowing that the due legal process had been followed would be of little use to those wanting to salvage their livelihoods or to deal with the immediate problem of someone going on to their land. I feel that immediacy is important in terms of access to a fair hearing and the due process of law.
      I mentioned the United States national animal health emergency system, the US equivalent of our emerging national contingency plan. As I said, it is based on the collaborative approach that I believe is essential if we are to achieve the objectives that are shared by the two Houses and the two sides of this Chamber. The action guidelines at the heart of the US plan include strengthening partnerships and networks, reinforcing federal, state and industry co-ordination, expanding training, education and public awareness and a strong emphasis on co-operation between industry and every level of government. That is why the issue of warrants is so salient. They are not just important in themselves; they are important because they symbolise an attitude and a balance.
      The real differences exist between a Government who, understandably, want legislation that delivers immediacy, effectiveness and a degree of predictability and control and an Opposition who, I suspect, want more flexibility. Flexibility is important. If we have learned anything from the dreadful business of 2001, we have learned that the disease strikes unexpectedly, progresses in a way that is hard to predict, changes its form and is dynamic; and that a new outbreak of this

      379
      disease—or another disease entirely—would be just as unpredictable. Of course the contingency plan must take account of some factors of which we can be reasonably certain, but it must be flexible enough to allow Ministers, officials and all the proper agencies to react in a way that is appropriate to local conditions and circumstances that are particular to a disease at a certain point.
      Another difference between us relates to the balance between the rights and responsibilities of farmers and owners and the power of Government to deal with the disease. There must, of course, be a balance between those two imperatives, but the Opposition believe that rights are of paramount importance in the context of reassuring the industry about the need to adopt many of the necessary measures that are in the Bill and will be included in the national plan. Unless we have the necessary confidence and raise the morale of the industry, we will not have an easy passage in adopting and implementing some of the necessary changes on which I think we mostly agree.
      Those are the two salient differences between what was said in the other place and what the Minister is now saying and between what the Opposition believe and what the Government advocate. Warrants are at the very heart of that difference. For those reasons, it will be necessary for Opposition Members to oppose the Government's position and support that adopted by the other place.
      Andrew George: I agree with the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) that it is regrettable that the Government have taken this view. I shall concentrate on the Government amendments that seek to delete those essential lines from the warrant amendments. Since the hon. Gentleman referred to cooperation between constructive Opposition parties, it is worth noting that the amendments were tabled by my noble Friends in another place. They provide for farmers to be informed of the reasons for the authorities applying to a magistrate for a warrant to enter premises and to have the opportunity to make representations to that magistrate, including the presentation of sworn information. The provisions are relatively straightforward.
      Part of the Minister's attempted justification for deleting those essential lines was, predictably, that the provision would produce unwanted delays in a process that requires speed. I shall return to that in a moment. His other main argument against it was that these measures, if they were allowed to remain in the Bill, would be unprecedented in the warrant-making process. The Minister needs to understand that this is not just about entry to premises; it is also about the destruction of the content of those premises.
      The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) made some rather telling legal points. I do not have a legal mind, but it is clear to me that not all new law has a precedent. Many new initiatives would never happen if we said that we could not do something because it had never been done before. One example is the Government handing over to the Bank of England the power to set interest rates. They did not refrain from doing that
      380
      because it was unprecedented. The argument that anything that is unprecedented must not be done is fallacious and does not stand up to scrutiny.
      The Minister was aware of the amendment and had the opportunity to look at it in one of two ways. If he were genuinely concerned about the delay rather than the macho concern about the Bill being changed too much, he could have taken the view that it should be amended by the addition of further lines to clarify the time limits within which representations should be made, for example, rather than attempting to delete the essential provisions that give farmers a justifiable right to make representations in order to ensure that the magistrate hears both sides of the argument. Fundamentally it is all about ensuring that the magistrate, having been presented with the arguments, understands all the factors that pertain in the case of a particular holding. We believe that the principle is very important, and that the amendment should have been accepted.
      The Minister made the predictable point that the provision would result in delay, but much of the evidence shows that, had it been available at the time of the outbreak, the process might have been speeded up. Opposition to entry for initial testing is far less likely, and even less so if vaccination to live were the Government's preferred policy. Farmers would certainly be reassured. Delays in dealing with the crisis last year had far less to do with farm owners appealing against decisions, and more to do with operational incompetence.
      Evidence presented by the National Audit Office in its June 2002 report makes no reference to farmers holding up the system. The report states:
      "The three main factors contributing to delays in slaughter were: shortages of resources: vets, valuemen, slaughtermen and equipment … Inspection and diagnosis protocols: Occasional delays may have occurred when laboratory results for the initial antigen test were inconclusive. There was also initially a requirement that during a report visit the Department's vet should check all livestock before carrying out a detailed clinical examination of the affected animal(s). In addition, at the beginning of the outbreak, vets were not permitted to undertake another visit within five days of visiting an infected premises. This constraint was addressed on 10 March 2001."
      There were also logistical factors:
      "the time needed to round up large flocks of sheep and inefficient early arrangements to ensure the co-ordinated arrival of valuers, slaughtermen and disposal teams."
      Those were the factors—not farmers making clear objections to entry on to their farms.
      Farmers were prepared to work with the Government, rather than refuse permission to enter their farms. The report continues:
      "Some farmers challenged the contiguous cull: This took the form, on occasions, of refusing access to premises, which sometimes forced the Department to take out a High Court injunction. More commonly, farmers formally requested the Department to reconsider its decision to cull while there were also some challenges in court."
      The Minister does not properly understand the point that was well made by the hon. Member for South Holland and the Deepings: one lesson that we must

      381
      learn from the last outbreak is the need properly to re-establish trust between the Government and the industry. Page 37 of the Anderson report states:
      "Contingency planning is not just producing a written document. Rather, it is about putting in place the systems, processes and culture to respond effectively to crises. Above all, it about a shared sense of ownership and purpose across the relevant stakeholder community."
      It is important that that principle be carried through by ensuring that, in cases where a warrant is secured, farmers have a right to respond.
      Fundamentally, given that the Minister agreed in Committee that entry to premises to slaughter animals was different from other situations where the power to enter was sought and that, ideally, farmers should have the kind of rights contained in the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords, I urge him to reconsider his position and accept that the change that we propose, even if unprecedented, is an acceptable and progressive measure, which the House should support.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Bacon: I particularly agreed with the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) about one of the first points he made—the suggestion that nothing should be done because doing something would create a precedent. Of course it is true that everything is unprecedented until it is done for the first time. That seemed a curious argument to come from a new Labour Minister. The hon. Gentleman speculated that I did not want to effect such a fundamental change, but I have news for him: I came into the House precisely to effect fundamental change, and one day Conservative Members will have the opportunity to do precisely that. I shall remind him that I said that; I am very assiduous in keeping quotes, as he knows.
      To understand this business about warrants and entry, it is important to go back to the fundamental basis of the Bill. I was rudely interrupted by the rules of the House on this point when I was the last hon. Member to speak on Third Reading and had to confine my remarks to the remaining one minute and 45 seconds. We have to reflect on the fact that the Government introduced the Bill because, during the foot and mouth crisis, they killed millions of healthy animals that they had no legal right to kill and no scientific basis for killing.
      Paragraph 3(1) of schedule 3 to the Animal Health Act 1981—the relevant provision that refers to the Minister's powers to kill animals—states:
      "The Minister may, if he thinks fits, in any case cause to be slaughtered … any animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease, or suspected of being so affected; and … any animals which are or have been in the same field, shed, or other place, or in the same herd or flock, or other in contact with animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease, or which appear to the Minister to have been in any way exposed to the infection of foot-and-mouth disease."
      In other words, the Minister had to have some grounds for thinking that the animals were infected before he could kill them. He had no basis in statute law for exercising the slaughter. We have to ask, therefore, whether any basis had developed in case law to undertake the cull. The answer is that, no, there was not.
      382
      I commend to the House an excellent speech made by Lord—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The question that the hon. Gentleman should ask himself is about the warrant conditions. His remarks so far indicate that he is going wider than the ambit of Lords Amendment No. 14.
      Mr. Bacon: I respect what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if you will bear with me very briefly, I hope to show that these matters are intimately related because they go back to the non-existent trust between farmers and the Government. That lack of trust causes the power of entry that the Minister seeks to cause so much suspicion among farmers.
      The fact is that there was no statutory basis for the cull; neither was there a basis in case law. Lord Willoughby de Broke referred to three relevant cases. The Government won the first two—that of Westerhall Farms v. Scottish Ministers and MAFF v. Winslade—but, crucially, not all the required scientific information was available to the courts. However, the Government lost the first case based on correct science—MAFF v. Upton—in which all the scientific information available to the Department was available to the court.
      In his speech, Lord Willoughby de Broke said that, if the Minister was looking for a bedrock case for or against the continuous cull, he could find it in the Upton case. In that case, Dr. Donaldson's scientific evidence was produced by the defending solicitors and won the day for the defendants.
      Mr. Hayes: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Bacon: Of course.
      Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I imagine that he is making the case—and he is doing it very well—that there is an intimate relationship between the lack of trust that farmers feel for the action taken by the Government in culling healthy animals and the Government's proposals for warrants and entry conditions. My hon. Friend suggests that farmers will mistrust the warrants in the form that the Government propose. The Lords tried to amend the warrants, but the Government clearly do not want to accept those amendments.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) has provided an escape route, and I hope that the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) will take it. He has to be concise when he puts his argument, or he will be ignoring the ruling that I gave earlier.
      Mr. Bacon: I am utterly serious when I say that I am not looking for an escape route, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) has precisely enunciated the argument that I wanted to make. The Government forfeited farmers' trust because MAFF officials went to farms and slaughtered healthy animals even though their actions had no basis in statute, case law or science.

      383
      Various hon. Members have noted the importance of farmers being represented in a warrant hearing, and one might be able to give the Minister's case more credence were it not for the experience of what happened. Farmers generally have no trust in the Minister's proposals because of the way in the which the Government acted during the crisis. That was precisely the point that I was in the process of making. In his speech, Lord Willoughby de Broke asked why the Ministry never fought a case for an injunction to enable a contiguous cull to proceed after the decision in the Upton case was given. The reason was that the Ministry knew that it had been proceeding on a wholly inadequate basis.
      That is the context for our consideration of the proposal that there should be no right in advance of slaughter for a farmer to go before a justice of the peace and contest a warrant.
      Mr. Wiggin: Earlier, the Minister commented on the number of cases that the DVM upheld. That gave me cause for concern, as farmers are worried about whether warrants will arrive before or after animals are culled. I hope that the Minister, when he closes the debate, will say whether the cases to which he did not draw attention were also relevant. Does my hon. Friend think that farmers' human rights may be infringed by the proposal? Farmers who go to court must have a reason for doing so, and it is not fair to proceed without them.
      Mr. Bacon: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Government have had the grace to admit that they cannot abolish judicial review for administrative action, but their proposals seem to mean that big-ticket farmers with deep wallets and access to big lawyers can go straight to the High Court to secure an injunction. The Minister will be able to do nothing about that, as people have a legal right to obtain injunctions. Hundreds of people got satisfaction from the DVM, but that does not alter the fact that MAFF, as the Department then was, exceeded its powers and acted in excess of what a court would have considered reasonable. They may have been a minority, but many people were involved in such cases, which have been the subject of much comment and which have caused a great deal of mistrust.
      Our courts are too full already, and we do not want them to become any more clogged up, but farmers should not have to have deep wallets so that they can take out a High Court injunction. Farmers should be able, in a simple and short procedure, to go before the magistrate when the warrant is being applied for and make their case. As I said to the Minister earlier, one could believe this to be a heinous alteration to the way in which warrants were issued if one were talking about big criminals. We would not want to give drugs dealers the right to contest a warrant—[Interruption]—well, the law could be changed. We do not want to give big drugs dealers the right to contest the warrant before a judge. If they knew that there was about to be a drugs bust, they would be long gone. As the Minister said, we are not talking about big criminals.
      Mr. Wiggin: One of the problems throughout the debate is that it seems as though the Government are
      384
      always blaming the farmers for the entire foot and mouth crisis. My hon. Friend's point emphasises once again that it is difficult, when discussing this, to distinguish between proper criminals who deal in drugs and people who are desperately trying to eke out a living farming livestock without having their stock slaughtered.
      Mr. Bacon: Whether they meant it or not—and I am willing to accept that that at the highest levels of MAFF they did not mean it—the Government's actions made many law-abiding people feel criminal, when they were struggling to keep themselves afloat and seeing their farm income dropping through the floor.
      In conclusion, the Government's basis for the slaughter was illegal and scientifically flawed. The basis of the Bill is to repair that deficit but in the context of the lack of trust created by the Government through their own actions, it is entirely reasonable to expect a farmer to be able to contest a warrant.
      Mr. Morley: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to say a few words about some of the points that have been made.
      I recognise that this is an important aspect of the Bill. I repeat that the Government are trying to be reasonable and proportionate. We want to reassure people and ensure that these measures are used only when necessary. We want to ensure that there is a right of representation to the DVM and that farmers are aware of that right. Indeed, we have no objection to people making representations on their behalf. We have accepted other changes, such as retaining warrants for 12 months. Hon. Members have referred to the dating on the warrants and how they would be applied. That is in reflection of legitimate cases.
      I am very aware of the United States system to which the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) referred. Indeed, aspects of that system are being built into some of our responsibilities. The hon. Gentleman and I seem to be talking different languages, but I agree with him about the need for maximum flexibility. The whole point of the Bill is to give our veterinary scientists and divisional managers maximum flexibility in dealing with any future outbreak.
      Let me say to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George)—and I stress again that I am not a legal expert—that I have a distinct feeling that it would be difficult to set time limits for representations if there was a right for individuals to make representations against the issuing of a warrant. I am pretty sure that if the time scale is too short it will be challenged by lawyers who will say that they do not have enough time to make their case. That is inevitable. If the time available is too long, people will simply utilise the maximum time leading to delays and restricting flexibility.
      There was a range of reasons for delays during the last epidemic, which we understand. We are trying to address that and we are willing, as I have always been, to consider a range of options in this case. However, I am convinced, because of the advice that I have received

      385
      from the highest level, that this proposal would set a precedent that we cannot concede in relation to the changes in the issuing of warrants.
      Mr. Hayes rose—
      Mr. Morley: I cannot give way, I am afraid, because I am about to conclude.
      The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) seems to have an obsession with claims and conspiracy theories about healthy animals being culled. Many of the animals that were culled were developing the disease. There may well be a case for fire break culls in the future, although it is not my preferred option—I would much rather use vaccination. However, there must be flexibility. We recognise the points about people's trust and concerns. That is why we have made these changes to the Bill, which I hope that right hon. and hon. Members recognise. I hope that they also recognise that although we understand the reasons for the Lords amendments, they go too far in setting an unwelcome precedent that we cannot ignore and cannot accept.
      It being five hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR SPEAKER, proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings to be concluded at that hour pursuant to Order [this day].
      Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 14 agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 14, as amended, agreed to.

    Clause 7

      SLAUGHTER: POWER OF ENTRY
      Lords amendment: No. 22, in Page 4, line 33, leave out from beginning to end of line 1 on page 5 and insert—
      "(3) The second condition is that each of the following applies to the occupier of the premises—

      (a)he has been informed of the decision to seek entry to the premises and of the reasons for that decision;

      (b)he has failed to allow entry to the premises on being requested to do so by an inspector;

      (c)he has been informed of the decision to apply for the warrant 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."

      (4) The third condition is that—

      (a)the premises are unoccupied or the occupier is absent and (in either case) notice of intention to apply for the warrant has been left in a conspicuous place on the premises, or

      (b)an application for admission to the premises or the giving of notice of intention to apply for the warrant would defeat the object of entering the premises."

      Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (a)—[Mr. Morley], Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 172.

      Division No.358]

      [9:46 pm

      Ayes

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Ainger, Nick

      David, Wayne

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Davidson, Ian

      Alexander, Douglas

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Allen, Graham

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Dismore, Andrew

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Austin, John

      Doran, Frank

      Bailey, Adrian

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Baird, Vera

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Barnes, Harry

      Drown, Ms julia

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Battle, John

      Eagle,Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Edwards, Huw

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Efford, Clive

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Bell, Stuart

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Benn, Hilary

      Etherington, Bill

      Bennett, Andrew

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Fisher, Mark

      Berry, Roger

      Flint, Caroline

      Best, Harold

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Betts, Clive

      Follett, Barbara

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Foster, rh Derek

      Blizzard, Bob

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Borrow, David

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Foulkes, rh George

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Brennan, Kevin

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Buck, Ms Karen

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Burden, Richard

      Gerrard, Neil

      Burgon, Colin

      Gibson, Dr, Ian

      Burnham, Andy

      Gilroy, Linda

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Goggins, Paul

      Cairns, David

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Grogan, John

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Casale, Roger

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Caton, Martin

      Hanson, David

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Challen, Colin

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Chaytor, David

      Clapham, Michael

      Healey, John

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clelland, David

      Heppell, John

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Coaker, Vernon

      Heyes, David

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hinchliffe, David

      Coleman, lain

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Colman, Tony

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Connarty, Michael

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Cousins, Jim

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Cummings, John

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Hutton, rh John

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Ingram, rh Adam

      387

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Picking, Anne

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jamieson, David

      Plaskitt, James

      Jenkins, Brian

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Prescott, rh John

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Purchase, Ken

      Kemp, Fraser

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kidney, David

      Rammell, Bill

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Ruddock, Joan

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Lepper, David

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Salter, Martin

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Linton, Martin

      Sawford, Phil

      Love, Andrew

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Luke, lain (Dundee E)

      Sheridan, Jim

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Singh, Marsha

      McCafferty, Chris

      Skinner, Dennis

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      MacDonald, Calum

      McDonnell, John

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      MacDougall, John

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Soley, Clive

      McKechin, Ann

      Spellar, rh John

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Squire, Rachel

      McNamara, Kevin

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      McNulty, Tony

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      McWalter, Tony

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mallaber, Judy

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Martlew, Eric

      Timms, Stephen

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Michael, rh Alun

      Trickett, Jon

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Truswell, Paul

      Mole, Chris

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Morgan, Julie

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Morley, Elliot

      Mullin, Chris

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      O'Hara, Edward

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Olner, Bill

      Ward, Claire

      O'Neill, Martin

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Owen, Albert

      Watts, David

      Perham, Linda

      White, Brian

      388

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Winnick, David

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Woodward, Shaun

      Jim Fitzpatrick and

      Woolas, Phil

      Gillian Merron

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Allan, Richard

      Goodman, Paul

      Amess, David

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Greenway, John

      Bacon, Richard

      Grieve, Dominic

      Baker, Norman

      Gummer, rh John

      Baldry, Tony

      Hammond, Philip

      Barker, Gregory

      Hancock, Mike

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Barrett, John

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Harvey, Nick

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Bercow, John

      Heath, David

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Hendry, Charles

      Hermon Lady

      Brady, Graham

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Hughes Simon (Southwark N)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Jack, rh Michael

      Burnett, John

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Burns, Simon

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Burnside, David

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Burstow, Paul

      Keetch, Paul

      Burt, Alistair

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Butterfill, John

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Cameron, David

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Cash, William

      Lamb, Norman

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Lansley Andrew

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Chope, Christopher

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Collins, Tim

      Lidington, David

      Cotter, Brian

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Curry, rh David

      Loughton, Tim

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      MacKay, rh Andrew

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Maclean, rh David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Maples John

      Dodds, Nigel

      Maude, rh Francis

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Doughty, Sue

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Fabricant, Michael

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Fallon, Michael

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Norman, Archie

      Flook, Adrian

      O'Brien Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Forth, rh Eric

      Öpik, Lembit

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Ottaway, Richard

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Paice, James

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Paterson, Owen

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Portillo, rh Michael

      389

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Syms, Robert

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Randall, John

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Redwood, rh John

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Thurso, John

      Rendel, David

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Robathan, Andrew

      Trend, Michael

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Viggers, Peter

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Walter, Robert

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Sanders, Adrian

      Watkinson, Angela

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Selous, Andrew

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Simmonds, Mark

      Wiggin, Bill

      Simmonds, Mark

      Wilkinson, John

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Willetts, David

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

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Willis, Phil

      Soames, Nicholas

      Wilshire, David

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Young, rh Sir George

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Spring, Richard

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Streeter, Gary

      Chris Grayling and

      Stunell, Andrew

      Mr. Mark Francois

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 35 and Govt amendment (a) thereto agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 15 to 21, 23 to 34 and 36 to 44 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 46.
      Mr. Morley: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The Government agree that we must take action to minimise the risk of importing animal diseases that have the potential to do serious damage. That is why we are taking action to tackle the problem of illegal imports of meat and meat products, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spelt out in some detail the kind of measures that we are taking. The illegal imports action plan covers a wide range of measures. It is expected that future action to combat illegal imports will be informed by the outcome of the assessment of disease risk and a review of how import controls can be better arranged.
      In the course of the debate, we have recognised that in relation to reducing disease risk we need to take action on a number of fronts, which we have been discussing in detail, and we recognise that points of entry is one of them. That is why we take the matter seriously and are introducing these measures. In that respect, we agree with the Lords amendment.
      Mr. Hayes: I shall speak briefly on this matter, as we wish to move on to others.
      The Government have generously and wisely conceded to the demands of the House of Lords in this respect. That is important, as illegal meat imports are a massive problem in this country, which is widely acknowledged in the House and was mentioned earlier when we debated the response to the Anderson inquiry.
      390
      Indeed, according to the Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee report published in March 2002, the trade in unfit and illegal meat is the third most lucrative illegal enterprise in this country, netting more than £1 billion worth of trade per year. The primary reason for that is lack of implementation and the wrangling that takes place between a variety of agencies. We were pleased to hear earlier that that will be dealt with by drawing all of these matters under the auspices of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.
      In conclusion, import controls must be an integral part of any disease control strategy. At the moment, it appears to many farmers that the 20-day rule adversely affects their ability to do their business properly and fruitfully. While they are being strangled, however, airports and other points of entry do not have effective checks in place. It is therefore vitally important that we turn our attention to meat imports in a meaningful, properly resourced way.
      Mr. Wiggin: We are debating animal health, but I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that we could expose ourselves to diseases such as Ebola if the promises on Customs and Excise are not fulfilled.
      Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend, with his usual perspicacity, makes the point effectively. It is important to realise that it is not simply a case of illegality; there is also the great danger of a public health risk. The Minister and the Secretary of State have acknowledged that. The relevant authorities are going to be brought together to address the problem. We hope that that will be properly resourced and proper information will be provided. We also hope that the conversion engenders public confidence and the confidence of the industry because such matters need to be taken more seriously, as the Lords made clear.
      Andrew George: I, too, congratulate the Government on accepting the amendment tabled by my noble Friend Lord Livsey. They have been receptive to strong arguments. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned: had the Government pushed the Bill through at the speed they intended, such an important amendment might not have been made. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) on his ten-minute Bill of a few months ago which would have established the same measure. I congratulate the Government on listening to the arguments and considering the seriousness of the problem. For the reasons set out by hon. Members and in the expansive debate in another place, it is essential that more stringent controlled surveillance and monitoring is put in place.
      I have just one point to add. Although I welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State that the measures will come under the overall control of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, the fact is that the most recent surveys by independent bodies, such as the National Farmers Union survey this summer, show that there is tremendous leakage through airports and ports. It is an extremely serious matter. I hope that the Minister's Department will not wash its hands of the problem and leave it to the Treasury and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to sort out. The Department needs to be directly engaged to ensure that proper controls are

      391
      followed through and that every effort is made to stop the illegal trade, which represents a significant bio-security risk.
      Mr. Drew: Lest there be no misunderstanding, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) and I tabled the original amendment on imports. I am glad that my hon. Friend has seen the wisdom of agreeing to the measure, albeit a year later. The subject is important. Since the amendment appeared in its original incarnation, the Select Committee report has been published highlighting the need for action.
      I have a simple point to make. On bearing down on illegal meat imports and other imports that could damage our food chain, we must remember that it is not the person who brings in such products on a casual basis that causes most concern. Those people who are into the serious trade should worry us most. They might not even use the main points of entry. We need to ensure that policies are in place to deal with them.
      I am pleased that the provision has been accepted. I know that discussions took place behind the scenes. I am glad that my hon. Friend has seen fit to do the decent thing and make it clear that the Government are going to deal with such issues. We need to tackle the hard edge of the problem. Those people on the soft edge act more in error than anything else. We can do more at the ports, but we need to get hold of the people who are importing such products as part of a serious and growing trade because they threaten our food trade now and in the future.
      Mrs. Browning: The hon. Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) will recall that my colleagues and I voted for the hon. Gentleman's amendment in Committee, by which time he had withdrawn it, or voted against it. Indeed, the Minister dismissed all attempts in Committee at amendments to improve and strengthen import controls. In fact, I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman accepted any amendments to the Bill in this place.
      I remind Ministers that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) pointed out to them in recent weeks some of the plans and preparations that have been put in place by some of our European partners since the outbreak of foot and mouth in the United Kingdom last year. I am a little disappointed, therefore, despite the welcome announcement by the Secretary of State today of the ban on personal meat imports and the hon. Gentleman's promise to review annually the way in which controls are being put into place. This is not rocket science—I suspect that much of it has to do with the political will to get the resources from the Treasury to put in place effective import controls.
      If the Minister travels to Dublin, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury and I did during the summer recess, he will find that Dublin airport has put in place amnesty bins since the outbreak, and the Irish had only one case of foot and mouth at the same time as us. I tabled a written question to the Minister on amnesty bins only last week. Today, I received the reply that he and his hon. Friends are "consulting". An amnesty bin
      392
      is not rocket science and it does not need masses of consultation. If the Irish Government have managed to put them in place, why have we not managed to do it?
      Mr. Morley: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Mrs. Browning: I will finish my questions, as the Minister may wish to deal with them together.
      When one gets off the plane in Dublin, one is immediately struck by the bold notices—not some little thing around the carousel—that invite people who have recently been on a farm to go to a centre where they can decontaminate their shoes and so forth. The Irish Government have set up their own office in Dublin airport since foot and mouth last year, so that they have veterinary officials on site to deal with any problems.
      The tardiness of our Government, when other countries have clearly had the will to put measures in place, does not commend the measures that the Minister has announced, on which he says that he will report annually. He should get those measures in place. That is the priority. We will look forward to the annual reports, but this Government have a track record of producing reports on just about everything, full of spin, and it is the substance that we want—it is the beef. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman now, if he still wishes to intervene.
      Mr. Morley indicated dissent.
      Mrs. Browning: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is going to pass on that offer.
      The Government have an important part to play. They have chided the farming community and legislated to ensure that it plays its part. We now want to see some substance, not just reports.
      Adam Price: I, too, congratulate the Government on accepting the amendment. As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said, the issue is vitally important. At the very least, the report will maintain a focus on the issue.
      The Government have shown some complacency and laxity on the subject of illegal meat imports, which contrasts with their initiatives on controls on domestic farmers. We welcome the action plan, but a few posters and two trained sniffer dogs at Heathrow airport will not be enough to gel to grips with this vitally important problem. Let us contrast that with the actions of the Irish Government and with other Governments throughout the world, for example, Canada, Australia and the United States, where the issue has been on the agenda for many decades.
      We know to our cost the consequences of complacency on this issue.
      10.15 pm
      In evidence presented to the European Parliament inquiry on foot and mouth, Clive Lawrence, the chief executive of the Heathrow-based freight company Ciel Logistics, said that he notified the Government in a letter to the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of the dangers posed by illegal meat imports to animal and human health, including the risk of foot and mouth. The letter was dated 10 May 2000, more than six

      393
      months before the foot and mouth outbreak. We cannot afford such complacency from this Government or any other again. Clearly, there are issues of resources and lessons that can be drawn right across the world. At least the report will allow us, we hope, to assess the effectiveness of the measures that the Government have put in place already, and to develop a new policy dynamic whereby we can address the issues.
      As has been said, meat smuggling is an extremely lucrative trade, with almost zero risk, compared with other forms of smuggling, and with a very high return. Some of the measures suggested, such as on-the-spot fines, will not get to grips with highly organised criminal gangs. Of course, couriers often have no money. We need the report, which it will allow us to probe the effectiveness of the Government's plans. The UK remains heavily exposed to imports from regions where animal diseases, including foot and mouth, are endemic. I hope that the Government's acceptance of the amendment is a signal that, for the first time, they intend to take the matter of illegal meat imports seriously, so that we can have some confidence about food security and the future of farming in this country.
      Mr. Bacon: I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the amendment, but I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said, the preparation of an annual report is not the whole story, and that just as we were right last year about the need for a report, we are also correct about the need for tougher action.
      I spent several hours yesterday with Customs and Excise at Dover. I wish that the Minister would go there and see for himself, spend a little time at the nation's airports, and understand that we are not making these arguments trivially or lightly. We all welcome the steps that have been taken and the publicity campaign, but more needs to be done.
      I shall make one other point, concerning the nature of open government. The Government's decision to accept the amendment and allow a report to Parliament once a year is indicative of a wider spread of information, which we must welcome. The Drummond report was not published, but was available to the Ministry in January 1999, and set out in brutal detail the Government's unpreparedness. A presentation to the state veterinary service national management meeting on 5 December 2000. dealing with the control of pigs, stated:
      "Never look on the bright side in a notifiable disease emergency! Always assume that the worst will happen and then you are pleasantly surprised if it doesn't."
      If those warnings had been available not just to departmental civil servants, but publicly, it is difficult to believe that the Government would not have been better prepared when foot and mouth hit in February last year. More information is essential.
      Mr. Morley: I welcome the fact that most hon. Members who have spoken recognise that the Government have accepted the amendment, which follows on from a commitment that I gave in Committee, after representations from my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Forest of
      394
      Dean (Diana Organ), that the matter was certainly worth further consideration, and that we would return to it. That commitment has been honoured.
      I understand the points made by the hon. Members for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), and for St. Ives (Andrew George), my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, and the hon. Members for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) and for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon). I can tell the hon. Member for South Norfolk that I spend a great deal of time hanging around airports, sometimes longer than I would like, and of course I look at what we are doing in this country and what is being done in other countries.
      Hon. Members should understand that there are issues of risk assessment involved. We could spend a large amount of resources and study what other countries are doing, but sometimes it is more a matter of image and perception—I do not underestimate the importance of the message that we give people—than of being effective. Resources can sometimes be allocated in ways that do not achieve maximum effectiveness, which is why we have commissioned an independent study by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency to identify the biggest risks. It may well be that the biggest risks are in large-scale illegal meat smuggling. We have seized shipments and imprisoned people involved in meat smuggling. I think that that is the first time that people have been imprisoned for such an offence. We take firm action in enforcing the law.
      Furthermore, a lot of the work that we are doing and which the Secretary of State mentioned is not properly seen by people in our country. We assess where risk is located. For example, when people in high-risk countries apply for visas to visit our country, they receive a leaflet explaining the risks and the UK measures and regulations by which they must abide. That has been backed up by videos provided by air companies with our co-operation, as well as information leaflets and posters and a range of work, and not least the increased powers for enforcement and inspection and the streamlining of the inspection through Customs and Excise so as to involve one point of contact. I appreciate the broad welcome that those announcements have received in the House.
      We take these issues seriously and I welcome the annual assessment, as it is important that we consider the progress that is made. Hon. Members should understand, however, that we also have to put risks in perspective. Border entry posts are important, but they are but one of a range of issues relating to minimising disease risks. However, we take all the issues seriously and we will take action where it is needed.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 47.
      Mr. Morley: I beg to move Government amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, leave out lines 12 to 29.
      We are not disagreeing with the argument that there is a need for effective contingency planning. We have no argument with that. Indeed, the 2001 epidemic demonstrated very early on that the contingency plans that we had in place were clearly inadequate for dealing with an epidemic of that scale and type. We freely acknowledge that. Our experience in that epidemic has

      395
      resulted in the rewriting of contingency plans by every country, as it is recognised that a complete rethink is required in organisational terms and in the way in which the matter is addressed.
      The main purpose of the provision as it was originally drafted was to provide an assurance that the Government are serious about being prepared for any possible future outbreak of FMD. We recognise that various inquiry reports have highlighted that good contingency planning and better preparedness are crucial at the outset of any future disease outbreak. That is why we have taken immediate action to update our interim contingency arrangements for FMD and why we have updated them again in the light of the Government's response to the two independent reports. We want to develop the arrangements further in consultation with the industry, stakeholders and interested parties to address the wide range of issues thrown up in 2001.
      As policies develop, the plans will be reviewed and amended accordingly. We do not want the documents merely to assume that once we have put in place a contingency plan, it will be permanent and will cover all the points raised. Even if people have signed up to such a plan, we do not accept that that is enough, and we recognise that any contingency plan will have to be periodically reviewed to ensure that it is up to date. We must accept and develop proposals concerning, for example, the administration of vaccination, which we discussed earlier. That would ensure that issues such as vaccination could be integrated into an overall plan that relates to all aspects of disease control policy. That provision has also been built into the contingency plan, again reflecting the recommendations made in the independent reports.
      Contingency planning needs to cover the control of diseases using a range of measures, including culling and/or emergency vaccination as appropriate, and to take account of the context of relevant EU legislation. I anticipate that, when we have had extensive consultation, the completed contingency plan will be laid before Parliament for the first time in the spring.
      The incidence of diseases worldwide and their possible occurrence in the UK will also contribute to establishing the priority to be given to extending the provisions of the contingency plan from foot and mouth disease to cover other exotic diseases. A number of hon. Members have spoken of the risk posed by a range of diseases. We take that risk extremely seriously. We are therefore putting in place a risk-based approach, and our aim is to target our resources based on what we know about the risk posed by different exotic diseases. The most effective way to make the best use of the available resources is to identify exactly where the risks are, and to determine where to apply the resources so as to deal with those risks.
      The requirements that have been added to the original Bill by proposed new sections 14A(2) and 14A(3) do not relate to the purpose of the clause, which is to define a requirement for a contingency plan to deal with occurrences of disease. On that, we have no disagreement. The proposed new sections would not allow us to target our resources appropriately. Proposed new section 14A(2) would require us to expend a great
      396
      deal of resources in relation to all the diseases in schedule 2A, which is included in the Bill to deal, more than anything else, with issues of deliberate infection, rather than to distinguish between the diseases in terms of an assessment of the risk occurrences in the UK.
      We need to carry out significant worldwide surveillance for exotic disease, and this already takes place. The relevant information is available from international sources such as the OIE. The risk to the UK comes not from countries that report honestly to the OIE, but from those that do not report their disease situation or that have no effective mechanism for diagnosing or reporting disease, and in which, by definition, a three-yearly review would be completely valueless because there is no available information. That is not to say, however, that the concerns expressed in the other place are not being addressed. We take them very seriously. However, the additional provisions—proposed new sections 14A(2) and 14A(3)—are more relevant to other activities of government, such as the prevention of disease.
      The Government announced earlier this afternoon their response to the FMD inquiry reports, and it is in that response that we have set out how we will take forward work on the recommendations that have been made. That is where the broader issues of strategy have properly been addressed. I do not, therefore, consider the proposed new sections 14A(2) and 14A(3) appropriate in the context of the contingency plan provisions. That is why I am seeking to remove them from the Bill. I am doing so not because we have any objection to a public commitment to proper contingency planning—or to ensuring that those contingency plans are properly consulted on and that people have every opportunity to participate in that consultation—but because the provisions are unnecessary. They do not sit well in the Bill. There is no major disagreement on this, but, if we are to have proper legislation, it should be just that. In that regard, the proposals are unnecessary and I invite the House to reject them.
      Mr. Hayes: The Minister says that he is committed to a national contingency plan, but, without being ungenerous, I must point out that there would not have been a provision for a national contingency plan, or an import clause or a bio-security clause, in the Bill, were it not for the amendments tabled by Conservative—in particular—and Liberal Democrat peers during the course of the Bill through the other place and in Committee. If the Minister looks sceptical about that, I shall remind him that it was my noble Friend Baroness Byford who tabled a strategy amendment in Committee, thus facilitating those elements.
      It is also important to point out, when considering the contingency plan, the nature of the plan that was in place when we endured the catastrophe of the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak. That plan had gaps, and it had not been shared or rehearsed outside the state veterinary service. Neither had it been tested. It was described by the Government's own report on the issue as follows:
      "The first responses to the early cases were not fast enough or effectively coordinated".
      Yet the Government's memo to the inquiry stated that
      "comprehensive contingency plans were in place".

      397
      The inquiry, however,
      "did not find this to be so".
      It found the plans to be limited in scope, out of date and not integrated into a national programme of rehearsal and testing. It also stated:
      "Better preparation … would have done much to limit the scale of the crisis."
      Brigadier Alex Birtwistle, who led the Army's handling of last year's outbreak, said that
      "there was a startling level of incompetence at every level…we're one of the 10 richest nations, we're a legitimate nuclear power and we can't get a few trucks into Cumbria."
      That is what the soldier who led the exercise said, so it is right and proper that the Government have concluded, albeit belatedly, that we need a properly co-ordinated, cohesive national plan to deal with such outbreaks.
      10.30 pm
      The contingency plan for last year's outbreak was inadequate, but such planning is surely essential to limit the scale of animal disease outbreaks. The Lords are merely emphasising that and aiming for an extension in scope. That scope needs to be broad because, as the Minister has acknowledged, disease can be introduced to this country from other places.
      Many diseases are rife. For example, we know that blue tongue disease is well established in the United States and other diseases are well established in parts of Europe. We need to he aware of them, as they could be introduced to this country. We certainly need a European and worldwide perspective on the incidence of those diseases; the likelihood of this country being affected by them; and how we would respond. The Lords simply ask for a three-yearly review of the worldwide incidence of each disease referred to in the measure, which I think the whole House would acknowledge is appropriate, and that that review be debated.
      Members might argue that the review should be undertaken more frequently than every three years; I would certainly not want it to occur less frequently. Neither would I want, as the Minister suggested, to rely on existing practice rather than support what the Lords are trying to achieve, which is a more holistic perspective than that which the Government seem willing to adopt.
      That is particularly important given what we have said about the volume and nature of illegal meat imports, which, in themselves, are potential sources of disease, and because more people are travelling. There is enormous growth in the number of visitors to this country and there are all sorts of increased risks of disease being introduced. The Anderson report says that we should be producing
      "not just a written document."
      Rather, we should put
      "in place the systems, processes and a culture to respond effectively to crises."
      That comment, which was referred to by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), lies at the heart of the need to draw up, implement and test an effective contingency plan.
      Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, especially as I am sure he agrees that one
      398
      problem when the foot and mouth outbreak hit was that so many people did not know what to do. One advantage to the Lords amendment is that the plan would have to be circulated to all the parties that could possibly help. That means that many more people would know exactly what to do, which would make the Government's job a lot easier.
      Mr. Hayes: Part of such a national plan must be the dissemination of information in an easily accessible and comprehensible form. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that such information needs to be spread not just to those directly affected—people in the industry—but to all those who may have contact with livestock during their work or leisure activities. The more knowledge we can spread on risk and its avoidance, the more likely we are to avoid a catastrophe of the proportions that we unfortunately suffered in 2001.
      It seems to me, however, that we need to go further even than my hon. Friend suggests. We need to expand training, education and public awareness. We certainly need to support research and animal disease diagnostics. We need to reinforce the links between the Government, local government, other agencies and the industry to deliver a co-ordinated response. We need to strengthen that network to deliver a co-ordinated approach and we need to develop and, perhaps most importantly, test emergency preparation and disaster recovery plans.
      Part of the problem from which we suffered while enduring that disease and that epidemic was the inadequate testing of the plans that were in place. A disaster recovery plan needs to be not only tested, but dynamic and flexible enough to be changed and applied in ways appropriate to the local conditions, the particular nature of the disease and its progress.
      The Government seem to have belatedly concluded that we need a contingency plan. They seem to have taken on board a number of suggestions made in Committee and in the other place. But they have yet to grasp fully the need for a wide-ranging contingency plan that will take full account of all the diseases that may affect our farmers and their livestock.
      I believe that, in respect of both the international dimension and the dissemination of information, the Lords amendments are useful and helpful additions to the plan. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting them and rejecting the Minister's objections to them.
      Mr. Morley: The part of Lords amendment No. 47 that we want to delete has been dealt with by our commitment in the Bill—approved by the House—in relation to vaccination.
      We accept, and I have conceded, that our existing contingency plan was not adequate in the circumstances, but it is not true that it was not tested. One of the many myths that were circulated was that the Government were aware of the disease before it was reported. It started because one of our divisional officers was ringing around checking the prices of such things as timber, as part of a contingency exercise. Moreover, the plan was reviewed as recently as 2000 in connection with the European Union review. We accept, however, that all those reviews and tests were not adequate. We are therefore approaching the matter in a much more sophisticated way.

      399
      We also accept that all contingency planning must be made public. Some Conservative Members were very critical of the Government when we made public our contingency plan for BSE in sheep. One or two of them said that it was a disgrace that we had put our plans into the public domain, because it might affect sheepmeat sales and upset the industry and consumers. [Interruption.] I have a long memory, and I assure Conservative Members that there was a great deal of criticism when we made the plan public. That is, however, the right thing to do. We also recently made public our contingency plan for blue tongue virus, so that people could comment, and we are committed to doing the same in regard to such issues in future.
      Mr. Drew: Obviously, a national contingency plan is only as good as what can be done within the nation. I know that the point of such plans is the need to consider what is happening abroad, and I know about the OIE process of recognising diseases that are prevalent elsewhere, but this is all to do with intelligence, and I wonder about the extent to which we would share that openly. We must have some certainty that we can act before people do things that we would not want them to do.
      Mr. Morley: I entirely agree. That is another aspect of the Lords' amendments to which I object. To be fair, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) recognised that a three-yearly review might not be appropriate—that the period might be too long. In fact, I have made it clear that in many cases it would be irrelevant. Legislation should not contain elements that, although well-meaning, are irrelevant and already covered by our responses—our response in the Bill, our commitment to making contingency plans public for consultation and our detailed response to independent inquiries, which we have also made public and made available to the House. In that respect, we accept the thrust of the arguments. We do not disagree with the comments that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings made in relation to contingency planning and contingency arrangements, but they contradict his earlier point that contingency plans must be dynamic documents. We need to be able to respond and update them. In that sense, it is not appropriate to write contingency arrangements into the Bill as that makes it difficult to update and modernise them. When making primary legislation, it is important to be clear about its objectives, functions and role. Proper detailed contingency plans and arrangements can be made without writing them into the Bill because of the need for updating and flexibility, for involving people and for ensuring that there is proper contribution and comment.
      For those reasons, I do not think that there is a great deal of disagreement among hon. Members. We all agree on the need for proper, detailed contingency planning. That commitment will be clear in the Bill, which has been amended during its passage through the House. I ask the House not to include in the Bill irrelevant, unworkable measures that cannot react to changing circumstances. That is not good legislation, nor was it the intention of the movers of the amendment,
      400
      who I am sure were well-motivated. I therefore urge the House to reject it and to support the Government amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 164.

      Division No. 359]

      [10:41 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cummings, John

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Ainger, Nick

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Alexander, Douglas

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Allen, Graham

      David, Wayne

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Davidson, Ian

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Dawson, Hilton

      Austin, John

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Bailey, Adrian

      Dismore, Andrew

      Baird, Vera

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Barnes, Harry

      Doran, Frank

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Battle, John

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Efford, Clive

      Benn, Hilary

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Berry, Roger

      Etherington, Bill

      Best, Harold

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Betts, Clive

      Fisher, Mark

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Flint Caroline

      Blizzard, Bob

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Borrow, David

      Follett, Barbara

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Foulkes rh George

      Brennan, Kevin

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Gardiner, Barry

      Burden, Richard

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Burgon, Colin

      Gerrard Neil

      Burnham, Andy

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Gilroy, Linda

      Cairns, David

      Goggins, Paul

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Grogan John

      Casale, Roger

      Hain, rh Peter

      Caton, Martin

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Challen, Colin

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Chaytor, David

      Hanson, David

      Clapham, Michael

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Healey, John

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Clelland, David

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Heppell, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Hesford, Stephen

      Coleman, Iain

      Heyes, David

      Colman, Tony

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Connarty, Michael

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Cousins, Jim

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      401

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Olner, Bill

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Owen, Albert

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Perham, Linda

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Picking, Anne

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Jamieson, David

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Prescott, rh John

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Purchase, Ken

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Rammell, Bill

      Kemp, Fraser

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Kidney, David

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Ruddock, Joan

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Salter, Martin

      Lepper, David

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Sawford, Phil

      Linton, Martin

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Love, Andrew

      Sheerman, Barry

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Singh, Marsha

      McCabe, Stephen

      Skinner, Dennis

      McCafferty, Chris

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      MacDonald, Calum

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      McDonnell, John

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      MacDougall, John

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Soley, Clive

      McIsaac, Shona

      Spellar, rh John

      McKechin, Ann

      Squire, Rachel

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      McNamara, Kevin

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      McWalter, Tony

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mallaber, Judy

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Timms, Stephen

      Martlew, Eric

      Tipping, Paddy

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Trickett, Jon

      Michael, rh Alun

      Truswell, Paul

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Mole, Chris

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Morgan, Julie

      Morley, Elliot

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Mullin, Chris

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Walley, Ms Joan

      402

      Ward, Claire

      Woodward, Shaun

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Woolas, Phil

      Watts, David

      Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

      White, Brian

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Wilson, Brian

      Wyatt, Derek

      Winnick, David

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Jim Fitzpatrick and

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Gillian Merron

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Allan, Richard

      Greenway, John

      Amess, David

      Grieve, Dominic

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Gummer, rh John

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Hammond, Philip

      Bacon, Richard

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Barker, Gregory

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Harvey, Nick

      Barrett, John

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Heath, David

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hendry, Charles

      Bercow, John

      Hermon, Lady

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Boswell, Tim

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Brady, Graham

      Jack, rh Michael

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Burns, Simon

      Keetch, Paul

      Burnside, David

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Burt, Alistair

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Butterfill, John

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Cameron, David

      Lamb, Norman

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Cash, William

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Chope, Christopher

      Lidington, David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Collins, Tim

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Cotter, Brian

      Loughton, Tim

      Curry, rh David

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      MacKay, rh Andrew

      Maclean, rh David

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Maples, John

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Maude, rh Francis

      Dodds, Nigel

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Doughty, Sue

      Mercer, Patrick

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Evans, Nigel

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Fabricant, Michael

      Norman, Archie

      Fallon, Michael

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Flook, Adrian

      Ottaway, Richard

      Forth, rh Eric

      Page, Richard

      Fox, Dr, Liam

      Paice, James

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Paterson, Owen

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Goodman, Paul

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Grayling, Chris

      Randall, John

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Redwood, rh John

      403

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Rendel, David

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Thurso, John

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Trend, Michael

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Viggers, Peter

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Walter, Robert

      Sanders, Adrian

      Waterson, Nigel

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Watkinson, Angela

      Selous, Andrew

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Wiggin, Bill

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

      Wilkinson, John

      Willetts, David

      Soames, Nicholas

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Willis, Phil

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Spring, Richard

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Streeter, Gary

      Young, rh Sir George

      Stunell, Andrew

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Swayne, Desmond

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Syms, Robert

      Mr. Mark Francois and

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Mr. David Wilshire

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to [Special Entry].
      Lords Amendment No.65 and Government amendment (a) thereto agreed to.
      It being more than six hours after the commencement of business, MR. SPEAKER put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
      Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.
      Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment No. 13: Mr. Nick Ainger, Andrew George, Mr. John Hayes, Mr. Elliot Morley and Mr. Andy Reed; Mr. Elliot Morley to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Woolas.]
      To withdraw immediately.
      Reasons for disagreeing to Lords amendment No. 13 reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

  PETITIONS

    Iraq
    10.56 pm
    Mr. David Heath: I have pleasure in presenting a petition collected by my constituent Mrs. Rachel von Kimmelmann of 4, Thornwall Way, Wincanton. It expresses the concern of a number my constituents at the prospect of a preemptive war against Iraq. I have attempted to express the same view in this House.
    The petition states:
    404
    To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
    The Humble Petition of Residents of Somerton and From and others sheweth
    That a pre-emptive war against Iraq would be both immoral and in contravention of the United Nations Charter, and would have unjust an unacceptable consequences for innocent civilians living in the Middle East.
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House urge the Government to work with the United Nations and to use its influence to encourage the use of all peaceful and diplomatic means to reincorporate the country of Iraq into the international community.
    And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
    To lie upon the Table.

Drugs
10.57 pm
Mr. Adrian Flook: Before I present this petition, I should like to pay tribute to the Taunton Times and to Gillian Powell for working with me to raise the 1,000 signatures of constituents from Taunton and Taunton Dene. The aim is that all drugs should be made freely available to all patients on the basis of clinical need alone.
The petition states:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The humble petition of the concerned readers of the Taunton Times and residents of the constituency of Taunton in Somerset sheweth
That the "wonder drug" STI571 (Glivec), which has been shown to cure seven out of 10 cases of chronic myeloid leukaemia, was already widely available in western Europe and the United States of America; welcomes that it is now freely available to all those as recommended by their clinicians; and that there should be no financial consideration for any other drugs as to whether a patient should or should not receive treatment.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House shall urge the Secretary of State to make it his policy to ensure that all drugs are made freely available to all patients on the basis of clinical need alone.
Your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
To lie upon the Table.

Food Supplements
10.59 pm
Mr. Alan Reid: I wish to present a petition signed by 100 of my constituents.
The petition states:
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 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 UK 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.

NHS Funding for East London
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
11 pm
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I am delighted to participate in this debate on behalf of the citizens of east London. I have recently had extensive discussions with the primary care trusts of Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Newham, the major local hospitals, including the Homerton, Barts and the London, the East London and the City mental health NHS trust and the north-east London health authority. Put boldly, we all agree that the way in which the NHS is funded in the United Kingdom is unjust and unfair, leading to unnecessary pain and suffering and even early deaths in east London.
For too many local people, life really is nasty, brutish and short—thanks, in large part, to an outdated and antiquated funding formula. The formula has to change, not at some distant time over the horizon but within the next few weeks, before the forthcoming three-year settlement; our people will settle for no less. Those who think otherwise must think again unless they wish to see blood on the House of Commons carpets.
The NHS in east London has suffered from years of chronic underfunding. Despite the Chancellor's announcement in March of major sustained growth in NHS funding, east London remains one of the most under-resourced health communities in England. Over the past three years, the former East London and the City health authority has been below its target share of resources. Since April 2000 alone, it has missed out on more than £90 million of funding—a staggering figure.
In the face of persistent inequities in funding and mounting demand, this divide must be closed now. East London is currently £26 million behind where it should be in funding terms, and there is absolutely no justification for that. Unless urgently tackled, the gap between the best and the worst-funded health systems will continue to grow, resulting in even greater inequalities.
The case for east London is simple but powerful. A sound, equitable and transparent system for the allocation of funding is essential, particularly now, as we move into a new era of three-year revenue allocations direct to primary care trusts. The new formula must recognise that east London is an area of exceptional ethnic and cultural diversity with some of the worst social and economic deprivation in the country. We need to get the formula right; the cost of providing existing health services rises year on year as new treatments become available and the number of the heaviest users of these services—the very young and older people—increases.
Serious flaws in the current method of funding exist in eight key areas where improvements must be made. They relate to population projections, demography, general practice work load, diversity of the population, refugee health, forensic psychiatry, staff market factors and child and maternal health. I will touch tonight on just three of those factors—population projections, general practice work load and child and maternal health.
406
On population projections, a major concern is that over time the census-derived estimates issued by the Government have become increasingly unreliable. For example, in April 2001, 779,915 patients were registered with GPs in east London and the City, compared with the mid-year estimate of relevant population by the Office for National Statistics of 666,725—a variance of 17 per cent., and the fourth highest in the country. The average variation for England overall is just 4 per cent. East London's population is growing rapidly and has a much larger proportion of young adults than the rest of England. That growth has been most marked among five to 14-year-olds, 15 to 24-year-olds and 25 to 44-year-olds—the least funded groups. At least 142,000 homes are planned for the area in the next 10 years, so improvements to the quality and quantity of health services are essential to cope with the resultant demands.
As for general practice work loads, a feature of east London's practice not adequately reflected in the national resource allocation formula is the high turnover of patients. Applying recent research findings to east London, we see that patient turnover generates an additional 54,000 consultations for GPs and 28,000 consultations with nurses a year. The existing formula simply does not recognise that. Fair shares for non-discretionary expenditure should reflect the work load pressures faced by primary care, and would include recognition that patient turnover is a major determinant of work load. Moreover, 25 per cent. of GPs in east London are due to retire within five years. There are eight to 12 annual GP consultations in east London per patient, compared with a national average of five. Again, the existing formula does not recognise the enormous burden that that places on heroic local GPs.
As for child and maternal health, in addition to having some of the highest infant mortality rates in the country, east London has the highest rates of teenage pregnancy. It also has high numbers of children with low birth weight, a result of premature delivery and complications during pregnancy such as gestational diabetes and hypertension. Meanwhile, maternity services in east London are operating with 50 per cent. staff vacancy rates, and their models of care need substantial updating. The existing formula does not recognise that. Poverty can damage children's esteem, affecting their future mental health and life chances. Prevalence of psychiatric disorder in children in inner London is 13 per cent., compared with 6.8 per cent. nationally. Again, the existing formula does not recognise that.
Perinatal and infant mortality rates are higher in east London than in the rest of the country. Stillbirths and deaths within the first seven days—perinatal mortality—are over a third higher than nationally. Infant mortality—deaths within the first year—is over a fifth higher. In simple terms, a baby born in Hackney is at more than double the risk of dying in the first year of life than a baby born in Bexley. A baby boy born in Newham is likely to die nearly six years earlier than a baby boy born in Westminster. That is appalling. How can the Minister justify a system that is killing us in the east end so early? What have the citizens of east London done to Ministers and civil servants at the Department of Health to warrant such early graves? The situation cannot continue.

407
East London also has a high fertility rate. The 2001 census showed that there were more under-one-year-olds than in any other part of the country. Newham had the highest proportion of children aged under 16 in the country. The area is increasingly densely populated; Hackney, for example, has the fourth highest population density in the country. The formula must begin to recognise that.
Ms Oona King: My hon. Friend referred to mobility and patient turnover. In my constituency, some GP lists change by more than 20 per cent. every year, and that must be recognised in the formula. Will my hon. Friend ask the Minister whether any suggested change in the formula can first be tested in the east London area so that we can avoid an even greater widening of the health inequalities that he described?
Mr. Sedgemore: I am grateful for that intervention. I mentioned an overall figure for east London of 17 per cent., but my hon. Friend has informed us that the figure for Tower Hamlets is 20 per cent. I accept that her figure is correct. That means that there is an incredible increase in the number of GP and nurse consultations. I should prefer the problem to be dealt with, but if there is to be an experiment, I agree with my hon. Friend that it should be carried out in east London.
I do not want only to whinge in this debate. East London has demonstrated what can be achieved despite the challenging financial straits it faces. The area has a proven track record in delivering first-class services. Examples of new services in recent years include one-stop cardiology; community diabetology; chronic disease management; Newham language shop telephone interpreting services; stop smoking programmes and the Nile centre for Afro-Caribbeans with serious mental illness.
The additional resources provided by the changes that we want would provide the following key developments for east London. They would address serious recruitment and retention issues, especially in primary care; improve the quality of, and access to, primary care; extend the disintegrating population screening and immunisation programmes; integrate hospital and community mental health services, while reducing pressure on acute services; provide better new-entrant screening for refugees and asylum seekers—which we should have been discussing more thoroughly yesterday than some of the subjects that were raised—with better support and training for local services; improve screening, foot care and vascular services for diabetics; and work with community groups to expand their work to meet the needs of all minority ethnic groups in east London, including better advocacy and translation.
The message is simple: give east London the funding to catch up and to bridge the existing health inequality divide and we will deliver the first-rate services that our citizens deserve.
11.13 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) on securing this debate on national health service funding for east London.
I have listened to and appreciated my hon. Friend's comments, despite the threatening tone in which some of them were expressed. I am sure that represents the passion that he and other hon. Friends in the Chamber who represent east London constituencies bring to the debate.
I take this opportunity to acknowledge east London's good record in delivering high quality services and pay tribute to all the staff who are dedicated to that endeavour. I also acknowledge the document on funding the "Case for East London" cited by my hon. Friend, which was compiled by NHS organisations in east London. I, too, agree that this is a helpful paper and hope to talk about it in more detail a little later.
I think we would all accept that different parts of the country and different localities have different health needs. The national resource allocation formula that we use at present to determine fair shares for health authorities and primary care trusts already goes some way towards recognising that. The formula takes account of the age structure of the local population. Patterns of morbidity, or levels of sickness, vary by age group. The very young and the elderly, whose populations are not evenly distributed around the country, make more use of health services than the rest of the population.
Ms King: Does my hon. Friend recognise that a further change gave greater weighting to the elderly, which meant that east London lost out as, unfortunately, a lot of our older people have moved away or passed away?
Jacqui Smith: I will return to that important issue and the question of infant deaths, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, a little later, if my hon. Friend will allow me. We do recognise that although the existing formula already takes into consideration the variation in the cost of providing health services across different parts of the country and health needs, it has been criticised—passionately, this evening—for failing to get health resources to the areas of greatest health need. East London—where there are high levels of deprivation and where the financial cost of delivering patient services is also high—is a case in point. That is why we have set up a wide-ranging review of the allocation formula. The NHS plan stated that
"by 2003, following the review of the existing weighted capitation formula used to distribute NHS funding, reducing inequalities will be a key criterion for allocating NHS resources to different parts of the country".
The review of the formula has been carried out under the auspices of the advisory committee on resource allocation. ACRA is an expert body, and its academic members include Professor Sir Brian Jarman, emeritus professor of general practice at the Imperial college of medicine, Professor Glennerster, professor of social policy at the London school of economics, and other individuals with a wide range of relevant experience and expertise from within and outside the NHS.

409
The researchers working on the new formula were asked specifically to look at potentially new and better measures of deprivation. We are currently considering ACRA's recommendations and I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch that we intend to introduce the new formula for the next round of NHS allocations. These allocations will be announced later this year and will cover the three years 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2005–06 and will go directly to locally run primary care trusts. It is worth noting that moving to direct allocations to primary care trusts will enable resources to be much more closely matched to the needs of local people.
The review has already enabled us to make progress towards fairer resource allocation in areas that are particularly challenging to east London. In the 2001–02 allocations, we introduced a health inequalities adjustment. This targeted resources at the most deprived areas. We provided £130 million for this in 2001–02 and increased it by 14 per cent. to £148 million in 2002–03. East London and City health authority received over £6 million of this for 2002–03 and just over £3 million in 2001–02.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) referred to infant deaths. For 2002–03, the rates of years of life lost—which form the basis of the health inequalities adjustment—were extended to include infant deaths under one year from all causes. That followed the announcement of an additional target for tackling health inequalities based on infant mortality. I recognise the point raised about the particular needs in those communities where, for a range of reasons, infant mortality is likely to be high, as well as the need to ensure that the way in which we distribute resources recognises that.
In the same year, we also introduced a cost of living supplement that targeted resources at locations where NHS employers faced the most pressing recruitment and retention issues. East London received more than £4.9 million for that in 2002–03 and more than £3.6 million in 2001–02. We also announced in the NHS plan that there would be a new way of distributing resources to address inequities in primary care services. I recognise the concerns expressed by my hon. Friends this evening about the particular challenges for primary care, and especially for GPs, in the areas that they represent. They are right, of course, that the ability to recruit, retain and fund those crucial activities in primary care are important for their constituents, which we have borne in mind in our new unified allocations. We shall continue to consider that as we move forward with the formula.
Ms Diane Abbott: I support everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) said. He and other colleagues who have spoken raised a specific point about population mobility and how it hears down on resources and on GPs. Is there any possibility in the future of the formula taking into account population mobility? As we know, there are excellent services in the area—I had my baby in Homerton hospital, and I could not have had better care anywhere. As the Minister will also know, however, east London saw a swathe of hospital closures in the
410
1980s and 1990s: the Mothers hospital, the old Hackney hospital, St. Leonard's, and the Queen Elizabeth II hospital. We were promised increased resources for primary care, and we are still waiting to see them.
Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the particular pressures that come from population disruption as much as from population numbers. I believe that we already recognise, in the way in which we distribute primary care resources, some elements of that disruption, but she makes a very strong case. That is something that we need to consider in the way in which we allocate resources, and in the way in which we target some of the additional support that I shall talk about in a moment.
In relation to primary care in particular, it is important to note that Department approval has been given for two first-wave local improvement finance trust schemes, one of which is in east London and the City. The East London and City LIFT Project will bring £30 million of new investment into primary care buildings in the first wave. Most people's experience of the NHS is in primary care environments and that much-needed investment will make an important difference to the east London community.
I said earlier that I would talk about the "Case for East London" paper, and I know that east London NHS organisations have completed a helpful analysis of the pressures facing those wanting to provide high-quality patient care, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has referred. All NHS services throughout the country have been under pressure to deal with the demands placed on them day to day, and the historic increases in NHS spending announced recently should help the whole of the NHS in that respect. That, and the reforms to the NHS, in which decisions about patient care are devolved to local decision makers, means that the NHS in London should in future be in a better position to deal with the pressures under which it currently works. That takes time, but we recognise the need—and the pressure from hon. Members—to do that as quickly as possible.
The priorities and planning framework, which was recently distributed by the Department, sets out what we believe are the national priorities for the NHS and social care provision. That, combined with the details of the financial allocations that will be made available, will ensure that the NHS in east London will know what is expected of it, and what levels of resource distributed under a reviewed formula it will have to deliver high-quality patient care. Analysis calls for a review of how the relative needs of different populations are to be assessed and taken into account in national resource allocation decisions. The issues raised are complex, but deprived populations undoubtedly place additional demands on services due to their increased levels of need. Many of the factors that hon. Friends highlighted are known to increase the need for services. The weighted capitation formula attempts to capture many of those for hospital and community health services. As I said, the formula review will further refine consideration of those pressures.
I want to make clear the levels of funding that have been going into east London over the past few years. The "Case for East London" paper highlights only some of those. East London and the City health authority

411
received more than £225 million extra in revenue allocations in the past five years. It also received an increase in 2001–02 of £68 million. For 2002–03, it received an allocation of £703 million, which represents a real terms increase of nearly 11 per cent. above the average throughout the country. In addition, of the £2.5 billion being invested in major capital to redevelop and build brand new hospitals across London, a community facility in Newham costing £3 million was completed in April 2002 and is now open, and a £14 million mental health unit in Newham was opened this July.
I recognise that there is a particular demand on mental health services in my hon. Friend's area. Barts and the London trust is considering proposals from two private sector bidders for a £620 million development programme. That will include the creation of a world-class cancer and cardiac centre at Barts and the building of a new teaching hospital at Whitechapel. The decision to build on both sites reversed the previous Government's decision to close Barts, the country's oldest hospital, altogether.
We have been working hard on addressing some of the issues highlighted in east London and by my hon. Friends. For example, we have funded a number of personal medical service pilots that focus on refugee and asylum-seeking communities. Those pilots address access to primary care services for those communities, as well as encouraging opportunities for health professionals from those communities to gain employment in the NHS locally. Private medical services have an important role to play in GP recruitment in areas such as east London because they provide a different way in which GPs can operate within the health service.
412
East London's approach to delivering language services is among some of the best practice in London. We are building on that by disseminating good practice and initiating discussion across the city on the London language plan. Regional colleagues in London are working with partners such as the King's Fund to encourage more local people to train as community bilingual advocates, which my hon. Friend also highlighted.
Work in east London highlights the pressure being put on local staff. That is why we recently set out the work force challenge facing the capital over the next few years to modernise services and respond to the growing population in London. We are working with a range of organisations in east London to see how we can recruit more people locally, thereby meeting our work force needs and acting as a spur to local regeneration and to tackling poverty and unemployment. In that way, we hope to alleviate the need for health care, which my hon. Friend rightly linked to poverty and deprivation, and to increase the capacity of the NHS to respond.
The Government recognise that poverty and deprivation bring not only excess morbidity and mortality but extra costs to local health services. I assure my hon. Friends that we will continue to provide extra health resources in areas of greatest health need to recognise, as my hon. Friend does, the ambitions of local health services in east London to provide the best service possible for constituents.
11.30 pm
Sitting suspended, pursuant to order [29 October].
On resuming—
Question agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Cancer Networks
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Joan Ryan.]
9.30 am
Dr. Ian Gibson: This morning's debate on cancer networks is rather appropriate, as the all-party group on cancer is holding a major conference called "Britain against cancer" not far from here in the Queen Elizabeth II Centre. The first day of the conference has been exceptionally successful. The participants have interacted well and have discussed major problems. They believe that progress is being made in the delivery of better services to treat cancer, but the point of today's debate is to discuss what more we can do to assist that progress along the pathways that we all want.
I shall begin with a little history of cancer and its treatment. In 1995, Calman-Hine produced a report with the objective of creating a network of care in England and Wales that would enable patients, wherever they live, to be sure that the treatment and care that they receive is of a uniformly high standard. The report contained several principles around which the delivery of cancer care should be built. It stated that all patients should enjoy access to high-quality care, that care should be provided as close to patients' homes as possible, and that patients, their families and carers should be given clear information about their condition so that they can understand treatment options and outcomes.
The previous Government set the ball rolling. In September 2000, however, this Government signalled a major change by publishing the first comprehensive report for improving cancer care in England, which went much further than the Calman-Hine report. The national health service cancer plan brought together prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment and research, and set out the Government's plans for future investment in cancer treatment and care. New funding of some £570 million a year extra was provided to support the plan. Clearly, delivering better health services in this country is a major priority. Cancer care is at the forefront, and the Government are demonstrating how to deliver it.
The Government recognised that the quality of cancer care varies throughout England and Wales. In some areas, it rivals the best in the world; in others, it is in urgent need of improvement. Some serious problems need to be addressed—out-of-date equipment, too few cancer specialists, geographical variations in access to treatment, and poor communication with patients. The aim, which we would all endorse, is to save more lives and to ensure that people with cancer receive the right professional support and care as well as the best treatments throughout their cancer journey.
74WH
Tackling inequalities in cancer survival rates needs to be a glorious ambition. Among the problems that the plan addressed was the need to invest in specialist staff, research and preparation for the genetics revolution that is with us now, and to adapt to all the major changes taking place. There were commitments to reduce smoking rates and waiting times, and to improve access to hospitals, hospices and palliative care. Since the publication of that plan, we have seen initiatives such as a ban on tobacco advertising, an extension of breast cancer screening programmes, a national fruit scheme, and investment in primary care with GPs at the forefront with responsibility for cancer services.
We have also seen investment in research. The National Cancer Research Institute has already started to develop strategic plans on how we fund world-class research in this country. Nobel prize winners pour out almost daily as a result of the work that is going on. I predict that there will be more, such as David Lane of the university of Dundee, who, at this very moment, is speaking in the Queen Elizabeth II Centre. His work on a particular oncogene is very important in developing new strategies to tackle the rogue cells of cancer.
Much is happening. There have been improvements in information for patients and in drug assessment and analysis by the Commission for Health Improvement. There have also been visits to different hospitals to look at cancer services and monitor what is happening. Indeed, there is so much activity in this area that it has almost become a paradigm for other services in the health service. Mental health services will build on the back of our experience, and I believe that heart disease services will do the same. We are at the forefront and things are happening, but that activity must be considered in the context of the strategy and the plan for what we are trying to achieve.
One in three people in the United Kingdom will be diagnosed with cancer, and one in four will die of it. At yesterday's conference, Peter Boyle, an epidemiologist of great distinction, presented figures that clearly show that the incidence of, and mortality from, breast cancer and the other major cancers have been gradually decreasing over the past five or six years in Britain. As a result, there is a real feeling that some of the things being done are beginning to pay off in the form of improving rates. It is perhaps not surprising that in other countries, such as Spain, Portugal and Greece, there have been amazing increases in the incidences of cancer. We can all guess the reasons for that; they include smoking, diet and other habits.
We have taken an amazing step forward, but my aim in this debate is to ask, as is my wont, whether we can do more and better. How do we move the situation on? It is no use saying that we have done it all, sitting back and hoping that things will happen. The work force is enthusiastic and determined, although there may not be enough people in certain areas. In a poll at the conference, more than 60 per cent. of the 500 or more people there said that things had got better, which must be music to the ears of some of our friends in Downing street who have to think up these slogans. There is some proof that something is beginning to happen.
However, more could be done in many areas. I do not want to talk about passive smoking, but it is clear that moves are being made on that. There is no definite evidence that passive smoking causes certain types of

75WH
cancer, but there is a suspicion and more work needs to be done. We have started to think about our diets, and more needs to be done on that with the industry. Perhaps companies should be compelled to watch what they put in foods, particularly those given to our young people in school dinners.
Habits and cultures will take time to change, but the process is beginning. I doubt that we will get rid immediately of the culture in Scotland of pizza and chips and everything being fried in batter. That will take a few years, but even the Scots will come round in the end.
I want to concentrate on cancer networks, because they are the organisational model for cancer services to implement the cancer plan, to which I referred. They bring together health service commissioners—health authorities, primary care groups and trusts—and providers, which comprise primary community care groups, hospitals, the voluntary sector and local authorities. Bringing together that group of people, with all the differences in personality and style, is difficult and therefore a real achievement.
I guess that the 34 cancer networks are moving at different speeds, and no doubt some of my colleagues will wish to talk about that. Throughout the country, the networks are working to consider prevention, diagnosis, screening, supportive care, specialist palliative care and so on. I think that they are meant to have reviewed their service provision by now and identified where they need to develop and invest for the future. I challenge my hon. Friend the Minister to say whether all 34 networks have produced their plans, whether they are up and running, and whether there are different tiers or speeds. If there are, what can we do to make them all move at the speed and level of the best?
This is about establishing a patient partnership. Patients have taken centre stage in the NHS. Everyone wants to involve them and their carers in decision making on shaping services, particularly cancer treatment. We shall reform delivery systems by asking people in the networks to collaborate and initiate things in new, fresh and exciting ways. The United States is rather good at that, but we have not been very good at it in many walks of life.
Recently, 17 cancer groups got together. They were from the care and cancer charities, and drug companies such as Aventis and Eli Lilly. One is often cynical about drug companies, thinking that they are interested only in making profits. That is okay but, surprisingly, they have also said in a statement that there should be
"sufficient resources to support the further development of cancer user partnership groups in the 34 Cancer Service Networks in England and similar initiatives across the UK."
In each network, the individual tumour-specific working groups—colo-rectal, breast and so forth—are examining how to develop their programmes. Patients need to be involved fully, not just on an ad hoc basis. To enhance public and patient involvement, patient representatives should sit on the individual working parties as well as the networks.
A Department of Health official, Harry Cayton, well known for his work in the Alzheimer's Society, heartened me yesterday when he stressed the importance of three simple messages about patients. The most
76WH
important was "Trust me, I'm a patient. Listen to me. Please tell me the truth about my condition and don't do anything without involving me." That is the spirit of the age and we have to try to deliver it through the networks. The determination and involvement of patients will enrich the networks' work.
Each network covers about 2 million people. Evidence suggests that they may be moving at different speeds. On 19 December 2001,Hansard recorded that the national health service planning and performance framework required the national health service organisations to work together through the cancer networks to deliver the cancer programme in line with the strategic plans of each of the networks. Everything is in place; the words are written; the people are there. How is it all working out?
We heard evidence yesterday of good work in the Avon, Somerset and Wiltshire cancer network. The secret is that people there are talking together and the important people who deliver the services and carry the cheque books also attend the meetings. They know about the spirit at loose there and that many positive developments are taking place.
I shall refer to some of the issues reported at yesterday's conference. Because the Avon, Somerset and Wiltshire network receives funding from the health authorities, it has five research nurses, five data managers, a research co-ordinator, pharmacy support and additional equipment. It plans to double recruitment by 2004 and to invest more in education and support for all research staff. I suspect that it is the best network in the country: it is working and doing well. It would be good to see it doing even better.
The networks throughout the country also meet and talk to each other through the cancer services collaborative: they audit each other and discuss best practice among themselves. That reveals the positive indicators. We have seen quite a few success stories and I should like to hear colleagues telling me more about success stories in their networks.
Two further initiatives are required. I am sorry to be a bore on cancer again, but I remain committed to a national cancer Act in this country, akin to that in the US, which is currently being revised. It has proved the key to delivering support to all the cancer services in the US: it is the model that we should follow for the next stage of our cancer strategy.I argued in favour of that in a 10-minute Bill in May this year.
It is great to have a national cancer director—the so-called tsar—and Mike Richards has done a sterling job across the country, stimulating and organising the services. But why just one? Why not also have, as the Americans would say, a quarter-back in every network? It would be good to have more tsar-type leaders with the authority to drive and push forward the agenda.
The time has truly come for a national cancer Act, which would ensure that funding is delivered into cancer services year-in, year-out. Services must not be allowed to stutter because of lack of resources.
I chair the Select Committee on Science and Technology. As the Minister knows, we investigated where the extra investment in cancer services has gone. I am unsure how the Minister will react in reply, but we stimulated awareness of the fact that the money does not always get to the coal face, to the people who need it.

77WH
However, that is not quite true. Current evidence shows that at least some of it is getting through to the coal face, and that people are seeing a difference. I do not believe that 60 per cent. of people would say that there was a difference unless they had seen a change, so some of the money is getting there.
However, we need an audit trail of that money so that when we say that it is going to a particular target, it reaches the cancer service that we want it to. Sadly, health authorities can use some of the money to meet wage increases and pay off debts. That is not good enough. If we are to deliver the cancer service that we know is possible, we need to ensure that that money gets through.
Again, at the conference yesterday, when the question was asked and the keypads were pushed, more than 60 per cent. of people agreed that the money was not getting through. I was heartened that 70 per cent. also said that they wanted a national cancer Act, so I have some support for that at present, even if it does not last. I see in the Gallery today that there are people from various networks throughout the country that are doing fine work. It is important that the people from networks, as well as those at the conference and practitioners, agree with me that much of the money that is given to cancer services by the Government is not getting through. Will the Minister assure us that the audit trail is being sharpened up?
We should ask why the radical and bold solution of giving the money straight to the cancer networks should not be adopted. If the people in those networks are doing a good job, and know the priorities in their areas, they will know what is most important and will take decisions on that basis.
The Government are determined to make sure that decisions are taken as close to the point of delivery as possible. This is a real opportunity to do what has been done so brilliantly in schools. Giving head teachers, who may not agree with what I am about to say, a sum of money, say £150,000 or £30,000, sends a strong message to them. It says that they can choose whether to use that money to hire a teacher or a classroom assistant, to put up a partition or to sort out the playground, and they know that they will receive that money every year, so they can plan on that basis. I believe that all cancer networks would engage much more sharply if they had a sum of money about which to decide in their locality so that they could be seen to be delivering for local people. There is no doubt that money brings influence, and I ask the Minister to consider that radical move.
The Government must preside over the resources and monitor the work that takes place. I should like the assurance that all the networks are being examined, and that those that are lagging behind are asked the reasons for thatߞwhether it is leadership or some other factor that means that they are not delivering in the way in which, for example, Avon has.
We must be bold and radical. Our health service is on its way to delivering the best cancer services in the world. The messages that we receive and the lessons that we learn from that area will impinge on our delivery of the mental health Act when it is eventually considered in this place. I am enthused and excited by what we have done. I would not have expected, during my lifetime, to have reached the stage that we have attained during the
78WH
past three or four years. The 500 people at the conference who represent people throughout the country feel the same.
The debate and the issues have changed. We are enthusiastic, perhaps too much so, but if that is the case, the Minister will no doubt slow us down.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I draw hon. Members' attention to the grammatically challenged notice on the Annunciator, and assure them that we are not under orders to evacuate at present. We are cleared to continue.
9.48 am
Mr.David Tredinnick: Indeed, there is quite a to-do outside with the fire brigade all over the place.
May I say what a privilege it is to follow the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who modestly said that he never would have believed that in his lifetime the pace of change would have increased so much in the House? I am glad that he does not represent Leicestershire because I would probably have to campaign against him. He has made a great contribution to cancer care from the Back Benches, and has relentlessly driven that agenda. It is a pleasure for me to follow him. It will be no surprise to hon. Members that I will focus on an area that I have focused on for most of my 15 years in the House and consider some of the complementary aspects of health care for cancer. The Minister's task would be infinitely easier if she were to take more account of the 60,000 complementary practitioners, who generally work in the private sector, and who are always prepared to help cancer patients.
I was struck by what the hon. Gentleman said about the 34 cancer networks. What an opportunity they provide to roll out some of the care listed in the wonderful directory of complementary therapy services in UK cancer care, which is published by Macmillan Cancer Relief. He said that he could not believe how far the cancer treatment movement has come in a few years, and I, too, find it hard to believe how the wind has got behind the complementary movement. The Government themselves are taking some of these issues seriously, perhaps because they have been raised relentlessly and repeatedly in the Chamber. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) smiles, as he always does, which is a good thing. Perhaps he is agreeing with me—we shall find out soon.
It is instructive to go to the directory, which lists available treatments on every page. I shall read one or two passages, although I know that we must not read out too much, as I have been called to order in the Chamber in the past and I will not make the same mistake again. The directory quotes a cancer patient who states:
"It's acupuncture that's helped me to cope with the chemo".
That is very true. A patient who took part in a relaxation therapy group said:
"I've learnt to carry on the relaxation at home too. I sleep better and don't get so worked up."
Another patient said:

79WH
"When I first decided to ask for healing"
therapeutic touch, the transmission of energy through a person who is trained to do it, usually because they are able to focus on light—
"I had no idea what to expect. When it started, I began to calm down a little."
The patient now feels much better. A lady who was treated with aromatherapy said:
"I went in as one woman and came out as another".
Roy, a patient describing reflexology, said
"I sleep really well now. I am so relaxed afterwards."
A great friend of mine was diagnosed as suffering from cancer by a reflexologist in the private sector who simply said, "I can sense that you've got a major problem." My friend went in for emergency treatment and has survived.
If the Minister can draw these therapies progressively towards the health services it will make her life in trying to deliver a health service on which there are ever increasing demands that much easier. When respectable organisations are involved in producing this type of DirectoryߞMichelle Kohn has done so much with Macmillan Cancer Reliefߞthe Government must sit up, take notice and think closely and carefully about what the different treatments can do.
I now want to draw hon. Members' attention to Chinese medicine, which is going through a process of regulation, which I welcome. There are many shops throughout the country where people purport to do things that they are not necessarily doing. There have been some scares about Aristolochia, which we all know about, and it is right to move towards regulation. However, there also needs to be a better rollout in the health service, because the pain relief that acupuncture can provide is desperately important for cancer patients.
The use of Chinese herbs is also important in arresting cancer symptoms and keep PSA—prostate-specific antigen—levels down. It may help hon. Members to think of Chinese medical herbs as being like the Whips Office, because they work in the same way: there is a chief herb—
Dr. Gibson: Does the hon. Gentleman mean poison?
Mr. Tredinnick: We hope to avoid the Aristolochia effect. The hon. Gentleman refers to his own Whips, and I will not prejudice his career, as no doubt they are listening.
There is an assistant, or deputy, herb and a messenger, which all work together and help each other. Chinese medicine is fantastically powerful in prevention. The Government should take much more notice of that.
I have referred to acupuncture. There is also homeopathy, a hugely important range of treatments that is available to everyone now. A couple of weekends ago I presented the homeopathic awards at the Society of Homeopaths for those who had trained over four years. Then there is the whole healing movement. The Minister should also be aware of other simple devices that can go a long way towards relieving pain. One
80WH
example is this transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation machine. It sends an electronic current from one part of a limb to another and is very effective in dealing with acute pain.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that aids of that kind are not normally brought into our proceedings.
Mr. Tredinnick: I have never sought to invoke aids that are forbidden in Parliament. I apologise. What I was hoping to demonstrate, which I now will be unable to do, was a simple TENS machine. Other pieces of equipment are coming on the market now, which look very similar and contain the frequencies of up to 20,000 homeopathic medicines. By connecting them to a wrist strap it is possible for the person to invoke the signature of that remedy and the body automatically interacts with it. It has been developed by a scientist. This is looking at the horizon. This is where I think we will be going in future.
Another area on which the Minister should focus more carefully is the whole healing movement. The group of people who have perhaps done the most with the least recognition for those suffering from cancer, particularly in hospices, are those in the healing movement, the therapeutic touch people. Whether or not one believes in channelled energy or in the results of the extensive trials that have been carried out, anyone who has had it will generally notice an effect of heat going through hands. Such treatment is very effective in reducing symptoms and bringing about well-being. It can give someone who is on their way out an extension of life. I should also like to pay tribute to Lucy Bell and her cancer care team at Charing Cross and Hammersmith hospitals. They well illustrate how complementary therapies can and should be combined in the cancer networks. This successful practice uses massage, aromatherapy, reflexology, relaxation and even an art therapy to treat patients. Its results have been demonstrable and significant.
Let me turn to more general health service issues, but still within the context of cancer care. I have always thought that one of the Government's fundamental problems is that they do not focus enough on preventive medicine. The hon. Member for Norwich, North touched on the issue of diet, which is crucial. We should pay more attention to the problems of obesity and lack of exercise. I welcome the new parliamentary groups that are springing up to address these issues.
The Government should be persuaded to make more of an effort to encourage people to take responsibility for their own health, for example using these little machines. The other machine with the homeopathic remedies that I was going to demonstrate looks very similar to the TENS machine. If people tried homeopathic remedies, which they can now get over the counter at chemists, it would reduce the pressure on doctors' surgeries. If that 5 per cent. of so-called heart-sink patients could be got away from the surgeries, there would be a better turnover of patients who can most likely receive effective treatment. About 5 million people in this country regularly use the treatments that I have described, not just cancer patients.
There is a fundamental problem of staff shortages in the health services. The Government spend £300 million a year on agency staff to fill the gaps. I am not saying

81WH
that complementary therapists can fill all those gaps, but a more effective use of therapists in hospitals would take the pressure off hard-pressed nurses and help improve patients' health.
Regulation has been mentioned. The Government are supporting the efforts of the Foundation for Integrated Health to draw together the various representative bodies of complementary health care. I pay tribute, in particular, to the work of Professor Pittillo, not to be confused with my right hon. Friend who has been in the news recently.
Dr. Gibson: Are you supporting him?
Mr. Tredinnick: I shall not be sidetracked down that path.
The speedy introduction of regulation would be most welcome, and it would be worth while in the long term if the Minister could find a small amount of money with which to speed up the process. We need to complete the regulation of Chinese and herbal medicine, as well as of aromatherapy. Then doctors would find it easier to make referrals, because they would feel less threatened.
That leads me to the training of doctors. There has been a welcome move in medical schools to ensure that newly trained doctors are made more aware of the important issues. Every year, 5 million prescriptions for painkillers are issued at a cost of £265 million. Furthermore, £370 million of health service money is spent on painkillers in supermarket pharmacies. Treatment of the side effects of painkillers costs the NHS between £170 million and £350 million. The Government should focus on those costs and consider the alternatives that are available, such as acupuncture or methods recommended by the healing movement, represented by the Confederation of Healing Organisations. In that way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Government would find it easier to meet patients' demands as well as their own targets.
Mr. James Cran (in the Chair): For the avoidance of doubt, I am not Mr. Deputy Speaker, but merely Mr. Cran.
Mr. Tredinnick: On a point of order, Mr. Cran. I was under the impression that, in this Chamber, it was our duty to call you Mr. Deputy Speaker regardless.
Mr. James Cran (in the Chair): No, it should be Mr. Cran.
10.2 am
Dr. Desmond Turner: I thank the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) for providing us with a new insight. I now know that the role of the Government Whips Office is to add a little flavour to our dull lives in this place.
I endorse the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) about cancer networks, cancer centres and the cancer Act. Now that we have them, we can say that cancer networks are obviously a good thing—the wisdom of hindsight is marvellous—but we cannot prove it because there have been no double-blind trials to show how much the cancer networks contribute to the improvement of
82WH
cancer survival rates. However, it would defy logic if they did not help because the reasons for their effectiveness are obvious. Nevertheless, they have not always been obvious to the public or to general practitioners, and there is a substantial job to be done educating people.
That is one of the reasons why I support a national cancer Act, which would bring the matter firmly to the public attention and to the attention of all those in the health service who have not yet got the message. The Department of Health is reluctant to select disease areas for special treatment, but there is a case for doing so with cancer, which is uniquely biologically complex. Furthermore, it can be regarded as a paradigm for all health care: if one achieves success with cancer, one can transfer the methods and organisational and scientific approaches that one uses, and massive parts of the knowledge that one gains, to the rest of health care. One can then raise standards throughout.
It is obvious that centres of excellence with full multidisciplinary teams to cover all the areas of specialisation relevant to cancer promote interaction and the more rapid development of clinical procedures. They also promote better results for patients, which is the key to it all—if patients benefit, our approach must be right. That is the way to proceed, and it is increasingly recognised across medicine that people who encounter more cases—whether surgeons, oncologists or whatever—will provide more efficient and quicker treatment, with better results. It is as basic as that.
There must also be a concentration of heavy physical facilities, such as imaging equipment, which is becoming increasingly expensive, and radiotherapy equipment. We cannot spread such equipment around, with isolated machines in different general hospitals; we must concentrate facilities in regional centres for sheer cost effectiveness—we should never forget the importance of cost-effectiveness in delivering a health service. All the logic therefore points to cancer centres, with a collaborative network around them; they are the obvious way to proceed.
I wish that I could say that that view was universally appreciated, but local experience tells me that it is not. It is not appreciated by local elected representatives in Sussex, by all doctors or by all members of the public. I am glad to have in my constituency a general hospital, which is about to become a teaching hospital. It is also a regional cancer centre. It is still developing, and it has quite a long way to go. It ran into a problem, however, because it is on an awful site and it has grown like Topsy in a place where, ideally, it should not be. One day, the trust's chief executive suddenly thought, "Oh dear! Under phase 2 of the development plan the portakabin that houses the breast assessment centre needs to be moved. Where shall we put it? Oh dear, we can't find anywhere. Oh well, we've got a sister hospital in Haywards Heath; let's build a new breast cancer unit there." In other words, the plan was to remove facilities for treating the most common single form of cancer from the cancer centre. All medical practice and logic tells us that that is nonsense, but that was the idea, although it started as a purely administrative device. Fortunately, another site was chosen 20 ft away; it is just over the road from the main cancer centre, so it is perfect. However, there was an incredibly parochial campaign by people from the hinterland of mid-Sussex

83WH
and Haywards Heath who wanted their own centre of excellence. They clearly had not understood the simple message that one should concentrate services for specialist areas such as cancer if one wants results. Had those people succeeded, cancer patients in Sussex would have been the sufferers in the long term because the service would probably—I believe undoubtedly—not have been as good as the service that will now be maintained in Brighton, although that cannot be proved. There would have been a loss for patients: in cancer cases, they would have died—the issue is as basic as that.
The message still needs to be drummed home to the public that that is the way that matters are developing. The message also needs to be drummed into GPs, although that is not a universal criticism. I am a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, and when we were doing our cancer report, we were made aware of the variability of knowledge of cancer among GPs. In the first instance, patients go to their GP. If they are lucky and their GP recognises the signs and refers them, that is all right, although that does not necessarily happen. All too many patients go for many months presenting with cancer symptoms and being misdiagnosed. Although cancer is very common—one in three of us will at some time be diagnosed with cancer—the individual GP does not see that many cancer patients in a given year. GPs need a lot of support and education if they are to play their part in the cancer networks, and benefit patients.
The principle of the cancer network is a good paradigm for other specialist areas. The time has long passed when we could expect every district general hospital to do everything. Life has become more complicated and problems more specialised. There are fields for which the equivalent of cancer networks and cancer centres are appropriate. Cardiology is an obvious example—I am happy to say that there is a cardiology centre in my constituency also. Some types of surgery are appropriate for that approach. I would nominate orthopaedics. Orthopaedic surgeons who do a lot of hip replacements on a factory basis produce magnificent results. Those who do one once in a blue moon inevitably do not produce quite the same results. It is best to centre developing technologies so that there is the throughput to make them work effectively. Neurosurgery is another complex surgical field in which the same approach is inevitable.
Cancer networks are a leading example of a principle that we should apply carefully throughout acute health provision. We should not expect every district general hospital to specialise in everything. In a given district, one may nominate one district general hospital to be the leading centre for a given medical condition. In the long term, that will lead to more effective and efficient health care and better outcomes for patients. Cancer networks are leading the way. I ask the Minister not to reject out of hand the notion of a national cancer Act, because it has a lot to offer.
10.13 am
Mrs. Patsy Calton: I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson). As other hon. Members have said, he has made a great contribution to the debate on this subject in the House and elsewhere. On a personal note, I want to thank him for his interest in the development of my thinking on the matter since I came to the House. I am a relatively new Member, and I am grateful to him for the time that he has spent ensuring that I understand what is happening.
The Government published their NHS cancer plan in September 2000. It acknowledged that cancer treatment, although excellent in places, was not of the same high quality or accessibility for all patients. Ten years ago, services were fragmented, as Professor Peter Boyle suggested yesterday in his speech at the "Britain against cancer" conference, hosted by the all-party parliamentary group on cancer. There was no national guidance and there were no multi-disciplinary teams, except in breast cancer.
Cancer networks were expected to take responsibility for implementing the NHS cancer plan. Health authorities, primary care trusts and service providers would have to work together to plan for the investment in cancer services needed to implement the network strategy. The cancer plan set clear targets for cancer networks. By 2001, they were expected to develop strategic service delivery plans to cover all aspects of cancer services. In the document, those aspects were defined as prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, supportive care, and specialist palliative care. Again by 2001, the networks were expected to have developed underpinning strategies on work force, education and training, and cancer facilities. Emerging network plans were expected to be reflected in health improvement plans and service and financial frameworks by 2001.
It is now 2002 and 34 cancer networks are in place, but there is a vast difference in the level of implementation achieved. Yesterday, we heard that the Avon, Somerset and Wiltshire network seemed to be working as a joint enterprise, although it was a little unhappy about the word "seemed". Clearly, it has come a long way. It serves a population of 2.1 million people, with seven trusts, two strategic health authorities, 12 PCTs, five hospices and 65 groups from the voluntary sector.
When a network is pulled together, no doubt the commitment of professionals, support staff and those in the voluntary sector—including those involved in complementary medicine and hospices-can be harnessed to produce a sum greater than the parts, and to improve services for patients. However, the Greater Manchester and Cheshire network, which serves more than 3 million people in my area, has only just got going. When preparing for the debate, I thought that there was nowhere better to start than my own area. I was surprised that I knew nothing of the cancer network that served Cheadle; having been a patient, I have a particular interest. I searched the cancer network website, and found only the name and associated trusts, so that network has a long way to catch up.
In "The NHS Cancer Plan: Making Progress", which was published by the Department of Health in 2001, the Government claimed that progress was being made on faster treatment. However, they failed to publish any statistics on efforts to meet the treatment targets. A

85WH
parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend on 11 February 2002 suggested that the Government did not know whether they had met the target set for December 2001 of a maximum one-month wait for breast cancer treatment. It is also clear that the Government drive for patients to be seen within two weeks does not reduce anxiety when treatment takes more than three months to arrange.
The Avon, Somerset and Wiltshire network has put patients at the centre of the service. The intention must be to provide a seamless service for patients, who have enough to cope with being ill and having to face treatments that are at least unpleasant. Although doctors and nurses work hard within the resources available, too often it can appear that hospitals and services are run around the needs of the service providers. Cancelled clinics are the norm. Patients trail all over the hospital site or from clinic to clinic, clutching inadequate information. Tests are delayed.
In a Government survey of cancer patients published in 2002 and based on data collected between 1999 and 2000,16 per cent. of patients could not understand all or most of doctors' answers to questions about cancer, 10 per cent. had to wait seven months between diagnosis and treatment and a further 16 per cent. had to wait between three and six months. Among prostate cancer patients, 22 per cent. had to wait for seven months, while 87 per cent. of all patients had to wait for more than a month between noticing symptoms and being treated, 21 per cent. for seven months. Nursing needs on discharge from hospital were not even discussed with 37 per cent. of patients.
In my experience, patients' suggestions are often treated as complaints. A hospital with which I was involved had a policy of phoning patients to ask whether they were satisfied with their treatment. I said that I was, but that I had some suggestions and that I would write in with them. I did that—they were simple and patient-focused, but I received a reply that said that if I wished to make a formal complaint, the hospital would be happy for me to send it in. I considered throwing it in the bin, but decided to write back to say that I was not complaining but answering the question about whether there could have been improvements in the treatment, and when I did so there was a sudden assumption that I was making a complaint. I was not; I was simply making helpful suggestions and I wanted to hear that the hospital authorities were going to take notice of them. Sadly, that did not happen.
As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, Harry Cayton said yesterday that patients need to be listened to. The vast majority of patients are supportive of their doctors and nurses and of the national health service. They recognise how hard the professionals are working just to stand still. The complaints system treats patients as nuisances to be worn down with lengthy, unnecessary procedures that leave those without stamina exhausted and frustrated and those with stamina angrier than when they started. The Liberal Democrats believe that the NHS can be reformed—our vision is of an NHS that is decentralised, easily able to adapt to the needs of local people and accountable. Cancer networks should provide strategic development plans to ensure that the hard work and commitment of the professionals is supported with up-to-date equipment, trained support staff and a streamlined service to patients.
86WH
For there to be accountability, there must be clarity about where funding goes. The Liberal Democrats are concerned about the health service's culture of secrecy about how funds are allocated and diverted between budget headings. Even health professionals are not convinced about whether cancer moneys have reached the services for which they were intended. As the hon. Gentleman said earlier, at yesterday's all-party cancer conference, 14.1 per cent. thought that the moneys were reaching the services for which they were intended, but 41.6 per cent. said that they were not and a further 44.2 per cent. did not know. That was a poll of people who were mainly health professionals and volunteers supporting those with cancer. Nearly 86 per cent. of the people who should know best what is happening either do not know or think that funds have been diverted. The Government should be very worried by that statistic.
Lack of co-ordination is at its most stark in research into the prevention and cure of cancer. Prevention should be at the forefront of research, yet I hear of the struggle in my area to obtain funding for research into the lifestyle causes of breast cancer—work on exercise and diet that could give much-needed pointers to the one in nine women who need to reduce their risk of getting the disease.
Those at the Europa Donna lecture last week heard from Dr. Martine Piccart, a consultant oncologist, who referred to the lack of co-ordination in chemotherapy research trials. In far too many duplicated studies, the same questions are being asked of far too many people; what is needed is different questions and a pooling of information.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a national cancer Act. The Liberal Democrats would not oppose such an Act, but we would want it to be clear about what was envisaged—and especially whether it would produce more centralisation and prescription rather than enabling local areas to take responsibility for local matters.
We do not believe that tsars are an answer; the very word has almost come to mean that those areas that appoint one will probably not get the attention that they deserve. Resources should support those who deliver the service, and I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that there needs to be a transparent audit trail, showing how the resources get to where they are needed.
The hon. Members for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) and for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner)—the latter has left the Chamber—spoke of complementary medicine. We very much support complementary medicine, but it should be exactly that—complementary to the support given by recognised, acknowledged and tested treatments. It undoubtedly brings great benefits to patients and should be part of the seamless service on offer to patients.
The Liberal Democrats have supported the vision of cancer networks since the cancer national services framework was published in 2000. The networks have the potential to offer patients modern, streamlined services that reflect local priorities and local needs. Health service professionals provide excellent service when they can, but their work is frustrated by poor resources, and inadequate buildings and equipment. They have to run in order to stand still. Cancer networks could provide them with the opportunity to work

87WH
smarter rather than harder. However, two years on there is still a long way to go before patients will see sustained benefits. I hope that the Minister will tell us how she expects to inject fresh drive into areas such as mine that have only just started.
10.27 am
Tim Loughton: First, I add my congratulations to those already expressed to the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson). It is with a sense of déjà vu that we debate cancer in this Chamber, because the hon. Gentleman is always here even if he has not instigated the debate. He has a fantastic track record on the subject, and it is a shame that more hon. Members are not here this morning. I presume that they are at the Queen Elizabeth II centre attending the conference that he has organised.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) on her performance on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. I am sure that we shall cross swords on many occasions on health as well as other subjects.
As usual, the hon. Member for Norwich, North made some interesting points. He is right that much progress on cancer care has been made over the past few years, but there are still many gaps and much progress still needs to be made. The hon. Gentleman is quite rightly always pressing the Minister—as we all do—for more. However, there are still enormous inequalities in cancer survival rates throughout the country, which compares badly with countries on the continent. Indeed, from the examples that he gave, Scotland may be the toughest nut to crack.
The hon. Gentleman's idea for a family of cancer tsars is slightly alarming. The Government already have more tsars than the Romanovs ever had in Russia—and, taking after that country, the Government have already started to give some of them the metaphorical bullet. It is not necessary to add to the fleets of tsars—or tsarettes-in order to put them in charge of cancer networks.
Mr. Tredinnick: Tsarinas.
Tim Loughton: A tsarina is a female tsar. A tsarette is a little tsar of either sex. It would be difficult to see that as a universal panacea for what might be going on in cancer care.
I agree that we need to sharpen up the audit trail—and I might come back to the business of the missing funds. I also have great sympathy with the suggestion that more money should go directly to cancer networks; that is a very attractive proposal, and it is in keeping with the policy to cut out far more of the middle ranges of management, which we are researching and following. We want to see much more money going directly from the Secretary of State to local providers such as cancer networks.
No debate on cancer—or on almost any aspect of health care—would be complete without the contribution on complementary medicines of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick). It is sad that Mr. Deputy Speaker did not permit him to
88WH
bring out his little devices to give us an audio-visual display, but he can show them after the debate to anyone who is interested in them. My hon. Friend likened the Whips' Office to a herb patch or herb garden; I have never thought of it in that way. It has always been the duty of the Whips to keep rebels at bay, and it is always sensible for one to heed the sage advice of one's Whips, but he has put that in a new perspective. He also raised some serious points about the need to regulate complementary medicines; where they are scientifically proven, they have a great role to play—not least in the areas highlighted in Macmillan Cancer Relief's new book.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner)—who is no longer present—spoke about the cancer network that covers the area that he represents: it also covers my constituency, which is next door to Brighton. He is right that we need to centralise some of the cancer infrastructure and machinery—in this case, it is being centred in Brighton. He also mentioned what he referred to as a parochial campaign by people in my area who did not want their cancer centre to be removed from Haywards Heath to Brighton. However, that had great implications for the longer-term rundown of the Princess Royal hospital at Haywards Heath. There were also many implications for the transport infrastructure in our part of the world; it is difficult for people to travel across what is a rural county into the city of Brighton and Hove. However, I largely agree with his conclusions.
We have heard much about the structure of the cancer networks. There are 34 of them, and they are organised into 11 regions. Within each network, every primary care organisation—the primary care trust, for instance—will have a lead clinician whose job will be to provide strategic leadership in the development of services for cancer patients within the PCT, and to contribute to the development of the network. They will also be responsible for ensuring that services are responsive to patients' needs, which is very important. They will have joint funding from the Department of Health and Macmillan Cancer Relief: that will mean that each PCT will have about £5,000 to fund the lead clinician post. However, Glen Purland, the head of policy development at Macmillan Cancer Relief, said:
"The scope of their job is huge and these people are only funded for two sessions per week at most."
The Runcorn GP Cliff Richards—not to be confused with Cliff Richard—is very involved with his cancer network. He commented:
"While we have a national shortage of GPs, it's difficult to see how they can find the time to sit down in their multidisciplinary meetings. This is something the network can lobby for but it's not something we can demand. We may not need huge new resources but we will need the time because we're talking about changing clinical behaviour and the way we work as teams. Without protected time for education and multidisciplinary training, it will be very difficult."
He makes important points that must be taken on board. However good cancer networks are in principle, only when they are put into practice will we be able to establish whether they will be successful in the delivery of services, which is all-important.
We hear much about performance targets, not least in the area of cancer treatment. Performance targets—including maximum one-month waits, targets on the

89WH
time from urgent GP referral to treatment for children's and testicular cancers and acute leukaemia, targets from diagnosis to treatment for breast cancer, which were supposedly introduced last year, and targets from diagnosis to treatment for all cancers—will be in force by 2005. By this year, there should be a maximum two-month wait from urgent GP referral to treatment for breast cancers, and the Prime Minister, in his speech at the Labour party conference, said that he could tick that box. By 2005 there should be a maximum two-month wait from urgent GP referral to treatment for all cancers.
Reeling off a list of plans, targets and schemes that have been published and "met" should not be the benchmark of the Government's success in tackling the causes and treatment of cancer. What should be measured is the output and outcome, not the amount of paperwork, which the Government are so good at producing. Professor Gordon McVie, the director general of the Cancer Research campaign, said that the targets are reasonable given the state of the NHS, but very soft compared with Holland or France, for example. In France, one can expect a consultant appointment in a couple of days, not a couple of weeks. Let us not delude ourselves about the distance that we still have to travel to catch up in that regard.
Cancer patients and the cancer networks themselves are in no way immune to the problems throughout the NHS. Cancer specialists have asked for 600 oncologists—specialist cancer doctors—during the next three years, but they have been promised 1,000 in six years. The Government need to be going further abroad rather more aggressively to recruit those extra doctors. I shall return to that question at the end of my speech.
There is little point in reducing the waiting time to see a consultant if there is a delay in access to diagnostic equipment or the treatment is simply not available within the NHS. Specialists must now concentrate their valuable time and resources on consultations for diagnosis, which leaves them little time for treatment thereafter.
The great problem, especially in my area, is the shortage of radiographers and radiologists, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown would agree if he was still here. The Department of Health figures from a few months ago show that 130 consultant radiology posts have been vacant for more than three months. There is a severe shortage of consultants in that speciality, with the breast screening service alone believed to be short of no fewer than 200 consultants. In the hospital in my constituency, only recently were we able to fill a consultant radiologist vacancy after three years. The vacancy rate is stark for radiographers in our part of the world: there is a 5.1 per cent. vacancy rate for diagnostic radiographers in the south-east and a 13.1 per cent. vacancy rate for therapeutic radiographers. That means that we are missing about 30 therapeutic radiographers.
As we heard earlier, there is a problem with cancer funding being siphoned off. The Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Norwich, North did the House a great service in producing a hard-hitting report that brought the issue to everyone's attention. Money promised to improve cancer care appears to have been siphoned off by the NHS to pay for other priorities, not least to cover shortfalls on accumulated debts or carried-over debts. In the Government's cancer plan,
90WH
published in September 2000, the Government promised to increase spending on cancer care by £570 million a year by 2003–04, but the hon. Gentleman's Committee identified £280 million or so in the first round of funding that had been diverted by NHS trusts to pay off debt or to meet administration costs or other targets. The Department of Health itself admitted that it was not entirely sure where the money had gone.
That is evidence of a lack of funding reaching the front line. Professor Jonathan Waxman, professor of oncology at London's Imperial college, said that the money was
"not coming to the coal face. The Plan says the right things, but the money has to come in and, at the moment, there is no funding to put doctors and nurses in posts. As a result, waiting times have gone up because we have more to do, but there are very few of us to do it."
Locally, Stuart Welling, the chief executive of Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS trust, which got very little from the cancer care plan, said:
"Out of £407 million, I would have expected to have seen rather more."
Jo Yardley, the general manager of the Kent oncology centre in Maidstone, said that the centre had asked for in excess of £1 million for this financial year. She said:
"It was reduced to £650.000 and has now been reduced again … The waits cause immense anxiety yet I have never reported on any"
national
"performance programme. It's something that we have been crying out for for years."
Hilary Thomas, a professor of oncology at the Royal Surrey County hospital, said:
"When the money comes in, the chief executives want to put the money into achieving the targets over which they will get sacked."
As The Sunday Times said,
"The public should know that one patient might be getting their varicose veins surgery done to meet some silly target in a manifesto and another",
who does not appear on the waiting list,
"might not get radical treatment for cancer that may make a difference to whether they live to old age or not."
There are many examples from around the country of senior oncologists within cancer networks feeling that they do not see the money at the sharp end where it is really needed. Progress has been made, but the system still militates against much more progress being made in future.
Has the Department of Health yet worked out where the missing money went, and is it prepared to account for it? What progress has the Department made in recruiting new oncologists, and at what level? What success is it having in recruiting from abroad? Press reports say that there has been an increase of only 45 medical staff—doctors—recruited from the continent, and already we are hearing stories about German and French teams leaving after only a few weeks or months in the country.
What progress has been made in recruiting radiologists and radiographers, particularly in the south-east, where shortages are greatest? What progress has the modernisation agency made in extending the cancer services collaborative programme to all cancer networks by 2003, and what practical effect will that

91WH
have on delivery of cancer services? Will the Minister also give an update on the progress made in integrating prevention work into the cancer networks, not least in relation to alcohol—we still eagerly await the Government's alcohol strategy—diet and obesity links to cancer?
What progress has there been on the development of software for a cancer database at primary care level, and which Minister is leading on information technology in the national health service now? What assessment have the Government made of the great diversity in service delivery between the networks, and how will they communicate that information to the House? Those are interesting questions, which will give pointers to how far and how fast the Government are progressing the cancer networks.
The subject is important. Cancer networks are important developments, but the networks are not the be-all and end-all of progress in eliminating cancer in this country. Surely it is what the networks deliver that is all-important to our constituents, and surely it is delivery progress that we need to know more about, rather than progress in setting up yet more structures.
10.42 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): 1, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on yet again raising the issue of cancer services. He does us all a service by speaking in Westminster Hall and the Chamber on a regular basis and reminding us that we have made progress on cancer but still have a lot more to do. I am genuinely grateful for the constructive pressure that he puts on me in relation to both funding and service delivery.
I welcome the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) to the Liberal Democrats' Front Bench. I shall come to her comments later, but the picture of misery that she painted is not one that I particularly recognise in cancer networks. I hope that, as time goes on, she will become a little more optimistic about the progress that the Government are making. People from various networks across the country who are daily involved in trying to improve cancer care are present today and I am sure that they too welcome the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North is chairing the all-party group on cancer's fourth "Britain against cancer" conference. I understand that yesterday, on its first day, the conference was extremely well attended. A number of high-profile speakers, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, made a contribution. Professor Peter Boyle, from the European Institute of Oncology, presented data showing that, among EU member states, the United Kingdom was one of the top performers in reducing cancer mortality since 1960. That confirms the findings of Professors Sir Richard Doll and Sir Richard Peto, who last summer reported that, since the 1970s, Britain's men have had the world's sharpest fall in premature death from lung cancer, and, in the past decade, British women have had the world's biggest decrease in deaths from breast cancer. There is more work to be done, but
92WH
we must acknowledge that Britain is certainly moving in the right direction in beginning to tackle cancer, one of the biggest killers.
Mrs. Calton: There have undoubtedly been improvements, particularly in the prevention of men's cancers. There is, however, a long way to go with regard to women's cancers, particularly that associated with smoking. In fact, the position of women is very different from that of men. Will the Minister comment on the steps that the Government are taking to ensure that women here see the same reductions as have occurred in other parts of Europe?
Ms Blears: I was about to say that the data confirm that we are right to invest in preventive services. Several hon. Members raised the importance of prevention, in addition to treatment and research into a cure. The hon. Lady must acknowledge that this country now has some of the world's leading smoking cessation services. Both Zyban and nicotine replacement therapy are available on prescription and 40 per cent. of such prescriptions are free, so we are clearly getting through to people in poorer communities who smoke more than those in better-off communities. We should also consider the issue of women's smoking and alcohol consumption. The shift to preventive measures is, therefore, a top priority for the Government.
But we are not complacent. I simply want to set the scene and say that we are going in the right direction. I recognise, however, that we have a lot more to do. The Secretary of State reiterated yesterday at the conference that cancer is a top priority for the Government. That has been made evident by the cancer plan and the significant extra investment in cancer resources. I shall come later to the issue of the audit trail and the need to ensure that that money is spent on cancer care.
Just over two years ago we published the NHS cancer plan. That was the first time that any Government had drawn up a major programme of action to link prevention, diagnosis, treatment, care and research to follow the patient pathway through all stages of treatment. It is not an exaggeration to say that that was an almost revolutionary approach to patient care and that it has informed not only cancer care, but a range of other disease pathways. We are undergoing a complete reconfiguration of the organisation of our health services. Patients are being put at the centre of the services and provided with those that they need, rather than having to fit in, regardless of whether the services meet their needs or those of their communities. The cancer plan was a turning point in our reconfiguration of the NHS.
I want to acknowledge the work and commitment of the thousands of staff who are working together across organisations to try to modernise cancer services. It is important for people to be able to take time out from their day-to-day practice to think through new ways of working to try to shorten waiting times and to bring in new and innovative approaches, but that is not always easy when people are working outside their organisations, collaborating with colleagues, working in virtual organisations and attending meetings, and I am conscious of the hard work that is taking place across the service.

93WH
I would also like to thank the 65,000 cancer patients who responded to the first ever cancer survey. Some might say that people do not want to respond to surveys, but we had an incredible response. It is a courageous Government who decide to ask patients what they think about the service, where it is good and bad, where it is working and not working, and to use, for the first time, the results of such surveys to feed into the performance management framework for the service. At long last, we are beginning to measure the success of the NHS by what the patients themselves tell us is going on in their area.
We do not pretend that there are no problems. Of course, there are problems. We do not pretend that the service is not working under incredible pressure, because it is, in every part. We must, however, be clear that patients are benefiting from improvements and cancer is one of our success stories. We are extending the breast screening service to over-65s and piloting new screening technologies. More than 95 per cent. of people with suspected cancer are seen by a specialist within two weeks, more than 31,000 extra people are benefiting from cancer drugs that have been appraised by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, and more than 500 of the most modern pieces of equipment with which to diagnose and treat cancer have been delivered to hospitals since April 2000. By 2004, a further 385 pieces of equipment will be delivered and used in the NHS. Those are tremendous improvements, but there is a long way to go. We have said that the cancer plan will take five to 10 years to implement and, even though we are in only the first two years, we are beginning to see significant progress.
The current increase in funding for cancer services—an extra £280 million in 2001–02, £407 million in 2002—03, and £570 million by 2003–04—is the largest ever. Concerns have been expressed about how much of that money is getting through to the front line. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North conducted a searching inquiry in the Select Committee, in which I was delighted to take part. It raised interesting questions and, as a result, the national clinical director for cancer, Mike Richards, is now working with the strategic health authorities to bear down on the audit trail to determine where funds have gone. We are also working with voluntary organisations in the hospice movement to see what has happened to the money for palliative care—where investment has been made and whether there are any gaps.
We recently announced that an extra £10 million would come from central funds this year to ensure that there is a swift injection into vital services relating to palliative care and I am determined that the extra investment from the Government will make a difference to cancer patients. I can tell the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) that our targets for treatment times are of key importance because early diagnosis and treatment mean better outcomes and survival rates for patients. Investment has been made in cancer services even in the most pressured authorities, and we are on track to meet important targets to improve services for patients.
Tim Loughton: I take the Minister's point, but will she admit that setting strict targets—especially for initial
94WH
referral—ties up consultant time, which adds to the time delays for people needing treatment. In some cases, it distorts the system because of staff shortages.
Ms Blears: It is important at every stage of the patient pathway to try to ensure that the waiting time is as short as possible. Prioritising one part at the expense of another is not the way to design a proper holistic system that meets the needs of patients. We need to bear down on waiting times in diagnosis, screening, treatment—at all stages in the patient pathway. That is why the Government have developed a coherent programme, rather than caved in to pressures of the moment.
My hon. Friends the Members for Norwich, North and for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) have pressed for the introduction of a cancer Bill for some time, and the hon. Member for Cheadle was not sure of the Liberal Democrat position, but the right way forward is through the cancer plan. Cancer treatment is a top priority for the Government, but it is one of a number of clinical priorities. I do not want our system to be fragmented and drawn to specific disease groups. Through the cancer plan, we can allocate funding, gather the work force, shorten waiting times and improve treatment for patients without fragmenting the infrastructure that is crucial to supporting action throughout the NHS, not only in the important area of cancer treatment.
Dr. Gibson: Why then, is there a draft Mental Health Bill?
Ms Blears: My hon. Friend knows very well that the Mental Health Bill will deal not only with treatment, but with several important areas relating to the assessment and identification of individuals needing care and support within the care system. I am sure that he recognises that the area of mental health is significantly different from that of diseases such as cancer. Ring-fencing funds for specific disease groups would cause significant problems for the NHS. As he knows, issues surrounding diagnosis, research, equipment and staff are not always identified only for cancer treatment, but for a range of different diseases—we have had some interesting discussions about the way in which research into disease groups applies not only to cancer. Therefore, it is important to integrate cancer treatment and keep it connected to the rest of the NHS. I have no doubt that we shall continue to debate the cancer plan but, at the moment, we are trying to shift the centre of gravity in the NHS to ensure that money goes to the front line and that, as far as possible, all services are kept together and integrated.
Several hon. Members spoke about patient involvement, and I hope that they know of my absolute commitment to public and patient involvement. Changing the NHS to take account of patients' priorities will allow us to improve services dramatically. I was pleased to appoint Harry Caton as the director of public involvement in patient experience. In highlighting such issues, he is making a tremendous contribution to the NHS. I understand that all the networks now have patient involvement, although some are more developed than others. We want to bring everyone up to the level of the best.

95WH
In December, I shall speak at a conference that has been organised by Macmillan Cancer Relief. The conference will focus on ways in which we can bring together carers, patients and professionals to ensure that we learn from the experience of patients. Some of the best suggestions for change come from people who are going through the service, and we have a great deal to learn from them. I love the phrase "Trust me, I'm a patient." We could all happily support that.
The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) spoke about complementary therapists. He will know that we are preparing NICE guidance on supportive and palliative care. Draft guidance, which will include guidance on complementary therapies, will go out to consultation next summer. Such therapies are becoming more mainstream in the NHS; I know that the hon. Gentleman has been pressing for that for a long time. Such mainstreaming occurs especially in cancer care and palliative care—pain relief. The role that acupuncture can play is fairly well established. We have funded research projects to try to obtain more evidence. Many cancer networks already involve complementary therapists in a range of services. The hon. Gentleman is therefore pushing at an open door, but we must be sure that the therapies work and are based on good evidence, and that investment in them is worth while.
Several Hon. Members spoke about diet and exercise, which are key issues for the Government. They will know about the national school fruit scheme, which will give a free piece of fruit to primary school children every day in an effort to encourage healthy eating habits early in life, and that scheme is expanding throughout the country. I think that 300,000 children are now receiving their free piece of fruit; by 2004, every primary school child will be receiving it.
We are about to launch some exercise pilot schemes to find innovative ways of involving people in exercise-in particular, we will work with people from poorer communities who traditionally have not been able to go to expensive leisure centres. I look forward to the results
96WH
of those schemes. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has a huge programme of investment in school sports co-ordinators to try to involve young people and children in good exercise early in life.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North suggested that we might have tsars in every clinical network to ensure progress in cancer care. As he knows, we have clinical leads in every network who have taken on that role and who have done an extremely good job. My hon. Friend said that, in America, they were known as quarter-backs; in my part of the country, they would probably be scrum halves, so some of my clinical leads may see themselves in that role. It is important that clinical ownership is embedded in our networks. We are talking about the people on the front line and they know what needs to be done. Giving them power and influence in the service is key.
The hon. Member for Cheadle read out some fairly depressing statistics on waiting times; however, from April to June of this year, almost 95 per cent. of women with breast cancer received their first treatment within a month of diagnosis. That is not a bad achievement. I therefore urge the hon. Lady to consider the glass half full rather than half empty. In the same period, 93 per cent. of patients with testicular cancer, 100 per cent. of children with cancer and 99 per cent. of patients with acute leukaemia received their treatment within one month. We are making significant progress in tackling cancer and patients are delighted that such improvements are beginning.
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham mentioned radiology. We are increasing the number of training places, we have more consultants and we are going out to recruit. I remind him that under the Conservative Government, training places in every profession were cut. We cannot create radiologists and radiographers overnight. We are creating extra training places that will come through to the service in due course. At least this Government have a commitment to extra investment—
Mr. James Cran (in the Chair): Order. Time is up.

Nurses' Pay
11 am
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the important issue of nurses' pay. Although I have wanted such a debate for a long time, owing to the happy way in which parliamentary affairs are conducted, I have secured the debate in the week when the Royal College of Nursing published the results of its 2002 membership survey.
My starting point is in my constituency, as hon. Members customarily expect. Addenbrooke's hospital is in my constituency, and last Friday I had the privilege of attending the annual lecture there at which David Lomas, a consultant physician, was explaining the ground-breaking work being done there on emphysema and genetic predisposition. During the lecture, he illustrated how nurse practitioners work with emphysema patients to facilitate a quick return home and reduce demands on the hospital while providing a service that patients find more acceptable and that enables them to live at home independently.
Addenbrooke's is right at the front rank of this country's hospitals. Ground-breaking research that is of the highest quality in the world—the hospital leads an international network of researchers on the subject—is combined with the finest nursing practice. However, the hospital faces severe difficulties. The turnover of trained nurses and midwives is 12 per cent. and the vacancy level for nursing staff is 9.5 per cent. Many vacancies exist for surgery and gynaecology nurses. There is a 22 per cent. vacancy level for midwives, which shows the difficulty of replacing staff who leave.
The consequences of a lack of suitable nursing staff are only too clear. Beds are being closed, and a Select Committee heard a couple of weeks ago that the rate was the equivalent of closing a 30-bed ward in Addenbrooke's every day. Bed use rates in the hospital are driven even higher: they are currently about 98 per cent. The Minister and hon. Members will know that the Department of Health wants rates that are nearer 82 per cent. The Audit Commission report published the other day made recommendations about the rates of bed occupancy in hospitals that would allow accident and emergency facilities to work most effectively and allow onward referrals from them without long waits. High bed occupancy rates cause not only long waits but the cancellation of elective surgery. That is a serious problem at Addenbrooke's from time to time and it is an issue in summer as well as winter.
That all causes nurses' work load to increase. High occupancy levels cause an additional work load, and I suspect that we all know that nurses' work loads are much higher now. In the past, convalescent patients would have been present on wards and patients would spend more time in hospital before being discharged. There is now every pressure to work intensively to discharge patients and release beds as quickly as possible. The vacancy levels that I have discussed are compared with the funded establishment level. They are not necessarily sufficient for today, given the intensity with which beds are being used and the extended role of nurses.
Addenbrooke's is in a high-cost area, one of the highest outside central London. It is an exciting hospital to work in. It aspires to, and reaches, the highest
98WH
standards of clinical care, and has some of the best family-friendly policies in the country. However, the nursing staff are increasingly hard pressed and increasingly hard to recruit and retain.
How can we break that cycle of problems and deliver NHS growth? An issue that is currently being considered at the local level is key worker housing. I acknowledge the benefit that that can provide—we have seen the benefit of housing association provision alongside the Addenbrooke's site—but the numbers are limited. I do not want us to return to the situation in which most NHS staff must live in what is in effect tied housing, because we pay them substantially below the market rates for people working in that location.
The purpose of the debate, from my point of view, is to decide the question of nurses' pay and the contribution that it could and should make to the resolution of these problems. The last debate on nurses' pay in the House was held in January 1999. Much has changed, and it is highly desirable that the Minister and hon. Members have an opportunity to debate the issue. I support the concept of an independent pay review for nurses, so why debate it here? We should debate it for several reasons.
First, the Government's evidence to the pay review body, and the view that they and their Departments take on recruitment, retention and affordability, is a substantial aspect of the process of pay review. Secondly, the agenda for change negotiations, which should now be reaching a conclusion, should represent a substantial long-term development in extending the role of nursing staff in the provision of care, and should be accompanied by a restructuring of pay to reflect the additional responsibilities. That is, of course, a direct Government negotiation. It is not being negotiated through the independent pay review body but will be referred to it after the conclusion of the overall negotiations. I hope that the Minister will tell us something about that.
Thirdly, a great deal of taxpayers' money—one sixth of Addenbrooke's budget—is spent on nurses' salaries. The Government are accountable for their advice on that aspect to the pay review body, and for the value that they attach to the contribution of nurses to the NHS as reflected in pay. It is equally incumbent on us in Parliament to have the opportunity to reflect on that value and on how the Government represent the public sector's and the taxpayers' view.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate, which I agree is extremely important for Cambridge and especially Addenbrooke's hospital, but does he agree that the long-term solution to the very high costs in and around Cambridge is to release more land for building? Will he consider the fact that his objections to the county council's structure plan, if I understood them correctly, would be likely to result in the release of less land for building, so continuing the upward spiral of house prices and making the situation much worse?
Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her remarks about the desirability of the debate. She was present at a previous debate in the Chamber on the Cambridge green belt, and will know that on, I believe,

99WH
13 November, at the examination in public on the Cambridge structure plan, I will make my argument about the desirability of limiting building on the green belt around Cambridge because of its incompatibility with the purposes of the green belt. That does not mean that there should be a limitation on the number of houses to be built. There is no argument at the examination in public about the fact that the Cambridge sub-region should build at the rate of 200,800 additional homes a year, only about where those houses should go. I am afraid that her point is irrelevant to the debate, because the houses could as readily be at Waterbeach, for example, with a shuttle-train access from there to the Addenbrooke's site that would take 13 minutes, as in Cherry Hinton or the airfield site, where people would have to use buses, which would take 25 minutes. We may argue about where the housing should be, but I will not take a lecture on the Cambridge green belt.
Nurse recruitment from overseas is a valuable, and possibly essential, part of our response to nurse recruitment difficulties in the short term, but it is a risky long-term strategy. To increase recruitment to nursing to the required extent in a tight labour market will require an increase, not a decline, in pay for nurses relative to the labour market as a whole.
Changes in responsibility and extending the role of nurses are desirable, and will necessitate changes in pay structures and levels, but such changes are complementary to the issue of nurses' general pay level, not a substitute for tackling it. In our previous employment, if we were told that there was to be a restructuring that would lead to new responsibilities, we would all probably have expected additional pay. However, for those who do not expect that, that is no reason for them not to receive pay that reflects the genuine labour market in their professional area.
Comparability is not the primary basis on which to assess pay—although it should not be ignored—since pay is rarely the reason why nurses find their job rewarding, but poor pay in nursing, as in any other walk of life, is a substantial demotivating factor, and will cause lack of retention. A significant part of nurses' perception of whether their pay is good or poor is the comparisons that they make with the rest of the public sector.
The serious recruitment and retention problems in some NHS trusts often reflect the relationship between high labour cost areas and the adherence to national pay scales. If trusts are to be free to pay in excess of national pay scales, as they are in theory, or if foundation hospitals enjoy such a freedom in due course, those foundation hospitals must be assured that they will have the resources to back that up. That is a matter for the contracting bodies—the primary care trusts—whose resources reflect the relative costs of providing a service in that area. Addenbrooke's is, of course, one of the hospitals that is most likely to apply for and receive foundation status, having achieved a three-star rating on two successive occasions.
The determination of nurses' pay must be a matter for independent review and recommendation. No reasonable level of pay increase is likely to be recommended that could not be funded from the prospective 10 per cent. per annum increases in NHS
100WH
funding overall. The consequences of failing to act now on pay may be to place in jeopardy the achievement of reform and service enhancement in the future. If we do not demonstrate that we value the work that nurses do, the loss of trained nursing staff will accelerate, and no amount of target setting by Ministers will stop the beds and theatres lying idle while patients wait.
The evidence this year to the pay review body from the staff side sets out many of those factors. In the past five years, the number of registered nurses in England has increased by 20,000 on a whole-time equivalent basis. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the number decreased between 1996 and 2000. However, given that over the same period there have been 35,000 overseas registrations, and even allowing for the limited length of time of some of those registrations, it is reasonable to say that the increase that has occurred in the nursing work force has been through overseas recruitment. That can also be seen at Addenbrooke's, where some very successful recruitment operations have been undertaken, and Filipino nurses, for example, do an excellent job. However, we must work harder to continue to recruit from the pool of talent overseas. We constantly have to replenish our resources from it, and the evidence suggested by the staff side to the pay review body is that international competition for good nurses is increasing.
The work force—the national work force as a whole—is expected to grow over the next 20 years, but at a rate estimated at only 0.5 per cent. per annum. Matching the Government's objectives for the nursing work force, however, would require 1.5 per cent. growth per annum. We thus need not only to sustain the nursing work force in a tight labour market but to increase the share of the work force taken by the nursing profession.
Serious divergences remain between the statistically based view of Departments and the evidence of individual trusts and managers that recruitment and retention problems have worsened and are serious enough to justify action by the pay review body. NHS proposals for the consultants' contract and for GPs have offered substantial—about 20 per cent.—increases in remuneration in return for reform. At the same time, the role for non-medical staff is growing, through more nurse prescribing or, as at Addenbrooke's, through innovative proposals for emergency nurse practitioners in casualty departments.
If nurses embrace reform and responsibility, they should expect significant benefits, but not every nurse will be able to do so and we risk demotivating nurses who continue in their existing role if we do not change basic pay levels as well as providing enhancements for extended roles.
On comparability, according to staff side evidence, nurses' earnings have declined from 89.1 per cent. of non-manual average earnings in 1995 to 87.8 per cent. in 2001. After three years in post, a nurse at the top of grade D will earn £17,760 in comparison with £22,992 for a police constable. I may be reaching back into the dim and distant past, but I recall that nurses and police officers were previously viewed as highly comparable. They used to spend some time together, sitting around waiting for patients, victims or offenders to be discharged from hospital. I know about that because my brother married a nurse who was trained at Addenbrooke's hospital. We have come full circle and

101WH
pay has now diverged. Expenditure on agency staff in the NHS was £570 million last year, nearly four times the amount spent in 1997.
Those examples are taken from the staff side evidence previously submitted. The Royal College of Nursing membership survey was published earlier this week and offers additional significant evidence. Nearly two thirds of NHS nurses felt that their nursing establishment was insufficient to meet patient needs. One third working in hospitals reported that the problem was serious enough to compromise patient care. More and more nurses work in excess of contracted hours, averaging an extra seven hours per week, a quarter of which are unpaid. About 29 per cent. of nurses—the number is increasing—now take additional jobs. Only a quarter of NHS nurses believe that they are well paid for the work that they do. Nine out of 10 regard themselves as not well paid in comparison with other professional groups.
Reductions in grade levels, inappropriate grading and the lack of pay recognition for additional responsibilities are further problems reported in the RCN survey. Such problems undermine the confidence of the nursing profession in the prospect of a pay for responsibilities approach as articulated recently by the Secretary of State in response to the RCN survey. Whereas 72 per cent. of nurses regarded nursing as a rewarding career in the 2001 survey, only 56 per cent. said the same this year.
As the RCN makes clear, the survey results continually come back to two issues: work load and the value that nurses feel that we, by which I mean the public, place on their work. If we do not act, we will end up with a demotivated profession with more and more nurses retiring in future years. A demotivated profession would mean a substantial number of nurses leaving, through both retirement and the attraction of other jobs in a tight labour market. A third of NHS nurses would leave nursing if they could. If that happens, work load pressures will worsen, and the desire to leave will grow, leading to a vicious spiral. Overseas nurse recruitment will not necessarily be sustained, leaving capacity in the NHS unable to grow.
Independent sector health capacity is equally dependent on the supply of trained nurses. The work load pressures in that sector are less great, but I submit that we could not comfortably look to the independent sector to be able to recruit and retain anything like the substantial number of nurses who might leave the NHS.
Agency nursing can help. Agency and bank nursing systems provide a way of filling short-term vacancies, and valuable flexibility in acute care, but they do so at a price. With the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) present, I confess that I recently saw posts for agency nurses in his constituency advertised at £22.85 per hour. By my reckoning, that is about twice the level of pay per hour that would be available to a nurse on a full-time contract in the same hospital. Demotivation certainly results from such comparisons.
We must consider substantial change to secure an enhanced role for nurses and enhanced pay. In addition, in April 2003, before the agenda for change negotiations can have a substantial effect, we need a general recognition of the need to respond to recruitment and retention pressures for the profession as a whole, to
102WH
demonstrate the value that we place on nurses, who are instrumental to quality care for patients. Expanding the nursing work force would enable progress to be made towards managing better the work load pressures on the service as it attempts to meet the growing demands for ever more intensive and sophisticated health care.
A few months ago, I participated in a conference led by Papworth hospital, which is in my constituency, on extending the role of non-medical staff as a result of the extensive and important role that nurses will increasingly be taking up in delivering care. In some cases, one might almost characterise the consultant physician as overseeing the role not of other doctors but of nurses providing care. Nurses will work substantially within the protocols and parameters set by medical staff, but with a great deal of independence.
Within the leading NHS trusts, those freedoms must be real if we are to provide the quality and volume of care that is increasingly demanded of us. Those hospitals must be resourced to reflect their activity levels and their costs. They must be able to use that freedom to meet the extra pay or accommodation costs involved in recruitment and retention in a high-cost area.
The Government's evidence to the pay review body must not discount the concerns of nurses, talk up the prospects for more recruitment or retention when the front line appears to know better, or trade off service improvements against nurses' pay. That could prejudice the trained staff whose contribution to the NHS is essential. If service improvements and growth in capacity are to be realised, we cannot put nurses in the invidious position of believing that fair pay for nurses is somehow inconsistent with service improvements for patients.
I should like to know that the Minister understands and accepts those propositions. When—the "when" is quite important to Addenbrooke's—and how will foundation trust status be better defined? I would like Addenbrooke's hospital, which for this purpose is my principal concern, and other hospitals throughout the country to have the freedom to reflect not only fair pay in the labour market in their area but any need that they may have in respect of extending nurse responsibilities. Generally, I want hospitals to be resourced to meet those responsibilities and the costs of recruitment and retention in their area.
When I next meet nursing staff representatives at Addenbrooke's hospital, I want to be able to say that when politicians say that we value the work that they do we will actually have done something about it. That is the purpose of this debate.
11.24 am
Dr. Richard Taylor: I should declare an interest, as I am approaching the age when one might need to rely on one's family: one of my daughters is an NHS nurse.
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on the impeccable timing of this debate, which is absolutely staggering. I want to paint a brief picture of the work of an NHS nurse, thinking of a ward sister. She gets into work and finds the chaos of the night. The ward is understaffed, especially in respect of trained staff. She has the stress of achieving acceptable levels of care and of supporting

103WH
other stressed staff. She has to support the nurses who are doing the jobs of junior doctors under the absolutely appropriate extension of nursing duties. She also has to cope with directives from nurse managers who in some cases appear to be more interested in targets than in staff morale. She gets home late.
In my constituency, because of the tremendous overspending, especially on agency nursing, budget holders have had a two-page letter about improving financial control, particularly with regard to agency nursing. First, there is a set of guidelines; secondly, there are four more detailed steps that the nurse, sister or charge nurse in my example has to go through before being able to consider the use of agency nurses. Compare that with the usually protected existence in the private sector where there is adequate staffing, little if any stress from an unexpected emergency load and working hours that staff can keep to. Compare it, too, with the life of agency nurses who can choose exactly when they want to work. They go in and do their nursing duties and they do not have the responsibility of running a ward. Some agency nurses who are very well motivated may help, but it is not part of their job. They have nursing duties only.
I am extremely concerned about the expenditure on agency nurses to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The Department of Health is not yet able to tell us exactly how much was spent on agency nurses last year, but the estimate of the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing is about £800 million. In Worcestershire, the acute trust spent £3.3 million on agency nurses in 2000–01 and £4.3 million in 2001–02. In the first five months of this year, the figure is already £4.3 million.
There is a better answer than the use of agency nurses, better even than the proposed use of the Government's own agency: to pay NHS nurses realistically to take into account the stress and responsibility of the job as well as their productivity, thus reducing spending on agencies.
The Minister will recall that in a letter to me in July last year, he said:
"The key principle is something for something. Rewarding people for what they do, and the roles and responsibilities taken on.
Our NHS nurses are extremely productive. They have taken on enhanced roles and responsibilities, which must be respected and recognised.
11.29 am
Ann Keen: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on securing the debate, particularly in the week when the Royal College of Nursing is rightly making headlines on this issue. First, I should declare an interest. To my knowledge, I am the only nurse here in the Chamber, and I also still have an association with the Community and District Nursing Association.
I feel very passionately about nursing and nursing care. It is often said that people remember nurses. Well, nurses remember Governments. Nurses have excellent memories. Without wanting to take up hon. Members' time today, I cannot resist the opportunity to point out
104WH
that I took up my first post as a staff nurse on a busy medical ward on a late afternoon shift on the day when the newly elected Conservative Government took office in 1979. I spent much of my clinical nursing practice under that Government's stewardship of the NHS. I know about stress. I know about difficult working conditions. I know about trying to gain credibility and financial recognition for my profession and my skills. I had many skills, and I am pleased that there are now diplomas and degrees in nursing and that nurses' vast knowledge is recognised and accredited in an academic sense.
Nursing is a science and an art. Bringing the two together is very complex at times. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) pointed out, nurses have few convalescent patients in hospital or in the community. Nurses have high-dependency patients for whom advanced technical and pharmaceutical knowledge is required to deliver complex health care. How do we ensure that those noble and able people who are the mainstay of the NHS remain? One cannot talk about health without talking about nursing. The recognition that the current Government are giving is very welcome, but much more must take place. I would be the first to recognise and encourage that.
Along with agency nursing and pay comes the issue of flexible working. When I was a ward sister I could not offer flexible working to many of my staff and auxiliary nurses. It was a rigid system. Flexibility and child care were not on the agenda, but they are now on the agenda in many walks of life, and that is to be encouraged. The money that has been invested by the Government in child care facilities for hospital workers allows nurses to he seen as people who belong not just to the NHS but to their family. Nurses need to be able to balance work and family life if they are to stay in a profession that is demanding both mentally and physically. I had to leave clinical nursing to go into teaching because of a serious back injury that I suffered as a district nurse. We must recognise the physical commitment that nursing demands.
Flexibility, time off and rewards are important. I am so pleased that in the Budget earlier this year the Chancellor announced the new tax credits that will come into effect in April next year. For the first time, student nurses will be able to claim tax credits for children. I hope that all hon. Members present today will encourage student nurses to take up their entitlement, which can mean up to £38 a week. Student nurses were not able to claim income support before because they were not classified as workers. They have never been able to claim the working families tax credit for that reason. They fall between the two categories: they are neither proper students nor proper workers. I hope that all hon. Members, but particularly the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, will see to it that the issue is taken up. Not only student nurses but all nurses will benefit from the new child tax credit and working tax credit, and I hope that people in all parties will take up the campaign before next April.
It is important that we get modernisation and the agenda for change right. In the past, the pay review bodies have recommended increases for nurses, and I am pleased that they have been paid in full in many instances. That did not always happen under previous Governments, and once, when we did get a pay increase,

105WH
we were asked to donate it to the hospital to fund its desperate bid to buy new equipment. One might expect that to have happened a century ago, but it also happened in the 1990s.
It is encouraging to hear hon. Members talk about the value of nursing. If we are really to value it, however, we must ensure that hospitals implement a family-friendly policy. They must encourage the take-up of the current credits, to which some working people are entitled, and of those to which many more people will be entitled from next April.
We must ensure that we have a team of equals. The medical profession has its problems at the moment, as do consultants, but I ask them to reflect on the way in which members of the nursing profession support the team, and in many instances use their knowledge to lead it. As a former nurse, I am grateful to have had the opportunity to address Parliament on behalf of nurses.
11.36 am
Mrs. Anne Campbell: This is an important debate, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute, although I do so only because I am sorry that there are so few people in the Chamber.
Nurses' pay is a huge issue in Cambridge because of the high cost of living, which affects not only nurses but many other low-paid workers. Indeed, I am sure that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has come across further education lecturers, university lecturers and others who have had incredible difficulty finding somewhere affordable to live, although one would not imagine that they would.
About a year ago, a staff nurse at Addenbrooke's came to see me. She was not a low-paid worker, but was earning just over £20,000 a year. The problem, however, is that the local authority is unlikely to consider people who earn that amount for social housing, so she was unable to get a council house or to get on a housing association list and she had to rely on the private rented sector in Cambridge, which is very expensive.
That woman had a son of 11 or 12, whose schooling had been disrupted by her housing difficulties. Throughout his primary school career, she had to move from one private rented sector property to another, which inevitably meant that he had to change primary schools several times. The difficulties are not purely financial, and people's lives are disrupted and are sometimes of a low quality. I have not heard from that woman for a good 12 months, and I hope that she is still at Addenbrooke's, but I fear that many people in that situation give up and decide to work somewhere where accommodation is cheaper.
To return to planning issues, Cambridge will not survive in the long term unless it can accommodate low-paid and even medium-paid workers. As the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said, house prices have spiralled upwards. Over the past year, they have risen by more than 20 per cent., and people are finding it increasingly difficult to find affordable accommodation. However, I disagree with him about the use of the green belt. The green belt around Cambridge is tightly drawn, which leaves only a small amount of building land in the city centre. That inevitably means that people have either to pay high prices for accommodation in the
106WH
centre of Cambridge or live outside the green belt and travel into the city every day. He said that Waterbeach was a convenient settlement, and I believe that the county council should consider it again, as the rail link to Cambridge makes it an attractive option, not least because the journey takes only 13 minutes. He was quite right to say that an extension of the rail link to Addenbrooke's would make a big difference.
Mr. Lansley: Many of the nurses who have left Addenbrooke's are continuing their nursing work at Papworth hospital, because they can live in cheaper accommodation in Huntingdon or beyond Papworth. We have to solve that problem before we can contemplate moving Papworth hospital to the Addenbrooke's site. That move has many clinical reasons to commend it, but at the moment it would cause all sorts of difficulties with recruiting and retaining the nursing staff.
Mrs. Campbell: There is a great deal of agreement between us on that. However, although the hon. Gentleman is opposing the extension of housing into the green belt, Clay farm in Trumpington would provide an attractive location for staff working at Addenbrooke's. It would provide housing sufficiently near the hospital for people to be able to walk or cycle to work. That seems an extremely attractive option.
It is fair to say that the Government have taken many actions over the past few years to try to ease the situation for nurses and low-paid workers. One of the issues that concerns me is the cost of living supplement paid to nurses in the Cambridge area, which gives them an extra £600 a year. It does not go a long way towards meeting their accommodation costs, but it is better than nothing. However, it applies to nurses and therapists but not to cleaners, porters or catering, engineering or laboratory staff. That is of great concern to those other lower-paid workers, who are essential to the running of a large hospital.
About 18 months ago, I attended a rally at Addenbrooke's, when those staff were starting their campaign for recognition. I understand that the cost of living supplement is paid only to those grades covered by the pay review body, but we need to look even more closely at those who are paid on an even lower scale than nurses, because their work is essential. I hope that the Minister will consider carefully the Unison campaign to allow those workers the cost of living supplement. He and I have communicated about the matter before, but this may be the time to take a fresh look at the situation.
Mr. Simon Burns: Will the hon. Lady also include auxiliary nurses in the list of nursing staff and health service workers who should be included? I have a constituent who has worked as an auxiliary nurse for more than 27 years. Her job has expanded and so have her responsibilities, but she has been excluded from the supplement, as have others at her level. I find that incomprehensible.
Mrs. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is easy for us to say that all low-paid workers should get extra money. I have made it clear that in the short term this is a huge issue, but I hope that in the

107WH
longer term it will be resolved by planning and not by the payment of supplements. Although they are badly needed now, they are not the answer.
I should like to mention the starter home initiative. A successful joint application by the health authority, the county council and the police authority in Cambridgeshire realised some £6 million, enabling low-interest loans to be paid to key workers who live within five miles of their workplace. That has made a huge difference to many low-paid workers who are defined as key workers. However, many are excluded in the process of defining. An unfortunate aspect of the scheme is that further education lecturers are excluded—they are low paid, so the distinction is rather absurd. It is up to local authorities to define key workers, and I am sorry that mine did not include further education lecturers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) has mentioned the forthcoming children's tax credit. Many low-paid workers in my constituency have already benefited from the working families tax credit and the child care tax credit. They have made an enormous difference: many lone parents, who would not otherwise have been able to afford to do so, have returned to the workplace. Many extra child care places have been provided in the city, but there is still a desperate shortage because there are so many parents in the workplace these days that all the provision has been soaked up. She made an important point about the forthcoming children's tax credit and the working tax credit. They will be available to student nurses and others who now find it difficult to survive.
I hope that, in her capacity as the Chancellor's Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend will convey the point that because of high accommodation costs in the city of Cambridge, people have to have very high incomes in order to have the same residual income as those who are paid much less in another part of the country. The problem is that the lower-paid in another area will be entitled to the working families tax credit, whereas many of my constituents who have very low residual incomes because of the high accommodation costs are not eligible. We must address that issue. I shall make the point in my own way to the Chancellor, but I shall be grateful for my hon. Friend's support.

The Government have taken a number of extremely helpful short-term measures. Longer-term measures that are in the pipeline will obviate the need for this kind of supplement and extra pay for specific workers because accommodation costs will stabilise. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire on having raised the issue at this important and sensitive time.
11.49 am
Dr. Evan Harris: It is a pleasure, as an Oxford Member, to thank a Cambridge Member, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), for giving us the opportunity to discuss the matter. I also thank him for presenting the parameters of the debate so clearly. Oxford shares many of the problems of high living costs mentioned by the hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell).
108WH
The Government are in trouble over their policy on the NHS work force. That is a problem for all of us and for our constituents, because of all the areas in which it is important for the Government to have a grip of policy, the emergency services in general and the NHS in particular are the most important. We must be sensitive to the difficulties that the Government are experiencing, some of which are not of their making, but it is also important to challenge them to answer all the criticisms of previous policy in this area.
The Government may say that they are not responsible for nurses' pay and that it is a matter for the pay review body. However, as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire clearly explained, the matter should engage us all, because we are responsible for the appropriate spending of Government money, and the Government have clear, although indirect, abilities to influence the matter through the evidence that they give and the climate that they create. I hope that in answering the points that have been raised, the Government will not hide behind the pay review body.
The Minister may say, especially to Conservative Members, that it is no good talking about the need for better pay for nurses without being willing to vote in favour of allocating more money to it. That is a fair point and one that is often made by Ministers in response to such attacks from the Conservative party, but it does not solve the problem of what to do when it is necessary to spend more resources in this area. I supported the announcement of more resources in the last Budget and voted for the tax increase that went along with it. In fact, I stood on a platform of calling for the tax increases that would have made the money available some years ago. More funding is needed to benefit patients, nurses and the economy. The Minister must address that point, rather than simply asking us to will the means as well as the end, because I very much will the means.
In the Government's defence, the Minister can also point to the failure of the Conservative Government to invest in the nursing work force, although that is not especially constructive because it does not help us with the problems that we face today. That defence is much stronger in relation to the problem of the shortage in the medical work force, where the trail time is greater, because it takes so much longer to train medical staff. We are still suffering problems as a result of underinvestment and under-recruitment in the 1990s.
On nursing recruitment, I wish that the Government had acted sooner when they came to power in 1997. There was much talk about hitting the ground running, but there was no real change in the early years of the current Administration and no immediate expansion of training opportunities for nurses to deal with the work force shortage. We are paying the price of the failure by this Government to invest in expanding training opportunities.
I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen), for whom I have great respect, and who brings a great deal of experience to the debate, raise the question of the staging of pay awards. It is a matter of record that pay awards were staged by the Conservative Government in the 1990s. I thought that that was bad at the time, and Labour spokesmen agreed, but the Labour Government did the same thing in 1997.

109WH
The Library note on the subject is clear, stating that nurses were awarded 3.3 per cent. in 1997—the last example of Conservative staging—and that all awards were
"to be staged, with a 2 per cent. increase in April 1997 and the balance of the recommended increases in December 1997".
Traditionally, there has been a Government explanation and a highly critical response from the official Opposition, and that was the case in 1997. Lo and behold, nurses were awarded 3.8 per cent. in 1998, and all awards were
"staged with an increase of 2 per cent. in April 1998 and full implementation in December 1998".
Hypocrisy is an unpleasant word, and one that I suspect you would not want us to use, Mr. Hancock, but to criticise something and then to do it is not a practice of which people should be proud. It is best if Labour Members do not have selective amnesia about the staging of pay awards.
Nurses' pay is not the be-all and end-all of ensuring good recruitment and retention, as has been accepted by all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. We can point to the shambles that was the consultant contract for clear evidence of that. In my correspondence, there was nothing but recognition that pay was not the problem. The pay rise—12 per cent., 19 per cent., or whatever it was—was more than adequate for those people, but the Government were unable to meet their concerns on non-pay issues.
The need for a realistic settlement on pay can be broken down into various matters. Are nurses given fair treatment with their current level of pay? Gender is relevant to that. If men traditionally made up the same proportion of the nursing work force as of the police force, we would not have arrived at such a discrepancy between the pay for this professional group of workers and others that have been more male-dominated.
Have the pay awards been fair in terms of parity with other professionals?
Mr. Lansley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that part of the problem is that, for gender reasons and so on, nurses were historically often regarded as providing the second income for a household? However, in the RCN survey, two-thirds of respondents said that nurses' earnings accounted for half or more of their household income.
Dr. Harris: I agree. I know that the Minister wants time to respond, so I shall condense my comments and go through them more quickly.
Mr. Mike Hancock (in the Chair): I do not think that that is necessary, Dr. Harris. You can make your own speech in your own time.
Dr. Harris: I am grateful to you for defending my honour, Mr. Hancock, but I know that others want to speak.
Does nurses' pay create distortions? Although many nurses are no doubt inappropriately under-graded, some hospitals inflate grades in order to recruit. That may solve the problem of insufficient grading for staff
110WH
who deserve a certain grade, but there will be distortion. People with identical skills and responsibilities will find themselves on different grades.
There is clearly a problem with insufficient and insufficiently sensitive living allowances for nurses. I agree with what the hon. Member for Cambridge said about £600 not going very far in Cambridge: it does not go far in Oxford, either. There should he much more flexibility. If we want to keep to a national pay scale but deal with problems of regional shortages, there must be higher amounts for living allowances and much more flexibility within them so that they are sensitive to regional and sub-regional living costs.
The main issue is recruitment and retention, however, regardless of whether the Government accept my case that nurses suffer from unfairness and insufficient pay. It is a serious problem, which causes serious staff shortages and impacts on patient care, as we have heard from the survey. It also has an unfair impact on our treatment of economies in the developing world, from which we are sucking some of the best trained professionals. We are not taking advantage of nursing skills in refugee and asylum seeker populations, and we spend over the odds—from £500 million to £800 million—to buy back people who have left. That is bad enough from an economic point of view, but it also has an impact on the quality of care, and it is demotivating, as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said.
We have to recognise that nurses have skills that are transferable in the labour market and that we are simply unable to compete, on current levels, with other potential employers. If for no other reason than that, labour market forces must put pressure on the Government to give evidence to the nursing review body to encourage the body to recognise the real problems. All the advantages of the complex tax credits that the Government have introduced are available to nurses in whatever jobs they do, not only to nurses in the NHS. Some of those jobs have greater flexibility in terms of hours.
We must pay attention to the housing shortage. The Government have recently woken up to that problem, although they are five years too late. I question whether there is a joined-up system in respect of housing, because many brownfield sites lie within NHS trusts, which are not acute trusts but community trusts and want the biggest return on land sales. That return may not come from the provision of affordable housing, which other parts of the health economy would want. The NHS has a real problem in responding to housing need.
I finish with a quote from the Secretary of State, who told the Royal College of Nursing at its congress in April 2000:
"We are putting nurses at the centre of the whole modernisation of the NHS,"
and said that because the health service is
"patient centred, it is nurse-centred too."
Those may be just meaningless words, or they could show a real commitment to doing something about the terrible plight of hospitals that are without sufficient nurses, as in my area, and about the unfairness that nurses have to deal with. I hope that they are more than words and that nurses will receive the rewards that they deserve, with the funding that the Government have finally put into the health service.
12.2 pm
Mr. Simon Burns: 1, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on securing this timely and important debate. I also pay tribute to the nursing staff in the NHS, because as the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) said, they are the backbone of the health service. Without them, the health service could not function. All too often, their dedication and the commitment that they give to their vocation are overlooked and forgotten, although many hon. Members and our constituents have personal experience of how they look after people at vulnerable times in our lives.
As the Royal College of Nursing survey said, 63 per cent. of nurses are working in excess of their contracted hours by about seven hours a week, and 25 per cent. of that overtime is not repaid, either in time off in lieu or in money. That is a contributory factor to the nurse shortage in England of about 15,000.
The Minister will say that since September 1999 an extra 20,740 nurses have been employed. The fact remains that, regardless of that achievement, about 15,000 further nurses are needed to meet the increasing health care demands. I suspect that there are problems with filling vacancies for nursing staff in the constituencies of many hon. Members in the Chamber and elsewhere.
The Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS trust covers my constituency. The latest parliamentary answer that I received from the junior Health Minister, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), was about the number of three-month vacancies there to March 2002, which are the latest figures that the Department of Health has. He said that the shortage in terms of all nurses was 20, and equally, the shortage in terms of all qualified nurses was 20. As many hon. Members have said today, nurse vacancies and nurse retention are at the heart of the problem, especially in areas with high living costs.
I suspect that the problem will be further exacerbated if the survey in The Observer last Sunday proves accurate. It showed that the percentage of nurses under the age of 40 who intended to leave the profession in the next five years had risen from 26 per cent. to 29 per cent. Equally worrying is the fact that the average age of those seeking to take up a career in nursing has risen to between 26 and 28 years old. Twenty or 25 years ago, when nursing was seen as a vocation that people would take up on leaving school, that average age was between 16 and 18. The difference is probably due to changes in society, with people wishing to start a family before embarking on a committed career. That is placing a strain on the system.
Pay has a major role to play in the equation of morale, retention, filling vacancies and recruitment. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire said that the Royal College of Nursing had submitted a paper to the independent pay review body, as other interested parties undoubtedly have, including the Government. As he said, the Government's submission to that body is the most important, because they will set the trend and try to point the body in their preferred direction, so far as they can. In drawing up their submission, the Government should understand exactly what is
112WH
happening in the nursing profession, particularly because of the changes and the broadening of the skills and duties expected of nurses.
The introduction of the cost of living supplement has been a small step forward in helping nurses and other important workers on low pay. London has for many years had a weighting allowance to take into account the accepted fact that the costs of housing and living are higher in the capital city. In the home counties and sometimes further afield, living costs, especially of housing, have risen so dramatically that the difference between London and the rest of the country has been minimised. That was true over the last decade in particular, but the trend has been building up gradually over the past two decades. In areas such as Essex, Cambridgeshire and others from which it is possible to commute, the cost of living is significantly higher than in parts of the country that are far from the large metropolitan cities.
If my memory is correct, the cost of living supplement was introduced two years ago. What I found puzzling at the time—and I suspect that the Government did too, as they have remedied it this year—was that Essex was not included, despite the fact that it adjoins London and our house prices, house price inflation and other living costs are extremely high. Hertfordshire received the supplement and I believe that Cambridgeshire did too. Wiltshire and Dorset received it. Essex did not, which seemed a very odd decision. As I say, that decision has been rectified, which is welcome. However, as I said during my intervention on the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), the rules on the boundaries between who qualifies and who does not are too tight and seem unfair. I referred to a constituent who had been an auxiliary nurse for 27 years. Her working life has been dedicated to the national health service but she will not qualify as she does not have the necessary national vocational qualifications.
Mr. Lansley: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to Addenbrooke's hospital? As the hon. Member for Cambridge said, the fact that the cost of living supplement is not available for grades A and B has resulted in a vacancy level for health care assistants of 18 per cent. That is a substantial figure.
Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend is right. I hope that the Minister will reflect carefully on his points and those of the hon. Member for Cambridge. It is not only nurses who contribute to the quality of care in the NHS. The NHS also needs all the people who do other jobs and those people may be living in areas where the cost of living is high.
The Government have introduced the starter home initiative to support key workers. The Minister will note that the initiative applies not only to nurses but to teachers, police, firefighters and some other groups. Although those who qualify will warmly welcome the initiative, I suspect that it will only scratch the surface of the problem. In areas such as London, Chelmsford and Cambridgeshire—where house prices are high, where those prices continue to increase at a rate that is way above the rate of inflation, and where renting private accommodation is equally expensive—the initiative will not help as much as the Government would wish, because of the low number of those who will benefit.

113WH
For example, in Essex, five areas will come under the initiative—Basildon, Braintree, Chelmsford, Harlow and Maldon—but only 76 nurses in those areas, out of a total of just under 6,000, will be able to take part. The Minister would be right to say that some nurses will not wish or need to qualify because they may be married or may be more mature members of the work force who already have a home or an affordable rented property. However, a significant number of people will desperately wish to be part of the initiative and would benefit from it.
Will the Minister consider one other slightly baffling problem? The Royal College of Nursing, nurses themselves and others will say that they need higher levels of pay in recognition of the work that they do and the extended opportunities that are being offered to them.
Nurses are perplexed about the level of funding for agency nurses. Many agency nurses were originally NHS nurses who saw that if they became agency nurses they could work more flexible hours, or even fewer hours, with consider ably more pay. It seems crazy that if we pay on average just over £500 million a year for agency nurses, we could not invest more of that money in NHS nurses as part of the programme to encourage recruitment and retention.
12.15 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on securing the debate. I pay tribute to the balanced way in which he presented his case. He refrained from making any party political points, and I shall try hard to do the same. All hon. Members who spoke in the debate made important, helpful and useful contributions.
I will deal with several points raised by the hon. Gentleman. Any neutral observer listening to him would probably have formed the impression that we were falling down in terms of nurse recruitment at Addenbrooke's—that there were fewer nurses and the vacancy rates were increasing—but the opposite is the case. The figures from 1997 to 2001 show that more than 300 additional nurses were employed by the Addenbrooke's NHS trust and that the vacancy rate fell from just over 16 per cent. to 9 per cent. That rate is far too high and I am certainly not going to say that all the recruitment and retention problems relating to nurses in the NHS have been solved. Quite palpably, those problems have not been solved. I would, however, argue that we are at least heading in the right direction, and it would be wrong to give the opposite impression. He asked in particular about foundation trusts and expressed an interest on behalf of Addenbrooke's in foundation trust status. More details about that status will be available in the near future.
The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) helpfully and kindly, as always, drew attention to some ancient correspondence that I had entered into with him. I have no recollection of that, but the point that he made about the reform of nurses' pay is valid, and I will return to that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) made a good contribution, particularly in drawing attention to the further help for
114WH
student nurses that we are providing for child care costs—nearly £38 a week—which will go a long way. She made several good points and, overall, presented a balanced score card of what has been done and what still needs to be done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) drew attention to what she regards as problems that still need to be addressed in her constituency. I will come to that later.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) started well, but I am afraid that he succumbed to his typically curmudgeonly approach. He simply would not recognise any progress in the NHS if it were tattooed on his forehead, but there we are—we live in hope.
Several hon. Members spoke about the high cost of agency nurses and the problems that that poses for the NHS. Those problems are real, and we are spending far too much on commercial nursing agencies, but costs are coming down. We are making good progress, though not everywhere, and in Oxfordshire, for example, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon will know that progress has been made recently in developing and implementing NHS professionals and significant savings have been produced. That, too, is progress. I am advised that Addenbrooke's is reducing the amount that it spends on commercial agencies, and I hope that that trend continues.
There are two things that we can do to make a difference, in addition to wider points about improving the terms and conditions of NHS nursing staff, to which I shall return shortly. First, NHS professionals should be developed as an alternative to using commercial nursing agencies. That has enormous potential. Secondly, as a parallel development, we need to extend more actively throughout the NHS in England the benefits that we have already obtained in London from the London agency project. That is a better form of procurement for when we have to use commercial agencies. That certainly has benefits for the NHS. I think that, overall, those two initiatives will help in the long and medium term.
A number of key themes have emerged in the debate. We certainly need to get more nurses working in the NHS—that is common ground among all of us—and we are making progress with that. There have been many references to the figures. Since 1997, an extra 39,500 nurses have been recruited to the NHS. That figure takes into account those who have left, so that is a net increase of 39,500. However, we need to go further still. That is why the Budget settlement—a very good one for the NHS—will allow us to recruit 35,000 more nurses by 2008 than were working in the NHS in 2001.
As well as increasing the number of staff working in the NHS, we are also increasing the number of training places for students. Meeting those targets will be key to delivering longer-term sustained growth in the nursing profession. The NHS plan target is for 5,500 more nurses and midwives to enter training each year by 2004 than there were in 1999. We have already increased numbers by more than 3,000, and we are on course to deliver the target.
It is encouraging to note that applications for nurse diploma courses have nearly doubled in recent years, and nursing degrees are now the second most popular

115WH
university course in the country. Those are both positive developments, which show that we are at least moving in the right direction. Nursing is seen as an increasingly attractive career for young people, and that is important. We need to encourage that development at every turn.
Those increases in training mean that, by 2008, 60 per cent. more nurses will qualify each year than qualified this year, for example. However, we also need to encourage nurses who are already qualified to return to the NHS, because those nurses represent an extremely valuable resource and have experience. Since February 1999, more than 11,900 nurses, midwives and health visitors have returned to the NHS, and we need to continue promoting the ways in which qualified staff can return.
Increasing recruitment is only part of the solution. We also need to take action to retain those experienced nurses who are already working in the NHS. Obviously, pay forms an important part of getting that right, but as the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon said, other issues matter to nurses too. Such issues include, for example, better resources going into the front line to help them to do the job more effectively. We are trying to do that. Help with child care, more opportunities to develop skills, a better career structure, and measures to tackle violence against staff are important, and I am glad to say that we are taking action on all those subjects.
The Government are also committed to making the NHS a more attractive place in which to work. We can do that by offering better working conditions and improving lifelong learning opportunities—and offering improved child care support in order to help our employees balance work with their family commitments. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire is almost certainly aware, because he rightly takes a close interest in the work of the NHS locally, that Addenbrooke's hospital operates one of the largest child care facilities in the NHS, with 240 on-site nursery places.
Our campaign to improve the working lives of NHS staff lies at the heart of the drive to ensure that there are enough well qualified and motivated people in place to deliver the quality of health care envisaged in the NHS plan. Improving working lives places expectations on employers to support staff, promote their welfare and development, and respect their desire to have a healthy balance between work and life outside work.
I want to make it clear that the Government are committed to modernising the NHS pay system. As a number of hon. Members referred to the subject, it would be only right to draw attention to what the minimum starting salary for a grade D nurse was in 1997, and what it is in 2002. On 31 March 1997, a newly qualified grade D nurse starting work in the NHS earned just under £12,000 a year. On 1 April 2002, she would be earning £16,005 a year. That is a cash increase of 35 per cent. and a real terms increase of 16 per cent. I do not want to break my self-imposed discipline of not being party political, but that is nearly three times the rate of growth for the salary of newly qualified nurses that was experienced under the previous Conservative
116WH
Administration. By any reasonable yardstick, our commitment to NHS pay, and especially nurses' pay, stands credible comparison.
As many hon. Members have said, however, we should go further. An independent pay review body has recommended the pay of nurses, midwives and health visitors since 1984. It makes its recommendations after considering evidence submitted from the Government, staff and professional organisations, and NHS employer organisations. For the past four years, the Government have implemented in full the recommendations of the pay review body and avoided the need to stage pay awards, which is an important objective.
Since 1997, real progress has been made in improving nurses' pay. Pay has increased across the board for all nurses and midwives by at least 26 per cent. in cash terms. Some grades of staff have been targeted for larger increases: I have already drawn attention to the starting salary of newly qualified nurses, which has risen by 35 per cent. over the same period. We also introduced the new post of nurse consultant to provide opportunities for staff at the top of the profession to continue to be involved in clinical work rather than moving into management. Nurse consultants can earn more than £46,000: a huge extension to the nursing career structure.
In response to the recommendations of the review body, this year nurses were once again awarded pay increases well ahead of inflation—an increase of 3.6 per cent. was implemented in April when the headline rate of inflation was only 1.5 per cent. We have taken additional action to support clinical leaders who are taking on more responsibilities. The starting pay of nurse consultants was increased by 15 per cent. and staff who took on modern matron roles—who have an important role to play in the NHS—had access to additional pay points worth at least 6.5 per cent.
We also took action to boost the pay of approximately 40,000 unregistered nursing support staff—a theme of the contribution of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns)—by guaranteeing a minimum cash increase of £400 a year. The increase can be up to 4.3 per cent. We have taken further action to encourage the culture of learning and development among non-registered staff. For example, we introduced an additional increment at the top of the pay scale for staff who have recently achieved national vocational qualifications. That increased by approximately 7 per cent. this year the pay of some nursing support staff who, as the hon. Gentleman said, do an important job in the NHS.
Those increases are all concrete and positive signs of the Government's commitment to improving nurses' pay. However, the Government recognise the particular problems of recruiting and retaining nurses and other staff in London and high-cost areas in the south of England, where, clearly, accommodation costs are high and where there are conditions of nearly full employment. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire have rightly drawn attention to those issues, which are a problem throughout the public sector in London and the south-east. The Government are carefully considering what further action can be taken. For example, we have introduced new cost of living supplements for qualified nurses. The hon. Member for

117WH
West Chelmsford was highly critical of that initiative for not reaching enough staff. It focused on helping to solve some of the recruitment difficulties that are particularly associated with professionally qualified staff.
Mr. Burns: I am sorry if the Minister thought that I was being highly critical—I was simply trying to add weight to the point made by the hon. Member for Cambridge. The Government should reconsider widening the initiative to include other nursing staff and workers in the NHS on low pay. I was not trying to be highly critical.
Mr. Hutton: I stand corrected. However, in future the issue will be dealt with as part of the agenda for change negotiations.
Clearly, the Government can help with some problems in the NHS and not with others. The high cost of housing is a difficult problem and although we have done good work in the past two years in improving the number of low-cost additional units available for nursing and other NHS staff in London and across the south-east, I would be the first to accept that more needs to be done. We have had some progress, especially in Cambridgeshire, where 17 two-bedroom self-contained flats and six homes have been made available for local staff.
I have not had time to mention everything this morning, but I wish to say something about agenda for change, because many hon. Members have referred to it and it is important for the future. Nurses and other NHS staff clearly deserve to be paid fairly. Investment in pay, like every other area of future NHS spending, must pass a fundamental acid test: it must contribute to expansion in NHS capacity, bring about increases in NHS productivity and deliver improved NHS performance. We are working closely with the trade unions, professional organisations, the other UK Health Departments and NHS employer representatives to agree a new pay system for the NHS based on our agenda for change proposals.
The new pay system that is under discussion will have clear benefits for nurses and other NHS staff. Pay modernisation should ensure that nurses are rewarded fairly for the job that they do and for the skills and knowledge that their work requires. It will lead to an NHS in which staff are paid according to the work that they do, rather than, as at present, the job title that they hold. The nurse who takes on more responsibility or an extended role will get more pay. It will also support a better system of career progression by removing the artificial career ceilings associated with some parts of the current nurse clinical grading system.

Organ Retention
12.30 pm
Keith Vaz: I am pleased but saddened to raise the case of my former constituent, John Hall, who passed away on 3 June 1992. He was a brave man; like millions of his fellow citizens he served his country as a member of the armed services. He was a local councillor in Leicester, and subsequently in Leicestershire. His wife was a justice of the peace and served for a year as the lady mayoress of Leicester. They had three sons—Colin, Ian and Mark.
I have raised the case of John Hall before in the House—on 25 February 1992. I did so because John was a nuclear test veteran. He was born in Burnhope in county Durham, and he moved to Leicester in 1961. He joined the Royal Air Force in 1956, and he was an electrical mechanic who served with 76 squadron of the RAF, which did all the sampling of nuclear tests in the 1950s. The squadron was responsible for flying through the bomb clouds to pick up samples of radiated particles, and he was employed as an aircraft electrician serving the Canberra bombers used for that purpose. He served at RAF Edinburgh Field from 8 October 1957 until 19 August 1958, during which time he was detached with the squadron to Christmas island in the Pacific ocean from 3 March until 19 May 1958 for Operation Grapple Y. The squadron had gone there for the H-bomb test of 28 April 1958.
John Hall was treated for high-grade B-cell non-Hodgkins lymphoma, and subsequently for hairy-cell leukaemia. He received chemotherapy and other treatment at the local hospitals in Leicester.
I raised this case on the previous occasion because of the ongoing campaign for compensation for nuclear-test veterans. I do not wish to dwell on the history of that campaign because it has been aired on several occasions in the House, and it has been the subject of petitions to Ministers. Just before John Hall died, I had a meeting with the former Prime Minister, the then Member of Parliament for Huntingdon, Mr. John Major. Defence Ministers have also been involved in the matter, and the campaign continues. I pay tribute to the nuclear test veterans for the work that they have done, and to the newspapers that have supported them—The People, The Independent and, most recently, The Mirror.
The importance of Mr. Hall's case in the context of the previous campaign lies in what happened to his wife Marilyn a few weeks ago. I attended the funeral of John Hall, which took place in June 1992, as did many thousands of people from Leicester. I thought that the matter had then ended. However, a few weeks ago, I visited Marilyn and Colin Hall at their home. Marilyn burst into tears. She had just received a letter from the Leicester royal infirmary informing her that, when her husband died, his brain was removed, as were the other parts of his body that form tissue blocks, and that they had been retained at the hospital. The letter continued to say that the brain was disposed of seven years later through what the hospital described as the "hospital system". It was clearly shocking for the family to receive such a letter. Mrs. Hall has been so distressed that she could not be present to listen to the debate, but her son is watching our proceedings.

119WH
The tragedy of the case is that, after people bury their loved ones, they feel that that is the end of the matter. They do not believe, even in their wildest imagination, that years later they will discover that they have buried a person without his brain or other parts of his body. Marilyn Hall discovered what had happened only because she had listened to a programme on BBC Radio Leicester that featured another person talking about organ retention. That is why she wrote in.
The hospital did not offer to visit Mrs. Hall. It did not tell her in person about the terrible situation after it discovered that the brain had been removed and disposed of. It just wrote to her, and I have checked the facts because there was dispute about them.
Several questions arise from the case that affect not only my constituent, but people throughout the country. I am worried about the subject because my wife and I had a stillborn child in 1993. I discovered only while researching for this debate that the bodies of stillborn children were retained by several hospitals. I wonder what happened to the body of my child in 1993, and others will be worried about what happened to their loved ones.
I know what the Government have done about organ retention, and I pay enormous tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister, her team, previous Ministers and previous Secretaries of State for the way in which they reacted thoroughly to the Bristol case, its aftermath and the inquiry into it. That case primarily related to children's heart surgery and, at that time, everybody started to talk about organ retention. The case followed the inquiry into practice at Alder Hey children's hospital in Liverpool where it seemed that the retention of organs was especially common. There was a subsequent census by the chief medical officer of all organs and tissues retained.
The census showed that approximately 54,300 organs, body parts, stillbirths or foetuses were held by pathology services at the end of 1999. They had been retained from post mortems that occurred between 1970 and 1999. The holdings of 25 of the 220 national health service trusts and medical schools—12 per cent.— accounted for 88 per cent. of the total retentions. Nearly half the retained organs were brains, and a sixth were hearts. A total of 2,900 stillbirths or pre-viable foetuses were held. Organs were retained from 17,800 adults and 9,800 from children aged one to five, infants, stillborn babies or foetuses.
Several recommendations were proposed, and the Government accepted them all in full. I have enormous respect for my hon. Friend the Minister and I am sure that she will tell us about the good work that has been done on the code of practice and about changes made over the past 10 years. We accept that and welcome it. However, this case raises new questions. I am worried—I am sure that other hon. Members will be worried— about the number of members of the public who will contact hospitals after hearing about the case. We thought that the findings of the census would be the end of the matter.
eWhen I met the health trust a few months ago, it assured me that it had searched through its files, cupboards and laboratories and it said that there was
120WH
nothing left. However, Marilyn Hall was shocked to learn that information about John's brain had been discovered. When she asked why the brain had been taken, the hospital replied that it did not have any notes on the brain. We then asked how, if the hospital did not have any notes, it could know that the brain had been disposed off.
Can my hon. Friend the Minister produce the note that led the hospital to confirm that it had the brain in the first place and that the brain was subsequently disposed of? Secondly, what does disposal in the hospital system mean? We know that the brain was not buried with the body and that the tissue blocks are still with the royal infirmary. Surely the hospital should have come forward at some time during the seven years, told Mrs. Hall that it had discovered the brain and asked her what she wanted to do with it. She would most probably have replied that she wanted a reburial.
We are not talking about a small organ. I checked with the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor), who is the only doctor I know in the House. He told me that the brain is almost the same size as our skulls and that our skulls are comparatively thin. The brain is therefore a large organ. It is not easy to take such an organ from the laboratory or wherever the hospital was keeping it, put it somewhere else and then dispose of it. Was the brain buried? Where was it put? Was it incinerated? Are there any incineration records? Mrs. Hall and her family need to know the answer to those questions because that would reassure them about what has happened.
Can we now have an immediate audit of all the laboratories and all the facilities in Leicester so that no one else will get the terrible surprise that Mrs. Hall and her family have had to face? The brain was removed at the time when everyone knew that John Hall was a nuclear test veteran. We also know that a Ministry of Defence official attended the inquest because John served on Christmas island. Did the MOD have anything to do with the retention of his brain? Did it carry out any tests? Did it receive a report? Clearly if we are trying to make out a case that the leukaemia was caused by what happened on Christmas island, the retention of—and tests on—this organ was important. What was the involvement of the MOD? I will not accept the excuse that we sometimes hear that this is a matter involving the security or intelligence services. We want the facts about MOD involvement.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister meet urgently with her counterpart in the Home Office to discuss how coroners are involved in the system? The hospital says, "It is not our fault; the coroner made the order." Mrs. Hall did not consent. The hospital says that the issue is not about consent, but about whether a person objects. Bereaved people do not think about such things at the time. Why did the coroner make that decision? Can we have the coroner's files? Can we know who the coroner was? Can we know why he called the Ministry of Defence? Can we have all that information? I know that my hon. Friend cannot give us that information because it is held by the Home Office, but I do not want to hear her say that it is a matter for another Department. We want the facts of the case. We want to know what is happening.

121WH
As a general point, let us have better liaison between the coroners service and the health service. We know that the responsibilities of one stops and the other starts, but a great mystery surrounds coroners. I know that we watch "Silent Witness" on a Sunday night and see the work that Amanda Burton does. I wish that all the coroners and all the people associated with pathology were like those whom we see on television, but frankly, they are not. We do not know who they are, yet they make crucial decisions that affect the lives of people.
Finally, we need the Minister's assurance that there will be an inquiry. I know that it would be helpful to meet others to discuss the situation on the family's behalf, but they have had enough of meetings. They want to know the facts. They want an inquiry into the whole issue, and they want these matters brought to our attention. We know that the situation has changed and that things have become better, but we want to ensure that the truth comes out, not only for Marilyn Hall, but for people like me and my wife and the thousands of others who will hear about this case and be anxious about what might happen. The bodies of dead people need to be treated with respect, and especially that of John Hall given his record of service to the country. I knew John Hall, so in a sense this case matters more to me than some others. Dead bodies should not be hacked about in such a way, taken to pieces, and left in different parts of the home city, as they were in the case John Hall. I want to know what my hon. Friend the Minister will say about that, but I assure her that the matter will not stop here. We intend to pursue it until we get to the truth.
12.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) has secured an extremely important debate. I am very aware of the keen interest that he has taken in the case of the late Mr. Hall, and that he has sought further information about the disposal of Mr. Hall's brain and other tissues. My hon. Friend has pursued the matter through a wide range of channels on behalf of Mr. Hall's family, and has raised important and pertinent questions. I will do my best to respond to them. There may well be matters of detail that I will need to follow up after the debate, but I give my hon. Friend my undertaking that I shall pursue the matter and ensure that he receives answers to his questions on behalf of the family.
I take this opportunity to acknowledge the distress that this series of events has caused Mr. Hall's family. The recent discovery that Mr. Hall's organs and tissues had been retained by Leicester royal infirmary is of tremendous and understandable concern, especially as it came to light 10 years after Mr. Hall's death. I have had policy responsibility for this matter for the past 12 months, and I have met several families, especially in the Liverpool area, who have been involved with the issue of retained organs. I have met members of the various campaign groups, and have had first-hand experience of the depth of suffering, anguish and distress that many of those families have experienced as a result of the discovery that they made about the tissues and organs of members of their family. It is hard to overestimate the effect that that has had on families.
122WH
I want to set out the information that I have on why Mr. Hall's brain and other tissues were retained by the Leicester royal infirmary. I am advised that his brain was removed on 5 June 1992, at the request of the local coroner, so as to hold an inquest. The law provides that the coroner can request the retention of any organs or body tissue that may assist with an inquest. I also understand that following the coroner's inquest, the late Mr. Hall's brain was transferred to the Leicester royal infirmary's histopathology department, and booked into the neuropathology department on 12 June 1992. An histology sample was taken at that point, and the remainder of the brain was stored in the tissue store until it was disposed of by, I am told, incineration—which was the normal hospital practice—on 13 December 1993.
There is a lengthy gap between 12 June 1992 and December 1993,and it is right to ask why the brain was kept for such a long period after the inquest. The disposal of Mr. Hall's brain was carried out in accordance with the protocols that pertained in the hospital at that time. My hon. Friend has gone through the history relating to the inquiry by the chief medical officer and the recommendations of the Alder Hey report, but every one of us would acknowledge that past systems were not perfect. They did not function in a way that recognised the dignity and the rights of the individuals and families concerned. That was the widespread practice throughout the country; it does not apply just to Leicester.
The Government take the matter seriously and have taken action to ensure that, in future, the systems work for people in local communities. Too often, consent was not sought. Partly as a result of a paternalistic system that attempted to protect people, such issues were not raised in discussions and in consultation between clinicians and families so routine consent was not sought. I stress that we have acted to ensure that that is no longer the case and, in every case, families must give their informed consent. That is the bottom line.
The law allows the coroner specifically to request the retention of organs or tissue to establish the cause of death. As my hon. Friend says, consent is not a requirement; it is a matter for the coroner to carry out an investigation. Systems need to be improved so that families are part of the process, and do not feel that people are riding roughshod over them.
The law governing organ and tissue retention—in particular, the Human Tissue Act 1961—is unclear, ambiguous and outdated. The law has, in any event, been poorly understood and, as a result, it has not been applied well. Custom and practice developed within the framework of the law and relied too heavily on the traditional attitudes of the people involved in a paternalistic system. The benefits of teaching and research were recognised, but the wishes and feelings of families were not sufficiently balanced with the need for teaching and research. The balance in the previous system was wrong.
The removal and use of tissue samples and organs in medical research and education has significant implications for everyone's health. The development of new drug therapies, the diagnosis of existing conditions and the training of medical professionals rely heavily on the donation of tissue and organs. Many people are happy to donate organs if that has been discussed with

123WH
them and they are able freely and properly to consent to it. However, as this case illustrates, in the past, families were not always asked for their consent. That is why things went wrong.
In March 2000, we began to reform matters dramatically, setting out interim guidance to try to ensure that, from that point onwards, appropriate consent was given for hospital post-mortem examinations and for the retention of organs. That was followed up last year with further advice about the removal, retention and use of human organs and tissue, and 17 recommendations were made to change the practice and culture across the NHS. Major changes are now being proposed in the way that consent is sought. Families have had an input into the codes of practice that have been developed to work practically. There will be new regulatory controls and a wholly new framework of law for the system.
My hon. Friend raised the role of the coroner, which is most important. I am pleased to be able to tell him that part of the programme of work being carried out in response to the chief medical officer's recommendations is a review led by the Home Office in close contact with the Department of Health about the operation of the coroners service. The systems should not operate in isolation. They should be integrated and form part of the same framework and ethos that we are trying to establish in the health service.
Keith Vaz: I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend, and I am grateful for the information that she has provided. However, I raised several specific points about this case. If she does not have time to reply to all of them, will she agree to meet Mrs. Hall, her family and me in the near future so that the rest of the answers can be given? The problem with ministerial replies is that they raise more questions that require still further debate. It would save time if we could meet in the near future.
On another important point, is my hon. Friend satisfied that today no organs that are unaccounted for are retained at the Leicester royal infirmary?
Ms Blears: On my hon. Friend's last point, understand that 142 organs are retained by the university hospitals of Leicester and the NHS trust. It is the role of the Retained Organs Commission, which was established by the Government, to carry out an audit of where organs are located throughout the country and to assist the trusts and families in organising the sensitive return of organs when the families want that. The system works through families contacting the trusts to make inquiries about whether any organs are held. A search is then carried out of all the relevant databases to establish whether organs are held, and that is followed by a proper discussion with the families to find out what they want done with the tissues, blocks, slides, organs and so forth. Do they want a burial or would they rather that the hospital disposed of the remains? Everything is done very sensitively.
124WH
Let me make it clear to Mr. Hall's family that, if they wish, the Retained Organs Commission can get in touch with them. Part of its role is to act as an advocate for families in these difficult circumstances and to discuss problems with the hospitals.
Keith Vaz: We will discuss this case with the commission, but the family would like to meet my hon. Friend the Minister. I know how busy she is, but these matters must be resolved. They have dragged on for 10 years. If the questions cannot be answered today, it would be helpful to arrange such a meeting.
Ms Blears: My ministerial colleague, the parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), is in charge of this policy area. If outstanding matters remain, I am sure that a meeting could be arranged, but I can provide my hon. Friend with further information today. I am advised that the normal system used was incineration and that the organ was disposed of in accordance with normal protocols. I shall press the hospital to establish what records are available and when notes were made.
As to the Ministry of Defence, I am advised that it did not contact the trust or the coroner at any time, and I can supply that information to my hon. Friend today. I have already dealt with the Home Office review and I can confirm that close and ongoing work and liaison between the Department of Health and the Home Office is taking place and will continue in respect of this matter.
Over the past few years, the Retained Organs Commission has acquired a wealth of experience in helping families in these circumstances and it would be more than happy to get in touch with the family and liaise with the trust on its behalf to acquire any further helpful information.
Finally, we have issued a consultation document, "Human Bodies, Human Choices", which is all about advancing a fundamental review of the law in this sphere. Several workshops that included family members were conducted, so it is not a matter of only the Government making proposals. We are going out to people and asking what would work for them in the future. The consultation period ended in the middle of October and we are examining what we can do now to proceed as quickly as possible. Families want the recommendations of the chief medical officer enshrined in a whole new legal framework. I am acutely aware of the distress, trauma and pain caused to hundreds of families up and down the country. Clearly, Mr. Hall's family is feeling that pain. We are determined to ensure that this difficult and sensitive matter is handled properly in future, and that Mrs. Hall's legitimate concerns are answered as far as possible by giving the family a clear picture of what happened and information about why and what they can do now to ensure that any remaining tissues are disposed of as sensitively as possible.
Mr. Mike Hancock (in the Chair): I thank the Minister for her reply. If there is further information on the points raised by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), it would be helpful if it were placed in the Library. It would be beneficial if as much information as possible were available on this issue.

Local Government Finance (Norfolk)
1 pm
Mr. Keith Simpson: I am greatly obliged for the opportunity to speak on this important subject, not only for my constituents but for those of parliamentary colleagues.
This debate is part of a wider campaign for a fair deal for Norfolk and it has all-party support. I am very grateful for the attendance of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) and the hon. Members for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright). All the Norfolk Members of Parliament support the campaign, and I am sure that at some stage the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, will, perhaps behind the scenes, press Norfolk's case.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), will concentrate in his reply on the specifics to do with Norfolk. I think that, within reason, all hon. Members are aware of the general background. I attended the ministerial briefing last month, for which I was grateful. The Minister gave a lot of time to members of all parties on the consultation paper.
I make no bones about the fact that this debate is part of a Norfolk lobby aimed at influencing the Government's provisional announcement at the beginning of December. As politicians, we all learn that it is no good making a noise after a decision has been made; it is best to do so before.
In many ways, understanding local government finance is like Palmerston's famous comment about the Schleswig-Holstein question: only three people knew about it; one was dead, one was mad, and the third had forgotten what the question was. This is a horrendously complex subject. There has been wide agreement that the current system needs changing, but that does not mean that the Government's wide range of options has met with universal approval.
One problem that I want to flag up straight away is that there has been considerable uncertainty because of the range of options. That has made it exceptionally difficult for Norfolk county council and the district councils to plan ahead for the next year; budget decisions have to be made now.
I deal now with the question of fair funding for Norfolk. The Minister will be aware that counties as a group do not do well out of current arrangements, and that historically—not only under this Government, but under previous Governments—Norfolk has received below county average standard spending assessment per head of population. The gap between Norfolk and the county average produces a shortfall in funding of almost £10 million a year, which is equivalent to 5 per cent. in council tax.
We all agree that the old SSA system needed to be changed. Indeed, Norfolk county council and the district councils have warmly welcomed the Government's attempts in that regard and have fully participated in the research. The real question is fairness. When we examine the formula proposals in detail, we feel that they do not impact fairly across the
126WH
regions or the types of authorities. There seems to be a range of potential outcomes. There are some 80 different options in the Government's proposals. Depending on how they are balanced, under the new formula proposals Norfolk could in theory gain £28 million. However, it could lose £33 million. The county council certainly fears that we shall be in the category of net loss rather than net gain, and that is before we consider the major funding pressures that it is already under.
The county council has identified cost pressures for the years 2003–04 at £47.9 million in mid-September. Since September a further £2.8 million of mainly Government-driven changes has been added, making the current total slightly more than £50 million. There are major sources of funding pressure. The impact on council tax of £50 million of additional pressure equates to an increase in that tax of nearly 19 per cent.
We must also bear in mind one of the main thrusts of the Government's policy—resource equalisation. In many respects that is the most contentious element in the proposals. Most of the Members of Parliament in Norfolk, let alone the eastern region, see that as a technical way of transferring more resources to high-spending councils in other parts of the United Kingdom. That alone could lose Norfolk county £10 million, and Norfolk police authority £1.5 million. The consequences for the county are, therefore, enormous.
Mr. Henry Bellingham rose—
Mr. Anthony D. Wright rose—
Mr. Mike Hancock (in the Chair): Order. Before I take interventions, it is the custom of the House, and the Speaker requires it, that Members who wish to make interventions should inform the hon. Member who secured the debate, the Minister and the Chairman. At this stage, only one Member has notified me of his wish to intervene. If Members wish to intervene, they should observe the courtesies of the House.
Mr. Bellingham: I apologise, Mr.Hancock, for not informing you first. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend would elaborate on his point about policing. That point is of great importance to North-West Norfolk, because of the fens project, a tripartite scheme with Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire. That project shares resources and intelligence, and was set up in the aftermath of the Tony Martin case. If the funds are not forthcoming for that project, it will probably collapse. That would be a disaster for my constituency, and for that of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard).
Mr. Simpson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. Norfolk has benefited from the rural policing grant that was introduced in 2000–01, gaining £2 million as a result. The new proposals consolidate the RPG into a general funding formula, but at too low a level-1 per cent. rather than 1.4 per cent. As a result, the grant for rural police authorities will be reduced, which will have a major impact on nearly all our constituencies.
Mr. Anthony D. Wright: I also apologise, Mr. Hancock, for not mentioning to you that I wished to intervene. I did not mean to be discourteous.

127WH
Over the past few years we have seen a growth in resources for the police and education, and we fear that the new formula will turn the clocks back, and perhaps make the situation worse than it was previously. We want to see the current growth as a burden on the government grants system rather than on the individual ratepayers of Norfolk and of my constituency, Great Yarmouth.
Mr. Simpson: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. There may be other parts of the country that have requirements, but Norfolk's existing resources are likely to be taken away. The situation could get worse. The figures given earlier assume a 3 per cent. floor, yielding approximately £12 million. The Government have guaranteed that the grant for 2002–03 will be no less, in cash terms.
Norman Lamb: I want to reiterate the concern about matching the grant for last year. That sounds great, but in practice it could be a disaster. Increases in salaries and national insurance, and extra burdens such as recycling, will substantially increase the base cost for local authorities. It is therefore essential that we receive more than last year, rather than simply keeping pace with it.
Mr. Simpson: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: If Mr. Hancock will allow it, will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Mike Hancock (in the Chair): The hon. Gentleman is being extraordinarily patient with everyone.
Mrs. Shephard: This is an all-Norfolk, and indeed an all-party occasion. If the Government kept their promise of guaranteeing no less a grant in cash terms than for 2002, what does my hon. Friend think that would mean in terms of an increase in council tax for the people of Norfolk? It is an empty promise, because the increased pressure to spend would mean an increase in council tax.
Mr. Simpson: Once again, my right hon. Friend presses me on the figures. In the worst-case scenario, Norfolk would be £12 million worse off. That would mean a further 6 per cent. increase in council tax, making a total increase of about 24 per cent. That would be politically unacceptable, if not political suicide. It is a major problem.
Next is the question of predictability. Even the floor of 3 per cent. might be in place for only one year. The Government have not yet confirmed how long it will continue, and it may not be enough to compensate for formula terms.
I turn briefly to the equally important question of fair funding for Norfolk's policy authority. The current funding system once again means that the average funding per head of population in the most rural counties, including Norfolk, is £3.23 a head below the
128WH
national average. If Norfolk police were funded to the average shire level, it would have received £2.6 million a year. The current council tax precepts for policing show that taxpayers in the most rural police authority areas pay £14 a year more than in urban areas. Why?
Mr. Richard Bacon (South Norfolk): My hon. Friend makes a good point about rural police forces. Is he aware that Norfolk constabulary, whose new headquarters is in my constituency, faces additional spending pressures of up to £9.5 million, most of which is statutorily required, and that it estimates it will receive between £300,000 more and £6 million less? How are we supposed to make up the difference?
Mr. Simpson: The options available to the county and the police authority are simple. First, they can try to be more efficient, and it is fair to say that Norfolk county council, the district councils and the police authority are driving as hard as they can to make efficiency savings. Their second choice would be to make cuts, which would be politically unacceptable. Thirdly, the council tax would have to be increased by so much that that, too, would be politically unacceptable.
The notional cost of the loss of £6 million for the police authority mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) would equal 200 policemen. However, the county council and the police authority are already under considerable pressure, without looking to the future and considering the impact of the Government's new formula. My hon. Friend touched on the fact that all those authorities already face new statutory burdens, rightly introduced by the Government to raise standards. For example, as employers, the county council and the police authority will suffer the impact of increased national insurance contributions, which will cost them £800,000 next year.
I want to leave the Minister plenty of time to reply, but in closing I want to return to an important point touched upon by several of my hon. Friends. The. Minister for Local Government and the Regions—I see that he is responsible also for fire fighting, which is a happy combination—wrote a letter to the Eastern Daily Press on 2 November. That was just after I heard I had been given this Adjournment debate—another happy connection. In that letter, he wrote:
"It seems that councils in the county"—
Norfolk—
"are unaware of the guarantee I have made to local government that no local authority will get less grant than they got last year on a like-for-like basis".
That sounds like good news, but when we examine those words in detail—the hon. Member for North Norfolk alluded to this—we find that they are slightly misleading, to say the least. First, the guarantee appears to be for only one year, which is pretty limited. Secondly, the Government have budgeted for an increase in money to local government, but they expect councils to spend more than the amount of that grant on public services. Thirdly, as we all know, much of the money that goes to councils is ring-fenced, so they have little flexibility. The situation reminds me of the old Sam Goldwyn comment that a verbal guarantee is not worth the paper it is written on.
The Minister must be aware that Norfolk took a positive attitude when it entered the discussions on reforming local government finance. When it examined

129WH
the options, however, it concluded that, whatever the criteria, it would be at the end of the spectrum where the figures came with minus signs attached. Those Members who are present believe that that is unfair, and I look to the Minister to come up with some hard facts to reassure us. When the proposals are announced at the beginning of December, I hope that we will be able to say that Norfolk has got a fair deal. At the moment, the suspicion is that it has not.
1.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on securing the debate, not least because the subject has exercised almost every Member of Parliament. Indeed, we have already had a detailed and lengthy debate in the main Chamber about the formula grant review.
Many hon. Members are rightly extremely concerned about funding for their local services, and such issues are raised in many of our surgeries. The hon. Gentleman said that the debate was a shameless lobbying exercise on behalf of Norfolk, and it has been very successful, judging by the turnout of Opposition Members representing Norfolk and the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth ( Mr. Wright).
I shall deal with the specifics of Norfolk in a moment. The hon. Gentleman suggested that everyone was familiar with the broader issue, but it is worth touching on some general aspects of local government funding and on our intentions for change. I shall not repeat much of what I said in the main Chamber, but I should emphasise that we shall see the demise of the old standard spending assessment—the SSA system. We want to move away from the practice of central Government telling local authorities that their spending should or should not be at a particular level. We want to find ways of giving them greater freedoms and greater flexibility so that they can be more directly accountable to local people. That means that we must get away from the SSA system and focus on how we divide up grant—the money that actually goes to local authorities. The SSA system will be no more.
Even if more money is available to authorities—and it will be, given the announcements made in the spending review—they will not all be able to have a bigger slice of the cake, because that is statistically impossible. It is therefore unsurprising that the Government have received strong representations from many authorities. We want to consider the relative circumstances of different authorities, and to try as best we can to base decisions on need. We will consider several different factors to determine grant.
The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) queried the guarantee that we have been able to give so far that there will be no cash loss, on a like-for-like basis, for particular authorities. That does not mean that it is the optimum guarantee; it is the
130WH
minimum guarantee that we can give while we are still gathering statistical evidence to produce the formula. We hope to do much better.
Mrs. Shephard: That was not the point. I was asking what the impact would he on the Norfolk council tax payer if the Government managed to keep the guarantee.
Mr. Leslie: As I say, I hope that we can do better than the no cash loss guarantee. I shall mention later the extra education money that we have allocated. That has enabled us to guarantee a real terms increase in education services. That is the largest component of the formula grant review.
I must record my appreciation for Norfolk county council's work with the county council network in devising some of the formula options that we have discussed. It helped to commission research on formula change to distribute mental health service moneys, and on how to take account of additional costs associated with providing home care services in rural areas. The research and its implications have been considered carefully and are reflected in the options that are in the consultation package with which hon. Members are familiar.
Norman Lamb: The Minister mentioned the cost of services in rural areas. The rural services partnership, which represents the 50 most rural councils in the country, is concerned that inadequate attention is being given to rural deprivation. It is often hidden, but it does exist in Norfolk. It is essential for any new formula to take account of such concerns.
Mr. Leslie: That is a fair point, particularly as far as education funding is concerned. A number of authorities serve sparsely populated areas, so the Government think that the formula should reflect sparsity, as it affects the cost of home to school transport in rural areas and the help required for rural primary schools. In the course of research, we found that sparsity may make a difference in respect of primary schools but the case is less clear in respect of secondary schools. There is likely to be as many small secondary schools in densely populated metropolitan areas as there are in shire counties such as Norfolk. Nevertheless, we recognise that secondary school pupils often have to travel further to get to school in sparsely populated areas, which is why we have examined our transport expenditure options. We hope that the new formula will cover 60 per cent. of the transport element of the LEA block through the sparsity index and 40 per cent. through the number of pupils covered by the authority. That will reflect the high levels of transport expenditure in sparsely populated LEA areas such as Norfolk.
The Government want a fairer, clearer system justified by the educational needs of children and based on the evidence of cost and need. I can give a commitment that no local authority schools will lose out in real terms. In addition, all local education authorities will benefit from increased funding over the next three years, following the Chancellor's spending review announcements.
Mr. Simpson: Does the Minister know whether the Government will compensate the county council for the

131WH
increase in teachers' pension contributions? Giving welcome money with one hand and taking it away with the other will have a major impact on the education budget.
Mr. Leslie: I often find Conservative Members arguing for higher and higher public expenditure. That is understandable in many respects. We intend to ensure that, where appropriate, we reflect additional pay costs. The additional costs adjustment is controversial among many MPs, but we will take pay costs into account. Deprivation is also extremely important, and we would not want our debate to go by without considering additional educational needs and the education spend. The options that we set out in the consultation paper reflect several variants on how deprivation can be taken into account, and we intend to introduce a phasing-in period for some of the proposed changes.
I appreciate that expenditure on policing is an issue close to the hearts of all our constituents. The aim of the police formula review is to develop a robust mechanism for distributing Government grant fairly and simply. There are many different pressures in rural and metropolitan areas, and we are anxious to do our best to allocate resources as fairly as we can. Any extremes at either end of the options illustrated in the consultation package will be tempered by the floors-and-ceilings mechanism with which hon. Members are familiar. Of course, those floors and ceilings are applied after the calculation of the grant, and announcements on that will be made shortly. However, it is important to remember that we are taking decisions against a background of substantial increases in expenditure on the police. By 2005–06, the total provision for policing will be about £1.5 billion more than it was in this financial year.
The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) asked us to concentrate on issues affecting Norfolk. To set those issues in context, I point out that, in the past five years, there has been a 20 per cent. increase in real-terms expenditure for local government, compared with a 7 per cent. reduction in the last four years of the Conservative Administration. We have continued to prioritise education and social services, on which there will be a 6 per cent. increase in expenditure over the next three years.
Mr. Bacon rose—
Mr. Simpson rose—
Mr. Leslie: I know that Conservative Members are champing at the bit to ask about the Norfolk settlement. I understand that Norfolk county council has benefited significantly from our extra investment in local
132WH
government. Under this Government, there has been an average increase in the grant of about 4.9 per cent. compared with an increase of 2.1 per cent. in the last four years of the Conservative Administration. We have managed to sustain an average increase of more than twice the rate set by the Conservatives.
Mr. Simpson: The Minister has misjudged the mood of the debate. This is not a party-political issue. We understand that the Government have increased the money available in certain areas but have imposed new requirements on Norfolk county council, and I have quoted the figures. With the best will in the world, people in Norfolk and hon. Members who represent Norfolk constituencies believe that we currently have a net loss and that, under the Government's proposed formula, we are likely to be worse off. Can the Minister guarantee that, when he makes his announcement at the beginning of December, we will be able to say that the Government have given Norfolk a fair deal and that Norfolk will not be worse off?
Mr. Leslie: I can most certainly guarantee that Norfolk will receive a fair deal, and I can guarantee right now that there will be no cash loss for councils. I can put people's minds at rest about the more extreme options in the consultation document.
I want to touch on the important issue of social services, about which I know that hon. Members are concerned. This year, there has been a 5.8 per cent. increase in expenditure on social services; a 15.9 per cent. increase in the children's grant and a 21.9 per cent. increase in carers grant. Similarly, in education, the standard spending assessment for Norfolk has increased by 36 per cent. in five years. Those are significant sums of money. On police funding, there are extra officers—more than ever before.
A formula grant review consultation is now underway. We are involving as many people as possible and have heard representations. Floors and ceilings will be introduced to give the measure of protection that hon. Members are concerned about. We try to take a balanced view at all times. It is difficult to make everyone a winner, but the Government are putting in much extra investment. That investment will be the message that will come out of the announcements that we make in December. We want a more transparent system, but we also want to make sure that we have decent investment and public services.
Mr. Mike Hancock (in the Chair): We are about to move on to the next debate but, before we do, I remind hon. Members that in Westminster Hall there is a convention that if hon. Members are to make an intervention, they must inform the Member who initiated the debate, the Minister and the Chairman. To my knowledge, no one has done that. On this occasion, am prepared to give way on the issue, but hon. Members should be mindful of that duty.

Portland Search and Rescue Helicopter
1.30 pm
Jim Knight: I am grateful to be granted this debate on the future of the Portland search and rescue helicopter. The threatened transfer of that service to Lee-on-the-Solent represents a threat to the Dorset economy and marine safety in south-west England and, most importantly, would lead to a needless loss of life.
I am grateful to the Minister and officials of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency for meeting me on many occasions in the past six months to discuss my concerns about the proposals. Equally, I am grateful to my fellow hon. Members, some of whom are present, for their support in the campaign. I know that the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) would have liked to be here, but were unable to. Thanks must principally go to the many members of the public—including the 25,000 who have petitioned me on the subject—who have given so much momentum to the campaign.
Last night, I visited the website of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. The first thing to greet me was the inevitable vision statement. It reads:
"Our vision is to be a world class organisation that is committed to preventing loss of life, continuously improving safety and protecting the marine environment."
None of us could argue with that, but moving the service from Portland to Lee-on-the-Solent is totally contrary to that vision.
The current uncertainty has come about because of the need to replace the existing hangar at Portland. The hangar is located at Osprey quay, which is being redeveloped by the South West of England regional development agency following its sale by the Ministry of Defence. Although the coastguard hangar needs replacement, the requirement has been brought forward because of the RDA's need to redevelop the site. When that first emerged a few years ago, there was agreement in principle between the RDA and the MCA, but negotiations subsequently broke down over the flood risk to the site.
At that time, the MCA looked for alternative sites from which to operate the service, and judged that it would be viable and cheaper to operate from the existing hangar at Lee-on-the-Solent, which, incidentally, is old and in need of replacement. Retaining the service at Portland is now regarded as an extra cost. The issue is less about running costs than about the cost of building the hangar. That, as I understand it, remains the key outstanding issue.
The search and rescue helicopter Whisky Bravo covers the coast from Poole harbour to Start Point. West of Start Point, cover from Culdrose and Chivenor is provided by the Ministry of Defence. Whisky Bravo operates 12 hours a day, and is the biggest civilianised search and rescue helicopter in Britain. At the beginning of this week, it had responded to 177 incidents this year, as opposed to 165 at Lee-on-the-Solent, 112 at Stornoway and 75 at Sumburgh. All are operating at half the hours of Portland, and yet none are busier. That makes the idea of removing the service from that section of the coast somewhat bizarre. Would not the logical development be to increase the service at Portland to 24 hours and make savings elsewhere?
134WH
The idea of 24-hour working has been proposed to the MCA and has been shown to be possible. I know that the MCA response would be that it is not considering removing the service, but simply relocating it to Lee-on-the-Solent, 51 nautical miles away, and that it is possible to operate the service from there and still meet the national guidelines for response times. However, I question that, and I shall explain why.
Let me first deal with the substantive point. The MCA would be moving an emergency service away from its busiest area. The estimated flying time between Lee-onthe-Solent and Portland is 28 minutes. At a time when ambulances are trying to reduce their response times, the MCA is considering increasing its response time by 28 minutes. That would be a cut in the quality of the service and would go against the MCA's vision of preventing loss of life.
I shall read from a letter from Dr Karim, who is the senior house surgeon in the accident and emergency department of Dorset county hospital. He comments on a patient who, in May this year, was in the water at Durdle Door for approximately 15 minutes before being rescued. The response time of the Portland search and rescue helicopter was just three minutes, and the rescue and the delivery to Dorchester took just another five minutes. Dr Karim says:
"It is my professional opinion that"
my patient
"was very lucky to have survived this incident and had the Air Sea Rescue helicopter been delayed by only a further 5 minutes he would most certainly have died."
That patient was very lucky—only a further five minutes, not a further 28 minutes, and he would have died. If Portland had been closed, that patient would have died, and he would not have been the only one this year. Whisky Bravo's crews have rescued several people this summer who would have died had the response time been significantly longer.
Mr. Adrian Sanders: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important Adjournment debate. He will know that Torbay is one of the country's main maritime playgrounds. Moving the helicopter will increase rescue times in the summer when—as we joke— the Birmingham navy comes to play. That is a joke, but there is a serious point. Inexperienced people can get into difficulties at sea and minutes can save lives. We are right behind the hon. Gentleman.
Jim Knight: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. He makes a good point, and I shall mention Torbay a little later on.
The crews of Whisky Bravo are to receive a bravery award at 10 Downing street later this month. I cannot understand how the MCA can even consider relocating this service in the knowledge that doing so will cost lives. I have said that the relocation fulfils national guidelines, which require a helicopter to reach an incident in a high-risk area within one hour; but I shall explain what would happen if there were an incident immediately off Portland. The contractor would have to be airborne within 15 minutes and flying time to the incident would be about 28 minutes, depending on wind speed and direction. On a good day, the response time would therefore be 43 minutes. That is fine, and within the

135WH
guidelines. If, however, the incident were off Torbay, another 25 minutes would be added and the test would be failed. A helicopter would have to be sent from Culdrose. That helicopter could get to the incident in 15 minutes, but it would leave the busy Cornish coast with no cover.
Ms Candy Atherton: I, too, would like to congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Will he join me in congratulating the personnel at Culdrose on their incredible work? Does he agree that, if the relocation goes ahead, it could have a serious impact on the lives of the mariners on the west coast of Cornwall whom I represent?
Jim Knight: I agree. The reduction in service would have knock-on effects around the coast. That reduction would have to be compensated for, which would mean an increased work load for Culdrose. Anyone who represents a constituency in the south-west peninsula ought to be concerned about those effects.
Between Torbay and Portland is Lyme Bay, which is in a grey area. It would be a struggle to get there in time, especially when the weather was bad—-which, of course, is just when rescue services are likely to be needed. A further problem would be the need to refuel between incidents, which entails returning to base or, if pushed, to an airport such as Bournemouth or Exeter. Hon. Members will understand that, on a busy day, Whisky Bravo would really struggle to fulfil its minimum requirements.
I imagine that the MCA has carried out a risk assessment for such eventualities, and I should be grateful if the Minister would arrange for a copy to be placed in the House of Commons Library. I believe that the existing guidelines are flawed and I would respectfully suggest to the Select Committee on Transport that it consider them the next time it discusses the operation of the MCA. The guidelines should differentiate between different types of incident.
I also understand that a review of national search and rescue cover is due in the next few years through the Ministry of Defence. The MCA has explored the possibilities of sites for basing the helicopter other than the site at Portland in Dorset, but to no avail. If the agency abandons Portland now, it cannot go back, and it will have prejudged the outcome of that national review for the south coast. That cannot be right. Incidentally, the savings made by civilianising the service nationally would pay for a new hangar at Portland every year.
Any review must look for differential guidelines for different types of incident. Divers, for example, need to be taken to a decompression unit quickly—normally within 30 minutes—to prevent permanent or fatal damage. This year, there have so far been 50 incidents of divers being taken to the pool decompression unit by Whisky Bravo. Of those incidents, 17 were assessed as requiring rapid decompression to save life. Those divers could not have waited for the aircraft to come from Lee-on-Solent; they would have died or suffered serious permanent disability.
136WH
The guidelines make no allowance for such incidents, and they should do so. If an area attracts a high number of incidents that require a faster medical response than the national guideline of one hour, the guidelines should be changed to reflect that fact.
There are other reasons why we need the service to remain at Portland. One reason is our economy. Tourism is the most important local industry to us on the south Dorset coast. Last December, the Dorset and east Devon coast received world heritage status from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. Our coast uniquely exposes a perfect geological time line of the Jurassic age. The result, we hope, will be an increase in visitors coming to see the varied beauty of the area, from walkers on the coastal path to dinghies and small boats on the sea. We are already experiencing that increase. Each year, Whisky Bravo responds to 30 or 40 incidents from cliff top walkers and climbers. With world heritage status and the encouragement that we are giving to visitors, that number can only rise.
The Portland sailing academy sits alongside the Whisky Bravo hangar. The academy is the home of our national youth sailing teams, and if any hon. Members come to Portland harbour in the summer they will see those teams in training, including many of our Olympic medallists. The academy is the subject of a large lottery bid, which will develop the National Sailing Academy for the Royal Yachting Association. Sailing and water sports are the leading economic development driver for the area according to Weymouth and Portland borough council, and they are assessed as the leading economic driver for the area by the regional development agency, yet we are set to abandon them. Each year, Whisky Bravo responds to 40 or 50 incidents involving small boats and windsurfers. With the development of the sailing academy, the numbers will rise, as will the risk to the lives of people participating in those sports.
Removing Whisky Bravo puts at risk the economic development of our area, which will lose its reputation as a safe place to visit.
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) on securing the debate and thank him for allowing me to intervene. As he knows, I represent an area to the east of his constituency, and our economies are inextricably linked. Does he agree that the views of those in the east and the hinterland of Poole harbour are just as strong as those in his own area and in the west? The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) and I have received thousands of representations. The move will have an impact on the local economy and activity, because people value the service greatly and we have many visitors to the harbour.
Jim Knight: I am grateful for the intervention. I agree that there is a strong link between the economies of my constituency and the Poole area. In fact, I represent 80 per cent. of the Poole harbour area, so I would certainly agree on that score.
There is nationwide interest in the issue. The 25,000 signatures do not come from constituents alone, but from divers, windsurfers, sailors and walkers from all over the British Isles who come to the Dorset coast and

137WH
expect to have a safe experience. I plead with the Minister to make the right decision, and to tell us when it will be announced. We have made good progress. The cost of building the hangar has fallen since a solution to the flood risk was found, which was funded by the regional development agency. We simply must find the money now to build the replacement hangar at Portland.
I ask the Minister to listen to hon. Members, to the regional media and to the 25,000 petitioners and save our life-savers. What is a couple of million quid against the many lives that have been saved this year by the busiest search and rescue helicopter in the country?
1.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) on securing the debate, on the way in which he has conducted it and on his campaign during the past six months. He is certainly a tireless campaigner for his constituents. I have to say that I have felt, on occasions, almost as if I was being harassed by my hon. Friend, because every time I appeared somewhere he would dive on me and question me. I say, good for him, because Members of Parliament are here to give us a hard time about such things. He has missed no opportunity to make his point. I understand the powerful points that he has made today about safety, and I am also mindful of the other issues that he mentioned, such as the importance of inward investment to the Dorset coast and other parts of the region.
My hon. Friend has detailed much of the background, but it is appropriate to place the Portland helicopter issue in a national context. Before doing that, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) praised those who operate out of Culdrose, I would like to put on record my tribute to the courage and utter dedication, sometimes in the most extreme circumstances, of those who crew the nation's search and rescue helicopters. This is a very worthy subject and we should place on record our thanks to those people as a tribute to the work that they do on behalf of the people of this country.
The House will be aware that the helicopter that covers the Portland area is part of a national helicopter search and rescue coverage organisation. There are 12 search and rescue bases throughout the United Kingdom: eight are military bases and four are civil. Portland is one of the civil bases. With the exception of Portland, the bases operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The Portland aircraft operates for 12 hours a day, from 9 am to 9 pm each day all year round. That aircraft replaced the helicopter that was previously operated by the Royal Navy from the base hitherto known as HMS Osprey. The Portland helicopter is operated by Bristow Helicopters Ltd. under a contract to the MCA. According to the operational criteria for search and rescue helicopters that work 24 hours a day, civil aircraft should be available at 15 minutes' notice from 7.30 am to 9 pm daily and military search and rescue helicopters should be available from 8 am to 10 pm daily. Outside these times the aircraft should be on 45 minutes' notice. In practice, the aircraft are usually airborne within a few minutes of being notified during the day and within about 30 minutes at night. Each aircraft has a minimum
138WH
operational radius of 180 miles, which takes into account the 30 minutes that it could take to winch up the 20 or so people that might be on the scene, and the need to retain 30 minutes worth of fuel for landing. The helicopters travel at about 120 knots.
The criteria for search and rescue helicopters were reviewed this year by the UK search and rescue strategic committee working under the aegis of my Department and were implemented on 1 April. That review followed a National Audit Office report in 1998 on civil maritime search and rescue, which recommended that consideration should be given to rationalising helicopter coverage on the south coast before renewing the Solent and Portland contracts in 2003.
The United Kingdom search and rescue strategic committee recommended the criteria that I mentioned and that the helicopter organisation on the south coast should remain as it is for the time being. Ministers accepted those recommendations in the knowledge that a further review of helicopter coverage by the MCA and the Ministry of Defence is under way to harmonise arrangements between military and civil facilities. The project is at the pre-business plan stage, and it is expected that initial reports will be made to Ministers in spring next year.
Outside the 9 am to 9 pm time, the Portland area is primarily covered by the coastguard civil contract helicopter at Lee-on-the-Solent in Gosport near Portsmouth—you might know that place, Mr. Hancock. The area can also be covered by military helicopters from the Royal Naval air station at Culdrose or the Royal Air Force base at Chivenor. Operational analysis has shown that the daytime national criteria can still be met for the Portland area by the helicopter at Lee-on-the-Solent.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset said, the current Portland base is in the hands of the South West of England regional development agency. It is rightly the job of the agency to develop the Osprey site commercially and for the benefit of the local community.
Jim Knight: Before my hon. Friend gets going on that section of his speech, does he acknowledge that there might be merit in looking again at the national guidelines to differentiate between different types of incidents, as I described in my speech?
Mr. Jamieson: That matter will certainly be considered . At present, the coverage that would be available if the change went ahead would be within existing national criteria and would amount to the same coverage as many other parts of the coast have. If I may declare an interest, I think that that includes my own area of Plymouth.
While the site is being commercially developed, it is necessary for the South West of England RDA to move the helicopter hangar and realign the runway, which is required for the helicopter under Civil Aviation Authority rules. The realigned runway has been bunded by a wall more than three metres high to protect the commercial sites either side from flooding. In short, the runway has become a sacrificial flood plain. The proposed new location for the hangar is outside the runway area. The RDA has agreed to pay for the

139WH
preparation of the new location and to put a steel access door in the flood bunding to allow the helicopter access to and from the runway. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the enormous amount of work that he has put in, for resolving much of the detail with the RDA and for working with officials from the MCA. He has spent much of the past six months in discussion with them, and he has tirelessly pursued his case in meetings with me.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, the fundamental issue is funding for the new hangar. The estimated cost is between £2.5 million and £3.5 million. If the hangar had been rebuilt on its existing site, the cost, at today's prices, would have been about £1.5 million. That money was lost from the MCA's budget with the passing of time, and it does not have the required new funding in its budget plan. My hon. Friend has, therefore, made representations to me about central Government funding for the project, and I have listened long and hard to what he has said—not only today, but on other occasions.
It is a fact that the helicopter runway site is a sacrificial flood plain to allow commercial development of the site, and that the Portland operational area can be covered adequately from Lee-on-the-Solent within the national guidelines. We must not forget the view that was expressed by the National Audit Office in 1998.
Those points raise serious issues about the expenditure of taxpayers' money. There are already considerable pressures on the MCA's budget. It has continued to make efficiency savings and it has been bringing more ships on to the flag. It has also improved ways of working with the shipping industry. It has provided a much better service for about the same budgetary provision. The Department is also under pressure to provide funds, as is apparent from debates in the House and comments in the press and other places. Alas, those funds are not unlimited.
I understand the regional issues and the importance that is placed on the helicopter locally. I also understand the issues that were raised by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) about the Birmingham navy, because this issue does not affect only people on the coast. I accept his point about inward investment from the many waterborne activities that are pursued in the area—and from some of the further activities that have been proposed. I realise the importance of that, and how
140WH
it might change the way in which this matter is considered. I shall need to balance the different arguments.
Jim Knight: It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify whether the MCA could sustain the ongoing revenue costs of maintaining a service at Portland. If it could do that, we are talking only about the capital cost. I know that that is a significant cost, but people in government often baulk at revenue costs and allow capital costs to be incurred.
Mr. Jamieson: My hon. Friend refers to two relevant issues: the extra capital cost of providing the new hangar on the site because of the type of development that has taken place under the South West of England regional development agency; and the ongoing extra revenue expenditure of maintaining it on that site, as well as of keeping the site going at Lee-on-the-Solent. We must consider the ongoing revenue costs, but the more important consideration for us at present is the extra capital cost that would be imposed on the MCA if the decision were taken to build the new hangar.
We will carefully consider the arguments that my hon. Friend has consistently made for quite some time—and those that have been made by other people in this House and outside—when we make recommendations to the Treasury about the funding for the new hangar. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the current position, and I undertake to inform him of any decision at the earliest opportunity. His assiduous pursuit of this matter has led us to rethink. The decision would have been taken a long time ago had it not been for his efforts in constantly raising new issues—and some of them have been very good issues—and for the way that he has conducted the argument.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, and I assure him that the points that he has raised on behalf of his constituents will be given serious and careful consideration before the final decision is taken.
Mr. Sanders: Will the Minister comment on the risk assessment?
Mr. Jamieson: The risk assessment is currently commercially in confidence, but we will find out what information can be provided, and if any of it is useful, I will pass it on to the hon. Gentleman.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Army
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many members of the Army indicated when last questioned that they have been a victim of(a) harassment, (b) discrimination and (c) bullying in the Army; what percentage of those responding this represents; what percentage of actual strength this represents; and if he will make a statement. [78635]

  Mr. Ingram
  In response to the latest Army Continuous Attitude Survey, those members of the Army that indicated they had been the victim of harassment, discrimination and bullying in the last 12 months are shown in the table.

  Question

  Number of Army Personnel who alleged:

  Percentage of Respondents

  Percentage of those Surveyed

  Racial Discrimination

  42

  2.0

  1.0

  Racial Harassment

  36

  1.8

  0.9

  Sex Discrimination

  64

  3.1

  1.6

  Sexual Harassment

  33

  1.6

  0.8

  Bullying

  110

  5.4

  2.8

  The latest survey was undertaken in March-April 2002 and sent to a 4 per cent. random sample of the trained Army (excluding Gurkhas and Full Time Reserve Service personnel); 3,978 questionnaires were sent out and 2,037 were returned.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence,(a) how many and (b) what percentage of army recruits (i) went absent without leave and (ii) left the Army within the first six (A) weeks and (B) months of training in the last year for which figures are available. [79717]

  Mr. Ingram
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many members of the Army indicated when last questioned the preference that unmarried partners should be granted the same support and allowances as the spouses of officers and soldiers; what percentage of those responding this represents; what percentage of actual strength this represents; and if he will make a statement. [78639]

  Mr. Ingram
  In response to the latest Army Continuous Attitude Survey, 842 members of the Army indicated they believed that partners should have the same support and allowances as the spouses of married officers and soldiers. This represents some 41 per cent. of those who responded and 21 per cent. of those surveyed.
  284W
  The latest survey was undertaken in March-April 2002 and sent to a 4 per cent. random sample of the trained Army (excluding Gurkhas and Full Time Reserve Service); 3,978 questionnaires were sent out and 2,037 were returned.

  Army Equipment
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what estimates his Department has made of how much, on average, individual members of the Army spent on purchasing additional or replacement clothing and equipment to supplement standard issue kit over the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [78637]

  Mr. Ingram
  None. Service personnel are provided with all the equipment they require to do their jobs. The clothing and equipment with which they are issued is designed to be fit for purpose in a range of circumstances.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many members of the forces have indicated that they(a) have and (b) have not purchased additional replacement (i) clothing and (ii) equipment supplementing kit issued by the Army in the last 12 months; what percentage of actual strength this represents in each case; and if he will make a statement. [78636]

  Mr. Ingram
  In response to the latest Army Continuous Attitude Survey, 1,037 individuals indicated that they had purchased some item of equipment or clothing in the last 12 months. This represents some 26 per cent. of those surveyed. Seventy four per cent. of individuals indicated that they had not. The survey does not ask the individual to make the distinction between clothing or equipment, and purchases may include items which are not issued by the Army. The survey was administered to a 4 per cent. random sample of the trained Army (excluding Gurkhas and Full Time Reserve Service personnel); 3,978 questionnaires were sent out.

  Operation Sandcastle
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what the cost was of Operation Sandcastle. [79549]

  Mr. Ingram
  We estimate that the cost of Operation Sandcastle was around £364,000 at 1991–1992 prices.

  No-fly Zones
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what offensive operations were conducted by the Royal Air Force against military installations in Iraq on(a) 21 September 1999, (b) 21 September 2000, (c) 21 September 2001, (d) 20 September 2002 and (e) 22 September 2002. [79159]

  Mr. Ingram
  RAF and other coalition aircraft conducting legitimate patrols of the No-Fly Zones over Iraq are regularly threatened by Iraqi air defences. When this occurs they may respond in self-defence, against air defence sites.

  On 21 September 1999 and 21 September 2001 RAF aircraft responded against, respectively, air defence radars and a surface-to-air missile site in southern Iraq, using laser-guided bombs.

  285W
  No responses took place on 21 September 2000, or 20, 21 or 22 September this year.

  Apache Helicopter
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) for what reasons the organisations training pilots for the Apache helicopter have experienced delays in providing equipment and facilities; [79580]

  (2) if the private organisations training pilots for the Apache helicopter will be removed from the project; [79582]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the delay in training pilots for the Apache attack helicopter; [79578]

  (4) what measure he is taking to ensure that the timetable for training pilots for the Apache helicopter is brought forward; [79583]

  (5) for what reasons the organisations involved have been unable to meet deadlines set for the training of pilots for the Apache attack helicopter; [79579]

  (6) what penalties were written into the contract for late delivery of equipment and training of pilots for the Apache helicopter. [79581]

  Mr. Ingram
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Animal Experiments
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many animals covered by the Sixth Report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee were bred, for the period in question, for possible use in procedures but subsequently(a) destroyed and (b) passed on to other bodies without so being used. [79048]

  Dr. Moonie
  The sixth report of the Independent Animal Welfare Committee covers the period from 31 October 2000 to 28 February 2002. Animal figures are compiled on the basis of the calendar year. In 2001 Dstl Porton Down bred two different types of rodents and two types of non-human primates. Of these, 21 mice and six rats were humanely destroyed without use. 916 mice, 2,624 rats and 10 rhesus macaques were issued dead to other organisations.

TREASURY

  Split Capital Investment Trusts
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, what representations his Department has received regarding a compensation package for investors who have lost money due to market abuses relating to split capital investment trusts. [79106]

  Ruth Kelly
  Treasury Ministers receive a wide range of correspondence relating to financial service matters.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, what representations his Department has received regarding the optimum level for landfill tax. [79098]
  286W
  John Healey
  Treasury Ministers have received a variety of representations about the rate of landfill tax.

  Charities (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, how much has been contributed annually to the charitable sector (a) overall and (b) through the Gift Aid scheme, since the scheme's introduction; what these sums are as proportions of the total turnover of the charitable sector; and what the total cost is to his Department of the tax refunds resulting from the Gift Aid scheme. [79111]

  John Healey
  Figures on Gift Aid are published in the income tax section of Inland Revenue Statistics at: www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/index.htm. Consistent and reliable estimates for total donations to charities are not available centrally, nor are figures on turnover. However, a survey by NCVO/NOP estimates that the value of individual donations was £6.8 billion in 2001. In addition charities benefit from donations from companies. The Charity Commission shows that at the end of the second quarter of 2002 the annual income of registered charities in England and Wales was £28.5 billion.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what his estimate is of the amount of tax forgone as a result of tax allowances granted to charities in England and Wales in(a) the last financial year and (b) each of the previous six financial years; [79135]

  (2) what the total amount of tax relief for charities has been since 1997; and how much was relief on (a) income tax, (b) corporation tax, (c) capital gains tax, (d) inheritance tax and (e) stamp duty. [79092]

  John Healey
  The available estimates, which relate to the United Kingdom, for the total cost of tax forgone are about £2 billion in each of the last six financial years. This includes income tax, inheritance tax, business rates and VAT. Figures for the first two categories were published in various issues of the FSBR and in Table 1.5 of Inland Revenue Statistics at: www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/index.htm. These figures will be updated in the Tax Ready Reckoner published at the time of the Chancellor's Press Budget Report. Estimates for relief on corporation tax, capital gains tax and stamp duty are not available.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what plans he has for the Payroll Giving scheme providing tax relief for charitable donations; and if he will make a statement. [79093]

  John Healey
  In April 2000, the Government abolished the maximum amounts that could be given under Payroll Giving. To boost the scheme, the Government announced a three-year publicity campaign to promote the scheme to more employers and their employees and a 10 per cent. supplement on all Payroll Giving donations until April 2003. The cost of the supplement is met from public expenditure. The amount given under Payroll Giving has increased from £29 million in 1998–99 to about £73 million in 2001–02.

  Mr, Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment his Department has made of the level of charitable donations since the abolition
  287W
  of the minimum limit on donations through the (a) Payroll Giving scheme and (b) Gift Aid scheme. [79110]

  John Healey
  In April 2000, the Government set a target to raise the amount given through Payroll Giving to £60 million by April 2003. The total given in the year 2001–02 was around £73m. In 2001–02 nearly £450m was repaid to charities under Gift Aid. The Government looks forward to the continuing success of both schemes.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to prevent suspended shares being given as part of the Gift Aid scheme. [79104]

  John Healey
  The Gift Aid scheme only covers gifts of money. The relief for giving listed shares, introduced in April 2000, allows individuals and companies to deduct the market value of gifts of listed shares from their income or corporation tax calculation. Where shares are being actively traded, the value will normally be easily ascertained by reference to published prices. However, where trading is suspended, the value will be the price which might have been paid in a transaction at arm's length. Any relief would therefore reflect the suspension of trading in the shares. The shares would still, of course, be of value to the charity, when trading resumed.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for the Gift Aid scheme tax relief for charitable donations; and if he will make a statement. [79094]

  John Healey
  In April 2000, the Government abolished the minimum donation of £250, so that every donation, no matter how large or small, can come within the Gift Aid scheme, providing the donor meets the scheme's conditions. From April 2003, donors will be able to carry back Gift Aid donations made before they make their self assessment tax returns into the previous tax year, thereby obtaining any higher rate relief earlier. From April 2004 taxpayers will be able to nominate a charity to receive part or all of a tax repayment that is due to them.

  The Government continue to support The Giving Campaign, a charity sector-led body, which has done a great deal to raise awareness of the Gift Aid scheme among both charities and donors.

  Pool Re'
  Mr. Flight
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will make it his policy to introduce the necessary legislation regarding Pool Re' insurance cover to include the Government's new wider definition of terrorism. [79017]

  Ruth Kelly
  We currently have no plans to amend the definition of acts of terrorism in the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993. We are not persuaded that there is an issue of sufficient substance to justify primary legislation.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will make a statement on the Government's discussions with the commercial insurance sector regarding commercial cover being available in respect of 288W
  the substantial area not covered by Pool Re' where presently commercial exclusion is absolute; and if he will make a statement. [79016]

  Ruth Kelly
  The availability of terrorism cover in the commercial market is a matter that we have and will continue to discuss with the insurance industry. We are not persuaded that there is an issue of sufficient substance to justify primary legislation to amend the definition of acts of terrorism in the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993.

  Death Benefits
  James Purnell
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer (I) if he will estimate what the annual cost would be of in-service death benefits extended to unmarried partners, in accordance with the rules for the new Civil Service Pension, for the financial year 2003–04, and each of the five subsequent years at 2003–04, prices for(a) the whole of the public sector, (b) the Teachers' Pension Scheme, (c) the NHS Pension Scheme, (d) the Local Government Pension Scheme, (e) the Firemen's Pension Scheme, (f) the Police Pension Scheme and (g) the Armed Forces Pension Scheme; [78857]

  (2) if he will estimate what the costs would be for the future service of current members if in-service death benefits were extended to unmarried partners, in accordance with the rules for the new Civil Service Pension, at 2003–04 prices for (a) the whole of the public sector, (b) the Teachers' Pension Scheme, (c) the NHS Pension Scheme, (d) the Local Government Scheme, (e) the Firemen's Pension Scheme, (f) the Police Pension Scheme and (g) the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. [78858]

  Ruth Kelly
  There is no cost to the Exchequer from the introduction on 1 October 2002 of new pension arrangements for the Civil Service. Members participating in those arrangements will meet the full costs of all the benefit improvements, including the introduction of survivor pensions for unmarried partners, through higher employee contributions.

  Our policy is that public service pension schemes may introduce unmarried partner pensions only if members want the change and are prepared to pay for it through higher member contributions or a rebalancing of other benefits which is cost neutral overall to employers and the taxpayer. Death lump sum benefits may be provided, however, to unmarried partners in schemes where members are able to nominate the recipient.

  European Union
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, what Britain's net contribution to the European Union was(a) in the last year and (b) excluding the budget rebate. [79097]

  Ruth Kelly
  Details of the United Kingdom's net contribution in 2001–02, and the abatement included within it, can be found at Table 3.1 (page 12) of the 2001 European Community Finances White Paper (Cm 5547). Equivalent figures for calendar year 2001 can be found at Table 3 (page 40) of the same publication.

  Drug-related Deaths
  Lynne Jones
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer to parliamentary question 76983, if he will provide separate figures for deaths caused by(a) crack cocaine and (c) cocaine in each of the last five years. [79384]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Lynne Jones, dated 6 November 2002:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question asking for separate figures for deaths caused by (a) crack cocaine and (b) cocaine in each of the last five years.

  It is not possible to provide separate figures on deaths related to crack cocaine and cocaine from routine mortality data, as these substances are not generally separately identified on death certificates.

  The Office for National Statistics routinely publishes a combined figure for deaths mentioning cocaine on the death certificate. It is not possible, in cases where more than one substance is mentioned on the death certificate, to state which was primarily responsible for the death.

  Money Laundering
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent research his Department has commissioned into money laundering in the UK; and if he will publish the results of this research. [79102]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury is preparing a strategy document to explain the objectives and key criteria of the UK's anti-money laundering regime, and assess the extent to which current measures meet our overarching objectives. This will be finalised after discussions in the Money Laundering Advisory Committee and will then be published on the Treasury website.

  Public Service Agreement
  Mr. Flight
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what procedures his Department has in place to monitor other Government Departments' performance in relation to their agreed public service agreement. [79077]

  Mr. Boateng
  Departments provide regular information about their performance to the Treasury. Departments will shortly publish progress in their Autumn Performance Reports, and the Government will introduce regular web-based reporting of progress against all the PSA targets announced in the 2002 Spending Review.

  Ageism
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what strategies his Department has to ensure that there is no ageism in recruitment and retention processes. [79293]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury is committed to age diversity and has implemented the recommendations of the Government's "Winning the Generation Game" report.
  290W
  Equality of opportunity for all staff is a key feature of all civil service employment. As part of this, ageism is not tolerated.

  Recruitment, development, performance management and retention policies are continuously reviewed. There are no age barriers to employment and retirement age is determined on business needs only. The Treasury has no upper age limit for any of its recruitment schemes, other than the retirement age, which is currently 60. The recruitment literature states,
  "we recruit and promote strictly on ability and performance. We welcome applications from all qualified individuals. We do not discriminate on grounds of gender, marital status, race, colour, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, community background or age subject to our policy that all staff retire at 60."

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of new recruits to his Department in the past two years were aged 50 and over. [79306]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information for HM Treasury is shown in the following table:

  Year

  Percentage of New Recruits Aged 50 and Over

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  2.2

  1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002

  1.6

  Asbestor-based Liability Claims
  Mr. Flight
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what assumptions he has made regarding the costs of asbestos-based liability claims against Her Majesty's Government over the next 20 years. [79018]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury makes no assumption about the costs of asbestos liability claims. It is for individual Departments to make provision in their accounts for any liabilities against them. Details of a Department's provisions and possible contingent liabilities can be found in the notes to their Resource Accounts in the line with UK Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (UKGAAP)

  British Energy
  Mr. Flight
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what recent meetings his Department has had with the Department of Trade and Industry regarding a merger of British Energy with BNFL; and if he will place the minutes in the Library; [79014]

  (2) what recent meetings his Department has had with the Department of Trade and Industry regarding British Energy; and if he will place the minutes in the Library; [79013]

  (3) what recent meetings his Department has had with (a) the Finance Director and (b) the former Chief Executive of British Energy; and if he will place the minutes in the Library. [79015]

  John Healey
  I refer to the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 11 February 2002,Official Report, c.114–15. In line with previous Administrations, it is not this Government's practice to provide details of the meetings they routinely have with a wide range of organisations.
  291W
  Mr. Flight
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations his Department has received from British Energy requesting exclusion from the Climate Change Levy; and if he will place in the Library the minutes of meetings with British Energy on this subject. [79019]

  John Healey
  Treasury Ministers have received numerous representations on the climate change levy. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his answer of 11 February 2002,Official Report, c. 114–15, in line with previous Administrations, it is not this Government's practice to provide details of the meetings they routinely have with a wide range of organisations.

  With regard to nuclear power, the Government made it clear when the detail of the levy was announced in the November 1999 P BR that electricity from nuclear power would be subject to the levy. The Government have restated since then that there are no plans to exempt nuclear energy from the levy, which is designed to encourage energy efficiency across the business and public sectors and to increase the use of sustainable forms of energy.

  Thalidomide Trust
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how much money the Government have paid into the Thalidomide Trust since 1973; how much tax the Government have collected from payments from the Thalidomide Trust to thalidomide victims; what tax rate is applied to payments to thalidomide victims from the Thalidomide Trust; and if he will estimate the uptake of tax reclaim under the previous fiscal system by thalidomide victims who pay tax on money from the Thalidomide Trust. [79354]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 4 November 2002]: The Government paid £5m into the Thalidomide trust in 1974, £800,000 in 1978, and £7m in 1996. Taxpayer confidentiality prevents the disclosure of specific details on how much tax the Government has collected from payments from the Thalidomide trust to thalidomide victims. As with other discretionary trusts, the trustees account for tax at 34 per cent. on the income they pay out. The beneficiaries are then subject to tax on this income in the normal way, and they may claim credit for the tax paid by the trustees. This tax treatment has not changed so it is not possible to estimate the uptake of tax reclaim under a previous fiscal system. Information on the numbers of thalidomide victims claiming tax repayment is not available.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what recent meetings have been held between the Treasury and Thalidomide Action Group UK on the tax status of beneficiary payments from the Thalidomide Trust. [79356]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 4 November 2002]: The Chancellor has not held any meetings recently with the Thalidomide Action Group UK on the tax status of beneficiary payments from the Thalidomide Trust.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, how much direct compensation the Government have paid to thalidomide victims since 1972. [79355]
  292W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have provided thalidomide victims with support from health and social services. In addition thalidomide victims benefit from payments from the Thalidomide Trust.

  Departmental Recruitment
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been spent in recruiting staff to his Department in(a) London and (b) the south east in each year since 1997. [78561]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 4 November 2002]: The costs of recruiting staff fall largely to individual teams, and are charged to team budgets. Therefore information on the total cost of recruiting staff is not available centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Enterprise Zones
  Albert Owen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Chancellor has to introduce Enterprise Zones in deprived areas of England and Wales. [79520]

  Mr. Healey
  [holding answer 5 November 2002]: The Government have designated 2000 Enterprise Areas across the UK, comprising the most deprived wards in the country. In England these are the most deprived 15 per cent. of wards, and in Wales the most deprived 42 per cent. The Enterprise Areas already qualify for stamp duty relief on all transactions up to £150,000, and the Government will remove stamp duty for all nonresidential transactions subject to State Aids approval. Businesses in Enterprise Areas are also eligible for other forms of assistance such as the Community Investment Tax Credit and the Phoenix Fund, and at the Pre-Budget Report the Government will publish details of further plans to boost awareness and take-up of these measures.

  Working Families Tax Credit (Scotland)
  John Thurso
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what estimate he has made of how many families in Scotland are eligible to receive the working families tax credit. [79740]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No such estimate is available.

  Mapeley Steps Ltd.
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answers of his answers of 22 October 2002,Official Report, column 213W, on estate sales, when Parliament was informed of the sales to Mapeley Steps Ltd; and whether the Watch House (Customs House). Cowes, has been sold. [78292]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue and Customs & Excise issued a joint press release "Strategic Transfer of the Estate to the Private Sector (Steps)" (jw 4/01) on 9 March 2001, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. This press release mistakenly stated that the transfer was made to Mapeley Ltd. The transfers were in fact made to Mapeley Steps Ltd and this has been corrected in subsequent press statements.

  The Watch Tower, Cowes was sold to Mapeley Steps Ltd as part of the Steps arrangements.

  Cash Plan Providers
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1), what revenue he estimates would be generated by the taxation of the trading surpluses of nonprofit distribution health cash plan providers; [78496]

  (2) what recent representations he has received concerning proposed changes in the tax treatment of trading surpluses generated by non-profit health cash plan providers; what assessment he has made of the implications of the proposed changes for the level of voluntary donations made by this sector to the National Health Service and other health charities; and how many (a) non-profit health cash providers and (b) plan holders he anticipates will be affected; [78494]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the impact of the taxation of the trading surpluses of non-profit distributing health cash plan providers on the level of donations made by such bodies to the NHS and medical charities. [78495]

  Ruth Kelly
  Ministers have received a number of letters about the tax treatment of health cash plan providers. Providers who are not trading on a mutual basis are able to make rule changes necessary to comply with the requirements that exempt them from tax. There is no retrospective tax charge. No information is available on the impact of these changes, or the revenue generated as these depend largely on decisions taken by individual providers.

  Savings Gateway
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, She will make a statement on the four Savings Gateway pilots. [78327]

  Ruth Kelly
  Pilots for the Savings Gateway were launched in August 2002. The Government will provide a statement on the progress of the pilots in the Pre-budget report.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many full-time equivalent staff there were in the Treasury's departments in each of the last five years. [78412]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information on total employment (full-time equivalent) in the HM Treasury as at 1 April in each of the last five years is shown in the table:

  Table Showing Total Staff as at 1 April fir Years 1997–2002

  Date

  Total Staff Full-time equivalent

  1 April 2002

  1060

  1 April 2001

  875

  1 April 2000

  870

  1 April 1999

  926

  1 April 1998

  893

  1 April 1997

  888

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the success of the pilots for the Savings Gateway. [79396]
  294W
  Ruth Kelly
  Pilots for the Savings Gateway were launched in August 2002 and will last for two and a half years including evaluation. The Government will provide a statement on the progress of the pilots in the Pre-budget Report.

  Ministers (Tax)
  David Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the taxable benefits from accommodation for Cabinet Ministers; [78643]

  (2) if he will list benefits in kind to Ministers that are (a) tax exempt and (b) not tax exempt; [78641]

  (3) what the maximum tax liability is for each benefit in kind to Ministers; [78640]

  (4) if the Government will initiate a review of benefits in kind to Ministers and their taxable status. [78642]

  Ruth Kelly
  Government Ministers occupying official residences provided by reason of their office meet the statutory conditions for exemption from the tax charge on living accommodation. Where exemption applies and associated services, such as heating, lighting, cleaning, decoration, are supplied as well there is a tax charge of 10 per cent. of the individual's net emoluments from the employment or office. These are the rules applying to all taxpayers.

  Ministers of the Crown, along with the Speaker and Opposition office-holders, are exempt, under Section 200AA of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act, from tax on transport or subsistence benefits provided for them or their families; otherwise the benefits tax rules are the same for Ministers as for other taxpayers. There is no statutory maximum on the amount of benefits that can be provided for and taxed on an employee or office-holder.

  The Government have no plans to review the tax treatment of benefits in kind provided to Ministers.

  Penrose Inquiry
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many requests by Lord Penrose's inquiry for the production of documents he has declined; and on what grounds they were denied; [78830]

  (2) what steps have been taken to ensure that information in the possession of the Treasury of relevance to Lord Penrose's inquiry but not specifically requested by him is made available to him; what steps have been taken to identify such information; and how much such information has been supplied to the inquiry; [78826]

  (3) what guidance he has given to his officials regarding their co-operation with the inquiry by Lord Penrose into Equitable Life; [78839]

  (4) if he will list the requests for information from Lord Penrose's inquiry with which he has yet to comply; and when the request was made in each case; [78831]

  295W
  (5) what request for papers and other sources of evidence and information the inquiry by Lord Penrose has made to Her Majesty's Treasury; on what date each request was received; and when each was complied with; [78827]

  (6) what procedures are in place in his Department for responding to (a) correspondence and (b) requests for information from the Penrose Inquiry; and if he will publish these procedures; [78829]

  (7) if he will list the documents and other evidence provided by Her Majesty's Treasury to the inquiry into Equitable Life by Lord Penrose. [78828]

  Ruth Kelly
  It was made clear at the outset of the Inquiry that the Treasury would co-operate fully with Lord Penrose. We have done so and all relevant officials are aware of this requirement.

  The Treasury has sought to provide all relevant information to the Inquiry, including information not specifically requested.

  The Inquiry has made a wide range of requests for documents and information and Treasury officials have co-operated fully in identifying and supplying the requested documents where they have been in the possession of the Treasury. No record of individual requests has been maintained, nor have specific procedures been put in place for dealing with such requests. No requests for the production of documents have been declined and we are not aware of any outstanding requests for information with which we have not yet complied.

  Savings (Low Incomes)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what role he plans for the Friendly Society Movement in increasing savings for those on low incomes. [79393]

  Ruth Kelly
  Friendly societies have an important role, in competition with other service providers, in providing access to savings products. The Government are committed to encouraging a stronger saving habit in people from low-income groups. That is why we are introducing the Saving Gateway and the Child Trust Fund. Both measures will help develop a stronger saving habit, which should benefit friendly societies. The friendly society movement has played an important role in the establishment of the Child Trust Fund by providing advice and expertise.

  Financial Education
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the strategy for a national financial advice network; and if this will include the contribution made by(a) credit unions and (b) friendly societies in providing advice to the financially excluded. [79399]

  Ruth Kelly
  It is important that everyone should have access to appropriate financial education, information and generic advice to understand his or her options, as well as having access to regulated product specific advice where appropriate.
  296W
  There have been proposals for a new network to provide financial education, information and generic advice, and we have noted those proposals with interest. Many organisations are already involved in the provision of those forms of help.

  All financial services firms can already support the provision of help for the financially excluded.

  The Credit Unions Act 1979 sets out the objects of a credit union, which include the training and education of members in the wise use of money and in the management of their financial affairs. The Government support credit unions welcome contribution to tackling financial exclusion.

  Financial Products
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the contribution tax free financial products make to the quality of life for the less affluent; and if he will make a statement. [79398]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government recognise the importance of savings in providing people with security if things go wrong, independence throughout their lives and comfort in old age. The Government's strategy is to create the right environment for saving, create the right incentives for people to save and ensure that individuals have the information and financial literacy they need to make the right saving choices.

  The Government have already introduced successful products such as Individual Savings Accounts (designed to encourage saving among individuals, particularly those with little or no savings) and Stakeholder pensions (which have extended the benefits of pension saving to previously excluded groups). In addition, pilots for the Saving Gateway were launched in August 2002 and further proposals are being developed for the Child Trust Fund. Statements on the progress of the Government's saving policies will be provided in the Pre Budget Report.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the likelihood of less affluent consumers buying financial products without face to face advice. [79397]

  Ruth Kelly
  Many financial products (for example insurance, and cash savings) are widely bought without face-to-face advice.

  Generally, more sophisticated consumers are more likely to buy investments without face-to-face advice.

  But, while sales of retail investments without face-to-face advice have grown, the bulk of sales generally continue to be through advisers who will have met their client. However, as the Sandler Review of "Medium and Long Term Retail Savings in the UK" found, distributors have strong incentives to focus on higher income consumers. The Sandler Review therefore recommended building on existing product standards through the introduction of "stakeholder" products that could significantly help less affluent consumers by providing them with simple, good value, and risk-controlled products that could be sold face to face but without the time and cost associated with regulated advice.

  Sandler Review
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what progress has been made with the Sandler Review. [79400]

  Ruth Kelly
  Ron Sandler's report was wide-ranging and contained recommendations for Government and the regulator, as well as for the retail savings industry. The Treasury is planning to consult on the Sandler recommendation for a suite of regulated products early in the new year. The consideration of Sandler's tax recommendations are being taken forward as part of the normal budget process. The FSA is considering the recommendations that touch on its responsibilities.

  Neighbourhood Renewal
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many of the recommendations of PAT 14 have been achieved. [79395]

  Ruth Kelly
  Details of progress against specific recommendations of PAT14 were set out in the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal: Policy Action Team Audit report, published in January 2001. Although most proposed actions that were listed have been completed, the report recognised that the work to eliminate financial exclusion is on-going. While we have made important progress across the areas identified by PATH credit unions, banking and insurance services, financial education and ethnic minority issues—we need to continue to work with the financial services industry, voluntary and community groups to end financial exclusion.

  Credit Unions
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what his Department has done to support(a) credit unions and (b) friendly societies since 1997. [79394]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government welcome the contribution of the mutual sector, including credit unions and friendly societies, to increasing choice and widening access in financial services.

  Following the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, the Financial Services Authority has assumed responsibility for the regulation of credit unions and friendly societies. The Act also introduced an independent ombudsman scheme and single financial services compensation scheme. These measures should increase confidence in those considering membership of either credit unions or friendly societies.

  We are in the process of delivering a programme of deregulatory measures with the aim of increasing the operational flexibility of credit unions. For example, four measures were introduced in July this year, including enhancement to credit unions' ability to borrow from external sources and more flexibility in the way credit unions can pay dividends to members.

  Measures such as the introduction of the Saving Gateway and the Child Trust Fund are intended to encourage saving by low-income groups, which should benefit credit unions and friendly societies.

  Inflation
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 15 July 2002,Official Report, column 65W, on inflation, if he will estimate the cost of measuring such differences; and if he will make a statement. [79516]

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

  Letter to Mr. Matthew Taylor from Len Cook, dated 6 November 2002:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning an estimate of the cost of measuring inflation rates between regions.

  The development of regional inflation measures would require a major expansion of existing data collections and a substantial development programme to resolve a number of conceptual and technical issues. This would involve significant additional expenditure involving many millions of pounds.

  There are several reasons why the current available data is not suitable for the compilation of reliable regional indices. The selection of locations is not designed to be representative of individual regions; the locations would have to be resampled, increased in number, and substantially more prices collected. In addition, many of the centrally compiled indices (e.g. housing, cars, PCs) are designed as national indices; the possibility of developing these to produce regional indices would need to be investigated.

  The data used for the weights (such as the Expenditure and Food Survey) would also have to be significantly enhanced to ensure that detailed regional expenditure categories (by type of good or service, and by type of outlet) were being weighted appropriately and represented in the sample of prices being collected. Finally, there will be a significant cost arising from the development of computer systems to produce regional indices.

  The conceptual issues to be resolved include whether the items to be priced should be representative of national or regional baskets (different users will have different needs), and also the treatment of regional boundaries. Households do not necessarily restrict their shopping to the region where they live; they may physically cross regional borders for shopping or do so via Internet or mail order shopping.

  FSA
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to encourage easier access to professional indemnity insurance for the Financial Services Authority in response to the recent recommendations from the FSA. [79710]

  Ruth Kelly
  Regulatory requirements relating to professional indemnity insurance are a matter for the Financial Services Authority, which is the single statutory regulator for the UK financial services industry.

  In a press statement on 29 October 2002, the FSA announced technical changes to its rulebook regarding professional indemnity insurance.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate his Department has made of the number of higher rate tax payers resident in each parliamentary constituency in the last 12 months. [79860]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A reliable estimate could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Chartered Jets
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how much was spent by the Government in each year since 1997–98 on chartering business jets as a result of the RAF's jets in 32 (The Royal) Squadron being unavailable or unsuitable. [79463]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since 1999, the Government have published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The list makes clear where private charter or RAF aircraft have been used. The Government have also published on an annual basis the overall cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. The costs include all Ministers' visits overseas undertaken by private charter or RAF aircraft. Copies of the lists and costs for the period 2 May 1997 to 31 March 2002 are available in the Libraries of the House.

  All travel is undertaken fully in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Information in respect of travel by Ministers within the UK is not held centrally. However, the use of private charter jets within the UK would be expected to be exceptional.

  Mr. Love
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what evaluation he has made on extending the discretion to local authorities to charge the full rate of Council Tax on empty properties; and if he will make a statement. [77106]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  An analysis of the responses to the consultation exercise is already available in the Library of the House and on the website of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I hope to be able to announce our decisions on the way forward shortly.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effects of measures to allow sports clubs to claim council tax relief through becoming registered charities; and if he plans to amend these regulations. [79110]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  Sports clubs will normally be liable for national non-domestic rates.

  The Charity Commission announced new rules allowing sports clubs to qualify for charity status in November 2001 and now recognise as charitable purposes certain sports related activities. Mandatory rate relief at 80 per cent. of the rates bill is available for all premises used wholly or mainly for charitable purposes. However, no assessment of the number of sports clubs that qualify for mandatory rate relief is available.

  Non-profit making sports clubs that are not registered charities can receive discretionary relief from their local authorities. Sports clubs will also benefit from our proposals for small business relief included in the draft Local Government Bill.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefits Agency
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will make a statement on his plans for the jobcentres and benefits offices in the Forest of Dean; and what steps he will take to ensure that there will be sufficient resources to guarantee the effectiveness of jobcentre plus and the Pension Service in the Forest of Dean; [77113]

  (2) what plans he has to close existing offices of the Benefits Agency and jobcentres in the Forest of Dean. [77116]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We are currently taking forward one of the largest organisational changes in the history of the civil service. We are integrating the whole of the old Employment Service and the Benefit Agency's services for people of working age to form Jobcentre Plus whilst simultaneously launching the new Pension Service.

  A key aim of the programme is to improve access to services providing active work-focused help to people of working age through Jobcentre Plus and an expert pensions advice service through The Pension Service. We are currently reviewing the facilities available to us to provide these services across the country. We are looking to make the most efficient use of these facilities whilst maintaining a high standard of service to all our customers. Both agencies are extending access to their services with, for example, the innovative use of new technology, the use of contact centres staffed by expert advisers, the extension of face-to-face services into communities and the sharing of facilities with our local partners such as local authorities.

  In spring 2003 Bath Pension Centre is scheduled to take over benefit processing and the telephone advice service for the Gloucestershire area. Pensioners will still be able to meet an adviser face to face at local advice surgeries or by arranging a home visit. This will be backed up by local services delivered in partnership with local authorities and voluntary sector organisations. Pensioners will receive letters explaining the changes fully and giving them all necessary contact details.

  The Coleford Jobcentre will be moving to new premises in the near future, as the current premises do not meet the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Jobcentre Plus are also considering moving delivery of Social Security services from Cinderford to this new Coleford office. We will be reviewing the delivery of Jobcentre Plus services as part of the roll out the new integrated offices throughout Gloucestershire by 2005–06. No decisions have yet been made on their location.

  All of these changes will be managed so as to ensure that high quality public services can be maintained throughout the transition to the new arrangements.

  Automated Credit Transfer
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what provisions he plans to introduce for disability claimants to claim their benefits via ACT. [79153]
  301W
  Malcolm Wicks
  From April 2003, the normal method of payment for benefits and pensions will be direct into bank and building society accounts (including the Post Office card account).

  All customers, including those in receipt of disability benefits, will be supplied with information 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.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on what date each disability benefit switches to payments via ACT. [79154]

  Malcolm Wicks
  From April 2003 the normal method of payment for benefits and pensions will be direct into bank and building society accounts (including the Post Office card account).

  The Department will invite existing customers to convert to payment into an account on a benefit by benefit basis. The precise dates for inviting disability benefit customers are yet to be finalised. However current proposals are that customers in receipt of Invalid Care Allowance will start to be contacted in June 2003 and customers in receipt of Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance will start in August 2003. Customers do not need to take any action until they receive a letter from the Department about the change.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many married women since June 1997 have had claims for incapacity benefit disallowed on the grounds that they did not, in respect of one of the last three years before making a claim, pay before the relevant time contributions of a relevant class from which the earnings factor is not less than 25 times the lower earnings limit for that year. [78209]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 30 October 2002]: The information is not available.

  Initiative

  Budget 2002–03 (£m)

  Areas covered

  Action Teams for Jobs

  52.8

  Selected wards in: Barnsley and Rotherham, Birmingham North, Birmingham South, Blackburn with Darwen, Blaenau Gwent, Brent, Brighton and Hove, Caerphilly, Chester-le-Street, Cornwall, Doncaster, Dundee, Easington, East Ayrshire, Glasgow Central and East, Glasgow North, Glasgow South, Glasgow West, Greenwich, Hackney, Halton, Haringey, Hartlepool, Highlands and Islands, Islington, Kingston upon Hull, Knowsley, Lambeth, Lewisham, Liverpool Central, Liverpool North, Liverpool South, Manchester Central, Manchester North, Manchester South, Merthyr Tydfil, Middlesbrough, Neath and Port Talbot, Newcastle upon Tyne, Newham, North Lanarkshire, North West Wales, Nottingham, Pembrokeshire, Plymouth, Redcar and Cleveland, Rhondda Cynon Taff, Salford, Sefton, Sheffield, South Tyneside, Southwark, St. Helens, Stockton-on-Tees, Sunderland, Thanet, Tower Hamlets, Wales Objective One, Waltham Forest, Wansbeck, West Dumbartonshire, Wirral, Wolverhampton

  Ambition Construction1

  Coventry, Knowsley, Leeds/Bradford, Manchester, Nottingham, Paddington

  302W
  Information is not collected about the marital status of those making claims to Incapacity Benefit, as it is not relevant to their claim; therefore claims made by married women cannot be disaggregated from those made by unmarried women.

  Employment Initiatives
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the employment initiatives that are in place, who is eligible for each initiative, what help is offered in each case, and which schemes will be affected by the Minister for Social Exclusion's statement of 16th October. [78328]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Details of our employment programmes are set out in Appendix 3 of the Departmental Report 2002 (Cm 5424), a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Our policies have created a strong economy geared to delivering stability, low inflation and sound public finances. Alongside this, our labour market policies promote attachment to the job market. As a result of our policies we have around the lowest number of unemployed people in a quarter century, and more people in work than ever before, with an increase in overall employment of almost 200 000 in the last year.

  We are actively considering what more can be done to streamline our welfare to work programmes, achieve even greater coherence between the New Deals, and transfer lessons learnt into mainstream provision. But as my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Exclusion has made clear we have no plans to stop running Action Teams for Jobs, Employment Zones or the ethnic minority outreach service.

  Schemes and Initiatives
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the schemes and initiatives sponsored by his Department and its agencies which are not the subject of national roll out, showing(a) the authorities or areas covered by the scheme and (b) the budget of the scheme in the last year for which information is available. [75678]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The table provides information on the Department's current initiatives (at 21 October 2002) which are not part of a national roll out.
  303W

  Initiative

  Budget 2002–03 (£m)

  Areas covered

  Ambition IT

  7.6

  Manchester

  Ambition Retail1

  Bristol, Cardiff, Gateshead, Glasgow, Redditch

  Attendance Allowance—trial of new claims procedures

  0.25

  Bristol and South West

  Basic Skills pilots1

  Jobcentre Plus Districts: Greater Nottingham, Wearside

  Employment Zones

  78.77

  Birmingham, Brent, Brighton and Hove, Doncaster, Glasgow, Haringey, Heads of the Valley and Caerphilly, Liverpool Sefton, Middlesbrough, Newham, North West Wales, Nottingham, Plymouth, Southwark, Tower Hamlets.

  Innovation Fund projects

  5.7

  Former Employment Service Units of Delivery: Aberdeen, Birmingham, Bradford, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Hackney, Huddersfield, Keighley, Lewisham, Liverpool, Newham, Northumberland, Southend-on-Sea, Suffolk

  Mentoring pilots

  2.0

  Former Employment Service Units of Delivery: Barnsley and Rotherham, Black Country, Borders, Brighton, Bristol, Cardiff and the Vale, Greater Nottingham, Hereford and Worcester, Knowsley, Lanarkshire, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle, North West Wales, Teesside, Thames Gateway

  Minority Ethnic outreach projects

  6.5

  Selected areas in Jobcentre Plus Districts: Birmingham and Solihull, Bolton and Bury, Bradford, Calderdale and Kirklees, City and East London, Coventry and Warwickshire, Leicestershire, Lewisham, London Central North East, London Central South, London North, London South East, Manchester North and South, Oldham and Rochdale, Sandwell and Dudley, Wolverhampton and Walsall

  Step UP pilots

  12.0

  Selected wards in: Burnley, Cardiff, East Ayrshire, Great Yarmouth, Greenwich, Knowsley, Lambeth, Leeds, Manchester, Oldham, Rotherham, Sandwell, Sheffield, Sunderland [Further pilots will start in Bradford, Bristol, Coventry, Dundee, Hackney, Wrexham in November 2002]

  Tailored pathway pilots

  2.0

  Former Employment Service Units of Delivery: Bath and North East Somerset, Brighton, Coventry, Dorset, Dumfries and Galloway, Ealing and Hillingdon, Glasgow, Greater Nottinghamshire, Knowsley, Mid Wales Powys and Ceredigion, Newport Torfaen and Monmouth, North East Wales, Southampton, Torbay and South Devon, Wakefield, Waveney, Wearside

  Note:

  1These initiatives are being funded through the New Deal and Innovation Fund, therefore separate budget figures are not available.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what help he gives businesses in the Scottish Borders to improve health and safety in the workplace. [75853]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department of Work and Pensions is the sponsor department for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the government body set up to help protect people at work.

  Health and safety law is enforced in the Scottish Borders, as it is throughout Great Britain, either by HSE inspectors or inspectors from the relevant local authority, depending on the nature of the work activity. Businesses receive advice during inspection visits or they can contact their local enforcing authority. In addition, HSE works in partnership with other organisations such as Scottish Enterprise and trade associations to provide advice to businesses in Scottish Borders.

  HSE provides information and advice on improving health and safety in businesses in a variety of other ways. HSE Infoline, a telephone public inquiry service, answers general inquiries, gives information about free and priced publications and directs callers to other sources of advice in HSE. Over 600 free publications are available from HSE's website (www.hse.gov.uk).

  HSE is also assisting Scottish Executive and other stakeholders in Scotland in setting up an occupational health and safety support service for small and medium
  304W
  sized enterprises and their employees across Scotland. The service will provide telephone advice and guidance with the possibility of a workplace visit carried out by an occupational health nurse or equivalent health and safety specialist.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to reform employer liability law. [75852]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department is currently engaging with other interested Government Departments, the Health and Safety Executive and non-governmental organisations including the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress and the Association of British Insurers to discuss their assessment of the long-term issues affecting employers' liability compulsory insurance.

  Income Support
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of pensioners received part of their income from means-tested social assistance, benefits and income support in each of the last five years; and what his estimate is for this figure for the next five years. [78474]
  305W
  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the format requested. However around one third of pensioner benefit units have been in receipt of income-related benefits over the past five years. This proportion is expected to remain broadly constant over the next five years.

  Notes:

  1. We have defined pensioners by the Income Support definition i.e. where either partner is aged 60 or over.

  2. Income related benefits have been defined as Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit and Income Support/Minimum Income Guarantee/Pension Credit. Each benefit unit is only counted once, for example a benefit unit in receipt of both Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit won't be counted in each group.

  3. All estimates provided are consistent with those supplied for the 2002 Spending Review, and include the estimated effects of Pension Credit and New Tax Credits where appropriate.

  4. Estimates provided include people in residential care and nursing homes as well as private households.

  Ageism
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what strategies his Department has to ensure that there is no ageism in recruitment and retention processes. [79294]

  Mr. McCartney
  Equality of opportunity for all staff is a key feature of all Civil Service employment. As part of this, ageism is not tolerated. Our Diversity and Equality policy statement specifies age as an area where we "will provide equality of opportunity". This equality of treatment extends also to the new external recruitment system where potential recruits will be selected on the basis of competencies.

  The Department includes age as part of its equality proofing of policies and procedures. Our current HR Change Programme is continuously reviewing its recruitment, development, performance management and retention policies. Alongside this work we are implementing the outcomes of the Performance and Innovation Unit's "Winning the Generation Game" report.

  All applicants and employees are treated fairly to enable them to develop and fulfil their potential, valuing the contribution each person can make to the organisation. Vacancies are open up to everyone up to the age of 65 and a person's age is not taken into account at any stage of the selection process.

  In addition to its usual recruitment procedures the Department also recruits employees through the New Deal programme, both for Young People and 25 and 50 plus.

  All staff in the Department, below the Senior Civil Service, are able to choose to remain beyond 60, up to the age of 65. Staff over 60 are subject to the same terms and conditions as staff under 60 with no special reviews of performance applied. The Department's flexible approach to age retirement allows staff to continue to work in their current grade and, subject to business need, to seek promotion to a higher grade or voluntarily to downgrade. Subject to business need staff may also choose to work full or part time.

  Departmental Websites
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if he will list the web site links associated with his Department, including sites now dormant or closed, and indicating whether they are live, dormant or closed; what the start up costs were for each site listed; what the operating costs were in each year since start up for each site; which company hosted each site; what assessment takes place for each site; which company does the assessment; if he will place the assessment reports in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [75573]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information on the start up and operating costs for Department's websites is only available in part. In-house staff maintain the department's websites and operation cost could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. Web hosting and provision of web services is provided by the department's IT contractor. However, Internet services are not accounted for separately.

  The departmental site www.dwp.gov.uk formerly the DSS site www.dss.gov.uk, was launched in August 2000 at a production cost of £183,650 for the research, design and building of the site. In December 2001 the site was redeveloped for DWP and broadened to include information for the new department at a cost of £48,193.

  Qualitative and quantitative research of sites has taken place along with weekly monitoring of statistics. The companies used have been appointed through the Central Office of Information. The qualitative and quantitative research reports have been placed in the Library.

  The information in the table details website associated with DWP and includes live, dormant and closed websites, all DWP sites are hosted on servers provided by Electronic Data Systems with the exception of New Deal which is on a Youthnet server managed by a third party. Costs have been included where available:

  www.agepositive.gov.uk

  Live

  £104,172

  www.benefitsagency.gov.uk

  Closed

  www.bfi.gov.uk

  Live

  www.csa.gov.uk

  Live

  www.dwp.gov.uk/actionteams

  Live

  www.dwp.gov.uk/employmentzones

  Live

  £10,500

  www.employmentservice.gov.uk

  Dormant

  www.dss.gov.uk

  Dormant

  www.dwp.gov.uk

  Live

  £231,843

  www.disability.gov.uk

  Live

  £74,500.

  www.gogetpensions.gov.uk

  Closed

  www.info4pensioners.gov.uk

  Live

  £12,531

  www.itsa.gov.uk

  Closed

  www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk

  Live

  £802,275

  www.newdeal.gov.uk

  Live

  www.one.gov.uk

  Live

  www.pensionguide.gov.uk

  Live

  £89,670

  www.esf.gov.uk

  Live

  www.targetingfraud.gov.uk

  Live

  £2,666

  www.thepensionservice.gov.uk

  Live

  £256,259

  www.worktrain.gov.uk

  Live

  £2,151,253

  PSA Targets
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if he will place the data underlying
  307W
  his Department's value for money scores in relation to the 1998 public service agreements in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [78970]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Department's Public Service Agreement (PSA) for the period 1999–00 to 2001–02 (published as Command Paper 4315) set out a number of value for money measures. These were reported on in the Department of Social Security's 2001 Departmental Report and the Department for Work and Pensions' annual report for 2002 (Command Papers 5115 and 5424 respectively), both of which are in the Library.

  Pensions
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent assessment he has made of the cost of reintroducing the link between the state pension and average earnings. [79765]

  Mr. McCartney
  Reintroducing the earnings link does nothing to help poorer pensioners. To do so would cost around £410m net in 2003–04 in today's prices. However, we will be spending an extra £6bn a year in real terms on pensioners as a result of policies introduced since 1997. This includes £2.5bn more on the poorest third of pensioners. This is three times more than an earnings link since 1998 would have given them.

  Increases in the basic State Pension over the last two years have given single pensioners £2.10 a week more than an earnings link would have given them and £3.35 more for couples.

  Note:

  The costs of increasing the basic State Pension by earnings are in 2002–03 prices, rounded to the nearest £10m.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the(a) net cost of linking pensions to earnings and (b) surplus in the National Insurance Fund in (i) 2000 and (ii) 2010. [79362]

  Mr. McCartney
  The net cost to Government of increasing the basic State Pension by earnings, after taking account of savings in income-related benefits would be around £410 million in 2003–04 in 2002–03 prices.

  The surplus in the National Insurance Fund for the year ending 31 March 2000 was £2,161m. Long-run projections of the National Insurance Fund are contained in the report by the Government Actuary on the costs of uprating the basic retirement pension in line with the general level of earnings (CM 4920).

  Notes:

  1. The net cost of increasing the basic State Pension by earnings is, in 2002–03 prices, rounded to the nearest £10m.

  2. The Government Actuary's Department provides estimates of the cost to the National Insurance Fund of increasing the basic State Pension by earnings. Net costs are calculated using the DWP Policy Simulation Model.

  3. The surplus in the National Insurance Fund for Great Britain is taken from National Insurance Fund accounts and is in cash terms, showing the excess of receipts over payments.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  David Cairns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he has taken to ensure that 308W
  winter fuel payments can continue to be paid to a non-eligible person who is in receipt of income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance on behalf of a partner who is eligible for a payment. [80315]

  Mr. McCartney
  Regulations laid before Parliament on 24 October will permit winter fuel payments to be made, where Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance is in payment for a couple, to the partner who is claiming for both, even if that person is aged under 60 and it is the other member of the couple who is entitled to the winter fuel payment. This will ensure that around 15,000 households continue to receive winter fuel payments automatically and timeously, without the need to claim. Such payments to the non-eligible partner made for the last two winters (£3 million per year) were not supported by legislation and the Department's relevant accounts will be noted accordingly.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what information will be provided to pensioners regarding the introduction and use of Post Office card accounts; and if he will make a statement. [78079]

  Malcolm Wicks
  All customers will be supplied with information (including letters and leaflets), which clearly set out their "account options" so they can choose the bank or building society account (including the Post Office card account) which best meets their needs and circumstances.

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action he has taken to implement the recommendations relevant to his Department in the Social Exclusion Unit report "Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners." [76806]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by the Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on 24 October 2002,Official Report 1, 495W.

  Benefits
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will introduce a fast-track scheme to provide interim advance payments to people who appear to have a valid claim to benefit; [79187]

  (2) if he will introduce a fast-track scheme to provide interim advance payments to people who appear to have made a valid claim for benefit from the Social Fund. [79217]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We recognise that many people making a claim to benefit will be in need of immediate financial support. To avoid unnecessary hardship, discretionary payments on account of benefit can be made where a claim has not been determined but the Decision Maker is satisfied that the basic conditions of entitlement for the benefit are likely to be met.

  309W
  Social Fund Crisis Loans can be made to people in an emergency where there are no other means of preventing serious damage or serious risk to health or safety. An inherent feature of Crisis Loan applications is that they should be dealt with on the day the need arises.

  In the case of the regulated Social Fund, for example Sure Start Maternity Grants or Funeral Payments, it would not be appropriate to make interim awards pending receipt of a valid claim. However, we believe arrangements for both elements of the scheme are sufficiently flexible to allow staff to have regard to the urgency of an application.

  Tax Credits
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the rules will be for passporting families to entitlement to the Sure Start maternity grant when the new tax credits come into force in April 2003. [77274]

  Maria Eagle
  From April 2003, Sure Start Maternity Grants will be payable to families receiving Income Support, income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, Child Tax Credit at a rate greater than the family element, or Working Tax Credit where a disabled worker is included in the assessment.

  Applications may be made at any time from 11 weeks before the baby is due until three months after the birth, or up to three months after the date of an adoption or parental order.

  Child support
  Steve Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what estimates he has made of the rate of compliance under the new Child Support Scheme; [76110]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the change in the child support maintenance compliance rate that will result from the new scheme reforms. [79359]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 4 November 2002]: A target of 75 per cent. compliance, to be achieved by the end of 2003 and applying to cases assessed under the new scheme, was included in 2000 in the Public Services Agreement for the former Department of Social Security. We have a long-term goal of improving on this figure, as our experience of the new scheme increases.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the extent of delay in introducing new Child Support Agency assessment procedures. [78732]

  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, when the reforms of the CSA will be fully implemented [79004]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the letter sent to hon. Members on 19 September 2002 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, a copy of which was placed in the Library.

  Social Fund
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many people who applied for a budgeting loan in 2000–01 had an outstanding Social Fund loan; [77271]

  (2) what his estimate is of the cost of replacing the double debt rule (Social Fund Direction 53), with a restriction based on just the amount owing. [77272]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The double debt rule is designed to ensure that people do not become over indebted by borrowing additional amounts from the Social Fund until they have repaid a reasonable proportion of the original loan. Further loans are refused to applicants who have an outstanding budgeting loan debt of more than half the maximum amount available to them. Once their existing debt drops to less than half they can reapply, although the amount of further loan available to them could still be affected by any outstanding debt.

  It is estimated that the cost of abolishing the rule while broadly maintaining maximum amounts available, would be around £100m in the first year. The cost would fall to £25m in the second year and £10m in the third1.

  Information is not available on the number of people applying for budgeting loans who already have an outstanding Social Fund loan. However, during 2000–01, 1,114,0002,3 applications were made for a Social Fund budgeting loan where there was an existing Social Fund debt. This figure will include cases where one person has made more than one application.

  Note:

  3The figure for applications from people with existing Social Fund debt includes Crisis Loan debt which is not subject to the double debt rule.

  Sources:

  1DWP Analytical Services Directorate using data from the Social Fund policy, budget and management systems and a scan of Social Fund computer system.

  2Social Fund policy, budget and management systems and a scan of the Social Fund computer system.

  Customer Service
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the benefit claims forms that referred claimants to the Citizens Advice Bureaux Service for assistance and advice in their completion as at 30th September; what percentage of documents issued referred benefits claimants to Citizens Advice Bureaux(a) in 2001 and (b) up to 30th September; and what discussions the Government has had with the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux in respect of the inclusion of such references to advice. [76540]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 23 October 2002]: In accordance with the expressed wishes of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the Department routinely advises customers on its claim forms and other written information products that they may seek further advice from sources such as their local Citizens Advice Bureau.

  The majority of our claim packs, covering most major benefits, include reference to the advice available from local Citizens Advice Bureau. We have recently

  311W
  confirmed with the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux that it is still their wish that we should do so. The purpose of the reference to local Citizen's Advice Bureaux is to make customers aware of the availability of their independent advisory services.

  A list of the Department's Claim Packs that include such references is set out below.

  Attendance Allowance

  DS2

  DS2A

  DS1140—changes

  DS263—reclaim

  Child Benefit

  CH2

  Disability Living Allowance

  (Adult)

  DLA1

  DLA1A

  DLA434—changes

  DLA580—reclaim

  DLA581— reclaim

  DLA582—reclaim

  (Child)

  DLA1

  DLA1A

  DLA434—changes

  DLA58O—reclaim

  DLA581—reclaim

  DLA582—reclaim

  Guardian's Allowance

  BG1

  Invalid Care Allowance

  DS700

  Incapacity Benefit

  SC1

  SSP1

  Income Support

  Al

  Industrial Injuries

  B1100-OA

  B1100-OD

  B1100-A

  B1100-B

  B1100-C

  B1100-E

  B1100-PN

  Jobseeker's Allowance

  JSA2 review claim pack

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  SDA1

  Social Fund

  SF100 Maternity Payment

  SF300 Community Care Grant

  SF500 Budgeting Loan

  Child Benefit
  Steve Webb:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter to be sent to child benefit customers on 28th October informing them of their options for receiving benefit from April 2003. [76108]
  312W
  Malcolm Wicks
  A copy of the mailing sent to child benefit customers has been placed in the Library. The mailing consists of an invitation letter, supplementary information, a form to capture bank details and a prepaid envelope. It explains account options that are open to customers and how to transfer to payment directly into an account.

  Statistical Publications
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if his Department's research programme for 2002–03 includes research into the impact on the health of mental health service users of his Department's benefits policies; and if he will make a statement. [78608]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department has no plans to conduct research into the impact on the health of mental health service users of the Department's benefit policies in its 2002–2003-research programme. However, the Department conducts a wide range of research with its service users, which includes mental health service users in receipt of benefits.

  The Department publishes its research programme and all its commissioned research.

  Fuel Poverty
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which of his Department's Public Service Agreements relate to fuel poverty reduction and what progress has been made to date in achieving them [79496]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department for Work and Pensions has no Public Service Agreement relating to a reduction in fuel poverty. Departments that do have Public Service Agreements on fuel poverty will report on progress against the targets in the Autumn Performance Reports, which will be published shortly.

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what progress has been made in developing improvements to the Fuel Direct scheme; what the purpose of an improved scheme will be; and by what date a revised scheme is likely to be in place. [79495]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Fuel Direct scheme is designed to protect the fuel supplies of people receiving income-related benefits—particularly families—who have run up arrears, by making payments direct from their benefit to the supplier until the debt is cleared. The scheme works well and there are no plans for a radical overhaul.

  As part of the Government's Fuel Poverty Strategy the Department has been working with the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) to make a number of operational improvements to the scheme for the benefit of both customers and suppliers. The first stage of these improvements was introduced in March 2001 and work is underway to further modernise the scheme.

  Uprating
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions' pursuant to his answer of 15 July 2002,Official Report, column 114W, on state pensions, if he

  313W
  will increase the basic state pension increments paid to pensioners who retired before April 2002 so that they maintain their original proportionate value as outlined in Benefits Agency literature. [74742]

  Mr. McCartney
  The legal requirement, as set out in our literature, is that where people defer taking their pensions and, as a result, earn increments, then for every six days of deferral (excluding Sundays and days for which certain N1 benefits are received) the amount of the increments will increase by about 1/7p for each £1.00 of the weekly rate payable at the time the person becomes entitled to the state pension. We are also obliged to increase all parts of state pension by at least the rate of RPI on an annual basis. We have met these legal requirements.

  British Residents
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will issue advice to British nationals residing in the islands of(a) Martinique, (b) Guadeloupe and (c) Reunion on the rationale of paying winter fuel payments to them; [74560]

  (2) when he was advised by the European Commission that the Government was obliged to pay winter fuel payments to British residents in the overseas territories of the EU; what legislation governs this requirement; and if he will list the cost of such payments, broken down by current overseas territory of the EU; [74558]

  (3) if he will make a statement on his policy for paying the winter fuel payment to British residents in (a) French Guiana and (b) Guyana; and if he will make a statement on how to determine the location of the British nationals who reside for part of the year in each country. [74559]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Government, after careful consideration of its legal obligations under EC Regulation 1408/71 and discussions with the European Commission, concluded that certain people living in the EEA (or from winter 2002–3, Switzerland) could continue to get Winter Fuel Payments. I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave to my hon. Friend the member for Caephilly on 19 July 2002,Official Report, column 599w.

  The EC regulation applies to member states, French overseas departments (Martinique, Guadeloupe, French Guiana and Reunion), the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands. It also applies to Switzerland from 1 June 2002.

  We estimate the annual cost of such payments to be around £10 million.

  Eligible people, generally EEA nationals (which includes UK nationals) who qualified for a payment in Great Britain before moving to another EEA country will be able to continue receiving Winter Fuel Payments whilst they are ordinarily resident in another EEA country or Switzerland, provided that they continue to satisfy the eligibility criteria.

  If a person lives in more than one country, a decision will need to be made to determine whether he is entitled under the current rules.
  314W
  Notes:

  Winter Fuel Payments can only be made to people living in Switzerland from this coming winter. This is because, while Switzerland is not a member of the EEA, a formal agreement between Switzerland and the European Community (EC) countries will enable the EU Social Security coordination regulations to apply between Switzerland and the EC countries. The agreement came into force from 1st June 2002 and therefore, for Winter Fuel Payments, applies from winter 2002–03, but not before.

  However, the agreement does not extend to the three countries who are not part of the EC but who are part of the EEA, namely, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. Therefore in some circumstances, Winter Fuel Payments may continue to be paid to people who are Swiss nationals who live in Switzerland or one of the EC countries, but not when they live in Iceland, Liechtenstein or Norway. Similarly Winter Fuel Payments may continue to be paid to people who are nationals of Iceland, Liechtenstein or Norway who live in an EEA country, but not when they live in Switzerland.

  Ministerial Approval

  Date

  SoS Approval

  PSL Approval

  Basic Pensions
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of how much the state pension will be worth over the next 50 years. [79745]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Government believe that the State Pension should remain the essential foundation of income in retirement.

  The basic State Pension is currently £75.50 for single pensioners. In the short-term we have given the guarantee that the basic State Pension will be increased by at least £100 a year for single pensioners and £160 a year for couples in 2003–04. In future years, the basic State Pension will be increased by 2.5 per cent. or the increase in the September Retail Prices Index, whichever is the higher.

  Based on current policy, we estimate that the rate of the basic State Pension will be around £76.25 in 50 years time in today's prices.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in which countries UK citizens entitled to receive the winter fuel allowance can reside and receive the allowance. [79065]

  Mr. McCartney
  UK citizens who are entitled to Winter Fuel Payments will continue to receive the payments if they move to another European Economic Area country or Switzerland, provided that they continue to meet the eligibility criteria.

TRANSPORT

  Freight Vehicles (EU Regulations)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether the 48 hour average working week restriction will apply to drivers of large freight vehicles; if operators can require drivers to work more than
  315W
  48 hours without having to sign an opt-out agreement to EU Regulation 3820/85; and if he will make a statement. [74344]

  Mr. Spellar
  Directive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities was adopted on 11 March 2002 and must be transposed into national law not later than 23 March 2005. This directive, which matches the scope of Regulation (EEC) 3820/85 on drivers' hours, requires member states to ensure that the average weekly working time may not exceed 48 hours over a reference period of 4 months which may, in certain circumstances, be extended to 6 months. Neither directive 2002/15/EC nor Regulation 3820/85 provides for an opt out.

  London Underground
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, (1) if he will list the sub-contracts entered into as part of the London Underground Public Private Partnership by(a) Bechtel, (b) Jarvis, (c) Amey, (d) Balfour Beatty, (e) W. S. Atkins, (f) Bombadier Transportation, (g) Thames Water, (h) Seeboard, indicating the (i) value and (ii) purpose of these subcontracts; how many of these sub-contracts are with the above companies and connected businesses and how much these contracts are worth; [79535]

  (2) if he will list for (a) Bechtel, (b) Jarvis, (c) Amey, (d) Balfour Beatty, (e) W.S. Atkins, (f) Bombadier Transportation, (g) Thames Water and (h) Seeboard, how much investment they have made into the London Underground Public Private Partnership to date; how much they are expected to invest and over what timescale; how much has (i) been paid to them from public funds and London Underground Limited to date and (ii) expected to be paid to them over (A) 70 years and (B) 30 years of the contracts they are involved in; [79539]

  (3) if he will list each contract agreed in the London Underground Public Private Partnership with (a) Bechtel, (b) Jarvis, (c) Amey, (d) Balfour Beatty, (e) W. S. Atkins, (f) Bombadier transportation, (g) Thames Water and (h) Seeboard, indicating in each case the (i) value and (ii) purpose of the contract; [79474]

  (4) what the estimated value to the London Underground is of investment via the Public Private Partnership by (a) Bechtel, (b) Jarvis, (c) Amey, (d) Balfour Beatty, (e) W. S. Atkins, (f) Bombadier Transportation, (g) Thames Water and (h) Seeboard over (i) 70 years and (ii) 30 years of the contracts they are involved in; whether this estimated value includes the profit element from these contracts to these companies; and if he will set out how this estimated value is calculated; [79540]

  (5) what assessment he has made of the levels of profits likely to be achieved from contracts and subcontracts associated with the London Underground Public Private Partnership in (a) seven and a half years and (b) 30 years by (i) Bechtel, (ii) Jarvis, (iii) Amey, (iv) Balfour Beatty, (v) WS Atkins, (vi) Bombadier Transportation, (vii) Thames Water and (viii) Seeboard. [79831]
  316W
  Mr. Jamieson
  London Underground Limited is conducting a procurement exercise for each of the three contracts to modernise the London Underground's infrastructure. The preferred bidder for the JNP contract is Tube Lines Group. The preferred bidder for the BCV and SSL contracts is Metronet. London Underground is proposing to enter into contracts with these consortia, not the individual companies listed.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, when he expects to transfer responsibility for the London Underground Public Private Partnership to the Mayor of London and Transport for London; whether he expects to set conditions on the transfer; and if he will make a statement. [79475]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government will retain responsibility for London Underground until the competitions for the PPP contracts have been completed, as envisaged by the GLA Act 1999. The Mayor and Transport for London will inherit the PPP contracts when London Underground Limited is transferred in due course.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what representations his Department has made to the Mayor of London in relation to his plans to appeal about the PFI on London Underground to the European Courts. [79534]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Mayor's plans are a matter for him. A third legal challenge to the proposed PPP arrangements would simply delay further the investment the Underground system needs. There have already been two such delays, at significant cost to taxpayers in London.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what(a) financial and (b) other information (i) his Department and (ii) London Underground Limited collate on (A) Bechtel, (B) Jarvis, (C) Amey, (D) Balfour Beatty, (E) W.S. Atkins, (F) Bombadier Transportation, (G) Thames Water and (H) Seeboard in respect of the London Underground Public Private Partnership; and if he will make a statement. [79830]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The competitions for the PPP contracts to modernise the London Underground's infrastructure are the responsibility of London Underground Limited. The preferred bidders are Metronet and Tube Lines Group, each of which is a consortium. Assessment by London Underground, with its advisers, of the capacity of the preferred bidders to carry out their obligations under the contracts is an important part of the competitions. It is for London Underground, and not for the Government, to satisfy itself in relation to the bidding consortia.

  Motorways
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those persons who have the right to direct that a stretch of motorway be closed to traffic in England and Wales; what criteria need to be applied in each case; and what(a) safeguards and (b) guidelines exist to ensure that such closure decisions are properly made before implementation. [79132]
  317W
  Mr. Spellar
  Two organisations can close a motorway: the police, under the emergency powers granted to them by the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 Section 67, and the relevant highway authority under Section 14, of the same act. The police use their powers to prevent obstruction of, or danger to or from, traffic as a result of extraordinary circumstances. In such an emergency, the police notify the highway authority that an incident has taken place, and ask for traffic management and diversion routes to be put in place. By their nature, closures by the police cannot be foreseen.

  As far as the trunk road network is concerned, the Highways Agency, in its role as Network Operator, is working pro-actively with its maintaining agents and the police forces in England to better manage incidents and help reduce the knock-on effect of congestion.

  Highway authorities are allowed to close roads where works on or near the road are likely to cause danger to the public or damage to the highway. Before closing a road, the authority is required to take account of the availability and suitability of alternative routes and, because closures are planned, advance warning is given.

  On the trunk road network the Highways Agency is working closely with its contractors to introduce more effective construction and maintenance techniques leading to fewer hold-ups while essential repairs are carried out.

  In either case, the decision to close a road is a matter for judgment taking into account the safety of the travelling public and, where appropriate, the workforce.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria there are on installing roadside speed cameras on stretches of road which have a bad safety record in advance of safer stretches of highway. [79133]

  Mr. Spellar
  Guidance on speed camera deployment is contained in Circular Roads 1/92. Additional rules and guidelines have been made available to those areas participating in the netting off funding system for safety cameras. In both cases the guidance is that speed cameras should be placed at sites and on routes where there is a history of speed-related crashes resulting in casualties.

  Road Deaths
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many deaths there have been involving motorists on the hard shoulder of(a) motorway and (b) dualled trunk carriageways for which the Highways Agency is responsible in (i) 1997, (ii) 1999 and (iii) 2001; and if he will make a statement. [79064]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In the last five years, including the years for which information was requested, the numbers of people killed in an accident involving motorists on the hard shoulder are.

  Motorways

  Dual Carriageway trunk roads

  1997

  9

  7

  1998

  24

  6

  318W

  Motorways

  Dual Carriageway trunk roads

  1999

  13

  9

  2000

  16

  19

  2001

  14

  11

  The numbers quoted for dual carriageway trunk roads also include people killed in lay-bys.

  Compared to all road accidents on motorways and dual carriageway trunk roads, there are relatively few deaths directly caused by accidents on the hard shoulder. Road accident figures are constantly monitored to identify where road improvements would be effective.

  Car Sharing
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what encouragement his Department offers to advance car sharing by its staff. [79337]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 5 November 2002]: The Driver Vehicle and Licensing Agency in Swansea operate a voluntary car sharing scheme for its staff. Staff registered on the database are encouraged to car share by the provision of a free emergency taxi service should their sharing travel arrangements break down unexpectedly.

  Car Registration
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what his estimate is of the number of unregistered cars being driven; what plans he has to strengthen the law requiring registration and increasing penalties for non-registration; and if he will make a statement. [79115]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The National Roadside Survey of Vehicle Excise Duty evasion which took place in June 1999 showed the level of evasion as 3.9 per cent. of revenue due which equates to £191 million in 2001–02. This was offset by £110 million recovered through enforcement activities. The number of unlicensed vehicles at any one time is around 1 million vehicles.

  We have introduced legislation which will make the registered keeper of a vehicle remain liable for it until a formal change of keepership is notified to DVLA. This system of continuous registration will help to improve the accuracy of the vehicle register which will lead to more efficient tax collection, and more effective enforcement. The legislation will he brought into force by regulations.

  In addition DVLA is working closely with the police and local authorities to target unlicensed and abandoned vehicles. Last year, DVLA took successful action against 800,000 evaders recovering some £110 million in fines, penalties and re-licensing revenue.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates his Department has made of how many vehicles have not been registered by their present owners with the DVLC as having changed hands. [79026]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is extremely difficult to provide a precise estimate of the number of vehicle keepers who failed to notify a vehicle transfer. The main problem is
  319W
  one of delay when the new keeper fails to notify acquisition until the licence is due for renewal. This will be addressed by our planned introduction of a system of continuous registration which will encourage immediate notice of transfer.

  Around 500,000 vehicles are currently shown on the register as "between keepers", the majority are in the hands of motor traders.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what plans he has to encourage vehicle owners to register a change of ownership with DVLC. [79027]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Modernising Vehicle Registration Implementation Board was established earlier this year with representatives from industry, motorists' organisations, the police and the insurance industry to advise my right hon. Friend on ways to improve procedures. The aim is to improve the accuracy of the vehicle register to combat vehicle crime, to help local authorities trace the owners of abandoned cars and to bear down on vehicle excise duty evasion.

  Progress on these issues have been reported to the House in my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) on 11 June 2002, Official Report, column 1138W and in my answer to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) on 21 October 2002 [Official Report, column 27W].

  Rail Franchising
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will make a statement on rail franchising policy. [79825]

  Mr. Darling
  The Strategic Rail Authority has announced today a new approach to franchising. Under it the SRA will be much clearer what it expects from each train operating company. Train companies will not just be judged on whether trains run on time but also on the cleanliness of trains and stations, accurate travel information and passenger security.

  The nature of the franchising structure put in place at privatisation has contributed to the difficulties in the railway industry—especially poor performance and variable quality of service.

  Today, with the Government's support, the SRA has announced a new approach to franchising that puts passengers first. It intends to do so through: tighter specification of services, station standards, train cleanliness and journey quality; and robust incentives and penalties that will influence positively the behaviour of operators. These include: changes to the performance regime; quantified performance indicators for service and station quality, with payment by results; and a new approach to the award and management of franchises. The first franchise awarded under the new basis is expected to start operating in 2004.

  The SRA has also announced proposals to make better use of the railway by combining franchises at key London stations—from 3 to 1 at Liverpool Street, from 2 to 1 at Waterloo and from 3 to 2 at Paddington.
  320W
  Transitional arrangements are being put in place as it is not practical to award all of the franchises due to expire by 2004 simultaneously. The SRA has therefore made a number of detailed announcements on individual franchises today. These include: an invitation to Connex Transport UK Ltd and First Group/Keolis SA to proceed to detailed negotiations on Heads of Terms for the TransPennine franchise; negotiations with Arriva Trains Northern on an interim franchise to operate services until the Northern Rail franchise commences in 2004: a one-year extension to the current South West Trains franchise to February 2004; and the agreement of principles with Stagecoach Holdings plc for a new South West Trains franchise extending to 2007.

  Further adjustments to franchise periods may be necessary to facilitate an orderly transition from the existing franchise regime to the new one. I shall be prepared to use my powers of direction under section 26 of the Railways Act 1993 for this purpose.

  This announcement is another step towards delivering a reliable and safe railway and builds on the SRA's consultation on its Capacity Utilisation Strategy launched on 5 September.

  Copies of the SRA's Franchising Policy Statement have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what property rights the Government possessed in respect of the assets of Railtrack on 10 May. [79917]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In connection with the construction of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, the Secretary of State had (and continues to have) rights under a Property Agreement entered into with Railtrack plc to buy from the company any land owned by the company which is needed for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, and certain rights of access.

  Cliffe Airport Option
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the distance is from the mean low water mark on the OS map to the edge of the four runway Cliffe Airport Option at the nearest point; and whether the four runway Cliffe Airport Option would be built past the mean low water mark at any point. [79790]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Cliffe option boundary, as published in the The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East consultation document, is around 1300 metres from the general Mean Low Water (MLW) line (excluding inlets and streams) and would not require building past the MLW mark.

  The precise location of this, and all other published options, should be considered as indicative only. If any option is supported in the air transport White Paper more detailed design and project definition will be required.
  321W
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the distance is from the proposed edge of the four runway Cliffe Airport Option to the borough constituency boundary for Castle Point, at the closest point. [79787]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As published in The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (South East) consultation document, the Cliffe option lies about 2.5 kilometres from the Castle Point borough boundary, at the closest point.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how high above the River Thames, at low tide,(a) the runways and (b) the highest buildings would be in the Cliffe Airport four runway option. [79788]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The South East and East of England Regional Air Services study (SERAS) analysis indicates that the runways associated with the Cliffe option would be between 12 and 15 metres above mean sea level. The analysis did not include either a calculation against low tide levels or the design of airport buildings and associated infrastructure.

  If the option is supported in the air transport White Paper, more detailed design and project specification would be needed.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the proposed length is in the Cliffe Airport Option, of(a) the cross-wind runway and (b) the main east-west runways. [79789]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Cliffe option published in The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (South East) consultation document has a main east-west runway length of around 4000 metres. The diagonal runway is 3000 metres long. Both include an allowance for runway end safety areas.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in what circumstances in the Cliffe Airport Option the cross-wind runway will be used for passenger movements. [79786]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 15 October 2002, [Official Report, column 724W].

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Palace of Westminster
  Mr. Shepherd
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, how many members of the Metropolitan Police Fire Section are based within the precinct of the Palace of Westminster; and if he will list(a) their duties and (b) the equipment available for use in an emergency. [78597]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  There are 21 Metropolitan Police Fire Officers based on the Parliamentary Estate. Their duties include fire prevention, response to alarm calls, patrols of the estate to ensure fire safety measures are in place, together with initial response to fires. In the event of Fire Brigade Officers attending a fire, the role of the Metropolitan Police Fire Officers is to liaise, brief and 322W
  guide. They are provided with personal protective clothing and they have access to hand held fire extinguishers.

  Portcullis House (Fire Certificate)
  Mr. Shepherd
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if, in the absence of a fire certificate for Portcullis House, the certificate of employers' liability insurance issued to hon. Members remain valid; and if the(a) fire safety doors, (b) alarm systems and (c) evacuation procedure meet British safety standards. [78596]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  Despite the delay in granting a fire certificate for Portcullis House, the employers' liability insurance arranged on behalf of Members remains valid.

  The fire strategy for Portcullis House, which encompasses safety doors, alarm systems and evacuation procedures, conforms to British safety standards and the terms of relevant legislation. I will arrange for the hon. Gentleman to be supplied with further details if he wishes.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Road Peace
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Solicitor-General what actions she proposes to take to respond to representations from RoadPeace following their meeting with Ministers on 10 October, and if he will make a statement. [79619]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney and I recognise that fatal road traffic crashes have a devastating effect on the family and friends of the victim. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is committed to ensuring that such cases are dealt with sensitively and are reviewed by prosecutors with requisite experience. The Attorney and I will continue to ensure the CPS implements its commitment under the Victim's Charter and the Direct Communication with Victim's initiative to provide support to victims and those who have been bereaved as a result of road traffic offences.

  The CPS has, since the meeting with RoadPeace, re-issued nationally to its staff a reminder to implement, so far as is possible, guidance provided in various cases, on how best to deal with situations where inquests and criminal proceedings arising out of the same incident are pending.

  The CPS brings to the Law Officers' attention, in appropriate cases, sentences passed by the Crown Court for us to consider a referral to the Court of Appeal as an Unduly Lenient Sentence. Since the beginning of this year we have referred to the Court of Appeal 6 cases involving either death by dangerous driving or death by careless driving when over the prescribed limit for alcohol.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will publish the responses her Department receives to the consultation on the Criminal Justice White Paper and place them in the Library. [79620]
  323W
  The Solicitor-General
  The responses to the consultation exercise are currently being considered. I will make arrangements to publish those that we have received once that work is concluded.

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Solicitor-General what role the Crown Prosecution Service has in prosecuting antisocial behaviour orders. [75305]

  The Solicitor-General
  Pursuant to the answer, 24 October 2002, column 452W. Details for the final paragraph should read as follows:There were prosecutions of 78 breaches of ASBO's occurring between January—December 2000, leading to convictions in 69 (9 were dismissed). 7 of the breaches were not proceeded with on public interest grounds.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Drinks Licences
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what plans he has to transfer responsibility for the granting of drinks licences in Northern Ireland from magistrates to local government authorities. [79768]

  Mr. Browne
  Northern Ireland has its own law on liquor licensing as contained in the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. There are no plans to transfer responsibility for the granting of drinks licences from magistrates to local authorities in Northern Ireland.

  Gaming Machines
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if he will bring Northern Ireland legislation on gaming machines into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom. [79199]

  Mr. Browne
  Northern Ireland has its own law on gaming machines which is included in the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. While this is broadly in line with the equivalent legislation in Great Britain, there are significant differences which take account of local circumstances in Northern Ireland. I have no plans to change this arrangement.

  Wind Farms
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many representations in each of the last five years he has received recommending an increase in the speed with which planning applications for wind farms are considered. [78997]

  Angela Smith
  The Secretary of State's office has not received any such representations during the period specified.

  HMS Caroline
  Mr. MacKinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if he will have discussions with the 324W
  Ministry of Defence to bring about the future use of HMS Caroline as part of the wider tourist attractions of the Belfast Harbour and River Lagan. [78362]

  Mr. Pearson
  HMS Caroline is currently a training ship of the Ulster Division of the Royal Navy Reserve (RNR) docked in Titanic Quarter, Belfast. I understand that the RNR has plans to build a new on-shore base in Belfast once the finance becomes available and as a result, HMS Caroline will be surplus to requirements. However, until the shore base plans are implemented, HMS Caroline will remain a training ship.

  I will ask the Northern Ireland Tourist Board to explore with relevant partners, including the Ministry of Defence, possibilities for the future use of HMS Caroline.

  Grammar Schools
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 24th October 2002,Official Report, column 476W, on selective schools, what his estimate is of the level of public support for the retention of grammar schools in Northern Ireland. [79313]

  Jane Kennedy
  Grammar schools are popular with parents and, like many other schools, are oversubscribed each year with applications for places.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH

  European Union
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when(a) his Department and (h) Ministers were informed of plans to introduce an EU top level domain; and if he will make a statement on the accuracy of his Department's initial press briefings on this subject. [78126]

  Mr. MacShane
  The information requested is not available at this time. However, I shall write to the hon. Member with a full answer as soon as possible.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the European Union offices outside of the EU, indicating the number of permanent staff; what the annual running cost is, of each office; what the diplomatic status of staff is; and if he will make a statement on the relationship between his Department and them. [78116]

  Mr. Macshane
  There are 144 European Delegations in Third party countries, employing a total of 843 permanent staff:

  Delegation

  Permanent Staff

  Afghanistan, Kabul

  8

  Albania, Tirana

  11

  Algeria, Algiers

  9

  Angola, Luanda

  5

  Antigua and Barbuda, St. John's

  0

  Argentina, Buenos Aires

  6

  Armenia, Yerevan

  0

  Australia, Canberra

  3

  Bahamas, Nassau

  0

  325W

  Delegation

  Permanent Staff

  Bangladesh, Dhaka

  10

  Barbados, Bridgetown

  6

  Belarus, Minsk

  0

  Belize, Belize City

  0

  Benin, Cotonou

  9

  Bolivia, La Paz

  5

  Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sarajevo

  9

  Botswana, Gaborone

  4

  Brazil, Brasilia

  9

  Bulgaria, Sofia

  7

  Burkina Faso, Ouagadougou

  11

  Burundi, Bujumbura

  3

  Cambodia. Phnom Penh

  2

  Cameroon, Yaounde

  9

  Canada, Ottawa

  5

  Cape Verde, Praia

  1

  Central African Rep., Bangui

  4

  Chad, Ndjamena

  5

  Chile, Santiago

  5

  China, Beijing

  18

  China, Hong-Kong

  4

  Colombia, Bogota

  8

  Comores, Moroni

  1

  Congo, Rep., Brazzaville

  3

  Costa Rica, San Jose

  2

  Croatia, Zagreb

  7

  Cuba, Havana

  1

  Cyprus, Nicosia

  3

  Czech, Rep., Prague

  8

  Democratic Rep. of Congo, Kinshasa

  6

  Djibouti, Djibouti

  1

  Dominican Rep., Santo Domingo

  7

  Egypt, Cairo

  13

  El Salvador, San Salvador

  0

  Equador, Quito

  0

  Equatorial Guinea, Malabo

  1

  Eritrea, Asmara

  3

  Estonia, Tallin

  6

  Ethiopia, Addis Ababa

  12

  Fiji, Suva

  4

  Fyr Macedonia, Skopje

  5

  Gabon, Libreville

  5

  Gambia, Banjul

  1

  Georgia, Tbilissi

  9

  Ghana, Accra

  7

  Grenada, St. George's

  0

  Guatemala, Guatemala City

  5

  Guinea, Conakry

  8

  Guinea-Bissau, Bissau

  3

  Guyana, Georgetown

  4

  Haiti, Port Au Prince

  5

  Honduras, Tegucigalpa

  0

  Hungary, Budapest

  7

  India, New Delhi

  12

  Indonesia, Jakarta

  9

  Israel, Tel Aviv

  6

  Ivory Coast, Abidjan

  11

  Jamaica, Kingston

  5

  Japan, Tokyo

  18

  Jordan, Amman

  8

  Kazakhstan, Almaty

  9

  Kenya, Nairobi

  13

  Kingdom of Tonga, Nuku'alofa

  0

  Korea, Seoul

  5

  Kyrgyzstan, Bishkek

  0

  Laos, Vientiane

  1

  Latvia, Riga

  6

  Lebanon, Beirut

  8

  Lesotho, Maseru

  3

  Liberia, Monrovia

  0

  Lithuania, Vilnius

  6

  Madagascar, Antananarivo

  10

  Malawi, Lilongwe

  6

  326W

  Delegation

  Permanent Staff

  Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur

  2

  Mali, Bamako

  9

  Malta, Valetta

  4

  Mauritania, Nouakchott

  5

  Mauritius, Port Louis

  5

  Mexico, Mexico City

  6

  Moldava, Chisinau

  0

  Morocco, Rabat

  11

  Mozambique, Maputo

  7

  Namibia, Windhoek

  5

  Nepal, Kathmandu

  1

  Netherlands Antilles, Willemstad

  1

  New Caledonia, Noumea

  1

  Nicaragua, Managua

  13

  Niger, Niamey

  9

  Nigeria, Abuja

  7

  Norway, Oslo

  3

  Pakistan, Islamabad

  9

  Papua New Guinea, Port Moresby

  4

  Paraguay, Asuncio

  1

  Peru, Lima

  6

  Philippines, Manila

  7

  Poland, Warsaw

  11

  Romania, Bucharest

  9

  Russia, Moscow

  23

  Rwanda, Kigali

  5

  Samoa, Apia

  0

  Sao Tome and Príncipe, São Tome

  1

  Saudi Arabia, Riyadh

  2

  Senegal, Dakar

  8

  Sierra Leone, Freetown

  4

  Singapore, Singapore

  1

  Slovakia, Bratislava

  6

  Slovenia, Ljubljana

  6

  Solomon Islands, Honiara

  1

  South Africa, Cape Town

  0

  South Africa, Pretoria

  12

  Sri Lanka, Colombo

  1

  Sudan, Khartoum

  3

  Surinam, Paramaribo

  1

  Swaziland, Mbabane

  2

  Switzerland, Geneva

  18

  Syria, Damascus

  9

  Tajikistan, Dushanbe

  0

  Tanzania, Dar es Salaam

  9

  Thailand, Bangkok

  12

  Togo, Lomé

  2

  Transjordan and Gaza Strip, Jerusalem

  10

  Trinidad and Tobago, Port of Spain

  2

  Tunisia, Tunis

  10

  Turkey, Ankara

  9

  Uganda, Kampala

  7

  Ukraine, Kiev

  11

  United States of America, New York

  11

  United States of America, Washington

  25

  Uruguay, Montevideo

  8

  Vanuatu, Port Vila

  1

  Venezuela, Caracas

  7

  Vietnam, Hanoi

  9

  Yogoslavia, Belgrade

  6

  Zambia, Lusaka

  7

  Zimbabwe, Harare

  4

  Floater, Missions

  5

  Total

  843

  Note:

  Where no permanent staff are listed, delegations are managed in entirety by locally engaged staff.

  The total allocation under Title A6 of the budget (Staff and Administrative Expenditure of European Community Delegations) for 2002 is €273.3 million.

  327W
  Whether or not delegation officials enjoy diplomatic status depends on the individual arrangements agreed between the European Commission and the relevant host country or organisation.

  Diplomatic List
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ensure that individuals on secondment from the private sector in embassies are marked as such in the Diplomatic List, listing the firm from which they originated and the dates of their secondment. [78156]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Diplomatic Service List normally includes only established members of the Diplomatic Service. Although secondees from the private sector and other Government Departments may be entitled to diplomatic privileges when abroad, they are not established members of the Diplomatic Service. The relatively short duration of secondments from the private sector means that, if included, entries for secondees could well be out of date by the time the list was published.

  Arms Sales (Iraq)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to his Serbian counterpart regarding deliveries of Yugoslav arms to Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [79553]

  Mr. MacShane
  We are very concerned about recent reports of arms sales from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to Iraq. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I raised this with the Yugoslav Foreign Minister, Dr. Goran Svilanovic, when he visited the UK on 30–31 October. We urged the Yugoslav Government to investigate the matter fully and bring criminal prosecutions against those responsible. We will continue to press for a thorough investigation.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will make a statement on the NATO operation in the Bosnia entity of Republika Srpska related to the sale of military equipment to Iraq. [79550]

  Mr. Macshane
  NATO Stabilisation Force troops carried out a two-day search of the Bosnian Serb government owned Air Force Institute, Orao, on 11–13 October. The search uncovered evidence that Orao had been providing spare engine parts for Iraqi MiG fighter jets, as well as technical assistance in repairing the engines.

  Lord Ashdown, the High Representative in Bosnia, made a statement on 27 October demanding an immediate end to such assistance to Iraq and a full enquiry. He called for all those responsible to be brought to account, and for new controls to prevent any recurrence.

  A number of officials have since been dismissed. On 30 October, the State government announced a total ban on all arms imports and exports. We strongly support Lord Ashdown's proposals, and will continue to make clear to Bosnian leaders the need to address this as a matter of urgency.

  Ageism
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what strategies his Department has to ensure that there is no ageism in recruitment and retention processes. [79290]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  All recruitment to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) is on merit on the basis of fair and open competition. This is in line with the Civil Service Commissioners' Recruitment Code. It means that all applicants are treated equally regardless of age, gender or marital status, ethnic origin or disability.

  There are upper age limits for application to join the Diplomatic Service. Applicants must be able to complete at least one overseas tour before the normal retirement age. This allows us to achieve a sensible return on recruitment and training costs.

  Zimbabwe
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the extent of human rights abuse in Zimbabwe; if he will list the human rights abuses perpetrated in Zimbabwe that have been(a) reported to and (b) investigated by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [79327]

  Mr. Rammell
  Zimbabwe's human rights record is appalling. In its latest report on political violence dated 9 October, the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum recorded 223 cases of abduction/kidnapping, 7 of rape, 1057 of torture and 58 of murder, in the period 1 January to 30 September 2002. Most of the violence has been perpetrated by Zimbabwe's ruling party, ZANU(PF). The vast majority of victims are opposition supporters, or those suspected of being such.

  The international community, including the UK, has consistently condemned these abuses and called on the Zimbabwe Government to respect their obligations under international human rights conventions. The EU, the US and others have imposed targeted sanction on the Mugabe regime and the Commonwealth has suspended Zimbabwe from its Councils.

  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the adequacy of food supplies in Zimbabwe; what steps he has taken to monitor the future availability of adequate food supplies for the population of Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement. [79326]

  Mr. Rammell
  The food situation in Zimbabwe remains of serious concern. We, and other donors, are doing all we can—through the UN World Food Programme and Non-Governmental Organisations—to ensure that international aid reaches the needy regardless of their political views. There is credible evidence however that other sources of food, controlled by the ZANU PF regime, are being used in support of its political objectives. We deplore this, as well as the obstruction of the work of certain Non-Governmental Organisations, which also appears to be politically motivated.
  329W
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the prospects for foreign investment in Zimbabwe. [79329]

  Mr. Rammell
  The prospects for foreign investment in Zimbabwe are poor. Figures show that it has declined by 99 per cent. since 1998. The reasons are obvious. Zimbabwe is one of the world's fastest shrinking economies. It has lost the support of major donors and international financial institutions. Its skilled labour force, faced with over 70 per cent. unemployment, food shortages and 140 per cent. inflation, is leaving the country. On top of this, the current regime in Harare has undermined the rule of law and the right to hold private property.

  Conflict Prevention
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list by country the projects funded by his Department under the Global Conflict Prevention Pool and the amount given to each. [79560]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Global Conflict Prevention Pool is run jointly by FCO, MOD and DFID. The Pool is divided into strategies, some of which cover regions or themes and some cover specific countries as listed below.

  In Financial Year 2002–3 the geographical strategies and allocations are:

  Afghanistan—£18,070,000

  Balkans—£8,550,000

  Belize/Guatemala—£2,101,990

  Central & Eastern Europe—£10,940,000

  Indonesia/East Timor—£2,053,761

  Kashmir—£1,628,000

  Middle East—£5,850,000

  Nepal—£6,781,548

  Russia/FSU—£8,160,000

  Sri Lanka £668,973

  In Financial Year 2002–3 the thematic strategies and allocations are:

  EU Civilian Crisis Management—£450,000

  OSCE/CoE—£1,630,000

  Security Sector Reform—£2,830,395

  Small Arms & Light Weapons—£11,150,000

  United Nations (capacity building for peacekeeping and conflict prevention)—£14,529,673

  Within these strategies there is a wide range of projects. A report on the operation of the Global Conflict Prevention Pool will be published after the end of its first two years of operation in May 2003.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the criteria are for the disbursement of funds from the Global Conflict Prevention Pool to(a) Macedonia, (b) Kosovo, (c) Bosnia, (d) Indonesia and (e) East Timor; how much was allocated from the pool for the purchase of equipment to each in (i) 2001 and (ii) 2002; and if he will make a statement. [79558]
  330W
  Mr. Rammell
  The criteria for all projects funded by the Global Conflict Prevention Pool, wherever they take place, are drawn from the Public Service Agreement target:"Improved effectiveness of the UK contribution to conflict prevention and management as demonstrated by a reduction in the number of people whose lives are affected by violent conflict and a reduction in potential sources of conflict, where the UK can make a significant contribution."

  This is a joint target for the three departments involved in the Pool, FCO, MOD and DFID.

  The GCPP's programme funds are disbursed to strategies agreed by the Ministerial committee responsible for managing the Pool. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave her today (UIN 79560) which provides a full list of the current strategies and their allocations.

  Activity in Macedonia, Kosovo and Bosnia is funded from the Balkans strategy. This strategy has four strands: Access to Justice, Strengthening Democracy and Inter-Ethnic relations, Security Sector Reform and Countering Organised Crime.

  Activity in Indonesia and East Timor is covered by the Indonesia/East Timor strategy. This strategy is divided into three strands: Security Sector Reform in Indonesia, Conflict Reduction in Indonesia and Conflict Prevention in East Timor.

  The specific information about equipment purchase will take some time to confirm. I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what equipment will be purchased with the money(a) allocated to logistical equipment, (b) allocated to communications equipment and (c) for equipment in support of military intelligence for Nepal under the Global Conflict Prevention Pool. [79559]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The total for military support under the Global Conflict Prevention Pool for this financial year is £3,669,000. This can be broken down as follows.

  1. £250,000 on bomb disposal equipment and training for the Nepalese security forces

  2. £149,000 on support and training for the newly formed Military Intelligence Support Group (MISG) within the Royal Nepalese Army, including tactical radios and night-vision telescopes and binoculars

  3. £2,600,000 on two transport helicopters

  4. £460,000 to provide training in human rights awareness, peace support operations and in civil-military co-operation.

  5. £210,000 towards infrastructure costs for the regional UN peacekeeping centre at Panchkal.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Baton Rounds
  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will make a statement on the use of the L21A1 baton round at a range of less than 20 metres. [80353]
  331W
  Mr. Denham
  At the request of the Association of Chief Police Officers, which believes that the improved accuracy of the L21A1 baton round means it is suitable for use in serious public disorder and also in dealing with individuals posing an immediate threat to life in circumstances where use of a conventional firearm may otherwise be necessary, we have sought and received a medical statement from the Defence Scientific Advisory Council on the use of the L21A1 baton round at ranges from 1 to 19 metres. This supplements their earlier assessment of the injury potential over longer ranges published on 2 April 2001.

  The statement confirms that the probability of unintentional impact to the most vulnerable parts of the body remains low when the round is discharged at ranges of less than 20 metres and that there is no significant change in the probability of rounds striking the potentially vulnerable chest area. This means that the likelihood of serious injury or death occurring as the result of the impact of an L21 Al baton round is no greater at ranges between 1 and 19 metres than at the longer ranges which were the subject of the earlier statement by the Defence Scientific Advisory Council.

  I will today be placing a copy of the statement in the Library. The Association of Chief Police Officers is considering, in consultation with the Government, what, if any revision to its existing guidelines on the use of baton rounds may be appropriate in the light of this statement.

  Nationality Instructions
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will place copies of the instructions to Immigration and Nationality Directorate staff dealing with applications for British citizenship in the Library. [80354]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Nationality Instructions contain guidance to staff on the handling of applications for British nationality and related matters. A version of these Instructions has now been added to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's website and hard copies are being placed in the Library. The Instructions are being made available in accordance with the principles of openness in the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. A small amount of material cannot be disclosed, either on the grounds of national security or because disclosure would impede the effective administration of the legislation. The material is subject to periodic review and revision.

  Passports
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what representations he has received concerning children under 18 holding BNOCO BDTC passport; and if he will make a statement. [78873]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.

  None.

  Stalking
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what measures the Government have taken to reduce the number of women being stalked; [78821]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards stalking, with particular reference to younger women. [78822]

  Hilary Benn
  The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 provides the legal framework for the prevention of offending, and punishment of those pursuing a course of conduct which is alarming or distressing to another, or in the worst cases causes another to fear violence. The Government are committed to reducing this type of crime, as with all violent crime, particularly when it is perpetrated against vulnerable individuals.

  Following the 1997 legislation we commissioned the guide "Stalking and other forms of harassment: An investigator's guide", written by Hamish Brown from the Metropolitan Police. This provides advice in the main for police officers about how to use various pieces of legislation to deal with those causing harassment but it also contains advice for victims.

  We have also conducted a number of research studies into various types of behaviour related to harassment. Research suggests that a substantial proportional of harassment is carried out by ex-partners. Domestic violence is a key priority across government. A cross-departmental Ministerial Group is currently looking at five areas for action: increasing safe accommodation choices for women and children; developing early and effective healthcare intervention; Improving the link between criminal and civil law; ensuring a consistent and appropriate response from the police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS); and promoting education and awareness raising.

  Data Protection
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what guidance he has issued to public authorities about the procedures for the collection of communications data under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 with regard to industrial action; and if he will make a statement. [77240]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The access to communications data provisions in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) have not yet been implemented. I will be bringing forward new proposals in relation to any additional public authorities under Chapter II of Part I of RIPA following detailed public consultation. However, the RIPA does not provide for access to communications data for purposes relating to industrial action. A strict test of "necessity" must be met before any communications data is obtained under RIPA. An authorising officer must not only consider the communications data to be necessary but must also consider the conduct involved in obtaining the communications data to be "proportionate" to what it seeks to achieve. The grounds on which it is necessary, for example, include: in the interests of national security; for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when he expects to receive the conclusions and recommendations of the review that he has commissioned into fire safety precautions and the use of sprinklers in young offender institutions, adult prisons and detention centres. [45746]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 28 March 2002]: The report is in its final stages of preparation and I would expect to receive it soon.

  Criminal Record Checks
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what plans he has to suspend the checking of applicants from voluntary organisations by the Criminal Records Bureau; and what alternative arrangements he will put in place. [76016]

  Hilary Benn
  There are no plans to suspend checks of applicants from voluntary organisations. Due to current operational difficulties being experienced by the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB), it has been necessary to announce proposals to postpone mandatory checks under certain regulations arising from the Care Standards Act 2000. These would apply to voluntary organisations and to any other bodies which are subject to there regulations. The Government remain committed to introducing mandatory checks in these areas at the earliest possible opportunity. For the time being, even without the CRB check, the regulations and national minimum standards will help to improve standards and protect service users.

  Fire Service Cover
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what preparations he has made to ensure the safety and continuity of service to the public in the event of a firefighters' strike. [77666]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Local Government and the Regions on 28 October 2002,Official Report, column 527W.

  Security Operation (Barrow-in-Furness)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for how many(a) police officers and (b) anti-terrorist officers were involved in the security operation at Barrow-in-Furness for the docking of the Pacific Pintail and Pacific Teal vessels in September, and if he will make a statement. [77771]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Security for the transportation of nuclear material is regulated by the Office for. Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS), the security regulator. It is not Government policy to disclose details of security measures taken in connection with nuclear material.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Ghana
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assistance her Department has given to expanding access to clean and affordable water for the people of Ghana; and if she will make a statement. [77698]

  Clare Short
  The Government of Ghana decided some years ago to invite tenders from the private sector to improve the delivery of publicly owned water services in Accra. This policy was agreed by the previous government and supported by the government elected in December 2000.

  Ghana has faced a barrage of misleading campaigning suggesting that this is a privatisation—which it is not and that the poor will suffer. In fact the urban poor currently receive no water services and pay very high prices for water they purchase by the bucket.

  My Department has provided £10 million to support this reform which was put in place by Ghana's democratic elected government and will improve water services for the poor.

  HIV Vaccine
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what assessment she has made of the contribution the UK can make towards the development of a vaccine against HIV for use in the developing world. [77699]

  Ms Keeble
  The UK is making a significant contribution to work on developing AIDS vaccines. For example, the Medical Research Council in partnership with Oxford and Nairobi Universities are making very good progress on vaccines designed specifically for use in Africa. These trials are due to take place in the next few years. My Department has contributed £14 million to this work over the last 5 years.

  Malawi
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for international Development, what assessment she has made of the humanitarian situation in Malawi. [77700]

  Clare Short
  A recent assessment concluded that 2.2 million people will be in need of food assistance between September and December 2002, and that this will rise to 3¼million—or one third of the population in early 2003.

  My Department is playing a leading role in a partnership with the Government of Malawi, and other donors to try to cope with the crisis. DFID has so far provided £30 million emergency assistance to Malawi.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what proposals her Department has to meet the targets and outcomes agreed at the recent World Summit on Sustainable Development. [77701]
  335W
  Clare Short
  The World Summit strengthened the international community's commitment to the Millennium Development Goals and added an important new target on access to sanitation. The international summits of the last two years have established a clear international consensus on the action needed to reduce poverty and achieve sustainable development. We now need a period of intensive implementation. The world community must deliver on the promises it has made. My Department will play its full part in making this happen.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what plans there are by members of her Department to visit Sri Lanka to discuss possible assistance for redevelopment; and if she will make a statement. [77702]

  Clare Short
  My Department maintains an office within the British High Commission in Colombo. Staff in this office are working to develop a range of programmes to support the peace process, rehabilitation and reconciliation.

  We are providing £2.6 million through the United Nations, to help returning Internally Displaced Persons re-establish their livelihoods. Assistance has also been provided to the Government of Sri Lanka to help direct and co-ordinate international assistance. Further support will be considered in the light of needs assessments currently being completed.

  Sanitation Target
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what her Department will be doing to make sure the target of halving the number of people without access to adequate sanitation by 2015 is met. [77703]

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what steps her Department is taking to ensure that the target for halving the number of people without access to adequate sanitation by 2015 is met [77711]

  Clare Short
  We worked very hard to win international agreement to the sanitation target. Diarrhoeal disease accounts for over 2 million child deaths each year and this can be reduced by better hygiene practices, safer water supplies and provision of sanitation. Provision of access to safer water, basic sanitation and improved hygiene must be driven forward together to have the greatest impact in the health and livelihoods of the poor—more than half the world's population have no access to sanitation. My Department's bilateral expenditure on sanitation, hygiene promotion and clean water in the past three years is:

  1999–2000

  84.3 million

  2000–2001

  90.6 million

  2001–2002

  87.2 million

  UNRWA
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, if she will make a statement on Britain's contribution to UNRWA. [77704]

  Clare Short
  The UK is UNRWA's second largest bilateral donor. Our contributions to UNRWA's General Fund, emergency appeals, and technical cooperation, have risen from £8.5 million in 1999 to planned expenditure in 2002 of about £22 million. This reflects the rising numbers of refugees, our increased confidence in UNRWA's operations, and the emergency situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what additional support she will make available to UNWRA to deal with the humanitarian situation in the West Bank and Gaza. [77706]

  Clare Short
  Over the last two years, in response to the rapidly deteriorating humanitarian situation, we have contributed a total of £20 million to UNRWA's emergency appeals. This includes an additional contribution of £2 million this year which I confirmed to Commissioner-General Hansen in October. Emergency funding is in addition to our contributions to UNRWA's regular schooling, healthcare and social services programmes.

  Afghanistan
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what her policy is on humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan. [77705]

  Clare Short
  The latest UN assessment shows that 4.2 million people are still dependent on food aid. Very large numbers of people are also vulnerable to the effects of winter. It is important that the international community works with the Afghan authorities to ensure that basic humanitarian needs are met, whilst seeking to avoid creating a dependency culture. This means, where feasible, shifting to a more sustainable form of assistance (cash for work rather than food for work).

  I have recently approved additional allocations of £ 11 million for the provision of humanitarian assistance during the coming winter, through the relevant UN agencies.

  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what plans she has to increase aid to Afghanistan [77712]

  Clare Short
  At the Tokyo donor conference in January this year I pledged £200 million over five years to support humanitarian and reconstruction needs in Afghanistan. In 2002–03, we originally planned to spend £40 million through UN agencies, NGOs and the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund. I have since increased this amount by £25 million, to help meet the increased humanitarian needs over the coming winter, and to help clear Afghanistan's arrears to the International Financial Institutions so that they can receive new concessional credits from the World Bank and Asian Development Bank. In addition, we have earmarked £1.8 million of our annual contribution to the UN Mines Advisory Service for Afghanistan.
  337W
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, if she will make a further statement on progress towards reconstruction in Afghanistan. [77714]

  Clare Short
  Much has been achieved in Afghanistan over the last 10 months. There is peace and security in Kabul, a legitimate transitional Government, a new national currency, nearly 2 million refugees have returned home and 3 million children are in school.

  But the situation remains fragile. Afghanistan is a desperately poor country and the south is facing its fifth year of drought and between 4 million and 6 million people are still dependent on food aid. The situation outside Kabul remains insecure, warlords control large militias and large parts of the economy are dependent on narcotics.

  Further progress requires the establishment of security outside Kabul and an increase in the capacity of the Government to deliver services across the country. The UK will remain engaged to support continuing progress and development.

  EuroMed Process
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has had with other Government Departments about support for the EuroMed process [77707]

  Clare Short
  My Department has regular dialogue across Whitehall on issues relating to the EuroMed process. We work closely with the FCO and other Government Departments—and the European Commission, member states and EuroMed partner countries—to support the goals of the Barcelona Declaration that are relevant to my Department's work, including respect for human rights, creating an area of shared prosperity and developing human resources. This includes contributing to improved efficiency and quality of the EC's MEDA programme in working to benefit the poorest and most vulnerable people in the region.

  Public Interest Organisation
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to encourage the growth of non-profit and voluntary public interest organisations in developing countries [77708]

  Clare Short
  Our commitment to strengthen the voices of civil society in developing countries was set out in the 1997 white paper "Eliminating World Poverty—Challenge for the 21st Century" and the 2000 White Paper "Making Globalisation work for the poor". We are now engaging directly with a wide range of civil society organisations in developing countries, to strengthen and build their capacity to help poor and excluded people to organise and get their voices heard.
  338W
  A significant number of DfID country programmes have developed programmes to help civil society to fulfil their role. Examples of larger programmes include:

  Programme

  Country

  Value

  Poorest area civil society programme PACS

  India

  £27 M

  Human rights & governance programme HUGO

  Bangladesh

  £16.5 M

  Civil Society and Poverty Programme

  Tanzania

  £6.84 M

  Strengthening capacities for transformation SCAPE

  South Africa

  £4.15 M

  Through rights to needs for marginalised Malawians TRANSFORM

  Malawi

  £3.5 M

  There is also an important role for UK civil society in strengthening civil society capacity within developing countries. The main channel of support to UK groups is through the Civil Society Challenge Fund which spends some £10 million a year. The aim is to support initiatives, implemented through an effective partnership with a developing country civil society organisation, which strengthens the capacity of that organisation to engage in local, national and international decision-making processes.

  Heroin (Afghanistan)
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action she is taking to combat the planting of the 2003 heroin crop in Afghanistan by promoting and supporting alternative employment possibilities. [77709]

  Clare Short
  During 2002 it is estimated that between 20–30 per cent. of the opium poppy crop was destroyed through a UK led eradication and compensation scheme. However a more permanent solution to the problem of poppy crop production will only come about once alternative livelihood opportunities have been identified for poor people, and the law is enforced against opium traders and other criminal elements. My department is working closely with the Afghan authorities to strengthen law enforcement, interdiction and eradication capabilities, and supporting a number of initiatives to improve security and the overall environment for the generation of alternative livelihoods. I also recently approved £1 million of support to a UNDP administered National Area Based Programme that is expected to generate thousands of jobs in rural areas, and £1 million of support to the Aga Khan Foundation for a rural support programme in Badakhshan, a major poppy producing province in Afghanistan.

  Africa
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what assessment she has made of(a) trends in spending on international development aid to Africa by the UK since 1997 and (b) that of other member states of t he European Union [77710]

  Clare Short
  Over the period 1997–2000 (the latest year for which comparable data are available) the level of UK bilateral official development assistance (oda) to Africa has increased by 43 per cent. Over the same
  339W
  period, oda to Africa from all EU members has fallen by 21 per cent. Excluding the UK, this fall becomes 36 per cent. Within this total, Germany's oda has fallen by 60 per cent., France's by 55 per cent. and Italy's by 23 per cent.

  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what the outcomes were of the World Bank annual meeting in connection with the alleviation of poverty in Africa. [77715]

  Clare Short
  At the Annual Meetings Ministers recognised the special challenges faced by Africa in meeting the Millennium Development Goals. They urged the World Bank and the IMF to scale up assistance to these countries, and to build on the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) initiative as a unique opportunity to make significant and quick progress working with African leadership. They recognised that aid will be more effective where is it well co-ordinated and aligned with country-owned strategies. Further pledges to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Trust Fund would benefit the 32 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa that receive debt relief under the Enhanced HIPC Initiative.

  Human Rights Training (South Africa)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, if she will make a statement about UK funding for police training on human rights in the Southern African Development Community. [77713]

  Clare Short
  My Department supports human rights training in Malawi through a course involving the Police, the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Human Rights Commission and the Office of the Ombudsman. We have also supported human rights police training in South Africa's Eastern Cape province. In Lesotho and South Africa we are supporting the creation of community police fora to help foster trust between the police and those that they serve. These activities fall within broader justice sector programmes that seek to ensure that the poor, who are often the most vulnerable to crime and exploitation, can access proper and impartial justice.

  Palestine
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what measures the Government have taken in respect of the relief of poverty in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. [77716]

  Clare Short
  We support a wide range of initiatives to help meet both the urgent short term needs of the Palestinian people as economic and social conditions decline dramatically, and their longer term aspirations of a viable and sustainable state. As part of a wider international effort we work directly with the Palestinian Authority and other Palestinian organisations, and through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees. In the financial year 2001–02 originally planned programme expenditure of £18 million was increased to nearly £40 million. This financial year the original planning 340W
  framework of £25 million has been increased to £32 million. We also contribute significantly through our share of EC funding.

  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what assistance her Department has provided to help water tankers reach the rural Palestinian population in areas without a networked water system; and if she will make a statement. [77697]

  Ms Keeble
  In conjunction with our international partners we have made repeated representations to the Israeli authorities to ease access restrictions for water, and other humanitarian supplies. We are also working closely with a number of rural communities to help improve their ability to harvest and store rainwater, and reduce their dependency on imported water.

  EC Aid Programme
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, if she will make a statement on progress reforming the European Commission Aid Programme. [77717]

  Clare Short
  My Department is focusing its efforts on two broad objectives: improving the overall effectiveness of European Community development assistance and increasing its poverty focus.

  We welcome the positive steps that have been taken to reform EC development assistance in the past few years. These are beginning to show results in some areas, but significant improvements are still needed. We are pressing the EC to pursue its reform efforts vigorously in order to implement the November 2000 EC Development Policy, which for the first time makes poverty reduction the central objective of EC development programmes. Reform needs to produce speedier delivery, better impact and more capacity for policy dialogue in the field. Harmonising and simplifying the EC's cumbersome administrative and financial procedures is also a priority, along with work to establish a more coherent policy framework for EC aid.

  My Department is also working for agreement that a much greater share of EC aid should be allocated to low income countries where it will have the greatest impact on poverty reduction. In 2000, only 38 per cent. of EC aid was spent in low-income countries compared to 70 per cent. in 1990. This is far too low and indicates that EC aid is having a much less impact than it should on reducing poverty and contributing to building stability and prosperity worldwide.

  Latin America
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, if she will make a statement on the work of her Department in Latin America. [77718]

  Clare Short
  We are working with the EU, Inter-American Development Bank and other donors to reduce poverty in the region through the promotion of pro-poor growth, the reduction of inequality and improving governance, mainly in Brazil, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Peru and Bolivia.

  341W
  We provide support to improve the effectiveness of national development programmes in middle-income countries with major inequality and poverty problems such as Brazil and Peru. In Nicaragua, Honduras and Bolivia, which are Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC), we are working with the Governments, civil society and other donors to help with the implementation of national poverty reduction strategies. In Guatemala and El Salvador we are working on health sector reform with the United Nations.

  Zimbabwe
  Adrian Flook
  Asked the Secretary of State for International Development, what is she doing to ensure free and fair distribution of food aid in Zimbabwe. [77719]

  Clare Short
  DFID, the UN, and other donors in Zimbabwe work in close unison, and share the fundamental principle that humanitarian assistance should be provided on the basis of need alone. Donor funded programmes are closely monitored, and where problems are found or reported, the UN and donors are working together to seek to resolve them through mediation and complaints procedures. In a few cases, food distribution has been suspended until agreements have been reached that allow programmes to resume according to plan. The UN's view is that so far, very little food has been lost or diverted from its intended beneficiaries. We have not had any problems of this nature in our bilateral programme.

  There is credible evidence however that food is being distributed or sold by the Government of Zimbabwe through the national Grain Marketing Board in support of political objectives. We deplore this, as well as the obstruction of work of some non-governmental organisations which also appears to be politically motivated.

  Kosovo
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, if she will make a statement on the progress made in offering assistance to Kosovo [77720]

  Clare Short
  UK assistance to Kosovo began in June 1999, immediately after the NATO intervention. We delivered a £110 million programme of humanitarian assistance that included food supply, shelter, health care, mine clearance, support to the energy and water sectors, small and medium enterprise development and funding for international agencies. We also provided budgetary support.

  From 2000, we started to develop a longer term programme to help build the local capacity and institutions to tackle Kosovo's development and transition needs. Our Kosovo Strategy Paper, published in August 2001 covered support for civil and political rights, justice systems, economic restructuring, health care, social policy, public administration and minorities. We spent £12.5 million in 2000–01 and £11.7 million in 2001–02 on technical assistance and budget support;
  342W
  planning figures are £6.5 million in 2002–03 and £8 million in 2003–04 (figures are for Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, including Kosovo).

  Our main funding contribution to Kosovo is through our approximately 20 per cent. share of European Community programmes. This amounted to £170 million for 1999–2001 and is estimated at £110 million for 2002–03. We work closely with the EC to improve the effectiveness and impact of its programmes.

  We have just completed our first review of the Kosovo strategy. This highlighted that while international aid had been successful so far in meeting humanitarian and reconstruction needs, new challenges were to help the elected provisional institutions of self-government to take on their full responsibilities under the framework agreement agreed with the UN, to create the right environment for growth and reform as levels of international aid decline and to establish mechanisms for Kosovo to access loans from the international financial institutions.

  Indonesia
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, if she will make a statement on levels of UK aid to Indonesia. [77721]

  Clare Short
  This year my Department will provide some £19.3 million for Indonesia. Of this amount £10 million is grant assistance, supporting governance reform, conflict prevention and reduction, the development of poverty reduction policies and the sustainable management of forest resources. The latter explicitly seeks to protect the interests of poor forest dwellers.

  A further £9.1m of concessional loans will be disbursed to meet residual commitments under the now defunct Aid and Trade Provision. In addition £0.2m will be provided to support peace building initiatives by NGOs in strife torn Maluku. My Department will also provide assistance to Indonesians whose livelihoods have been damaged by the Bali bombing.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what discussions her Department has had with the Governments of(a) Democratic Republic of Congo, (b) Rwanda and (c) Uganda regarding the situation in the DRC; and if she will make a statement. [77642]

  Clare Short
  We maintain a regular and frank dialogue with each of the Governments of DRC, Uganda and Rwanda on the situation in DRC.

  We have particularly welcomed the signing of the Pretoria Agreement between DRC and Rwanda and the Luanda Agreement between DRC and Uganda. They are major steps towards peace in the region. The Rwandans have withdrawn their troops from DRC. The Ugandans have completed their withdrawal except for some troops the UN has asked to stay in the troubled town of Bunia. The DRC has taken some steps to arrest leading genocidaires and suggest to that political leadership of the genocidaires that they are no longer

  343W
  welcome in Kinshahsa but are dragging their feet on agreement to a transitional government including representatives of the armed and unarmed opposition.

  The Congo has suffered long enough from kleptocracy and more recently from war. We want to work with all parties in the region and the international community to start to rebuild the DRC so that its people and all those of the region can start to enjoy the benefits of peace.

  European Council
  Mrs. Spelman
  To the Secretary of State for International Development, what discussions she has had with the Prime Minister's office regarding the impact on poor countries of the recent meeting of the European Council. [78668]

  Clare Short
  None, but the impact of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and enlargement on poor countries has been discussed extensively by relevant Government departments for many months. In July, my department took an initiative to invite representatives from all EU governments to discuss "The impact of CAP reform on Developing Countries". These discussions are continuing with the next meeting in The Hague in January.

  It remains clear that without CAP reform, we cannot deliver on the promise we made at Doha to improve trading opportunities for the developing world. The UK will continue to press for a Mid-Term Review (MTR) of the CAP, which should lead to a farming policy which promotes sustainable development, protects and enhances the environment, encourages high standards, guarantees safe food and enables us to fulfil our international commitments.

  CDC Capital Partners
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, if she will make a statement on her role in the recruitment of a new chief executive of CDC Capital Partners. [78666]

  Clare Short
  The Chief Executive of CDC Group plc is appointed by the Board in accordance with normal company practice. The Chairman of the Board is keeping me informed during the process.

  UNHCR
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what her Department's response is to the recent appeal by the UNHCR for funds; and what structures are in place in the event that the UNHCR does not receive the money following its appeal for funds and has to halt some of its aid programmes. [78675]

  Clare Short
  My Department provides both core, unearmarked, multi-annual funding to UNHCR and responds to specific appeals for particular situations that arise in countries on the basis of an assessment of humanitarian need. We are monitoring the situation closely but have not yet seen fit to provide extra funding to UNHCR, beyond that which is already committed, in response to their recent appeal.
  344W
  On becoming High Commissioner, Ruud Lubbers initiated a review to reestablish a focus on UNHCR's core protection activities, increase efficiency and address donor concerns about performance. In line with recent improvements in UNHCR's management, my Department has recently concluded negotiations on a four year Institutional Strategy Paper (ISP) with UNHCR. The ISP provides unearmarked funding of $US85m over four years. This is a significant achievement by both sides.

  I understand that further funding from other donors has been forthcoming in direct response to the appeal. It is too early to ascertain whether this funding will meet the needs of UNHCR in the short-term. We will continue to monitor developments closely.

  Recruitment (Over-50s)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what percentage of new recruits to her Department in the past two years were aged 50 and over. [79309]

  Clare Short
  10.5 per cent. of all new permanent recruits to DFID in the two years to 31 March 2002 were aged 50 or over.

  Sudanese Refugees
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what assistance her Department is providing to Sudanese refugees who have recently fled the Biringi refugee settlement from northeastern Democratic Republic of Congo. [79146]

  Clare Short
  It is our understanding that these refugees have become entangled in the recent fighting in Ituri province, but are not themselves directly targeted. But the security situation in Ituri is a serious obstacle to effective relief operations as current insecurity severely restricts access. Most operational relief agencies are restricted to the town of Bunia. The nearest UNHCR staff are in Aru, 80km away. Local NGOs have been attempting to access the area in the past few days.

  We have not provided direct assistance to this group of people. This year my Department is providing over £10 million in DRC, and £7 million in Sudan, to address humanitarian needs. We also provide core funding to UNHCR.

  We continue to press all sides in the conflict to allow access to humanitarian agencies. We are also doing our utmost to help resolve the conflicts in DRC and Sudan that result in these displacements within and across borders.

  A press statement issued on 31 October by the Security Council expresses grave concern about the situation in Ituri, and appeals to all parties to show restraint.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what assessment her Department has made of the safety of Sudanese refugees in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [79147]

  Clare Short
  We have not made any specific assessment of the vulnerability of Sudanese refugees in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Many are in Ituri
  345W
  Province in the troubled North East of DRC, and are at risk in the current fighting as are the resident Congolese population. The fighting has a strong ethnic component, but we do not believe that for the time being the Sudanese are being specifically targeted.

  UNHCR estimate about 75000 Sudanese refugees in DRC. They are vulnerable, and suffer the same levels of abuse, deprivation, and lack of basic services, as the Congolese residents and other refugee groups.

  An estimated 17000 Refugees were scattered after an attacks on their camp at Beringi in Ituri province. The UN Security Council on 31/10 called on all parties involved in the fighting in the area to show restraint.

  European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, when she last met Jean Lemierre, President of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development; and when she next intends to do so. [79148]

  Clare Short
  I last met the President of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development at the DFID on Monday 21 October. Our next currently planned meeting is the EBRD's Annual Meeting in May 2003.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what meetings of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development she has attended; and what meetings of the bank she plans to attend. [79150]

  Clare Short
  I attended EBRD's Annual Board of Governors meeting in April 1999 and April 2001. I plan to attend the next Annual Meeting in Tashkent in May 2003, when the UK will Chair the Board of Governors. The 2003 Annual Meeting will be an important opportunity to emphasise the need for growth, stability, regional cooperation and essential reforms in Central Asia.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what permanent representation her Department has with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. [79149]

  Clare Short
  The UK Executive Director at the EBRD is a DFID official.

  Global Conflict Prevention
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what the criteria are for the disbursement of funds from the Global Conflict Prevention Pool to(a) Sierra Leone, (b) Uganda, (c) Rwanda, (d) DRC, (e) Ethiopia, (f) Sudan, (g) Nigeria and (h) Angola; how much was allocated from the pool for the purchase of equipment to each in (i) 2001 and (ii) 2002; and if she will make a statement. [79557]

  Clare Short
  (1) The Africa Conflict Prevention Pool covers priority countries/regions in sub-Saharan Africa and the Global Conflict Pool covers the Rest of the World. The Africa Pool combines a UN peacekeeping budget with a £50 million programme budget in FY 2001–2 and 2002–3. Funds are allocated to support 346W
  inter-departmentally agreed geographic and thematic priorities, where a joint approach between Departments adds value to the UK's conflict prevention effectiveness.

  (2) The Africa Pool's priority areas are: geographic; Sierra Leone, Great Lakes (DRC, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi), Sudan, Angola, Nigeria South Africa and Thematic; Building African Peace Support Capacity, Tackling the Economic and Financial Causes of Conflict and Security Sector Reform.

  (3) The table summarises Programme Spend in 2001–2 and initial Allocations in 2002–3, equipment purchases would fall within programme budgets.

  2001–2 Programme Spend

  2002–3 Initial Programme Allocations

  Country/Regional

  1. Sierra Leone

  36,139,047

  26,529,789

  2. Uganda

  758,843

  753,000

  3. Rwanda and Great Lakes

  622,520

  7,182,700

  4. Burundi

  1,500,000

  690,491

  5. Sudan

  223,000

  399,509

  6. Nigeria

  514,840

  1,028,000

  7. Angola

  0

  239,000

  8. South Africa

  1,200,000

  1,632,000

  Note:

  * Please note table excludes peacekeeping budget and regional thematic work. IMATT Sierra Leone is included in the Sierra Leone allocation

ENVIRONMENT

  Primates
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her Answer of 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 286W, on primate imports, if she will define the categories of breeding, personal, commercial and zoological collections with reference to non-human primates. [79119]

  Mr. Morley
  The EC CITES Regulations require import permit applicants to state the purpose for which the application is being made using one of the purpose codes given on the reverse of the application form. The Regulation does not offer formal definitions of these codes. However the UK considers that in the case of live primates:Code B (Breeding) means breeding in captivity primarily for noncommercial purposes.
  Code P (Personal) means a long-term personal pet.
  Code T (Commercial) means primarily for commercial purposes, including the pet trade.
  Code Z (Zoological collections) means scientific/breeding/educational/conservation purposes.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many captive-bred non-human primates were imported into the United Kingdom in the last five years; for what purposes; and if she will make a statement. [79118]
  347W
  Mr. Morley
  Our records show that between 1 January 1997 and 31 October 2002 a total of 25095 captive bred non-human primates were imported into the UK for the following purposes:

  Breeding: 76

  Personal: 0

  Commercial: 448

  Bio-medical research: 21113

  Zoological collections: 3458

  Imports of non-human primates are controlled under EC Regulations implementing the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). The Convention allows CITES parties to adopt stricter domestic measures Under this provision the UK decided from 22 May 2001 no longer to issue import permits for commercial trade in live primates.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many primates are owned under a Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 Licence; and for what purposes these animals are owned; [79120]

  (2) how many animals are owned under a Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 Licence, broken down by species; [79121]

  (3) if she plans to amend the 1984 Schedule to the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 to remove animals that have been shown to pose no serious danger to the public. [79122]

  Mr. Morley
  As local authorities administer the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, details of licensed animals are not held centrally. However, as part of a review to examine the effectiveness of the Act, consultants reported in 2001 that on the basis of a 95 per cent. response from local authorities, 655 primates were then licensed. They did not seek the reason for keeping these animals.

  The consultants found a total of 11,878 animals were licensed, categorised as follows:

  Category

  Number

  Primates

  655

  Rodents

  14

  Carnivores

  269

  Pinnipeds

  3

  Elephants

  1

  Odd-toed Ungulates

  20

  Even-toed Ungulates

  5339

  Birds

  5232

  Reptiles

  334

  Invertebrates

  11

  The Even-toed ungulates and birds comprise, for the most part, farmed wild boar and ostrich. A copy of the consultants report can be downloaded by visiting www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/consult/dwaa/index.htm.

  The consultants' report has recommended changes to the 1984 Schedule to the Act. We have sought views from the public on all their recommendations, including those on the schedule, and shall be drawing up our own proposals to address the shortcomings identified. Our proposals will be the subject of a further public
  348W
  consultation exercise in due course, as a result of which decisions will be taken as to whether or not the Schedule needs to be altered.

  Environmental Information
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what date she expects increased access to environmental information will be available under the Freedom of Information Act 2000; and which(a) minister and (b) official in her Department has lead responsibility for this matter [79029]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have just completed public consultation on draft Environmental Information Regulations. Officials are now analysing the comments received. Before preparing a Statutory Instrument of the Regulations to place before Parliament we will also need to take into account developments in Brussels on the negotiations for a Draft Directive on Public Access to Environmental Information. The Regulations will not come into force until 2003 at the earliest.

  In answer to the specific questions, I can confirm that (a) I am the lead Minister and (b) the lead policy Division is Defra Sustainable Development Unit who can be contacted via the Defra website at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/pubaccess/index.htm

  Bear Bile
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to discourage the international trade in bear bile. [79045]

  Mr. Morley
  The CITES Convention imposes strict controls on trade in bears and bear parts but does allow trade in captive bred species. Because of our concerns that this trade could lead to abuses in respect of bear bile, from last year, the UK banned all commercial trade in bear (Ursidae) bile or gall bladders (irrespective of whether or not they come from captive bred specimens), on the grounds that this trade is likely to be detrimental to the species.

  Exotic Birds
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of exotic birds imported into the UK for the last year for which figures are available were dead on arrival. [79033]

  Mr. Morley
  Records of imported CITES listed birds found dead on arrival are taken from copies of used import permits submitted to the UK CITES Management Authority by HM Customs & Excise. Our records show that during 2001 (the last full year for which records are available) a total of 62 birds (0.92 per cent.) were noted as dead on arrival.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many exotic birds were imported into the UK in the past 12 months; for what purposes they were imported; and from which countries they were imported. [79030]
  349W
  Mr. Morley
  Our records show that from November 2001 to November 2002 a total of 10983 birds listed under the CITES Convention were imported into the UK from 37 different countries for the following purposes:

  Breeding: 167

  Educational: 18

  Personal: 84

  Circus & travelling exhibition: 1

  Scientific: 47

  Commercial: 10662

  Zoos: 4

  The exporting countries were:
  Alderney, Austria, Bahrain. Cameroon, Canada, China, Cyprus, Egypt, Ethiopia, Guernsey, Guinea, Guyana, Iceland, Isle of Man, Ivory Coast, Jersey, Kenya, Madagascar, Mali, Mexico, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Suriname, Switzerland, Tanzania, UAE, US and Zimbabwe.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many exotic birds were imported into the UK for each year from 1997 to date, broken down into(a) wild-caught and (b) captive-bred. [79031]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no CITES definition of the term "exotic bird" but imports of CITES listed birds from outside the EU are controlled under EC CITES Regulations. Our records show that between 1 January 1997 and 31 October 2002 a total of 32346 wild taken and 4901 captive bred CITES listed birds were imported into the UK. The year by year breakdown is:

  Year

  Wild taken

  Captive bred

  Total

  1997

  4800

  357

  5157

  1998

  4845

  422

  5267

  1999

  4826

  411

  5237

  2000

  3995

  1551

  5546

  2001

  5565

  1114

  6679

  2002

  8315

  1046

  9361

  Imported Birds
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the controls relating to the sale of imported birds in pet shops. [79032]

  Mr. Morley
  Any bird which is listed on Annex A of the EU regulations relating to the Control of International Trade in Endangered Species of wild fauna and flora (The CITES regulations) would require a permit for sale from Defra. This would apply whether or not the bird was imported or captive bred within the EU.

  The Pet Animals Act 1951 (as amended in 1983) controls the sale of all animals as pets from licensed premises. The 1951 Act requires any person selling pet animals to be licensed by the local authority. Before granting a licence, the authority must satisfy itself that the animals are kept in accommodation that is suitable and clean; that they are supplied with the appropriate food and drink, and are protected from disease and fire. The maximum penalty under the 1951 Act is a fine of £500 and/or three months imprisonment.
  350W
  The Pet Animals Act 1951 is one of 21 Acts relating to the welfare of domestic and captive animals that are currently reviewing with a view to consolidation and modernisation as part of the proposed Animal Welfare Bill.

  Energy Efficiency
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she intends to publish her Department's review of local authority energy efficiency activity. [77452]

  Mr. Morley
  Our original intention was to publish the results of this review earlier this year. However, with the publication of the Performance and Innovation Unit's Energy Review in February and the Home Energy Conservation Bill that dealt with many of the key issues for the review, we decided to delay publication until we were able to take account of these.

  The Government are now working on its Energy White Paper. This will be a statement of Government energy policy, including energy efficiency. We have decided that the review findings should contribute to the White Paper, which will be published around the turn of the year.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the outcomes to date of the Energy Efficiency Commitment Scheme; what further steps are planned; and what(a) consultation on and (b) assessment of the scheme (i) has taken place and (ii) is planned. [77593]

  Mr. Morley
  The Regulator, Ofgem, is responsible for operating the Energy Efficiency Commitment 2002–2005 (EEC) and for providing information to the Secretary of State on progress. Suppliers have been submitting energy efficiency schemes to Ofgem since February 2002 and measures equating to 5.9 TWh in energy savings had been installed or delivered by the end of September. Suppliers will continue to work on these and further schemes to deliver their energy efficiency targets by March 2005.

  We consulted widely on the EEC, culminating in the issue of statutory consultation proposals in August 2001. We will consult on any changes to the scheme that may be proposed.

  Each supplier is required to report to Ofgem on a quarterly basis and Ofgem must report annually to the Secretary of State on progress with the EEC. Ofgem's first report, on the year ending in March 2003, must be submitted to the Secretary of State by 31 July 2003.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy to ensure that(a) registered social landlords, (b) utility companies and (c) Government-run energy efficiency or fuel poverty schemes provide information to energy conservation authorities on the energy efficiency improvements carried out in their area; and if she will make a statement. [77459]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government fully support the need for energy conservation authorities to be given information on the improvements made in domestic
  351W
  energy efficiency in their area by other agencies, to assist their reporting under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995.

  During the Home Energy Conservation Bill 2001, the Government proposed that registered social landlords should provide information to energy conservation authorities on energy efficiency improvements they had carried out. This proposal came to nothing when my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Kemptown withdrew this Bill. However, registered social landlords are already required by the Housing Corporation to report on progress against the Decent Homes target, which includes energy efficiency, on a voluntary basis for 2002. The provision of this information will be compulsory from 2003.

  Discussions are continuing between gas and electricity suppliers and the Energy Saving Trust to provide this information on a voluntary basis. We hope that these will lead to a voluntary agreement but this is a difficult area, raising complex legal issues. Should no agreement be reached, we will consider using existing legislation to make this a requirement on these companies. But this would not be our preferred route.

  The private sector companies managing the Government's energy efficiency scheme are already contractually required to provide this information to authorities on an annual basis.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many local authorities are on course to meet the targets contained in their strategies under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995; what measures she proposes to ensure that these targets are met; and if she will make a statement. [77473]

  Mr. Meacher
  Energy conservation authorities have identified their own targets, based on the measures in their energy conservation reports. The reports show measures that, if implemented, have the potential to achieve an overall improvement of 30 per cent. over twelve years from 1996. These targets are not statutory and it is for authorities, working in partnership with others, to implement the measures in order to meet them.

  Authorities report progress towards their targets each year. A list of the latest progress by authorities was placed in the Libraries of the House following my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) on 19 June 2002, Official Report, column 371W.

  The overall average reported improvement in the first five years was 8 per cent. It is therefore clear that authorities are not going to make the improvements they originally hoped for. Decisions about the future role of local authorities in local energy efficiency are expected to be covered in the Energy White Paper, which the Government aims to publish early in the new year.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what targets are in force to reduce the consumption of energy within buildings occupied by central Government; and if she will make a statement. [77448]
  352W
  Mr. Meacher
  The Government plan to use benchmarking of individual buildings against national standards in order to set a new energy consumption target for 2010. This target will require the central Government estate to be performing better than the national average. The analysis required to set a specific target is still underway but it is hoped that it will be in place in the coming year. In the meantime, the estate has an interim target of reducing carbon emissions by an additional 1 per cent. each year relative to 1999–2000.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the local authorities she has contacted regarding underperformance on their targets under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, and indicate how these authorities were identified. [77455]

  Mr. Morley
  My right lion. Friend the Secretary of State has not contacted any local authorities regarding underperformance against their targets under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to require local authorities to appoint an officer to work on strategies they have drawn up tinder the Home Conservation Act 1995: and if she will make a statement. [77472]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have no plans to require this. It is for local authorities to determine their staffing structure to meet their statutory responsibilities and other priorities.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations her Department has received concerning the need for statutory targets for local government to be applied to energy conservation in the home. [77417]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Local Government Association has expressed concern about applying statutory domestic energy efficiency targets to local authorities.

  As well as a large amount of correspondence from individuals, we have received the following representations from organisations in support of having statutory targets in the Home Energy Conservation Bill 2001.

  Association for the Conservation of Energy

  British Energy Efficiency Federation

  Blaby Constituency Labour Party

  Cavity Insulation Guarantee Agency

  Daventry District Council

  Derbyshire County Council

  The Green Party

  Friends of the Earth

  HECA Partnership for 30 per cent.

  Herefordshire Green Party

  Hyndburn Borough Council

  National Energy Services

  Northamptonshire County Council

  Oadby and Wigston Borough Council

  Oldham Council

  Oxfordshire County Council

  Preston Borough Council

  Assoc. for Environment Conscious Building

  353W

  Council for Energy Efficient Development

  District of Bolsover Labour Group

  Draft Proofing Advisory Association

  Insulated Render and Cladding Association

  Kingspan Insulation

  National Association of Loft Insulation

  Contractors

  National Cavity Insulation Assoc.

  Oxfordshire County council

  Redditch Green Party

  Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

  Salford Community Health Council

  Socialist Environment and Resources

  Association

  UK Mineral Wool Association

  Vent Axia Ltd

  Wandsworth Green Party

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will make her next report to Parliament under sections 3(4) of the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. [77474]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no immediate plans to make such a report to Parliament.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what representations her Department has received concerning the progress of energy conservation authorities towards meeting the 30 per cent. target in improvement in energy conservation by 2010; [77419]

  (2) what representations she has received from (a) local authorities and (b) others on the ability of local authorities to meet their targets under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. [77468]

  Mr. Meacher
  There are no statutory requirements for energy conservation authorities to make a 30 per cent. improvement in domestic energy conservation by 2010. However, authorities have prepared reports which show measures that, if implemented, have the potential to achieve an overall improvement of 30 per cent. over twelve years from 1996.

  We have not received any representations regarding authorities' progress towards meeting these targets, other than the reports that energy conservation authorities submit each year under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. A summary of these reports is in the House Library.

  During the course of the Home Energy Conservation Bill 2001, we received representations from Chichester District Council and the Local Government Association expressing the view that local authorities could not guarantee they would achieve their energy efficiency targets in the domestic housing sector as they had limited powers to ensure savings were made. We also received a number letters from individuals suggesting that making targets statutory would enhance local authorities' ability to achieve their HECA targets.
  354W
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will list the home energy conservation programmes which have(a) been delayed and (b) failed since 1997. [77413]

  Mr. Morley
  There have been a large number of home energy conservation projects since 1997, the large majority of which are outside the Government's direct control. These include projects by local authorities, gas and electricity suppliers, the Energy Saving Trust and voluntary organisations.

  The Government's main programme in England for tackling fuel poverty through improving energy efficiency is the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme, now marketed as the Warm Front Team. The scheme is funded by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. Warm Front was launched in June 2000 and provides packages of insulation and heating measures up to £2,500 to private sector households, on certain benefits.

  For the period June 2000 to June 2002, Warm Front assisted over 400.000 households and spent over £200 million on installing measures. The programme remains on target to reach our PSA requirement of assisting 600,000 vulnerable homes by 2004.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy to ensure that the performance figures collected to show local authorities' progress on strategies drawn up under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 can be compared between authorities. [77458]

  Mr. Morley
  It would be helpful to be able to make better comparisons between comparable authorities' performance. But this could only be achieved by having a single monitoring method. Defra has provided software to all authorities in England, free of charge, to help them monitor improvements in domestic energy efficiency. This is just one of a number of energy efficiency monitoring tools available. We believe that authorities should have the choice of which software package or monitoring method they use. They do, however, have to provide evidence as part of their annual progress reporting that they are using a robust monitoring method.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy to meet the target of reducing energy used in the domestic sector by 12.5 per cent. by 2010; and if she will make a statement. [77464]

  Mr. Morley
  Decisions about targets and policies for reducing energy use in the domestic sector will be covered in the Energy White Paper, which the Government aim to publish around the turn of the year.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to strengthen the powers, duties and funding of local authorities to enable them to play an enhanced role in local energy efficiency activities. [77441]
  355W
  Mr. Morley
  Decisions about the future role of local authorities in local energy efficiency are expected to be covered in the Energy White Paper, which the Government aim to publish around the turn of the year.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what representations her Department received from(a) the Treasury and (b) other Government Departments (i) prior to and (ii) following the withdrawal of the Home Energy Conservation Bill; [77405]

  (2) what representations her Department received from the Treasury concerning the saving to that Department as a result of the withdrawal of the Home Energy Conservation Bill; [77408]

  (3) what representations her Department has received from the Treasury prior to the withdrawal of the Home Energy Conservation Bill concerning the cost of a statutory target of 30 per cent. in domestic energy improvement by 2010. [77406]

  Mr. Morley
  Other Government Departments have been consulted at each stage of the Home Energy Conservation Bill's progress. We have discussed the implications, including those for Government and local authorities, of having a 30 per cent. improvement in domestic energy efficiency as a principal aim in this Bill.

  However, it is established practice under exemption two of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose information relating to internal opinion and advice or confidential communications between departments.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations her Department received from(a) pensioner groups (b) Greenpeace, (c) the Association for the Conservation of Energy, (d) Friends of the Earth, (e) Help the Aged and (f) Age Concern, (i) prior to and (ii) following the withdrawal of the Home Energy Conservation Bill. [77402]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department has received the following representations regarding the Home Energy Conservation Bill, prior to and following it's withdrawal;

  (a)

  (i) North West Pensioners Association, Warrington Branch have expressed support for the Bill.

  (ii) None.

  (b) No representations have been received from Greenpeace

  (c)

  (i) The Association for the Conservation of Energy (ACE) have expressed their opposition to the Government's amendments at Committee Stage of the Bill.

  (ii) ACE have written to say that the Department's failure to endorse targets in the Bill has sent worrying signals regarding long term commitments in their industry.

  (d)

  (i) Friends of the Earth have expressed support for the Bill and amendment Ila in particular as well as opposing the Government amendments at Committee Stage,

  (ii) None

  (e) No representations have been received from Help the Aged

  (f) No representations have been received from Age Concern.

  The Department has also received representations from the HECA Partnership for 30 per cent. (which includes ACE, Friends of the Earth and Help the Aged) expressing opposition to Government amendments at committee stage, urging Ministers to support the Bill,
  356W
  supporting statutory targets in the Bill, discussing the costs of implementing targets and appointing designated HECA officers.

  We have also received the minutes of their steering group meeting on October 15, 2001, which record unanimous support for the Bill.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment she has made of the adequacy of local authorities' progress towards meeting their targets under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995; and if she will make a statement; [77453]

  (2) if she will list the energy conservation authorities that are on target to meet the requirements of a 30 per cent. improvement in energy conservation by 2010. [77420]

  Mr. Morley
  There are no statutory requirements for energy conservation authorities to make a 30 per cent. improvement in domestic energy conservation. However, authorities have prepared reports which show measures that, if implemented, have the potential to achieve an overall improvement of 30 per cent. over twelve years from 1996.

  Authorities report progress towards their targets each year. A list of the latest progress by authorities was placed in the Libraries of the House following my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) on 19 June 2002, Official Report, column 370–371W.

  The overall average reported improvement in the first five years was 8 per cent. It is therefore clear that authorities are not going to make the improvements they originally hoped for.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the saving in carbon dioxide emissions would be if energy efficency in the domestic sector was improved by(a) five per cent., (b) 10 per cent., (c) 15 per cent., (d) 20 per cent., (e) 25 per cent. and (f) 30 per cent. by 2010 based upon current levels. [77465]

  Mr. Meacher
  The estimated reduction in carbon dioxide emissions that would result from the various improvements in domestic energy efficiency by 2010 are set out below.

  Energy Efficiency Improvement Relative To 2000 Level

  Projected CO2 Emissions Reduction In 2010 (Million Tonnes Of Carbon Per Year)

  5%

  -1.8

  10%

  0.4

  15%

  2.5

  20%

  4.7

  25%

  6.9

  30%

  9.1

  Note:

  Estimates based on demand growth scenario compatible with DTI Energy Paper 68 projections of energy demand and carbon dioxide emissions, and using underlying rate of improvement in energy efficiency derived from BRE analysis of insulation ownership, and trends in heating efficiency.
  357W
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the robustness of the targets under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995; what plans she has to strengthen them; and if she will make a statement. [77469]

  Mr. Meacher
  Energy conservation authorities were required to submit their energy conservation reports to the Secretary of State by 30 November 1996. All reports received were evaluated against the requirements of the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 and each authority given feedback. It was for authorities to determine their own targets, based on local circumstances. The Secretary of State was not in a position to assess whether these targets were realistic.

  If the Home Energy Conservation Bill 2001 had become law, then the Secretary of State would have had a new power to set statutory targets for authorities. We understand that Dr. Turner plans to re-introduce his Bill next session.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations her Department has received from the Association for Public Health(a) prior to and (b) following the withdrawal of the Home Energy Conservation Bill. [77410]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has not received any representations on the subject of the Home Energy Conservation Bill from the Association for Public Health either prior to or following the withdrawal of that Bill.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representation her Department has received concerning the future of the Home Energy Conservation Bill. [77449]

  Mr. Meacher
  We have not received any representations concerning the future of the Home Energy Conservation Bill since that Bill was withdrawn.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the representations submitted to her Department from hon. Members(a) in support of and (b) against statutory targets prior to the withdrawal of the Home Energy Conservation Bill. [77404]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department has received 25 letters from hon. Members expressing their personal support for targets in the Home Energy Conservation Bill. This is in addition to a large number of letters from MPs covering those from constituents who were in favour of targets in the Bill. We have not received any representations from hon. Members expressing the view that the Bill should not contain targets or forwarding letters from constituents with that view.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what procedures are in place to measure progress made in energy conservation in the home since the implementation of the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000. [77418]
  358W
  Mr. Meacher
  The Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 requires energy conservation authorities to prepare reports setting out progress with implementing their energy conservation reports. In 1999–00, authorities were asked, as part of the HECA progress report, whether they had prepared a fuel poverty report. Each year since then, they have been asked to report on progress with its implementation.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations her Department has received concerning the re-introduction of a Bill aimed at improving domestic energy efficiency. [77409]

  Mr. Meacher
  Blaby Labour Party has expressed support for the idea of future home energy efficiency legislation. Defra also received a number of letters from individuals which broadly express support for future legislation in this area.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the rules for assessing energy savings of appliances under the Energy Efficiency Commitment Scheme. [77592]

  Mr. Morley
  The Regulator, Ofgem, is responsible for administering the Energy Efficiency Commitment 2002–2005, including determining what improvement in energy efficiency should be attributed to energy efficiency measures proposed by electricity and gas suppliers. Its procedures for doing so are set our in its "Energy Efficiency Commitment Administration Procedures" published in December 2001 and available at www.ofgem.gov.uk.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations her Department has received from the Centre for Policy on Ageing(a) prior to and (b) following the withdrawal of the Home Energy Conservation Bill. [77411]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has not received any representations on the subject of the Home Energy Conservation Bill from the Centre for Policy on Ageing either prior to or following the withdrawal of that Bill.

  UNEP Report
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether her Department has received a copy of UNEP's Report, Global Environment Outlook 3, and if she will make a statement. [79082]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Friend, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, gave a keynote speech at the global launch of the third UNEP Global Environment Outlook (GEO3) Report in London on 22 May. The Secretary of State, and the Defra officials that attended the launch, were given copies of the Report.

  The GEO3 Report provides an authoritative assessment that informs our thinking on global sustainable development. Although it does not single out individual countries, it makes clear that action is required by all countries to tackle environmental degradation. The UK Government take the problems

  359W
  identified by the report extremely seriously and are taking appropriate action in key areas, including biodiversity, climate change, forests and oceans.

  For information, the Secretary of State's speech can be found at: http://defraweb/corporate/ministers/speeches/mb230502 htm.

  Departmental Review
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what recent discussions she has had with(a) the Prime Minister and (b) Lord Haskins regarding the review of her Department; and if she will make a statement. [78613]

  Margaret Beckett
  Lord Haskins has agreed, at my request, to review delivery arrangements and structures to Defra's countryside responsibilities. Lord Haskins will consult widely with Defra stakeholders and those who deliver rural policy. We expect the review to be completed by the summer of 2003.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 26 September 20002,Official Report, column 247W, on GM crops, how many tests for unauthorised genetically modified organisms have been undertaken by the GM Inspectorate; and what proportion of them showed a presence of unauthorised genetically modified organisms. [75838]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: The GM Inspectorate has the authority to carry out testing for the presence of GMOs in two contexts: first, as part of inspection of authorised releases of GMOs into the environment, and, secondly, in support of the audit of seed importers and producers to ensure that non-GM seed stocks are free from unauthorised GM events.

  Testing as part of the inspection of authorised releases of GMOs is carried out whenever there is reason to believe that material in addition to that for which consent is held has been released or to confirm the GM status of volunteer plants and bolters. However, the issue of testing of released GMOs is being considered as part of the proposed review inspection and enforcement activities. Since June 2000, there have been 3 tests (comprised of 41 analytical tests) of seed prior to sowing to confirm its purity and 32 tests of volunteers and bolters. None of these tests showed the presence of unauthorised GMOs.

  Since June 2000 the GM Inspectorate has carried out a total of 86 audits of seed companies. These audits have monitored the precautions that seed companies have taken as regards the adventitious presence of GM events in seeds. As part of this process a series of tests (18) have been carried out to clarify results presented by seed companies. In no case was the presence of an unauthorised GMO detected.

  World Summit
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department(a) has taken and (b) is planning to take to consult on the (i) outcomes of the recent World
  360W
  Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg and (ii) what steps planned by the UK Government to take forward implementation of the outcomes and which individuals or organisations have been or will be consulted as part of the process. [77574]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has continued to work closely with a wide range of stakeholder groups and my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State and I met with stakeholders in October to discuss the outcomes of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Officials have subsequently met with stakeholders, in a meeting organised by the BOND Network (British Overseas NGOs for Development).

  Ministers are in the process of considering how to take forward the UK's commitments from WSSD at the local, national and international level, building on existing work. We will be launching a major review of the UK Sustainable Development Strategy in the new year, which will take into account WSSD commitments. Stakeholders will be consulted in this exercise.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps were taken by her Department to promote the use of the precautionary principle in discussions at the recent World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg; and if she will make a statement on the outcomes of these discussions in taking forward its use in documentation and agreements emerging as a result of the Summit. [77575]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Plan of Implementation (paragraph 103(f)) reaffirms the importance for policy and decision-making of
  "the precautionary approach set out in principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development".
  It also underlines the importance of principle 15 for the sound management of chemicals and of hazard wastes for the protection of human health and the environment (paragraph 22).

  A copy of the Plan of Implementation will be placed in the House Library and can be found at http://www/johannesburgsummit.org/, along with a copy of the Political Declaration made at Johannesburg.

  The United Kingdom and the European Union would also have liked the Plan of Implementation to refer explicitly to the development of the precautionary principle in a number of international legal instruments since Rio. The United Kingdom and the European Union will continue to promote the precautionary principle, as set out in the Rio Declaration and subsequently developed in international law, in taking forward the outcomes of the Johannesburg Summit and related work on international sustainable development and policies which impact on health and the environment.

  SF6
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her Department has made of banning the use of SF6 in car tyres and double glazing. [77566]
  361W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: At this point in time, the Government have not made an assessment of the impact of banning the use of SF6 in car tyres and insulating glazing in the UK. We expect the European Commission to make a proposal for EU legislation on fluorinated gases in spring 2003. If it transpires that this proposal will include such controls, then we will make an assessment of their impact in the UK.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Westmoreland and Lonsdale of 18 July, regarding Mr. Clifford Kendal. [79285]

  Mr. Morley
  My Noble Friend Lord Whitty responded to the hon. Member on 22 October.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Westmoreland and Lonsdale of 17 September, regarding Mr.Trevor Wilson of Cark-in-Cartmel. [79284]

  Alun Michael
  A response was sent to the hon. Member on 2 November.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Government will respond to the foot and mouth inquiries. [77304]

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she plans to announce to Parliament her Department's response to the Anderson and Follett Reports. [77134]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: I expect to publish the Government's response to the reports of the Foot and Mouth Disease inquiries before the House prorogues.

  Retail Banks
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when she last met the head of agricultural departments of the retail banks and what was discussed; how often she has met the head of the agricultural departments of retail banks in the last 12 months; and how often her predecessor met the head of the agricultural departments of the retail banks. [78487]

  Margaret Beckett
  I met the heads of the agricultural departments of the retail banks in November 2001.

  Public Bodies
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with her Department's non departmental public bodies; and if she will make a statement. [79730]
  362W
  Margaret Beckett
  I have regular discussions with the heads and officials of Defra's non-departmental public bodies.

  European Agriculture
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what meetings she had with her French and German counterparts to discuss European agriculture in the run-up to the EU meeting in Brussels from 24 to 25 October; and what was discussed. [78409]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 31 October 2002]: I have regular contact with my French and German counterparts, through monthly Agriculture Councils and other meetings. These meetings address the issues facing European agriculture of most interest to the UK, France and Germany, current at the time of the meeting. I last met Frau Kuenast, the German Agriculture Minister on 24 October and subsequently spoke to her on 31 October. I hope to meet my French colleague in the near future.

  Bovine TB
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what timetable her Department has set for the future publication of(a) DEFRA and (b) DEFRA-commissioned research into the epidemiology of bovine TB. [77395]

  Mr. Morley
  Final reports of Defra-commissioned research into the epidemiology of bovine TB are published on the Defra website once individual projects are complete. Some of the current projects are not scheduled to end until 2005.

  In addition the results of the badger culling trial, overseen by the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, are expected to be available in 2005.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she has taken to ensure that(a) NGOs and (b) the public may have access to all up to date bovine TB research funded and programmed by her Department. [77389]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra's annual Research Requirements Document includes a complete list of all Defra's current research projects, including those on bovine TB. It is available to all on the Defra website. Annual reports of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB also include summary updates of Defra-funded TB research. These are available on the Defra website at www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb

  Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) are represented on the TB Forum and are made aware of the content of the TB research programme on a regular basis.

  A review of the research on bovine TB over the last 5 years will take place in early November. Following the review an output document will be made available to members of the TB Forum and will be available to members of the public via the Defra website.
  363W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with her Irish counterpart about measures to control bovine tuberculosis. [74862]

  Margaret Beckett
  In 2001, Defra officials, Defra's independent animal vaccine programme adviser and members of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISG) visited the Irish Government's veterinary department and met with researchers to discuss TB control and progress on the Four Area Badger Study. Since the meeting a collaborative research project on badger vaccination has been set up by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency and the University of Dublin.

  Dairy Farming
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on dairy farming in Lancashire. [77602]

  Mr. Morley
  In Lancashire, in common with the rest of the country, the sustainability of many dairy farming enterprises has been adversely affected by low farmgate milk prices. The reasons for these low prices are complex, but include high levels of production earlier in the year combined with the effects of low world prices for dairy commodities. The average farmgate price of milk has recovered from its seasonal low in May, but it is still too low for many dairy farmers to be able to maintain the level of investment required to sustain their businesses.

  The prices negotiated between farmers and purchasers, or indeed processors and retailers, are private commercial matters in which the Government cannot get involved. Nevertheless, I do welcome the recent price rises announced by major retailers and dairy processors and hope that these will help alleviate some of the difficulties faced by dairy farmers. The Government can influence the environment in which price negotiations take place through the mechanisms of the dairy CAP and, during the period of lowest prices, we actively supported measures taken in Brussels to support Community markets and encourage exports.

  Water Framework Directive
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the basis is of her policy on not participating in river basin pilot studies proposed under the implementation strategy of the Water Framework Directive. [77827]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 29 October 2002]: The Department, the devolved administrations and the UK Environment Agencies have been, and continue to participate very actively in the development of the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) of the Water Framework Directive.

  This involvement has included leading or co-leading on development of guidance on estuarial and coastal waters, heavily modified water bodies and impact of human activity on surface and groundwater. In addition the UK has participated in all the working groups of the CIS, including the working group on integrated testing in pilot river basins. The UK is also actively involved
  364W
  with current discussions at Community level on the future development of the CIS and aims to play a full part in future work.

  Defra and the Environment Agency have not so far proposed any pilot river basin projects for England as part of the CIS. The Environment Agency intends to focus it's efforts on the actual implementation of the Water Framework Directive to ensure initial legal obligations are complied with relating to all river basins. Pilot studies are being undertaken or planned, including in England, to answer specific issues. The experience gained will be fed back to the integrated testing project.

  Ageism
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what strategies her Department has to ensure that there is no ageism in recruitment and retention processes. [79297]

  Alun Michael
  The Department has integrated age into its equal opportunities policies.

  In addition, from 1 January 2003 subject to continued organisational need and their continued efficiency staff in Defra will have the opportunity to stay in service beyond age 60 and up to age 65. We are looking to mirror that change in our recruitment procedures.

  Municipal Waste
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the percentage of municipal waste that will be recovered in(a) 2005, (b) 2010 and (c) 2015. [77322]

  Margaret Beckett
  Waste Strategy 2000 sets targets for the recovery of municipal waste of at least 40 per cent. by 2005, 45 per cent. by 2010 and 67 per cent. by 2015. The last Municipal Waste Management Survey shows that in the year 2000–2001, 21 per cent. of municipal waste in England had value recovered from it. Of this, 12 per cent. is recycling and composting, and 9 per cent. energy recovery through incineration.

  Local authorities in England already have best value targets for recovery, and statutory targets for recycling and composting; as well as additional funding under the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services block, which includes waste management. Defra's £140 million waste minimisation, recycling and composting fund will also boost local authority performance.

  As part of their review of the waste strategy, the Strategy Unit have been considering what additional measures may be needed to achieve these targets. They are expected to publish their report in November.

  Mobile Plant Licences
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many mobile plant licences have been issued by the Environment Agency; and how many applications for such licenses are pending; [77325]

  (2) what estimate she has made of the average cost to a business of (a) obtaining and (h) maintaining a mobile plant licence for land remediation; [77327]

  365W
  (3) what the average time taken to process an application for a mobile plant licence for land remediation is. [77326]

  Mr. Meacher
  As at September 2002, the Environment Agency had issued 85 mobile plant licences. There are 11 applications pending.

  The costs of obtaining a mobile plant licence vary depending on the type of mobile plant licence and the information required. The costs of obtaining the licence can be in the region of £15,000 per licence. These costs include the costs of obtaining the required certificate of technical competence, the administrative costs involved in putting together the required information for the application, and a charge of £1,775 made by the Environment Agency as an application charge for an intermediate capacity mobile plant licence.

  Maintenance of the licence can cost in the region of £13,000 per annum. These costs include the Environment Agency's annual subsistence charge of £3,200, and the preparation of risk assessments and working plans for the sites where the mobile plant operates.

  The average time taken to process mobile plant applications is 7 months.

  Suckler Cow Premium
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of 2001 suckler cow premium payments were outstanding(a) nationally and (b) in each region on (i) 31 August and (ii) 30 September; and if she will make a statement. [77320]

  Margaret Beckett
  (a) (i) proportion of 2001 Suckler Cow Premium payments outstanding nationally at 31 August was 34.11 per cent.

  (b) (i) proportion of 2001 Suckler Cow Premium payments outstanding in each region at 31 August was (see table below.)

  Region

  % Of Claims Outstanding At 31 August

  % Of Claims Outstanding At 30 September

  Bristol

  61.79

  40.93

  Cambridge

  37.49

  27.35

  Carlisle

  36.87

  20.72

  Crewe

  12.81

  3.83

  Exeter

  58.45

  36.12

  Northallerton

  18.98

  5.32

  Nottingham

  26.00

  18.97

  Reading

  29.35

  13.24

  Worcester

  20.07

  6.35

  (a) (ii) proportion of 2001 Suckler Cow Premium payments outstanding nationally at 30 September was 19.20 per cent.

  (b) (ii) proportion of 2001 Suckler Cow Premium payments outstanding in each region at 30 September (see table above.)

  Member States are required under European legislation to cross-check all animals subject to bovine subsidy against their cattle tracing databases. The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) has accordingly cross-checked
  366W
  claimed animals against the British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS Cattle Tracing System (CTS)). All cross checks have been completed and R PA has discovered a large number of discrepancies. Many of these arise because of the failure by cattle keepers to notify the CTS when animals are born, die or are moved. This has resulted in RPA being unable to meet the statutory payment deadlines in all cases on bovine schemes, although it is making every effort to ensure all outstanding payments are made as soon as possible. The RPA regrets the delays and the impact on farmer's cash flow, but cannot ignore the discrepancies discovered.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total value was of 2001 Suckler Cow Premiums outstanding at(a) 31 August and (b) 30 September. [77319]

  Margaret Beckett
  (a) total value of 2001 suckler cow premium 2001 outstanding at 31 August was £5,476,365 compared to payments of £72,834,635.

  (b) total value of 2001 suckler cow premium 2001 outstanding at 30 September was £3,290,897 compared to £75,020,103.

  Beef Special Premium
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total monetary value is of the claims under(a) the beef special premium scheme 2001 and (b) the suckler cow premium scheme 2001 that have been refused by the Rural Payments Agency. [77323]

  Margaret Beckett
  (a) estimated total monetary value of claims under the beef special premium scheme 2001 that has been refused by the Rural Payments Agency is £2,020,916 compared to total value of payments due of £107,891,000.

  (b) estimated total monetary value of claims under the suckler cow premium scheme 2001 that has been refused by the Rural Payments Agency is £2,232,001 compared to total value of payments due of £78,311,000.

  When applicants disagree with the refusal decision it is open to them to provide the RPA with additional information, which they feel, should be taken into account.

  Food Waste
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the volume of food waste previously sold to swill feeders which goes to landfill. [77318]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Animal By-products Order 1999 was amended on 24 May 2001 to introduce a ban on the use of catering waste in swill feeding. It is estimated that approximately 80,000 tonnes per annum of catering waste was being sold to swill feeders at the time the ban came into effect. Following a risk assessment, my Department hopes to consult shortly on amendments to the Order which would allow catering waste to be composted and used on land as a soil conditioner rather than going to landfill.
  367W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what her policy is on the development of alternatives to landfill for the disposal of catering food waste; [77230]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the risks to (a) human and (b) animal health of disposing untreated catering food waste in landfill. [77317]

  Margaret Beckett
  In June, my Department issued the results of a risk assessment on the use of composting to dispose of catering waste and animal by-products. The objective of this study was to determine the risks to public and animal health from the land-spreading of the catering wastes after treatment by composting or in a biogas plant and to compare these with the risks from existing disposal routes.

  In summary, the project determined whether current composting processes give a sufficient degree of pathogen destruction such that the risks to humans and animals are acceptably low and the material may be safely spread to land. The composting route for catering waste potentially presents lower risks to grazing animals than disposal through land-fill. This is because composting offers extra control points. First, the raw catering waste could be delivered to enclosed receptions where birds and animals cannot gain access. Second, a no-grazing period could be enforced after application of the compost to land. Following the risk assessment, we hope to consult shortly on amendments to the Animal By-Products Order which would allow catering waste to be composted and used on land as a soil conditioner rather than going to landfill.

  Waste
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects waste acceptance criteria to be(a) discussed and (b) agreed by the EU Council of Ministers. [77321]

  Margaret Beckett
  the Danish Presidency is expected to put this issue on the agenda for the Environment Council meeting on 9–10 December. If agreement is not reached at that meeting, the issue will revert to the Commission for a decision.

  TSE Tests
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason the United Kingdom has not submitted to the European Commission its programme for TSE tests; and when she intends to submit it. [78363]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 31 October 2002]: The TSE programme was not submitted as a result of an oversight and a subsequent misunderstanding with the Commission. The programme was submitted on 22 October when we asked the Commission to reconsider making an EU contribution.

  Badgers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her reasons for issuing a licence for the removal and slaughter of badgers at Saltdean, East Sussex. [74909]
  368W
  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: Defra received an application for a licence under Section 10 of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, to prevent badgers causing serious damage to property.

  We investigated the case extremely carefully, and considered the full range of options for addressing the problem. In addition to this, we sought to involve groups associated with animal welfare issues, even though the Act does not oblige us to do so.

  The decision to grant a licence for the humane dispatch of the badgers was taken with great reluctance, only after it appeared that all other avenues had been exhausted and in the exceptional circumstances of this case. In dealing with any licence applications we always seek to avoid the need to harm badgers. This was an extreme case where no other option had been identified.

  On October 14 trapping work was suspended to allow local interest groups and residents to have a further opportunity to come to a suitable arrangement.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the Four Area Badger Study carried out by the Republic of Ireland. [74865]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISG) is monitoring the Four Area Badger Study. Members of the ISG, Defra officials and Defra's independent animal vaccine programme adviser visited some of the Four Area Badger Study sites during their visit to Ireland in 2001.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the East Offaly Badger Removal Project. [74866]

  Margaret Beckett
  The East Offaly badger removal project was assessed in the "Krebs" Report on Bovine Tuberculosis in Cattle and Badgers, published in 1997. Based on many of the recommendations in the Krebs report, the Government have put in place a wide-ranging research programme into cattle TB. The Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISG), has advised on this research programme and in so doing considered previous badger removal operations including the East Offaly project.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to receive the report of the Risk Assessment Group which she established to study illegal meat imports. [77356]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: The risk assessment is being carried out by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA). The work commenced in March 2002 and we expect the report to be published later this year.

  Preliminary results are currently being subjected to peer review and quality assurance procedures. The full results and final report will be published when this process is complete.

  Countryside Agency
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to amend the financial provision for the Countryside Agency. [78912]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 4 November 2002]: The budget for the Countryside Agency is agreed as part of the corporate planning process, which is currently underway.

  Bio-fuels
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the consequences for the Government's policy on bio-fuels of the collapse of ARBRE Energy. [76842]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Government take the future of energy from biomass very seriously and considers that energy crops have the potential to make a significant contribution to renewable energy and climate change targets. We are providing support to develop the sector through the Bio-energy Capital Grants Scheme and the Energy Crops Scheme. The funding available from the Bio-energy Capital Grants Scheme could deliver about 100MW of generating capacity. Discussions are continuing on the future of ARBRE and there are a number of lessons from the project that can be applied to future high efficiency biomass plants. The project has shown that short rotation coppice can be established and grown at the scale required to form an important element of the fuel supply. Useful information has been learned on improving yields, the use of varieties to minimise pest and disease impact and on harvesting technology.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about increasing the tax incentives offered to producers of bio-fuels; and if she will make a statement. [79235]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 4 November 2002]: I am in regular contact with Treasury Ministers to discuss a whole range of matters related to energy and environmental policy. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets regularly with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a wide range of matters that affect the business of the Department. As with all tax matters, decisions on tax incentives rest with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  ARBRE Energy
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much money is owed to her Department by ARBRE Energy. [76846]

  Margaret Beckett
  No money is owed to my Department by ARBRE Energy.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of(a) the number of farmers who were assigned grants made by her Department to ARBRE
  370W
  Energy in respect of the Eggborough Power Station and (b) the impact on those farm businesses of moves by her Department to recover grants paid. [76845]

  Margaret Beckett
  Under the Energy Crops Scheme and the Woodland Grant Scheme planting grants are payable to growers. In the case of crops to provide fuel for the ARBRE power station growers assigned the payments to ARBRE Energy and this Department and the Forestry Commission were asked to make the payments to the third party. 12 growers qualified for grants to plant crops to provide fuel for ARBRE under the Energy Crops Scheme. A further 46 growers qualified for grants under the Woodland Grants Scheme. The Energy Crops Scheme requires that crops are used for the production of energy but it is too early to consider any recovery of grant as discussions are continuing on the future of ARBRE. Should it become necessary the Department will work closely with growers to access one of the alternative energy markets.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much money her Department has paid in grants, and under which schemes, to ARBRE Energy in respect of the wood-burning power station at Eggborough, Selby. [76843]

  Margaret Beckett
  Grants to plant crops to provide fuel supply for the ARBRE project have been paid to ARBRE Energy as follows:Energy Crops Scheme per cent. £184,580
  Woodland Grant Scheme per cent. £980,994
  Of the £184,580 two payable orders totalling £31,290 have yet to be cashed.

  A further £97,090 remains payable to Arbre Energy under assignments made by growers. Following the liquidation, we were asked to delay these two payments until the growers in question had opportunity to discuss cancellation of the assignments with the liquidator. I hope that this will be resolved shortly.

  Fly Tipping
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what evidence has been collected into the difficulties faced by local authorities in dealing with fly tipping; and if he will make a statement; [78083]

  (2) what representation he has received to strengthen the legal powers available in local authorities to deal with fly tipping; and if he will make a statement. [78085]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Local Government Association produced a report which was presented to the fly tipping forum at the beginning of 2002. This paper was based on a survey of local authorities and provided information on levels of fly tipping within each local authority and the enforcement action taken.

  The paper also outlined a number of suggestions for increasing local authorities' powers in relation to waste management and fly tipping. As a result, the Government will be amending shortly the duty of care legislation to allow local authorities to be able to serve notice on businesses which will require them to supply

  371W
  that authority with their waste transfer notes. Waste transfer notes are required to be kept under Section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  A404
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 24 May 2002,Official Report, column 644W, on the A404, if she will place in the Library copies of the advice received from lawyers; and if she will make a statement on the footpath Bisham 9. [79718]

  Alun Michael
  We have been continuing correspondence with Windsor and Maidenhead Borough Council and the Ramblers Association about the proposed diversion of footpath Bisham No. 9. On the information now before me, I am satisfied that the drafting of the necessary orders are justified. These orders will be published shortly.

  Feta Cheese
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will press for a review of the Protected Designation of Origin procedure affecting non-generic products; and if she will make a statement on the recent decision in respect of feta cheese. [77832]

  Mr. Morley
  The UK has consistently opposed the registration of feta cheese as an EU protected food name on the grounds that we believed that the name "feta" had become a generic product and so not eligible for protection. However, in the absence of a contrary decision by the Council, feta was registered by the Commission as a protected food name on 15 October. While disappointed with this particular outcome, we are satisfied in general with the protected food name scheme and the procedures for registration of products. The scheme was highlighted by the Curry Commission Report on the Future of Farming Food as being a useful opportunity for UK producers to protect the character of their product and secure a premium price for it.

  Agri-environment Schemes
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in terms of how much paperwork is involved in the agri-scheme; how easy it will be to access, what account the scheme will take of work already done; how it will be funded; and how it will be policed. [79245]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 4 November 2002]: Defra is working with stakeholders on a fundamental review of agri-environment schemes. A first round of public consultation was held earlier this year and a second round of consultation will begin shortly. A key objective of the review is to streamline the administration of the schemes, making full use of modern technology.

  One strand of the review is based on the recommendation by the Policy Commission on the Future of Food and Farming that the current schemes should be complemented by a new, simple entry-level scheme, open to as many farms in England as possible. Defra is designing a pilot for such a scheme which will be launched in four areas next year. The scheme would
  372W
  reward positive management of existing features as well as enhancement. Subject to success of the pilot, it is hoped that the new scheme could be rolled out nationally in 2005.

  Like the existing schemes, it would be co-financed from EU and national funds and would include compliance checks on a percentage of applicants in accordance with EU requirements.

  Modulation
  Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with EU farm Ministers about the equalization of farm modulation across the EU; and if she will make a statement. [79232]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 November 2002]: The government support the European Commission's proposal to introduce compulsory modulation across the European Union, although our support will depend on the detail of its implementation. This issue was discussed at the October 2002 Agriculture Council and I have raised it in various meetings with European Agriculture Ministers and with Commissioner Fischler.

  Sellafield
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place full versions of the two DEFRA reports into the economic viability of Sellafield in the Library. [77547]

  Margaret Beckett
  Two reports about the economic case for the Sellafield MOX plant, by PA Consulting and AD Little, were published by Ministers for consultation in 1999 and 2001. The published versions omitted some commercially confidential information.

  In an arbitration under the terms of the OSPAR Convention, which was heard in The Hague from 21 to 25 October, Ireland is seeking full versions of the reports. The Government maintains that it is entitled to withhold commercially confidential information from the published versions of the two reports and that this did not significantly affect the ability of consultees to comment on the economic case for the plant.

  The arbitral tribunal will deliver its award in due course.

  GM Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will add the six figure grid references for the 2001–02 National Seed Listing Trials planted under 00/R33/6 to the public register. [79736]

  Mr. Meacher
  The full 6 figure grid references for these sites will be available on the public register by the 8 November.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which of the National Seed Listing trials for GM crops planted between Autumn 2001 and Spring 2002 were completed. [79738]
  373W
  Mr. Meacher
  National List tests and trials for GM crops sown at four sites between Autumn 2001 and Spring 2002 were completed satisfactorily. These are shown in the table:

  Type of Test or Trial

  Location

  Distinctness Uniformity and

  Sand Hutton, Yorkshire Stability

  Value for

  Thorganby, Lincolnshire

  Cultivation

  Hinton Waldrist, Oxfordshire

  and Use

  Udny, Aberdeenshire

  Ministerial Meetings (US)
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what dates Ministers in her Department have held meetings with members and officials of the United States Administration since 8 June 2001; where each meeting was held; which Ministers were involved in each meeting; which United States Administration department attended each meeting; and which members and officials from the United States Administration attended each of these meetings. [78151]

  Margaret Beckett
  Defra Ministers have met the following US Administration members and officials since 8 June 2001:

  Margaret Beckett
  Thursday 1 November 2001, London

  Governor Christine Todd-Whitman, Environmental Protection Agency

  Tuesday 4 December 2001, Washington DC

  Ambassador Bob Zoellick, USTR;

  Senator Joseph Lieberman, Senate Environment & Public Works Committee;

  Paula Dobrianski, Under Secretary, State Department;

  Senator Jeff Bingaman, Chair Senate Energy & national Resources Committee;

  Senator James Jeffords, Chair Senate Environment & Public Works Committee;

  Senator Chuck Hagel, Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

  Wednesday 5 December 2001, Washington DC

  Gary Edson, National Economic Council;

  Governor Christine Todd-Whitman, Environmental Protection Agency;

  Ann Veneman, Agriculture Secretary, US Department of Agriculture;

  Senator Tom Harkin, Chair Senate Agriculture Committee;

  Senator Richard Luger, Senate Agriculture Committee;

  Jim Connaughton, Chair White House Council for Environment Quality;

  Andrew Natsios, USAID;

  Thursday 11 Apri12002, Washington DC

  Ian Johnson, Environmental & Social Sustainable Development Department;

  Ann Veneman, Agriculture Secretary, US Department of Agriculture;

  Al Larson, Under Secretary for Economic, Business & Agriculture Affairs, US State Department;

  Michael Meacher
  Thursday 1 November 2001, London
  Governor Christine Todd-Whitman, Environmental Protection Agency

  Lord Whitty
  Wednesday 19 June 2001, London
  Dr. J B Penn, Under Secretary, US Department of Agriculture
  374W
  Alun Michael and Elliott Morley have not held any meetings with members or officials of the United States Administration.

  In addition, Defra Ministers engage with US Administration members in numerous international fora.

  Export Refunds
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the expenditure within the EU on the subsidising of exports of surplus agricultural production for which figures are available in the last year; and how much of the total comes from(a) EU and (b) national funding. [79258]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 November 2002]: The European Union spent 3.4 billion euro on export refunds in its 2001 financial year. So far as we are aware, no member state uses national funds for this purpose.

  Food Costs
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the additional weekly expenditure for the average family in purchasing food in consequence of the difference between EU and world prices in the most recent annual period for which figures are available. [79259]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 November 2002]: In 2000 the CAP is estimated to have increased the cost of food for a notional UK family of four by £4–5 per week. Taking account of the additional cost borne by taxpayers the figure rises to £8–9 per week.

  Brazilian Mahogany
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action the Government are taking to stop imports of Brazilian mahogany. [79000]

  Mr. Morley
  International trade in Brazilian mahogany is controlled under the terms of the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) to which the UK is a party. Brazilian big leaf mahogany is listed in Appendix III of the Convention which requires that mahogany exported must have been acquired in accordance with the national laws for the protection of fauna and flora. Where importers of mahogany present an export permit issued by the Management Authority in Brazil confirming that the mahogany has been legally acquired, imports are allowed.

  However, we are concerned about the current position with relation to mahogany imports from Brazil. A proposal is currently under discussion at the Conference of the CITES Parties to list Brazilian big leaf mahogany on Appendix II. The UK along with the rest of the European Union is supporting this proposal which would allow importing states to reach their own scientific judgement as to the sustainability of the trade.

  Flood Insurance
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in which areas of the country flood insurance cover is not available; and if she will make a statement. [76281]

  Mr. Morley
  The Association of British Insurers have stated that all properties defended to at least a standard of 1.3 per cent. (1 in 75) annual probability, should be able to obtain cover. Properties currently protected to a lesser extent, but where defences to meet the above standard are planned for the next 5 years, should also be able to get cover. The ABI have assured us that undefended properties or "exceptional cases" will be assessed on an individual basis and consideration given as to whether some form of insurance cover can be given. Many of the properties which the ABI estimate will not be able to obtain cover, have never have been able to get flood insurance.

  The decision to move away from the existing agreement means that, in the majority of cases, people can and should shop around for the best deal. However, it must be recognised that insurance companies need to take a commercial decision as to what risk they will cover and on what terms. It is impossible to make a generalisation about areas where flood cover will be unavailable as in a competitive market as what is unacceptable to one company may well be acceptable to another.

  Measuring the Quality of Life Report
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Government will publish their response to the Environmental Audit Committee's Fourth Report of Session 2001–02, Measuring the Quality of Life: The 2001 Sustainable Development Headline Indicators. [80314]

  Mr. Meacher
  I am pleased to announce that I have today, laid in the libraries of both Houses, copies of the Government's response to the Environmental Audit Committee's Fourth Report of the 2001–2002 session, "Measuring the Quality of Life: The 2001 Sustainable Development Headline Indicators".

  The Government's response reinforces our commitment to reporting progress towards sustainable development, particularly through a set of headline indicators. In our sustainable development strategy "A better quality of life", published in 1999, we envisaged a full review of both the strategy and all the indicators after five years, which we will aim to complete by the end of 2004.

  GM Maize
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what opinions the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment has received from the Advisory Committee on Feedingstuffs (ACAF) on the dossier of evidence presented by Aventis in support of its application for marketing consent for T25 GM maize, with particular reference to their opinion on the chicken 376W
  feeding study; and if she will place a copy of ACAF's opinion in respect of (a) the whole dossier and (b) the chicken feeding study in the Library. [4932]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: At the request of the department, The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) has, since November 2000, been considering the criticisms of the safety of Aventis' (formerly AgrEvo and now Bayer Cropscience) GM maize, T25, which has been raised at the hearing into the addition of CHARDON LL (a variety of T25) to the national list of seeds. ACRE subsequently requested advice from ACAF on the animal feed aspects of the criticisms.

  AgrEvo applied in 1995 through the French authorities for approval under EU directive 90/220 to place its GM T25 maize on the European market for cultivation and use as animal feed. In June 1995 France circulated the dossier to the other member states with the recommendation that T25 maize be given approval. After due consideration European Union member states approved the marketing of T25 maize in 1998. As part of this process ACRE considered the French opinion and dossier supporting the application and gave its advice to the government in June 1996. This was prior to the formation of ACAF. The chicken feeding study was not part of the original dossier submitted in 1996 and so was not considered by ACRE. A summary of the study was circulated by the French in 1997 as supplementary information on the nutritional qualities of the maize. The French authorities were of the view that the study did not add any significant new information to the dossier. Officials in MAFF considered the study, but as it was a nutritional rather than a safety study, it was not sent to ACRE.

  In reconsidering aspects of the T25 maize dossier ACRE has asked ACAF to look at the available data and advise on the substance of the criticisms raised at the CHARDONLL hearing in relation to animal feed and in particular the mortality rate in the chicken study. The growth rates in the two groups were broadly equivalent, but of the 140 fed T25 maize grain, 10 chicks (7 per cent.) died, whereas only 5 of the 140 (3.5 per cent.) died in the control group. In this type of experiment up to 8 per cent. would be expected to die. So the mortality rate is within the expected range. The question raised in the CHARDONLL is whether this is of concern and worthy of further investigation.

  A copy of the letter of 5 September 2001 from ACAF to ACRE setting out the committee's views on the whole dossier and the chicken feeding study has been placed in the Library. A copy is also on the public register held by my Department in Ashdown House
  In summary, ACAF is satisfied that, on the basis of the information presented by AgroEvo, there is nothing to indicate that T25 maize grain or its products pose any more risk to animals or humans than non-GM maize varieties if used in animal feed. I have asked ACAF for their reasons for this conclusion. However, ACAF advised ACRE that the data in the dossier are not sufficient to conclude at this stage, that T25 silage (rather than grain) is substantially equivalent to other maize varieties. Although it is unlikely that T25 maize silage is unsafe to feed to animals, its equivalence should

  377W
  be confirmed. The UK regulatory authority has subsequently written to Aventis to request further data on the composition of T25 silage.

  ACRE has given preliminary advice that nothing has been raised that warrants taking immediate action under the directive to withdraw T25 maize from the market. ACRE will shortly be issuing its advice on concerns raised during the CHARDON LL hearing, including criticisms of the chicken feeding study. This advice will also include ACRE's response to points raised at its T25 maize open hearing held in February 2002. At their hearing the Committee, in conjunction with ACAF, invited a number of witnesses and experts including Dr. Kestin and Dr. Knowles. Guided by the evidence taken at this meeting, any subsequent comments on the evidence from the public and the background information that is already available, ACRE will advise Ministers further on the validity of the T25 risk assessment.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) shelters, (b) bedsits and (c) houses in multiple occupation were registered as unfit for habitation in each year since 1997. [77421]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received concerning the adequacy of(a) safety standards, (b) energy efficiency standards and (c) furnishing and fixture standard regulations applied to homes of multiple occupancy; and if she will make a statement [77414]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister receives regular correspondence from Members of Parliament, the public, local authorities, landlords, tenants, professional and other interested bodies about the adequacy of the current standards applying to houses in multiple occupation (HMOs), including those relating to safety standards, energy efficiency standards and furnishings and fixtures. The Government is committed to raising standards in such properties, which is why we will introduce legislation, as soon as parliamentary time permits, to require local authorities to licence HMOs which pose the greatest risk to the health and safety of their occupiers in their areas.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Devolution Cases
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Advocate General, how many devolution cases have proceeded up to the Privy Council; and in what percentage of those she has intervened. [77258]

  The Advocate-General
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: Eleven cases have proceeded to the Privy Council and I have intervened in seven.
  378W
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Advocate General, what is the total sum of court expenses incurred as result of her intervention in devolution cases since the inception of her Office. [77259]

  The Advocate-General
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: The question of expenses in a court action is a matter for the discretion of the court and any expenses awarded to or against a party may be referred to the auditor of court. Since the inception of my Office, no expenses have been awarded to or against the Advocate-General in devolution cases in which I have intervened.

  Budgetary Provision
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Advocate General, what the(a) total cost and (b) budget provision for her Office has been each year since its inception. [77260]

  Advocate-General
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: I refer to the answer I previously gave to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) for the period from the inception of my Office until 2000–01, in Official Report, 25 January 2002, column 1127W The figure for 2001–02, in respect of identifiable costs of staff and related administration for my Office, was £1,431,426. Approximately half of the costs of the Office relates to work on litigation and advisory work, including the preparation of Bills, carried out by lawyers from the Office of the Solicitor to the Advocate-General on behalf of Government Departments other than the Advocate-General. These costs were met from within the overall budget of the Scotland Office.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Advocate-General, how many devolution cases have been intimated to her since the inception of her Office. [77257]

  The Advocate-General
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: Devolution issues are intimated to me in accordance with the Scotland Act 1998 as devolution minutes. There may be more than one minute intimated in the course of a case. As at 6 November 2002, approximately 1746 minutes were intimated to me in connection with a total of 1575 cases.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Advocate General, in how many devolution cases she has intervened since the inception of her Office. [77256]

  The Advocate-General
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: I have intervened in 24 cases since the creation of my office in May 1999.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Websites
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, if she will list the website links associated with her Department, including sites now dormant or closed, and indicating whether they are live, dormant or closed; what the start-up costs were for each site listed; what the operating costs were in each year since start up for each site; which company hosted each site; what assessment takes place for each site; which company does the assessment; if she will place the assessment reports in the Library; and if she will make a statement. [75592]
  379W
  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office website is www.scottishsecretary.gov.uk and was set up by departmental staff. Identifiable costs for the Scotland Office were £2,700. Operating costs for the site are currently estimated at £2,000 per year. The site is hosted by Scotland On-Line.

  My department is also responsible for the Friends of Scotland website (www.friendsofscotland.gov.uk), which was established on 23 July 2002. Start-up costs were £62,623. Details of annual operating costs are not yet available but maintenance and development costs to date are £4,711. The site is hosted by Ed Net.

  Both of these sites are live. My department also set up an initial Friends of Scotland website (www.friendsofscotland.org.uk) earlier this year. This site was set up within the department and the start-up and operating costs were minimal. The site was hosted by Scotland On-Line and is now closed.

  No external companies have been commissioned to provide an assessment of the department's websites. The content and use of the sites is kept under review within the department.

  Friends of Scotland
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, if she will list the members of the Friends of Scotland initiative, broken down by their country of residence. [79561]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to my answers of 29 October. Up to 6 November 2002, the Scotland Office had recruited a total of 142 Friends of Scotland (this figure is updated on a monthly basis).

  The names of individual Friends cannot be disclosed without their permission.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Electricity
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what discussions she has had with Ofgem about the state of preparedness of(a) electricity generation and (b) electricity distribution companies to cope with emergencies arising from severe weather conditions. [78554]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department is in regular contact with Ofgem regarding aspects of the resilience of the electricity generation, transmission and distribution system. In particular Ofgem participated in the steering group for a study of the emergency preparedness of the transmission and distribution systems which we published in May. Following Sunday's storms I announced that we would be testing the conclusions of this study, which were generally positive, against the actual response in difficult conditions. I have asked for a review of how companies performed and for recommendations to help them ensure that future supplies to consumers are not affected to the same extent. Ofgem will be fully involved in the review.

  Council for Science and Technology
  Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what arrangements have been made for carrying out a quinquennial review of the Council for Science and Technology. [80316]

  Ms Hewitt
  The quinquennial review of the Council for Science and Technology was launched on 19 August. The Science and Technology Select Committee was informed in advance and sent copies of a consultation letter which was sent out to learned societies and other stakeholders such as Universities UK, the CBI and the Engineering Employers Federation. The consultation letter was also placed on the web (http://www.ost.gov.uk/policy/q—review.htm).

  The first stage of the review, which addressed whether the CST is still needed, has recommended that it should continue in being, but that steps must be taken to make it more effective. The Government have accepted this recommendation. The second stage of the review will look at how the CST might best be used in future.

  The consultation will continue until 17 November.

  Petroleum Industry
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what figures she collates on how many UK-based petroleum geologists and geophysicists are working in(a) the UK and (b) abroad. [79162]

  Mr. Wilson
  My Department does not collate such figures. However, under a recent Government/industry PILOT initiative, a questionnaire on UK Continental Shelf exploration activity is being circulated to all UKCS exploration managers. Within this, companies are being asked how many geoscientists are currently working for their organisation on the UKCS and how this compares with 3 years ago. The survey will conclude by December 2002, and the results will then be analysed and presented to PILOT in due course.

  South East England Development Agency
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what the planned expenditure for the South East England Development Agency on(a) corporate entertainment and (b) conferences was during the financial year 2002–03. [77858]

  Alan Johnson
  (a) As part of SEEDA's marketing budget for 2002–03, £12,000 is provided for events hosted by the Chairman and/or the Board and £13,000 for other open consultation and communication events.

  (b) SEEDA itself does not host conferences, but may contribute to cost of holding events which relate to economic development and other related purposes. The budget for SEEDA staff attending conferences and events is £49,000.

  Motor Sport
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what progress she has made in promoting energy efficiency of motor vehicles through environmentally friendly motor sport; [79854]
  381W
  (2) what action she has taken to encourage development of an environmentally friendly specification or formula for motor sport. [79853]

  Mr. Wilson
  I am pleased to say that the Department and four Regional Development Agencies (East Midlands, South East England, East of England, and West Midlands) jointly funded a major industry-led initiative called Energy Efficient MotorSport (EEMS). An EEMS working group was established, consisting of a number of companies and individuals with relevant interest and expertise which resulted in a feasibility study published in August 2002, which was commissioned through the Motorsport Industry Association (MIA).

  The aim of the study was to assess the role that motorsport could play in the promotion and development of energy efficiency automotive technologies. A follow up EEMS presentation was recently made by the MIA to the world governing body of motorsport to explore how the proposals of the study could be demonstrated in a motor racing context. DTI, RDAs and other involved in the EEMS initiative are planning an industry showcase event and other activities to encourage industry to implement its findings.

  In addition, the DTI led Foresight Vehicle programme, the UK's national automotive R & D programme, continue to support collaborative R & D in range of areas including environmental performance (e.g. fuel efficiency, emissions, light weight materials).

  Motor Industry (Licensing)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what plans she has to introduce a system of licensing for(a) independent motor vehicle garages and (b) franchised motor dealers; and if she will make a statement. [78589]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have no plans at present to introduce a system of licensing for garages or motor dealers. Car buyers have the same rights as all consumers to expect that the goods they buy are of satisfactory quality and as described. With regard to car servicing and repair, my Department is working closely with the industry and other stakeholders to develop an independent national voluntary scheme to enable consumers to identify garages across the sector which are committed to delivering consistent minimum standards of customer service.

  Trading Standards
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, how many successful prosecutions have been made by local authority trading standards departments against licensees or landlords for delivering short measures in each of the last five years. [77570]
  382W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  As a general rule, local authorities do not currently initiate prosecutions for short measure draught beer unless the deficiency exceeds 10 per cent. The Department is aware of 13 successful prosecutions over the last five tax years:

  Year

  1997–8

  1998–9

  1999–2000

  2000–1

  2001–2

  Prosecutions

  9

  2

  1

  1

  0

  Mining (Compensation)
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, when her Department and the Claimant Solicitor's Steering Group expect to agree a dust figure for the occupation of Strata Engineer in respect of relevant mining compensation claims. [78507]

  Mr. Wilson
  Dust factors for jobs not explicitly covered in the Claims Handling Agreement (CHA), like that of Strata Engineer, are decided by the Dust Reference Panel, experts who are jointly instructed by the DTI and the Solicitors' Co-ordinating Group (CG).

  The Department's claims handlers, IRISC, have only one claim that is currently outstanding for a Strata Engineer. This case will become the subject of an individual referral to the Dust Reference Panel (DRP).

  The DRP are currently working with the Department and the Solicitors' Co-ordinating Group to produce guidance that will aid the referral of individual cases to the DRP. This will be issued shortly and individual cases can then he referred when the claimants' solicitor arid IRISC have assembled the necessary evidence, in accordance with the guidance.

  Patents (Biotechnology Inventions)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what assessment he has made of whether the patents system as it applies to biotechnology inventions continues to operate in the public interest; and if he will make a statement. [77876]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  It is important to ensure that the patent system in this rapidly developing area continues to operate in the public interest. The Department is commissioning a study on the impact which current patenting practice in the field of genetics has on research and competitiveness in the UK. The Department of Health is conducting a study on Intellectual Property generally and the NHS. In addition, the report published in September of the independent Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, set up by right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, makes recommendations in this area in terms of the impact on developing countries. The Government are currently considering these recommendations.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what proposals her Department has for investment aid for the UK coal industry. [78451]
  383W
  Mr. Wilson
  We are currently consulting on the case for an investment aid scheme for the UK coal industry. The consultation document is available via the DTI website at http://www2.dti.gov.uk/support/coal/.

  The deadline for comments is 15 November 2002.

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what the criteria are for applying the temporary operating aid scheme for the UK coal industry. [78452]

  Mr. Wilson
  The general criteria for the UK Coal Operating Aid Scheme, as approved by the European Commission in November 2000, are available on the DTI website at www.dti.gov.uk/support/coal

  We are also seeking Commission's approval for a targeted extension of the Scheme to the end of this year. The criteria for this extension can be found at http://www2.dti.gov.uk/support/coal/ukcoas ext.pdf

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what plans she has to aid the UK coal industry when the temporary operating aid scheme ends. [78453]

  Mr. Wilson
  The new European coal State aid regulation which came into force on 24 July 2002 provides us with the flexibility to pay investment aid for pits that have a viable future. This would allow us to pay up to 30 per cent. of the total costs of the relevant investment project. We are currently consulting on the case for introducing a scheme in the UK to make use of this flexibility.

  Photovoltaics
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what incentives are available to encourage the installation of photovoltaic cells in(a) domestic and (b) non-domestic premises. [78175]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 29 October 2002]: The £20 million First Phase of the Major Photovoltaic Demonstration Programme offers grants of 50 per cent. on small scale domestic solar panel arrays installed by accredited companies. Grants are also available for larger scale non-domestic systems. The programme has been running now for 6 months and has had 78 successful applications accounting for around £2 million in grants.

  By the end of the three year first phase we hope to have installed PV systems on 3000 domestic roofs and 140 medium and large public and commercial buildings.

  VAT reductions are also available for professionally installed solar panels.

  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, if she will introduce(a) fixed net metering, (b) a feed in tariff and (c) loans for those wanting to install a solar photovoltaic system. [78141]

  Mr. Wilson
  (a) Fixed net metering is a matter for individual suppliers, as its introduction involves them incurring costs. However, initiatives to promote its uptake are under consideration within DTI, e.g. under the Distributed Generation Co-ordinating Group.
  384W
  (b) The Renewables Obligation came into force in April of this year. This is considered a more market-driven approach than a feed-in tariff, and so compatible with a liberalised, competitive market.

  (c) Feed-in tariffs and low interest loans are features of the German Government's PV support programme, whereas we have chosen the capital grant route, which is more akin to the Japanese approach. The £20 million first phase of the Major Photovoltaic Demonstration programme, launched in March this year, offers grants averaging 50 per cent. for small and large-scale PV installations. It has been running now for 6 months and has had 78 successful applications accounting for around £2 million in grants. By the end of the three year first phase we hope to have installed PV systems on 3000 domestic roofs and 140 medium and large public and commercial buildings.

  Manufacturing (North-West)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, how many people were employed in the manufacturing sector in the north-west in each of the last five years. [79576]

  Alan Johnson
  The numbers of people employed in manufacturing in the north-west during each of the last five years for which data is available from the Office of National Statistics are as follows:

  Year

  1996

  529,351

  1997

  532,200

  1998

  529,604

  1999

  514,114

  2000

  499,020

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what support and assistance she is providing to the manufacturing sector in the north-west. [79575]

  Alan Johnson
  Much of the work undertaken in the north-west is underpinned by our recently published Manufacturing Strategy in which we have identified several key pillars to assist manufacturing companies in fulfilling their potential in the UK.

  The North West Development Agency (NWDA) together with regional partners are charged with taking forward Government support and assistance in the north-west. The NWDA is promoting and sharing best practice through industry cluster programmes for the aerospace, food & drink and chemicals sectors and others. NWDA delivers the supply chain programme which helps and encourages north-west businesses to use north-west suppliers as well as assisting small businesses devise recovery plans should their main customer reduce production or move from the area.

  We have established the UK's first Regional Centre for Manufacturing Excellence in Manchester. The Centre provides the DTI's Manufacturing Advisory Service—the practical, hands-on support manufacturers need. Two Innovative Manufacturing Research Centres are based in the University of Liverpool, making a significant contribution to the global competitiveness of UK manufacturing.

  385W
  Skills and Employment issues are recognised amongst other issues as an important factor in improving productivity and the NWDA has led on the coordination of a Framework for Regional Employment and Skills action (FRESA).

  Electricity Supply
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, (1) if she will make a statement about complaints from members of the public relating to information provided by electricity supply companies about reconnections of supply following the storm on 27th October; [78847]

  (2) what her Department will do to analyse the response of the electricity industry to supply problems experienced as a result of the storms of 27th October; what plans she has to meet representatives of the electricity industry and discuss what lessons can be learnt as a result of supply problems following the storms of 27th October; and if she will make a statement on the performance of electricity companies in handling power supply problems in Norfolk following the storms of 27th October. [78846]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answers 4 November 2002]: Following the storms I asked for a review of how the electricity distribution companies performed and for recommendations to help them ensure that future supplies to consumers are not affected to the same extent. This review will cover the supply problems experienced, including in the Norfolk area, and the quality of information provided to the public by the companies. I hope to publish it during December. Our follow-up plan will certainly include discussions with the industry about what lessons can be learnt.

  KPNQwest
  Mr. Stephen O'Brian
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade Industry, what representations her Department has received regarding regulatory issues and the bankruptcy of KPNQwest. [79107]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 4 November 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

  My Department has not received any representations specifically regarding KPNQwest. There have however been a number of representations on regulatory issues and the risk to continuity of supply in the event of telecoms company failures.

  Company Activities
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in what ways she has encouraged companies to report on the social and environmental implications of their activities. [79055]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government have undertaken a wide range of activity to encourage companies to report on their environmental and social performance. This includes the Prime Minister's challenge to the top 350 companies to publish annual environmental reports, the work of the Pioneers group on Sectoral Sustainability Strategies and practical 386W
  assistance such as the General Guidelines on Environmental Reporting produced by DEFRA and DTI and published in collaboration with the CBI.

  In the Modernising Company Law White Paper, the Government proposed that economically significant companies be required to prepare an operating and financial review. The proposals would require information on the company's impact on the environment and wider community, where relevant to an understanding of the company's business, to be covered in the narrative report.

  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, if she plans that subclauses 75(2)(d)-(e) of the Draft Clauses contained in Modernising Company Law (Cm. 5553) would require the reporting on all significant environmental, social and community impacts of a company covered by this section, were these clauses to be enacted. [79171]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  If enacted as presently drafted, clause 75 would require the directors of a company to which it applied to consider whether certain information should be included in its Operating and Financial Review in order to permit the members to make an informed assessment of the company.

  While subsections 75(2)(d) and (e) refer to a company's policies on environmental issues, and on social and community issues, relevant to the company's business, subsection (f) relates to the company's performance against those policies.

  Further detail on the draft clauses on the Operating and Financial Review is at Annex D of "Modernising Company Law, Cm 5553-I".

  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, if she will use the Company Law Review to ensure that companies assess the impact of social and environmental issues on their businesses. [79051]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government's response to the Company Law Review is set out in the White Paper "Modernising Company Law (Cm 5553)". It contains proposals for a statutory statement of duties that would require all directors to recognise so far as is practical in the circumstances social and environmental issues in deciding how best to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members. It also proposes that the most economically significant companies should report on their policies on these issues, where they are necessary for an informed assessment of the business, as part of a statutory Operating and Financial Review.

  Postal Targets
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what the maximum time is that Consignia can take to deliver a parcel to an address within the United Kingdom without being in breach of its targets. [79528]

  Mr. Timms
  Targets for scheduled services and standards are set in the licence issued by the Postal Services Commission and agreed between Royal Mail Group plc and the Consumer Council for Postal Services.

  387W
  I understand from Royal Mail that the current target for delivery of standard parcels under the terms of their licence is 90 per cent. within 3 working days after posting, including Saturday. 99.9 per cent. of parcels are targeted to be delivered within 7 working days and 100 per cent. within 15 days of posting.

  I also understand from the company that parcels of unlimited weight may be sent first class and parcels of up to 750g in weight, second class. The targets for these are 92.5 per cent. within 1 day of posting for first class, 98.5 per cent. for second class and 99.9 per cent. within 3 days and 100 per cent. within 15 days for both first and second class postage.

  Electricity Supply (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what investigations she has made into the fluctuations in power in homes in Gloucestershire following the restored supplies; and if she will make a statement. [79352]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 4 November 2002]: In view of the scale of the disruptions to the electricity network operated by Aquila Network Services (which supplies the Midlands area including Gloucestershire) the company has been seeking to restore supply to all customers before addressing any outstanding voltage problems, such as voltage fluctuations or low volts.

  All supplies to Gloucestershire were restored by midnight on 31 October 2002. As of midday on 1 November 2002 only a few isolated customers supplied by Aquila remained off supply. Outstanding voltage problems in Gloucestershire will be resolved soon.

  On 29 October 2002, I announced that a study will be commissioned to review how the electricity companies handled the emergency commencing on 27 October 2002. The response of Aquila Network Services, including resolution of follow-up problems such as voltage complaints, will he included in the study.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, if she will make a statement about the time taken to restore power to houses in Gloucestershire. [79350]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 4 November 2002]: I have been advised that 130,000 customers in Aquila's network (formerly Midlands Electricity's network) were affected by interruptions caused by the storm. By midday on 30 October 2002 supplies had been restored to 97.3 per cent. of these customers. Supplies to all customers in Gloucestershire were restored by midnight on 31 October 2002. I advised that Aquila recruited 200 linesmen and craftsmen from other electricity companies to assist with restoration of supplies.

  On 29 October 2002 I announced that a study will be commissioned to review how the electricity companies handled the emergency commencing on 27 October 2002. The response of Aquila Network Services to the widespread disruption caused by the storm will be included in the study.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what assessment she has made of the preparations which were made to counter the 388W
  potential problem of cuts in power supply to homes in Gloucestershire, following gale warnings; and if she will make a statement. [79351]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 4 November 2002]: Earlier this year I commissioned a study into the resilience of the electricity transmission and distribution systems in Great Britain. The study focussed on the measures that are in place to reduce the risk of an emergency from major supply interruptions and the ability to manage the restoration of supplies in the event of widespread disruption. One conclusion arising from the report was that the electricity companies are generally better prepared and equipped to handle emergencies than was the case a decade ago.

  On 29 October 2002 I announced that another study will be commissioned to review how the electricity companies handled the emergency commencing on 27 October 2002. The preparation for the storm and response of Aquila Network Services, which distributes electricity to homes in Gloucestershire, will be included in the study.

  Street Markets
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what assessment she has made of the contribution street markets make to the United Kingdom economy; how many people are(a) directly and (b) indirectly employed in such markets in the United Kingdom; and what assistance she gives to help protect and expand street markets in the United Kingdom. [77552]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There are 6,215 enterprises with employees in the retail sales not in stores sector, which includes stalls and markets as well as mail order houses and other non-store retail. Total employment in these enterprises is around 100,000 and total turnover is around £11,000 million.

  These enterprises account for 4 per cent. of all retail sales employers and employment and 5 per cent. of turnover. They account for half a per cent. of all employers, turnover and employment in the UK.

  Recruitment Consultants (Ofgem)
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, which recruitment consultants her Department uses for assistance in recruiting people to the Board of Ofgem; and if she will make a statement. [77386]

  Mr. Wilson
  My Department has operated a call-off contract with five companies to assist when appropriate in the making of public appointments. We have used Saxton Bampfylde Hever plc in the making of appointments to the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority.

  Future Vehicles
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what steps she is taking to encourage the development of(a) combined electric and petrol engine and (b) hydrogen fuel cell-powered vehicles. [79408]
  389W
  Mr. Wilson
  My Department, together with DfT, DEFRA and HMT, published the Powering Future Vehicles Strategy on 31 July. This declares Government targets for the introduction of low-carbon vehicles. The strategy not only seeks to achieve environmental improvements, but to engage UK industry in the development of new technologies and products such as hybrid and fuel cell vehicles. As part of the process, my department is supporting the creation of the Low Carbon Vehicles Partnership (LowCVP), with Professor Jim Skea of the Policy Studies Institute as Launch Director.

  One of the first tasks of the LowCVP will be to advise on the role and remit of a new Centre of Excellence for "Low Carbon and Fuel Cell Technologies", to implement one of the recommendations of the Automotive Innovation and Growth Team, which reported earlier this year. My Department has announced £15 million support over 5 years for this and the other proposed Centre of Excellence on transport telematics. In addition the Department's Foresight Vehicle and Advanced Fuel Cells Programmes support the development of enabling technologies for alternative fuel vehicles.

  Yemen
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what the level of bilateral trade with Yemen is. [79934]

  Nigel Griffiths
  In 2001, UK imports of goods from Yemen were worth £4.8 million. UK exports of goods were valued at £73.5 million.

  Wind-powered Electricity
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, if she will list the sites identified by her Department for the construction of wind-powered electricity generators. [78068]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government do not have a list of sites suitable for the construction of wind powered electricity generators. It is for developers to bring proposals forward. Government information that may assist developers in considering potential locations includes the UK Windspeed Database and the document "Assessing the Potential of Wind Energy Projects: Notes for Developers," both available on the DTI website.

  Liquid Petroleum Gas
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, how many petrol stations in Scotland sell liquid petroleum gas, broken down by local authority area. [74968]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Liquid Petroleum Gas Association (LPGA) inform the Department that there is currently a total of 108 Scottish Autogas public refuelling stations, of which 52 are located at petrol stations.

  On basis of data on the LPGA website these petrol stations with local Authority location, are as follows:

  Glasgow

  —

  10

  Western Isles

  —

  1

  Aberdeenshire

  —

  8

  Moray

  —

  1

  390W

  Highland Region

  —

  5

  East Lothian

  —

  1

  Dumfries & Galloway

  —

  3

  Stirling

  —

  1

  Fife

  —

  3

  Dundee City

  —

  1

  Lanarkshire

  —

  3

  East Ayrshire

  —

  1

  West Lothian

  —

  3

  Dunbartonshire

  —

  1

  Falkirk

  —

  2

  North Ayrshire

  —

  1

  City of Edinburgh

  —

  2

  Argyll & Bute

  —

  1

  Scottish Borders

  —

  2

  Angus

  —

  2

  Electricity Supply (Hertfordshire)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, if she will take steps to assist the homes in Herefordshire that have been without electricity for more than five days. [79981]

  Mr. Wilson
  I understand that all those who were cut off from electricity supply as a result of the storms have now been re-connected. Customers who have been cut off may apply to their suppliers for compensation.

  Initially, it will be for the companies themselves to decide whether compensation should be offered. However, consumers can challenge non-payment through Energywatch and Ofgem. In the determination of such disputes, Ofgem would apply three tests:
  whether severe weather occurred and whether it resulted in the interruption of the customers' supply;
  whether the company took reasonable steps to prevent the severe weather causing an interruption to the customer's supply; and
  whether the restoration process undertaken by the company was reasonable given the circumstances.

  Sudanese Oil
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what plans her Department has to promote the suspension of(a) oil extraction and (b) the trading of Sudanese oil pending the signing of a sustainable peace agreement in the Sudan. [79445]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department do not have any policy to halt commercial interests in Sudan. In general this Government believe that multilateral action is more effective than unilateral sanctions.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what advice is being given to UK companies involved in the(a) extraction and (b) trading of Sudanese oil. [79444]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department gives full and frank advice to UK companies involved in the(a) extraction and (b) trading of Sudanese oil based on the current security situation in Sudan. We have no ongoing campaign promoting investment in the Sudanese oil industry, nor do we have any policy to halt commercial interests.

  Sellafield
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which counties of the UK have been most affected by radiological leaks from Sellafield. [77545]

  Margaret Beckett
  I have been asked to reply.

  There have been a small number of radiological leaks from Sellafield. Although these have not been radiologically significant, the Environment Agency

  391W
  monitors such events closely and takes appropriate regulatory action. The areas affected are close to Sellafield in Cumbria. No other counties have been affected.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which recent representation she has had from Nordic countries on radiological pollution from Sellafield. [77543]

  Margaret Beckett
  I have been asked to reply.

  Over the past 18 months, the Government have received a number of representations from Nordic countries about discharges of technetium-99 from Sellafield. My Department, jointly with the Department of Health, has responsibility for the regulatory regime under which such discharges are controlled.

  Representations have been received from both the Governments of Norway, Finland, Denmark and Sweden and organisations representing fisheries industries in Scandinavia. The representations have centred on concerns that technetium-99, which does not occur naturally but is discharged from Sellafield, can be detected at very low levels, in marine organisms off the coasts of Scandinavian countries. All radioactive discharges from a site such as Sellafield have to be made within the limits of discharge authorizations set by the Environment Agency. The current levels of discharge of technetium-99 are well within the relevant discharge limit. At Ministers' request, the Environment Agency has recently reviewed the discharges of technetium-99 and made recommendations about how its discharge limit could be further reduced. The Government is currently considering its response to the Agency's recommendations.

DEFENCE

  Military Commissions
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the compatability of the United States President's proposed special military commissions with international human rights standards as provided in the statute of the International Criminal Court; and what procedures will be adopted by these bodies to reflect international standards in respect to protection of the right to a fair trial; [17755]

  (2) what international rules govern the handover of prisoners of war to the jurisdiction of (a) state parties and (b) to non-state parties that (i) are not party to international rules governing use of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment and (ii) may subject individuals to the death penalty. [17754]

  Mr. Hoon
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  MoD Estate
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel are working for private companies working on contract on the MoD estate; what the cost to these companies is of employing 392W
  these officers; what his Department charges for the service personnel per hour; and if he will make a statement. [26708]

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

  Parliamentary Questions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many written parliamentary questions regarding private finance initiatives have been tabled since 1 January 2000; and in how many of these information has not been provided on the grounds of commercial confidentiality. [31856]

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

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contracts his Department has had since 1997 with(a) Arthur Andersen and (b) Accenture for (i) accountancy, (ii) audit and (iii) consultancy work; and what staff have been seconded (A) to his Department and (B) from her Department to these firms. [32425]

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

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) which non-accounting and non-information technology external organisations which previously held contracts with his Department(a) won new contracts at the culmination of the existing contracts and (b) won new contracts after a period of inactivity with his Department in each of the past five years; [38757]

  (2) for which non-accounting and non-information technology external organisations have won new contracts with (a) his Department and (b) executive agencies in each of the past five years; [38756]

  (3) if he will list the 30 largest contracts awarded by his Department from (a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999, (c) May 1999 to April 2000, (d) May 2000 to April 2001 and (e) May 2001 to the latest date, indicating in each case the values of the contracts and the companies with which the contracts were placed. [38758]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Sponsorship
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the events which have been sponsored by a private organisation in(a) his Department, (b) the Office of Government Commerce, (c) the Inland Revenue and (d) Customs and Excise since May 1997 and the names of the sponsoring organisations; and if he will make a statement. [32510]
  393W
  Dr. Moonie
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Forces (Scotland)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of each of His Forces are stationed in Scotland; how many of his Department's civilians are in Scotland; and what the projected totals are for(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04. [312450]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 1 February 2002]: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Trident
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) direct and (b) indirect civilian jobs rely upon the Trident programme; and how many will rely on it in (i) 2010 and (ii) 2020. [32437]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 1 February 2002]: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) civil servants and (b) special advisers working in his Department are provided with private medical insurance; how many individuals have been covered in each year since 1997–98 and at what total cost to the Exchequer; and if he will make a statement. [32311]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 6 February 2002]: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the UK armed forces have been provided with private medical insurance in each year since 1997–98; what the total cost has been in each of these years; and if he will make a statement. [32310]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 6 February 2002]: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Costs
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 29 January 2002, when he expects to be in a position to know if it is practical to give a broad estimate of costs; and if he will publish that estimate. [32330]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 7 February 2002]: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Micro-Organisms
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment he has made of the implications of the production, development and use of micro-organisms that degrade materials when conducted for military purposes. [34966]
  394W
  Dr. Moonie
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the research projects funded by his Department in the last five years on micro-organisms that degrade materials; and what the cost was of each project. [34967]

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

  Overseas Bases
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the overseas bases of HM Forces, indicating the number of units of permanent accommodation at each. [34833]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 8 February 2002]: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Helicopters
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total requirement is for trained(a) Lynx helicopter, (b) Puma, (c) Chinook and (d) Sea King pilots in each service; and how many there are at present in each case. [35644]

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

  Single Living Accommodation
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement defining what is the minimum acceptable standard of single living accommodation in the armed services. [35272]

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

  Departmental Publicity
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the total real terms expenditure of his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies on publicity for each of the years(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–01 and (e) 2001–02 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole of the present year; and if he will break these figures down to indicate expenditure on (A) advertising and (B) press and public relations. [36173]

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

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the publicity and advertising campaigns run by his Department in each of the last four years, specifying the(a) purpose, (b) cost to public funds, (c) number of staff involved and (d) method of evaluation in each case. [39075]
  395W
  Dr. Moonie
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Civil Servants (New Entrants)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many new entrants to the Civil Service were employed in his Department in each of the last five years; and how many in each year were aged 50 years and over. [36491]

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

  Departmental Correspondence
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the average response time was for responding to departmental correspondence; what percentage of letters took longer than one month for a response; and what percentage took longer than three months for a response in each of the last five years. [37449]

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

  Equipment Leasing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the equipment leasing arrangements entered into by his Department in each of the last four years; and what the cost is to public funds in each case. [39083]

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

  Departmental Job Advertisements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the job advertisements placed by his Department in the last 12 months specifying where the advertisements were placed and the cost in each case. [39072]

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

  Departmental Catering
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost was of(a) in-house canteen and (b) other catering services provided by his Department in each of the last four years. [38917]

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

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions since 1 May 1997(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity;
  396W
  and if he will list the total cost, including (i) travel, (ii) accommodation and (iii) subsistence allowance, for each occasion. [37976]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 27 February 2002]: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Capita Group
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the contracts that have been awarded to the Capita Group by the Department. [39340]

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

  Fair Trade Products
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether fair trade products are sold in his Department. [39831]

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

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Football
  Mr. Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her Answer of 30th October, ref. 76603, how many football games she attended between 7th June and 26th November 2001 in her official capacity; and where those games took place. [79735]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not attend any football games in her official capacity between 7 and 26 November 2001.

LORD CHANCELLOR

  RoadPeace
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what actions she proposes to take to respond to representations from RoadPeace following their meeting with Ministers on 10 October 2002; and if he will make a statement. [79621]

  Yvette Cooper
  I will shortly be writing to RoadPeace about the issues raised at the meeting.

  Criminal Justice White Paper
  Mr. Simon Hughes MP
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if she will publish the responses he receives to the consultation on the Criminal Justice White Paper, and place them in the Library. [79622]

  Yvette Cooper
  The responses will be published in due course.

CABINET OFFICE

  Art Loans
  David Davis
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, to how many Ministers paintings are loaned from(a) the National Gallery of England, (b) the National Gallery of Scotland (c) the National Portrait Gallery. (d) the Royal Academy and (e) the National Maritime Museum. [78644]

  Mr. Alexander
  Decisions on works of art in Ministerial Private Offices are made between Ministers and the Government Art Collection based in the Department of Culture Media and Sport which holds a central list.

  None of the works of art hanging in my office and that of my right honourable and noble Friend the Minister for Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are on loan from any of the institutions listed.

  Honours
  Andrew George
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what categories of gallantry honour are awarded by the United Kingdom. [79547]

  The Prime Minister
  I am replying to this question as it relates to matters for which I am responsible.

  In addition to the various categories of gallantry honour available to the Services and the Armed Forces, there are four levels of award for civilian gallantry:

  Level 1

  The George Cross1

  This award is granted only for actions of gallantry of the greatest heroism or for the most conspicuous courage in circumstances of extreme danger. It may be granted posthumously but is restricted to British subjects.

  Level 2

  The George Medal

  This award is granted for gallantry of an extremely high order. It may be granted posthumously and is not restricted to British subjects.

  Level 3

  The Queen's Gallantry Medal

  This award is granted for gallantry of a high order. It may be granted posthumously and is not restricted to British subjects.

  Level 4

  The Queen's Commendation for Bravery and The Queen's Commendation for Bravery in the Air These awards are granted for gallantry not up to the foregoing standard but entailing risk to life and meriting national recognition. Both awards may be granted posthumously and are not restricted to British subjects.

  Note:

  1 The Victoria Cross is the first level military award for gallantry, and the standard set for the GC should reflect a similar degree of heroism. (The military Conspicuous Gallantry Cross is the military equivalent to the GM; the DSC, Military Cross and DFC to the QGM; and Mention-in-despatches to the Queen's Commendation.)

  Andrew George
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, how many gallantry honours have been awarded and how many of those awarded posthumously, in each of the past 10 years for which records are available. [79548]

  The Prime Minister
  I am replying to this question as it relates to matters for which I am responsible.
  398W
  Figures for gallantry awards during the years 1992–2002 are as follows:

  George Cross

  George Medal1

  Queen's Gallantry Medal1

  Queen's Commendation for Bravery1

  1992

  Nil

  2

  2

  36

  1993

  Nil

  2(1)

  13(1)

  41

  1994

  Nil

  1(1)

  7(1)

  58

  1995

  Nil

  2(1)

  14(1)

  57(2)

  1996

  Nil

  2(2)

  17(2)

  56(1)

  1997

  Nil

  2(1)

  9(3)

  20(1)

  1998

  Nil

  1

  6(2)

  18

  1999

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  7

  2000

  Nil

  2(2)

  1

  22

  2001

  Nil

  1

  1(1)

  11

  2002

  Nil

  Nil

  1

  4(1)

  Nil

  15(8)

  71(11)

  330(5)

  Note:

  1 Figures in brackets indicate the number of these awards that were made posthumously.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many posthumous gallantry honours have been awarded to(a) non-UK citizens, (b) UK citizens for acts of gallantry outside the UK and (c) non-UK citizens who had previously been citizens of the UK in the last 10 years. [79546]

  The Prime Minister
  I am replying to this question as it relates to matters for which I am responsible.

  Statistical records do not indicate the nationality of the recipients of honours, nor are they kept in a form which indicate the country in which the acts of gallantry took place.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Childcare
  Ms Munn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, when the Inter Departmental Childcare Review will publish its findings. [79785]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The report from the Inter Departmental Childcare Review led by my noble friend Baroness Ashton, the Under Secretary of State with responsibility for sure start, early years and childcare, is being published today. The key conclusions of the report build on the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Spending Review statement on 15 July. The increased spending for childcare will lead to: the creation of at least 250,000 new childcare places by 2005–06, on top of the earlier target of new places for 1.6 million children by 2004; the establishment of new children's centres to provide childcare, family support and health services in one centre, reflecting the early lessons of Sure Start, to benefit up to 650,000 children in disadvantaged areas by 2006.

  In addition the integration of responsibility for childcare, early years education and Sure Start within a new interdepartmental unit will ensure new services will be co-ordinated to best meet the needs of children, families and communities.

  399W
  Copies of the report have been placed in the Vote Office, Printed Paper Office and the Libraries

  Ms Munn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the Inter Departmental Childcare Review will publish its findings. [79785]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The report from the Inter Departmental Childcare Review led by my noble friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Sure Start, Early Years and Childcare is being published today. The key conclusions of the report build on the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Spending Review statement on 15 July. The increased spending for childcare will lead to:the creation of at least 250,000 new childcare places by 2005–06, on top of the earlier target of new places for 1.6 million children by 2004;
  the establishment of new children's centres to provide childcare, family support and health services in one centre, reflecting the early lessons of Sure Start, to benefit up to 650,000 children in disadvantaged areas by 2006.

  In addition the integration of responsibility for childcare, early years education and Sure Start within a new interdepartmental unit will ensure new services will be co-ordinated to best meet the needs of children, families and communities.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Vote Office, Printed Paper Office and the Libraries

  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he will publish the report on the review of childcare by the Performance and Innovation Unit. [78594]

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures are in place to assist students in full-time education to fund child care. [78792]

  Margaret Hodge
  Specific childcare funding of £36 million is available through the Learner Support Funds (LSF) to all post 16 Further Education Institutions (FEIs). Students in colleges can access funding of up to £4000 for each child for each year of study. Students in school and college 6th forms have access to the same level of funding through a pilot scheme which is aimed at lone parents. FEIs also have the further flexibility to use their general LSF to top up childcare funding and to meet other additional costs, such as transport to childminders.

  A childcare grant was introduced in September 2001 to help full-time higher education student parents with childcare costs. The childcare grant covers the whole year, paying 85 per cent. of actual childcare costs for

  Standards Fund Allocations for the School Improvement Grant 2001–2002

  Devolved

  Schools in Special Measures or Facing Challenging Circumstances

  Direct Intervention

  Education Development Plan Priorities

  Total

  Local Education Authority

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Corporation of London

  5,000

  0

  0

  2,000

  7,000

  Camden

  360,000

  65,000

  46,000

  120,000

  591,000

  Greenwich

  565,000

  200,000

  21,000

  189,000

  975,000

  Hackney

  426,000

  160,000

  102,500

  142,000

  830,500

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  300,000

  65,000

  177,000

  100,000

  642,000

  Islington

  390,000

  140,000

  58,000

  130,000

  718,000

  Kensington & Chelsea

  192,000

  0

  0

  64,000

  256,000

  Lambeth

  487,000

  130,000

  16,500

  163,000

  796,500

  400W
  40 weeks during term times and short vacations and 70 per cent. of actual costs for 12 weeks during the student's long vacation. In the academic year 2002–03, a student parent with one child may receive a childcare grant of up to £5,724 (with two or more children up to £8,480). This may be supplemented by other dependants grants and discretionary support.

  Option 5
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, how many letters were received in support of Option 5 from(a) constituents and (b) schools in the F40 authorities. [79440]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have received around 55,000 letters responding to the Formula Grant Review. The majority, around 53,000, are part of the campaign run by the F40 group of authorities, who have asked for a further option to be developed for education funding. However, we do not record the details of the senders of campaign letters as a matter of course. For this reason, and since very many of those 53,000 letters are multiple copies of the same letter sent by the same people to different Ministers, it is not possible to provide a more detailed analysis except at disproportionate cost.

  We are currently taking decisions on the new system to replace SSAs. As we do so we are carefully considering the full range of evidence, pressures and points that have been put to us.

  School Improvement Grant
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what grants were made through the school improvement grant in each local education authority in 2001–02. [79470]

  Mr. Miliband
  A total of £213 million was available through the Standards Fund School Improvement Grant in the 2001–02 Financial Year. Individual allocations, including the contributions from local education authorities, are shown in the following table.

  Sixty per cent. of the grant is devolved to all maintained schools to raise levels of pupil attainment by funding activities in School Development, Post-Ofsted and Raising Attainment Plans. Fifteen per cent. of the grant is targeted at schools in special measures and secondary schools facing challenging circumstances to bring about urgent improvements. Five per cent. of the grant was to support direct interventions in schools facing challenging circumstances. The remainder is designed to achieve the priorities set out in local education authorities' Educational Development Plans.
  401W

  Standards Fund Allocations for the School Improvement Grant 2001–2002

  Devolved

  Schools in Special Measures or Facing Challenging Circumstances

  Direct Intervention

  Education Development Plan Priorities

  Total

  Local Education Authority

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Lewisham

  547,000

  200,000

  78,000

  183,000

  1,008,000

  Southwark

  559,000

  340,000

  192,500

  187,000

  1,278,500

  Tower Hamlets

  593,000

  280,000

  87,000

  198,000

  1,158,000

  Wandsworth

  460,000

  85,000

  14,000

  154,000

  713,000

  Westminster

  296,000

  130,000

  16,500

  99,000

  541,500

  Barking

  399,000

  50,000

  72,000

  133,000

  654,000

  Barnet

  728,000

  305,000

  185,500

  243,000

  1,461,500

  Bexley

  566,000

  210,000

  10,500

  189,000

  975,500

  Brent

  538,000

  190,000

  122,750

  179,000

  1,029,750

  Bromley

  663,000

  25,000

  2,500

  221,000

  911,500

  Croydon

  763,000

  170,000

  23,500

  255,000

  1,211,500

  Ealing

  600,000

  95,000

  3,500

  200,000

  898,500

  Enfield

  642,000

  110,000

  14,000

  214,000

  980,000

  Haringey

  524,000

  155,000

  353,500

  175,000

  1,207,500

  Harrow

  433,000

  45,000

  2,500

  144,000

  624,500

  Havering

  557,000

  210,000

  10,500

  186,000

  963,500

  Hillingdon

  580,000

  280,000

  10,500

  194,000

  1,064,500

  Hounslow

  526,000

  20,000

  9,500

  176,000

  731,500

  Kingston Upon Thames

  312,000

  25,000

  0

  104,000

  441,000

  Merton

  361,000

  70,000

  3,500

  121,000

  555,500

  Newham

  644,000

  275,000

  24,500

  215,000

  1,158,500

  Redbridge

  555,000

  20,000

  24,500

  185,000

  784,500

  Richmond Upon Thames

  302,000

  70,000

  3,500

  101,000

  476,500

  Sutton

  412,000

  140,000

  8,000

  137,000

  697,000

  Waltham Forest

  542,000

  190,000

  23,500

  181,000

  936,500

  Birmingham

  2,753,000

  825,000

  394,000

  919,000

  4,891,000

  Coventry

  757,000

  395,000

  99,000

  253,000

  1,504,000

  Dudley

  736,000

  135,000

  14,500

  246,000

  1,131,500

  Sandwell

  804,000

  295,000

  46,500

  268,000

  1,413,500

  Solihull

  549,000

  65,000

  69,500

  183,000

  866,500

  Walsall

  768,000

  560,000

  300,500

  256,000

  1,884,500

  Wolverhampton

  694,000

  260,000

  18,500

  232,000

  1,204,500

  Knowsley

  460,000

  150,000

  32,000

  153,000

  795,000

  Liverpool

  1,267,000

  380,000

  233,000

  423,000

  2,303,000

  St Helens

  468,000

  90,000

  10,500

  156,000

  724,500

  Sefton

  742,000

  65,000

  19,000

  248,000

  1,074,000

  Wirral

  844,000

  100,000

  18,500

  282,000

  1,244,500

  Bolton

  755,000

  255,000

  38,000

  252,000

  1,300,000

  Bury

  492,000

  95,000

  54,000

  164,000

  805,000

  Manchester

  1,117,000

  310,000

  47,876

  373,000

  1,847,876

  Oldham

  683,000

  85,000

  10,500

  228,000

  1,006,500

  Rochdale

  593,000

  110,000

  10,500

  198,000

  911,500

  Salford

  650,000

  100,000

  25,500

  217,000

  992,500

  Stockport

  734,000

  70,000

  3,500

  245,000

  1,052,500

  Tameside

  607,000

  285,000

  10,500

  203,000

  1,105,500

  Trafford

  576,000

  230,000

  73,500

  192,000

  1,071,500

  Wigan

  818,000

  255,000

  17,500

  273,000

  1,363,500

  Barnsley

  578,000

  130,000

  20,000

  193,000

  921,000

  Doncaster

  818,000

  130,000

  71,000

  273,000

  1,292,000

  Rotherham

  761,000

  65,000

  15,500

  254,000

  1,095,500

  Sheffield

  1,160,000

  345,000

  144,500

  387,000

  2,036,500

  Bradford

  1,452,000

  220,000

  901,000

  485,000

  3,058,000

  Calderdale

  586,000

  110,000

  176,500

  195,000

  1,067,500

  Kirklees

  1,071,000

  410,000

  31,000

  358,000

  1,870,000

  Leeds

  1,775,000

  435,000

  71,000

  592,000

  2,873,000

  Wakefield

  886,000

  145,000

  7,000

  296,000

  1,334,000

  Gateshead

  510,000

  130,000

  20,000

  170,000

  830,000

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  634,000

  110,000

  17,500

  212,000

  973,500

  North Tyneside

  500,000

  0

  0

  167,000

  667,000

  South Tyneside

  437,000

  70,000

  308,500

  146,000

  961,500

  Sunderland

  768,000

  105,000

  178,000

  256,000

  1,307,000

  Isles Of Scilly

  16.000

  0

  25,000

  5,000

  46,000

  Bath and North East Somerset

  451,000

  25,000

  0

  151,000

  627,000

  Bristol

  896,000

  300,000

  48,500

  299,000

  1,543,500

  North Somerset

  452,000

  25,000

  0

  151,000

  628,000

  South Gloucestershire

  653,000

  215,000

  9,500

  218,000

  1,095,500

  Hartlepool

  252,000

  40,000

  9,500

  84,000

  385,500

  Middlesborough

  376,000

  100,000

  20,000

  125,000

  621,000

  Redcar and Cleveland

  401,000

  20,000

  14,000

  134,000

  569,000

  Stockton-on-Tees

  496,000

  90,000

  13,000

  165,000

  764,000

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  646,000

  305,000

  29,000

  216,000

  1,196,000

  402W 403W

  Standards Fund Allocations for the School Improvement Grant 2001–2002

  Devolved

  Schools in Special Measures or Facing Challenging Circumstances

  Direct Intervention

  Education Development Plan Priorities

  Total

  Local Education Authority

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  864,000

  125,000

  0

  288,000

  1,277,000

  North East Lincolnshire

  457,000

  135,000

  175,500

  152,000

  919,500

  North Lincolnshire

  450,000

  140,000

  7,000

  150,000

  747,000

  North Yorkshire

  1,803,000

  165,000

  14,500

  602,000

  2,584,500

  York

  421,000

  70,000

  3,500

  141,000

  635,500

  Bedfordshire

  1,132,000

  255,000

  9,000

  378,000

  1,774,000

  Luton

  498,000

  70,000

  7,000

  166,000

  741,000

  Buckinghamshire

  1,313,000

  350,000

  8,000

  438,000

  2,109,000

  Milton Keynes

  574,000

  210,000

  66,500

  192,000

  1,042,500

  Derbyshire

  2,144,000

  500,000

  66,000

  716,000

  3,426,000

  Derby City

  612,000

  345,000

  23,500

  204,000

  1,184,500

  Dorset

  964,000

  190,000

  4,500

  322,000

  1,480,500

  Poole

  284,000

  140,000

  42,000

  95,000

  561,000

  Bournemouth

  292,000

  70,000

  4,500

  97,000

  463,500

  Durham

  1,509,000

  440,000

  104,000

  504,000

  2,557,000

  Darlington

  279,000

  70,000

  3,500

  93,000

  445,500

  East Sussex

  1,086,000

  95,000

  3,500

  363,000

  1,547,500

  Brighton and Hove

  465,000

  115,000

  44,500

  155,000

  779,500

  Hampshire

  2,997,000

  525,000

  17,500

  1,001,000

  4,540,500

  Portsmouth

  423,000

  185,000

  9,500

  141,000

  758,500

  Southampton

  506,000

  330,000

  14,000

  169,000

  1,019,000

  Leicestershire

  1,589,000

  70,000

  1,000

  531,000

  2,191,000

  Leicester City

  714,000

  200,000

  43,000

  238,000

  1,195,000

  Rutland

  101,000

  0

  0

  34,000

  135,000

  Staffordshire

  2,252,000

  495,000

  18,500

  752,000

  3,517,500

  Stoke-on-Trent

  665,000

  105,000

  25,000

  222,000

  1,017,000

  Wiltshire

  1,246,000

  310,000

  9,500

  416,000

  1,981,500

  Swindon

  490,000

  260,000

  24,500

  164,000

  938,500

  Bracknell Forest

  242,000

  0

  5,000

  81,000

  328,000

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  342,000

  25,000

  1,000

  114,000

  482,000

  West Berkshire

  434,000

  25,000

  0

  145,000

  604,000

  Reading

  301,000

  240,000

  4,500

  100,000

  645,500

  Slough

  300,000

  180,000

  69,000

  100,000

  649,000

  Wokingham

  383,000

  0

  0

  128,000

  511,000

  Cambridgeshire

  1,345,000

  190,000

  7,000

  449,000

  1,991,000

  Peterborough

  457,000

  235,000

  10,500

  153,000

  855,500

  Cheshire

  1,858,000

  395,000

  20,000

  620,000

  2,893,000

  Halton

  376,000

  40,000

  4,500

  126,000

  546,500

  Warrington

  522,000

  190,000

  8,000

  174,000

  894,000

  Devon

  1,828,000

  145,000

  8,500

  610,000

  2,591,500

  Plymouth

  648,000

  230,000

  22,500

  216,000

  1,116,500

  Torbay

  283,000

  70,000

  47,000

  94,000

  494,000

  Essex

  3,296,000

  1,075,000

  40,000

  1,100,000

  5,511,000

  Southend-on-Sea

  379,000

  70,000

  6,000

  127,000

  582,000

  Thurrock

  351,000

  375,000

  20,000

  117,000

  863,000

  Herefordshire

  489,000

  95,000

  3,500

  163,000

  750,500

  Worcestershire

  1,451,000

  425,000

  65,000

  484,000

  2,425,000

  Kent

  3,460,000

  1,740,000

  398,300

  1,155,000

  6,753,300

  Medway

  688,000

  560,000

  29,000

  230,000

  1,507,000

  Lancashire

  3,334,000

  930,000

  64,000

  1,113,000

  5,441,000

  Blackburn with Darwen

  440,000

  45,000

  161,347

  147,000

  793,347

  Blackpool

  295,000

  110,000

  54,500

  98,000

  557,500

  Nottinghamshire

  2,068,000

  450,000

  20,000

  690,000

  3,228,000

  Nottingham City

  707,000

  454,166

  127,500

  236,000

  1,524,666

  Shropshire

  794,000

  0

  0

  265,000

  1,059,000

  Telford and Wrekin

  453,000

  235,000

  99,200

  151,000

  938,200

  Cornwall

  1,376,000

  75,000

  0

  459,000

  1,910,000

  Cumbria

  1,613,000

  305,000

  20,000

  539,000

  2,477,000

  Gloucestershire

  1,576,000

  400,000

  20,000

  526,000

  2,522,000

  Hertfordshire

  2,972,000

  660,000

  38,000

  992,000

  4,662,000

  Isle Of Wight

  355,000

  25,000

  0

  118,000

  498,000

  Lincolnshire

  1,872,000

  1,620,000

  148,500

  625,000

  4,265,500

  Norfolk

  2,204,000

  595,000

  86,500

  736,000

  3,621,500

  Northamptonshire

  1,836,000

  590,000

  17,000

  613,000

  3,056,000

  Northumberland

  1,011,000

  0

  2,500

  337,000

  1,350,500

  Oxfordshire

  1,556,000

  245,000

  3,500

  519,000

  2,323,500

  Somerset

  1,345,000

  70,000

  11,000

  449,000

  1,875,000

  404W 405W

  Standards Fund Allocations for the School Improvement Grant 2001–2002

  Devolved

  Schools in Special Measures or Facing Challenging Circumstances

  Direct Intervention

  Education Development Plan Priorities

  Total

  Local Education Authority

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Suffolk

  1,789,000

  235,000

  8,000

  597,000

  2,629,000

  Surrey

  2,297,000

  145,000

  2,000

  767,000

  3,211,000

  Warwickshire

  1,354,000

  475,000

  21,500

  452,000

  2,302,500

  West Sussex

  1,725,000

  190,000

  7,000

  576,000

  2,498,000

  England Total

  128,804,000

  33,214,166

  7,824,973

  42,995,000

  212,838,139

  Higher Education
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to the answer of 21 October,Official Report, column 38W, what the annual cost to public funds is of each higher education access measure listed. [79971]

  Margaret Hodge
  The relevant figures are:

  Excellence Challenge—£69.6 million (2002–03)

  Access/Hardship Funds—£85.5 million (2002–03)

  Loans for part-time students (excluding Open University Students)—£1.3 million (2001–02)

  2001–02 costs for the childcare grant; and the travel, books and equipment grant will be available in Spring 2003.

  Teachers
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of(a) the number and (b) the percentage of teachers (i) passing the threshold for performance related pay and (ii) rising up the enhanced pay spine having passed the threshold. [79471]

  Mr. Miliband
  Over 200,000 teachers applied and were successful in Round 1 of Performance Threshold (97 per cent. of applications) and a further 31,000 successfully achieved threshold status in Round 2 (95 per cent. of applications to date). Teachers who were placed on point 1 of the Upper Pay Scale in Round 1 were first eligible to progress to point 2 in September 2002. It is too early to compile details of the numbers who have done so at present.

  Children's Fund
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which programmes are being funded by the Children's Fund; what the results have been so far; and what further evaluation is(a) underway and (b) planned. [78329]

  Mr. Denham
  The Children's Fund is responsible for implementation of 149 Children's Fund programmes (Annex A) across England. The Fund is being rolled out in three waves, and to date 40 plans in Wave 1 and 50 plans in Wave 2 have been approved. The remaining 59 plans in Wave 3 will be submitting proposals at the end of the year, and approved plans will begin operating from April 2003. Programmes bring together local voluntary organisations, statutory agencies, community and faith groups, children and young people and their families to deliver a range of locally co-ordinated preventive services for 5–13 year olds at risk. Examples of activities include bi-lingual home/school liaison projects, helping children with behavioural difficulties,406W
  managing the transition between primary and secondary school, tackling truancy and promoting community cohesion through developing positive perceptions about different cultures.

  The Children and Young People's Unit gather information on all services supported by the Children's Fund on a quarterly basis. The most recent information available from 38 out of 40 Wave 1 partnerships shows that 584 services were supported during April-June 2002 (Annex B). No information was gathered from Wave 2 partnerships for April-June 2002 because the majority of partnerships only received approval in April 2002. The CYPU is gathering service information on all Wave 1 and 2 partnerships for the period July-September 2002, and this information should be available later this year. It is too soon for the programme to provide an accurate indication of the direct impact on children and their families, but early feedback from children, parents, teachers and other professionals is positive. Individual programmes are already making a difference in improving school attendance, tackling behavioural problems and promoting positive parenting.

  The Children and Young People's Unit are in the process of selecting a contractor for a national evaluation of the Children's Fund, and work is expected to begin early in 2003. This will draw on the results of local evaluations of achievement against measurable targets which individual partnerships are required to carry out.

  Schools Performance
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will rank each local education authority according to its performance on Key Stage 2 and 3 SATS results for the last three available years, including the preliminary results for 2002; and which local education authorities did not achieve 33 per cent. of pupils obtaining above average scores in each Key Stage 2 subject. [78761]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 5 November 2002]: The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  QCA
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in respect of how many schools each year(a) complaints and (b) reports of incorrect SATS results reached the QCA; in which local education authorities those complaints and reports occurred; and how the QCA dealt with these complaints. [78772]
  407W
  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 5 November 2002]: The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) does not maintain a central log of volume or nature of correspondence. All correspondence received at QCA is responded to and dealt with by the relevant team or division. It is therefore not possible to give the figures requested without incurring disproportionate cost.

  The procedures for dealing with complaints fall within QCA's Customer Service Charter and are responded to within the 5-day turn-around time described in the charter. QCA replies to any general complaints under their Customer Service Charter. Where schools have concern about the quality of marking of their pupils' scripts and consider that they may have been awarded an incorrect level, a review of marking can be requested. The arrangements for seeking a review of marking are included in QCA's Schools' Guide, sent to schools each year. An application for a review of marking is considered by a panel of senior markers led by the Lead Chief Marker for the subject. Any re-marking that occurs as part of the review procedure is undertaken by a review or senior marker.

  The number of reviews of marking requested in 2002 is not yet available although early estimates have not shown any significant increase on previous years' figures. Figures for 2001 are available in the Standards Reports published by QCA and will be placed in the House of Commons Library. Figures for 2002 will also be placed in the Library when available.

  SATS
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will place the guidance on procedures for the conduct and integrity of SATS tests in the Library with the arrangements for monitoring the inplementation of that guidance. [78763]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 5 November 2002 ]: The guidance on procedures for the conduct and integrity of the National Curriculum tests is contained in the:
  2003 Assessment and Reporting Arrangements booklets for Key Stages 1, 2 & 3;
  Guidance on Administering the Years 7 and 8 Tests booklet; Teacher Packs which accompany the actual test materials and restate the guidance in the Assessment and Reporting Arrangement booklets; and
  Key Stage 1, 2 and 3 Schools Guides.
  The instruction for monitoring the implementation of the guidance is contained in the Test Security and Administration Monitoring Visits to Schools form.

  We will place copies of current guidance in the House of Commons Library.

  Individual Learning Allowance
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money claimed by contractors under the ILA scheme remains unpaid. [79852]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department contracted with Capita Business Services Ltd to deliver the Individual Learning Account (ILA) programme. Since closure of the programme, Capita have worked closely with the 408W
  Department on the wind down of the original programme and to assist in the development of the successor scheme. We have now agreed with Capita that, because we are undertaking a fundamental review of the funding of adult learning, their work on the successor scheme is complete and we have agreed to terminate our contract with them. The Department is discussing settlement terms with Capita.

  Learning providers, who were not contracted to the Department, were required to register with Capita's ILA Centre. Currently £17.3 million is withheld from 268 learning providers.

  Learning and Skills Council
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many square feet of office space are occupied by the Worcester office of the Learning and Skills Council; and how many square feet will be occupied by the Council in its new Worcester Office; [79481]

  (2) how many staff are employed in the Worcester office of the Learning and Skills Council; [79485]

  (3) what the cost is of the new office space to which the Worcester office of the Learning and Skills Council is moving; and when it will move. [79486]

  Margaret Hodge
  These are matters for the Learning and Skills Council. John Harwood, the Council's Chief Executive will write to the hon. Gentleman with the information requested and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if the Government will raise the repayment threshold for student loans; [79544]

  (2) if his Department will reintroduce targeted maintenance support for those students from the poorest backgrounds. [79532]

  Margaret Hodge
  In January we will publish a strategy document setting out our vision for the development and reform of higher education, including the outcome of the review of student support. It would not be right to pre-empt it here by saying what is or is not planned.

  Student Assessment
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on what the OECD PISA 2000 survey is measuring. [79435]

  Mr. Miliband
  The main purpose of the Programme for International Student Assessment 2000 (PISA) study is to assess the knowledge and skills of 15-yearolds in three broad areas of literacy: reading, mathematics and science. It aims to assess the extent to which young people can use their knowledge and skills to meet the challenges they are likely to encounter in adult life. PISA 2000 focused on the reading literacy domain.

  Top-up Fees
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1), what assessment he has made of the introduction of top-up fees for some higher education institutions in other countries; [79450]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the potential impact on student access to higher education of introducing top-up fees; [79451]

  (3) what evidence his Department has collated on the extent to which top-up fees for students will affect access to higher education. [79531]

  Margaret Hodge
  We have announced our intention to publish in January a strategy document setting out our vision for the development and reform of higher education, including the outcome of the review of student support. It would not be right to say now what evidence we have been considering or what analyses we have undertaken.

  Teaching Assistants
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was spent through the Standards Fund on teaching assistants in each local education authority in 2001–02. [79469]

  Mr. Miliband
  Details of Standards Fund expenditure by local education authorities for 2001–02 are not held centrally. Some £197m was made available to authorities in 2001–02 through Standards Fund grant for the recruitment and training of teaching assistants, as set out below. 95 per cent. of this grant was required to be devolved to schools. Schools have freedom to move funding between Standards Fund headings according to their own detailed needs and priorities.

  Corporation of London

  8,675

  Camden

  617,936

  Greenwich

  1,076,757

  Hackney

  887,749

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  530,145

  Islington

  773,211

  Kensington & Chelsea

  32,800

  Lambeth

  953,123

  Lewisham

  1,054,816

  Southwark

  1,146,748

  Tower Hamlets

  1,231.776

  Wandsworth

  813,649

  Westminster

  511,567

  Barking

  763,631

  Barnet

  1,116,010

  Bexley

  913,645

  Brent

  670,000

  Bromley

  1,005,144

  Croydon

  1,314,219

  Ealing

  1,146,233

  Enfield

  1,135,422

  Haringey

  1,062,712

  Harrow

  709,832

  Havering

  840,370

  Hillingdon

  932,308

  Hounslow

  890,678

  Kingston Upon Thames

  455,486

  Merton

  629,624

  Newham

  1,451,590

  Redbridge

  930,456

  Richmond Upon Thames

  461,772

  Sutton

  612,786

  Waltham Forest

  1,007,174

  410W

  Birmingham

  5,029,435

  Coventry

  1,279,289

  Dudley

  1,231,963

  Sandwell

  1,465,662

  Solihull

  850,634

  Walsall

  1,292,399

  Wolverhampton

  1,175,130

  Knowsley

  917,931

  Liverpool

  2,349,883

  St Helens

  754,754

  Sefton

  1,183,741

  Wirral

  1,430,860

  Bolton

  1,193,623

  Bury

  500,000

  Manchester

  2,186,905

  Oldham

  1,110,866

  Rochdale

  1,011,770

  Salford

  1,074,563

  Stockport

  960,000

  Tameside

  997,991

  Trafford

  872,352

  Wigan

  1,271,344

  Barnsley

  988,852

  Doncaster

  1,364,745

  Rotherham

  1,202,030

  Sheffield

  2,046,772

  Bradford

  2,384,079

  Calderdale

  896,519

  Kirklees

  1,712,556

  Leeds

  2,952,887

  Wakefield

  1,423,475

  Gateshead

  835,889

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  1,094,654

  North Tyneside

  784,542

  South Tyneside

  733,341

  Sunderland

  1,346,144

  Isles Of Scilly

  14,236

  Bath and North East Somerset

  596,810

  Bristol

  1,531,452

  North Somerset

  630,065

  South Gloucestershire

  926,887

  Hartlepool

  457,624

  Middlesborough

  618,783

  Redcar and Cleveland

  694,649

  Stockton-on-Tees

  837,509

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  1,212,509

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  1,198,841

  North East Lincolnshire

  758,026

  North Lincolnshire

  650,329

  North Yorkshire

  2,262,426

  York

  612,365

  Bedfordshire

  1,452,150

  Luton

  873,261

  Buckinghamshire

  1,731,841

  Milton Keynes

  931,325

  Derbyshire

  3,043,238

  Derby City

  1,041,886

  Dorset

  1,193,397

  Poole

  434,508

  Bournemouth

  452,286

  Durham

  2,228,514

  Darlington

  437,775

  East Sussex

  1,630,639

  Brighton and Hove

  786,789

  Hampshire

  4,184,795

  Portsmouth

  695,848

  Southampton

  835,012

  Leicestershire

  2,135,803

  Leicester City

  1,312,306

  Rutland

  123,583

  Staffordshire

  3,174,241

  Stoke-on-Trent

  1,118,490

  Wiltshire

  1,637,208

  Swindon

  737,258

  Bracknell Forest

  350,873

  411W

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  428,008

  West Berkshire

  558,452

  Reading

  485,239

  Slough

  495,159

  Wokingham

  507,460

  Cambridgeshire

  1,886,801

  Peterborough

  733,121

  Cheshire

  2,594,992

  Halton

  601,942

  Warrington

  774,350

  Devon

  2,507,833

  Plymouth

  1,008,169

  Torbay

  449,188

  Essex

  4,769,297

  Southend-on-Sea

  619,856

  Thurrock

  590,385

  Herefordshire

  629,628

  Worcestershire

  1,915,094

  Kent

  5,024,645

  Medway

  1,067,556

  Lancashire

  4,797,935

  Blackburn with Darwen

  735,970

  Blackpool

  533,575

  Nottinghamshire

  3,060,305

  Nottingham City

  1,377,642

  Shropshire

  1,036,167

  Telford and Wrekin

  709,065

  Cornwall

  1,915,899

  Cumbria

  2,156,303

  Gloucestershire

  2,079,475

  Hertfordshire

  4,103,424

  Isle Of Wight

  460,329

  Lincolnshire

  2,470,535

  Norfolk

  3,128,871

  Northamptonshire

  2,503,761

  Northumberland

  1,263,218

  Oxfordshire

  2,071,858

  Somerset

  1,787,640

  Suffolk

  2,366,302

  Surrey

  3,198,226

  Warwickshire

  1,852,236

  West Sussex

  2,481,759

  196,878,831

  School Grants
  Patsy Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what(a) the formula grant and (b) the spending per head in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools in F40 authorities is in 2002–03. [79441]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following tables show the Standard Spending Assessment and specific/special grants per head in f40 authorities in 2002–03. Information on actual spending will not be available until the autumn of 2003:

  2002–03 Primary SSA & Grants per pupil

  SSA

  Grants

  Total

  £

  £

  £

  Dudley

  £2,490

  £410

  £2,900

  Solihull

  £2,460

  £480

  £2,940

  Bury

  £2,520

  £480

  £3,010

  Stockport

  £2,460

  £460

  £2,920

  Tameside

  £2,600

  £510

  £3,100

  Trafford

  £2,520

  £460

  £2,980

  Wigan

  £2,500

  £510

  £3,010

  Wakefield

  £2,530

  £520

  £3,050

  North Tyneside

  £2,580

  £570

  £3,150

  Bath and North East Somerset

  £2,440

  £460

  £2,900

  North Somerset

  £2,460

  £490

  £2,950

  North Tyneside

  £2,580

  £570

  £3,150

  Bath and North East Somerset

  £2,440

  £460

  £2,900

  North Somerset

  £2,460

  £490

  £2,950

  412W

  2002–03 Primary SSA & Grants per pupil

  SSA

  Grants

  Total

  £

  £

  £

  South Gloucestershire

  £2,390

  £420

  £2,810

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  £2,480

  £490

  £2,970

  North Yorkshire

  £2,560

  £500

  £3,050

  York

  £2,480

  £460

  £2,940

  Derbyshire

  £2,490

  £480

  £2,980

  Dorset

  £2,490

  £460

  £2,950

  Poole

  £2,450

  £410

  £2,860

  Hampshire

  £2,580

  £400

  £2,980

  Leicestershire

  £2,410

  £400

  £2,820

  Rutland

  £2,470

  £610

  £3,080

  Staffordshire

  £2,450

  £420

  £2,870

  Wiltshire

  £2,510

  £440

  £2,950

  Swindon

  £2,500

  £420

  £2,910

  West Berkshire

  £2,590

  £490

  £3,080

  Wokingham

  £2,470

  £410

  £2,880

  Cambridgeshire

  £2,530

  £420

  £2,950

  Cheshire

  £2,470

  £450

  £2,920

  Warrington

  £2,450

  £440

  £2,880

  Devon

  £2,560

  £460

  £3,020

  Worcestershire

  £2,470

  £420

  £2,890

  Nottinghamshire

  £2,510

  £460

  £2,970

  Shropshire

  £2,530

  £470

  £3,000

  Cumbria

  £2,580

  £520

  £3,100

  Gloucestershire

  £2,500

  £470

  £2,970

  Northamptonshire

  £2,530

  £420

  £2,950

  Northumberland

  £2,560

  £490

  £3,060

  Somerset

  £2,530

  £450

  £2,980

  Suffolk

  £2,530

  £400

  £2,930

  Warwickshire

  £2,490

  £460

  £2,940

  Notes:

  Figures reflect Education SSA primary sub-block plus all primary school related revenue grants in DIES's DEL relevant to pupils aged 5–10 (primary).

  Grant figures include notional allocations for those grants in support of more than one sector. EMA and El

  The SSA figures make no allowances for changes in the SSA methodology.

  Pupil numbers underlying the £s per pupil are those underlying the SSA settlement calculations (primary sub-blocks).

  Figures rounded to nearest £10. Difference figures may not sum due to rounding

  2002–03 Secondary SSA & Grants per pupil

  SSA

  Grants

  Total

  £

  £

  £

  Dudley

  £3,180

  £310

  £3,490

  Solihull

  £3,120

  £310

  £3,420

  Bury

  £3,220

  £290

  £3,510

  Stockport

  £3,160

  £300

  £3,460

  Tameside

  £3,310

  £330

  £3,640

  Trafford

  £3,230

  £310

  £3,540

  Wigan

  £3,190

  £330

  £3,510

  Wakefield

  £3,250

  £330

  £3,580

  North Tyneside

  £3,320

  £480

  £3,790

  Bath and North East Somerset

  £3,060

  £290

  £3,360

  North Somerset

  £3,170

  £320

  £3,490

  South Gloucestershire

  £3,090

  £290

  £3,380

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  £3,200

  £300

  £3,500

  North Yorkshire

  £3,240

  £320

  £3,570

  York

  £3,190

  £340

  £3,530

  Derbyshire

  £3,200

  £310

  £3,510

  Dorset

  £3,180

  £330

  £3,500

  Poole

  £3,130

  £300

  £3,430

  Hampshire

  £3,320

  £290

  £3,610

  Leicestershire

  £3,090

  £300

  £3,400

  Rutland

  £3,040

  £350

  £3,380

  Staffordshire

  £3,140

  £300

  £3,450

  Wiltshire

  £3,220

  £310

  £3,530

  Swindon

  £3,200

  £290

  £3,490

  West Berkshire

  £3,280

  £310

  £3,590

  413W

  2002–03 Secondary SSA & Grants per pupil

  SSA

  Grants

  Total

  £

  £

  £

  Wokingham

  £3,180

  £290

  £3,470

  Cambridgeshire

  £3,230

  £300

  £3,520

  Cheshire

  £3,150

  £300

  £3,450

  Warrington

  £3,150

  £290

  £3,440

  Devon

  £3,290

  £300

  £3,590

  Worcestershire

  £3,160

  £350

  £3,510

  Nottinghamshire

  £3,220

  £290

  £3,500

  Shropshire

  £3,230

  £320

  £3,550

  Cumbria

  £3,300

  £370

  £3,670

  Gloucestershire

  £3,190

  £320

  £3,510

  Northamptonshire

  £3,230

  £330

  £3,560

  Northumberland

  £3,290

  £460

  £3,750

  Somerset

  £3,240

  £330

  £3,570

  Suffolk

  £3,220

  £370

  £3,590

  Warwickshire

  £3,170

  £300

  £3,480

  Notes:

  Figures reflect Education SSA (secondary sub-block) plus all school related revenue grants in DfES's DEL relevant to pupils 11–15 (secondary).

  Grant figures include notional allocations for those grants in support of more than one sector. EMA and

  The SSA figures make no allowances for changes in the SSA methodology.

  Pupil numbers underlying the £s per pupil are those underlying the SSA settlement calculations (secondary sub-block).

  Figures rounded to nearest £10. Difference figures may not sum due to rounding.

  Golden Hello
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers in each local education authority were entitled to a golden hello in 2001–02. [79467]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information is not available in the form requested. The table shows provisional data on the number of claims for reimbursement of Golden Hello payments received by my Department in respect of the 2001–02 financial year. The payments comprise a mixture of "old-style", £2,500 Golden Hellos paid on appointment to a relevant post and "new-style", £4,000 Golden Hellos paid on successful completion of induction. The number of newly-qualified teachers who were eligible to receive an "old-style" payment in 2001–02, but exercised their right to claim a "new-style" Golden Hello later is not known.

  Local Education Authority1

  Number of claims

  Camden

  6

  Greenwich

  17

  Islington

  2

  Tower Hamlets

  9

  Wandsworth

  12

  Barnet

  10

  Bexley

  9

  Brent

  4

  Bromley

  10

  Enfield

  3

  Haringey

  4

  Hounslow

  2

  Kingston upon Thames

  3

  Merton

  3

  Newham

  8

  Redbridge

  8

  Richmond upon Thames

  1

  Sutton

  6

  Birmingham

  7

  Coventry

  9

  414W

  Local Education Authority1

  Number of claims

  Dudley

  3

  Sandwell

  2

  Solihull

  7

  Walsall

  3

  Knowsley

  6

  Liverpool

  12

  St Helens

  6

  Wirral

  7

  Manchester

  12

  Oldham

  9

  Rochdale

  5

  Salford

  7

  Stockport

  3

  Tameside

  5

  Trafford

  2

  Wigan

  6

  Barnsley

  1

  Rotherham

  8

  Sheffield

  10

  Bradford

  4

  Leeds

  7

  Gateshead

  9

  North Tyneside

  10

  Bath + NE Somerset

  5

  Bristol

  3

  North Somerset

  1

  South Gloucestershire

  9

  Hartlepool

  1

  Middlesbrough

  1

  Redcar and Cleveland

  3

  Stockton-on-Tees

  4

  East Riding

  4

  North East Lincolnshire

  7

  North Lincolnshire

  1

  North Yorkshire

  6

  York

  2

  Bedfordshire

  11

  Luton

  2

  Buckinghamshire

  6

  Milton Keynes

  5

  Derby

  6

  Dorset

  3

  Poole

  5

  Durham

  14

  East Sussex

  7

  Brighton and Hove

  2

  Hampshire

  22

  Portsmouth

  1

  Leicestershire

  6

  Staffordshire

  11

  Wiltshire

  4

  Swindon

  10

  Berkshire

  5

  Reading

  3

  Slough

  Wokingham

  10

  Cambridgeshire

  6

  Cheshire

  19

  Halton

  6

  Warrington

  11

  Devon

  6

  Plymouth

  4

  Torbay

  3

  Essex

  28

  Southend-on-Sea

  3

  Worcestershire

  3

  Medway

  11

  Blackburn and Darwen

  4

  Blackpool

  7

  Nottinghamshire

  19

  Nottingham

  3

  Shropshire

  3

  Cornwall

  9

  Cumbria

  5

  415W

  Local Education Authority1

  Number of claims

  Gloucestershire

  12

  Hertfordshire

  30

  Isle of Wight

  1

  Lincolnshire

  15

  Northamptonshire

  8

  Northumberland

  18

  Somerset

  2

  Suffolk

  14

  Warwickshire

  18

  West Sussex

  9

  Note:

  1. LEAs not listed have submitted no claims for reimbursement in 2001–02.

  Newly Qualified Teachers
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many newly qualified teachers in each local education authority were entitled to induction support in 2001–02. [79468]

  Mr. Miliband
  All Newly Qualified Teachers (NQTs) who take up a post of one term or more in a maintained school, or non-maintained special school, are entitled to induction. This includes a 10 per cent. reduced timetable, ongoing support and guidance, and an individually tailored induction programme. NQTs can also undertake induction in independent schools and sixth-form colleges, although there is no statutory obligation to do so in such institutions.

  The information on the number of NQTs undertaking induction in each LEA is now held by the General Teaching Council for England (GTCE). The information for the academic year 2001–2002 will be available in the next few days and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as I have it.

  Teachers (Warning Notices)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on how many occasions in each local education authority section 15 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 has been invoked for(a) warning notices and (b) subsequent formal interventions. [79562]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department does not routinely collect information on the number of formal warnings issued under section 15 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, nor on the number of these that lead to the subsequent use of the intervention powers by local authorities.

  Any decisions to issue such warnings and to use such powers are for local education authorities. Statutory guidance on the use of formal warning notices was given in Annex 2 of the Code of Practice on Local Education Authority-School Relations in February 2001. A copy of this guidance is in the Library.

  Swimming Lessons
  Patsy Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what steps are being taken to ensure that schools provide sufficient curriculum time for school swimming in order to meet National Curriculum targets; [79276]
  416W
  2) when she will provide further details of the increased training of PE teachers in swimming and water safety announced on 17 October; [79277]

  (3) how many children fail to meet National Curriculum standards in swimming at age 11; what criteria will be used to select the areas for remedial swimming pilots as announced on 17 October; and what funding will be made available for this; [79278]

  (4) what figures she collates on how many schools ask for parental contributions for curriculum swimming lessons. [79182]

  Mr. Miliband
  We are developing a package of measures to deliver our commitment to enhance the take up of sporting opportunities by 5 to 16-year-olds by increasing the percentage of school children who spend a minimum of 2 hours each week during term time on high-quality PE and school sport. Our Swimming Strategy was announced on 17 October. Part of that Strategy, the Swimming Charter which will be published in 2003, will provide non-statutory guidance to schools on how much time to allocate for swimming specifically as part of this commitment to enhance sporting opportunities for children. Other details of the strategy, including the criteria to be used to select the areas for remedial swimming pilots, funding to be made available and details of increased training for PE teachers in swimming and water safety, are being developed. The Department does not collect data on how many schools ask for parental contributions for curriculum swimming lessons. Some 20 per cent. of children aged 11 years old fail to meet National Curriculum standards in swimming (Swimming In Key Stage 2: An Inspection Report on Standards and Provision; OFSTED, 2000).

  Higher Education
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skill what definition of higher education is used in the context of his Department's target of increasing participation in higher education towards an entry rate of 50 per cent. of 18 to 30-year-olds by 2010. [78381]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 31 October 2002]: Progress towards the target is measured by the number of first time entrants to higher education aged 18–30, as a proportion of the relevant population. The target covers all courses of one year or more above A level and its equivalents that lead to a recognised higher education qualification.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what projections he has made of the proportion of 18 to 30-year-olds who will experience higher education courses in each year until 2010. [78382]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 31 October 2002]: A wide range of alternative scenarios, based on different assumptions about the future impact of current policies on demand for higher education are being considered. At this stage we are confident that there will be sufficient growth in demand from young people with the appropriate entry qualifications for higher education to enable us to reach the 50 per cent. target. Provisional figures suggesting a 2 per cent. increase in the number of

  417W
  home domiciled UCAS accepted applications this autumn to UK higher education institutions, shows we are continuing to make progress.

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what evidence the Government collated on the impact of introducing top-up fees for students on access to higher education, with special reference to foreign examples; [78693]

  (2) how she plans to consult students on the review of higher education. [78694]

  Margaret Hodge
  We will publish a strategy document in January setting out our vision for the development and reform of higher education, including the outcome of the student support review. As part of the review we are considering a wide range of evidence but we clearly cannot pre-empt the strategy document at this stage. Information on how interested parties can respond to the document will be made available when it is published.

  Schools (Essex)
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, if he will adopt policies to ensure that no schools in Essex suffer a cash budget cut in the next financial year. [78477]

  Mr. Miliband
  In introducing the new system of LEA funding for 2003–04, we will implement the pledge that no local education authority will lose out in real terms in 2003–04. The Education Act 2002 incorporates a reserve power that allows the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to set a minimum budget for an authority's schools, if the budget proposed by an authority is

  Pupil Referral Units: Number of Pupils on Roll

  1998 to 2002

  Position in January each year.

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Number of Solely Registered Pupils1

  Number of Dually Registered Pupils1

  Number of Pupils also registered with Other Providers2

  Number of Solely Registered Pupils1

  Number of Dually Registered Pupils1

  Number of Pupils also registered with Other Providers2

  Number of Solely Registered Pupils1

  Number of Dually Registered Pupils1

  Number of Pupils also registered with Other Providers2

  England

  7,740

  4,166

  8,263

  4,202

  6,986

  4,586

  1,493

  London

  2,005

  662

  2,195

  628

  1,740

  863

  236

  Outer London

  999

  304

  1,026

  335

  807

  423

  114

  Enfield LEA

  115

  3

  110

  30

  105

  36

  0

  2001

  2002

  Number of Solely Registered Pupils1

  Number of Dually Registered Pupils1

  Number of Pupils also registered with Other Providers2

  Number of Solely Registered Pupils1

  Number of Dually Registered Pupils1

  Number of Pupils also registered with Other Providers2

  England

  7,308

  4,993

  1,981

  7,614

  4,968

  2,342

  London

  1,895

  751

  243

  2,063

  607

  288

  418W
  seriously inadequate. Changes in the funding of individual schools depend very largely on changes in their pupil numbers. It is open to LEAs, if they wish, to include factors in their school funding formulae which have the effect of protecting individual schools from excessive year-to year reductions in their budget shares.

  Pupil Spending
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what(a) the actual revenue spending per child at (i) primary and (ii) secondary level and (b) the standard spending assessments were in each local education authority in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [79334]

  Mr. Miliband
  Net current expenditure per child is available for years up to 2000–01, so the last five years' figures are from 1996–97 to 2000–01. Standard Spending Assessments are available up to 2002–03, so figures are provided from 1996–97 to 2002–03. This information is contained in tables which have been placed in the Library. The figures are shown by local education authority area and are in cash and real terms.

  Pupil Referral Units
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils were educated in pupil referral units, and for how many hours on average per week, in(a) the London Borough of Enfield, (b) Greater London and (c) England and Wales in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [78080]

  Mr. Miliband
  The available information is shown in the following table.
  419W

  2001

  2002

  Number of Solely Registered Pupils1

  Number of Dually Registered Pupils1

  Number of Pupils also registered with Other Providers2

  Number of Solely Registered Pupils1

  Number of Dually Registered Pupils1

  Number of Pupils also registered with Other Providers2

  Outer London

  783

  387

  183

  933

  306

  187

  Enfield LEA

  85

  25

  10

  117

  14

  15

  Notes:

  1Solely registered pupils are those pupils who are only on a Pupil Referral Unit's register. Dually registered pupils are those pupils who are on a Pupil Referral Unit's register and on another school's register.

  2 Other providers are FE colleges or a voluntary provider

  Not available. This information was not collected prior to 2000.

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census

  Information is collected on the average amount of contact time which is spent by pupils of different ages in Pupil Referral Units (PRUs) in a typical week. As the contact times are recorded in bands, the data cannot be readily averaged or aggregated. Nevertheless, the figures indicate that between 40–45 per cent. of the 312 PRUs nationally reported average contact time for solely registered pupils of 20 hours or more per week. Of the 47 PRUs in London, over 50 per cent. had average contact times with pupils of 20 hours or more per week. The 2 PRUs in Enfield LEA generally had average contact time with pupils of between 13 and 19 hours per week.

  Equivalent contact times for dually registered pupils will generally be less than those for solely registered pupils.

  The pupils in PRUs have varying needs and are enrolled there for a variety of reasons and this will include pupils who have been permanently excluded. From September 2002 all LEAs are required to provide full time education for all permanently excluded pupils.

  I refer the hon. Member to the Welsh Assembly for information on pupils in Wales.

PRIME MINISTER

  Focus Group Research
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what use he and his Department has made of focus group research since June 2001; if he will identify for each research project the topics covered, the person or organisation carrying out the research, and the total cost; and if he will publish the research on his Department's website. [74996]

  The Prime Minister
  My office has not commissioned any focus group research since June 2001.

  E-Mail
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Prime Minister what e-mail address members of the public may use to contact him. [79661]

  The Prime Minister
  At present there is no e-mail address by which members of the public can contact me. However an address will be made available in the new year.

  Policy Advisers
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement on the protocols covering discussions between policy advisers in 10 Downing Street and ministers; [79047]

  (2) Under what circumstances policy advisers within 10 Downing Street are able to direct (a) Ministers and (b) officials within other Departments. [79046]

  The Prime Minister
  Discussions between policy advisers in 10 Downing Street and Ministers and civil servants in other Departments are conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code, the Civil Service Code and the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers.

  Policy advisers do not have powers of direction.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had with President Chirac and Chancellor Schroeder on military invasion of Iraq without fresh UN authorisation. [79563]

  The Prime Minister
  I regularly discuss Iraq with my EU colleagues, most recently during the European Council at Brussels on 24–25 October. I reported the outcome to the House in my statement of 28 October 2002.

  Deaths (Soldiers)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Prime Minister, if he will call an independent public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the deaths of soldiers in army barracks in the UK since 1990. [79129]

  The Prime Minister
  It would be inappropriate to undertake any such inquiry whilst the current police investigations into the deaths at Deepcut continue. In the meantime, I am fully aware of the concerns that have been raised about the circumstances surrounding the deaths of soldiers in Army barracks in the United Kingdom.

  There are a number of issues being taken forward by the Ministry of Defence in response to the concerns that have been raised about deaths of soldiers in army barracks in the UK. This work includes an appraisal of initial training of non-Officer recruits in all three services. The Defence Committee has also indicated its intention to conduct an inquiry into the general conditions at Deepcut. Following the conclusion of the

  421W
  police investigations into the deaths at Deepcut, the Army will also convene internal Boards of Inquiry into the deaths of Privates Geoff Gray and James Collinson.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Fire Services
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many fire appliances dedicated for training purposes there are in England and Wales, broken down by(a) fire brigade area and (b) local authority. [79675]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not hold information centrally on the number of fire appliances dedicated for training purposes; however, this information is published by The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) who provide a statistical information service. The information can be found broken down by fire authority, but not fire brigade, at page 10 of their publication entitled Fire Service Statistics 2001 (SIS reference 01.02). A copy is available in the Libraries of the House.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many fire stations there are in North East London; how many fire engines are located in them; how many Green Goddesses would be expected to cover the area in the event of these fire engines not being deemed to be available due to a national strike of firefighters; and if he will make a statement. [78463]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The London Fire Brigade has forty-one fire engines at twenty-six fire stations in the London Boroughs of Havering, Hackney, Waltham Forest, Newham, Barking & Dagenham, Redbridge and Tower Hamlets.

  Emergency cover in Greater London is currently planned to consist of a number of elements including 90 Green Goddess crews, 20 breathing apparatus teams (BARTs), a rescue team equipped with specialist equipment (a REST) and the police. Of these, sixteen Green Goddesses and four BARTs would be located in the above boroughs, with a further seven Green Goddesses and two BARTs located just outside those boundaries.

  The provision of MoD emergency fire cover has been planned in consultation with the Chief Fire Officer to minimise call-out times and maximise the availability of a range of firefighting capabilities.

  The command and operational structure for emergency fire cover has been designed to enable maximum flexibility and use of available resources, whether from within a county or from assets deployed nearby in neighbouring counties. The deployment of firefighters will be based on the assessment of how best to respond to an emergency in the quickest time possible. The deployment will be kept under review.

  Housing
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the level of empty(a) housing association and (b) council housing was in each local authority in England in (i) 1997 and (ii) 2001; and if he will make a
  422W
  statement on the Government's plans to reduce the level of empty housing association and council housing. [79677]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information requested has been placed in the Library. The table presents data showing the vacancy rates of local authority and Registered Social Landlord stock (respectively) in each local authority in England at 1 April 1997 and 2001. Note that council stock owned by an authority, which is outside their local authority area, is not included in these figures.

  Day to day management, including the letting of empty properties, is a matter for individual housing associations and councils. We expect those with high levels of vacant housing to set challenging targets for reductions through improved management performance or action to improve or dispose of unpopular stock.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what evidence his Department has collated on the use of repeated applications for planning permission by companies and individuals in a specified location; [78998]

  (2) what consideration has been given to the setting of time limits between applications for planning permission by companies and individuals in a specified location. [78999]

  Mr. McNulty
  Local planning authorities already have the power to decline to determine a planning application which is the same or substantially the same as an application which, within the previous two years, the Secretary of State has called in and refused, or has dismissed on appeal.

  As announced in our Statement "Sustainable Communities: Delivering through planning" we intend to extend this power so that a local planning authority can also decline to determine an application which is the same or substantially the same as an application which has either been refused by the authority within the last two years and there has been no appeal to the Secretary of State, or has not been finally determined. The two year time limit was chosen since this is the same as that which applies to a local planning authority's existing powers to decline to determine repeated applications.

  The Planning Green Paper said that some developers use repeated applications to wear down opposition to undesirable development. This is damaging to people's confidence in the planning process and inefficient. Of those who responded to our proposal to extend local planning authorities' powers to decline to determine repeat applications, 97 per cent. were in favour.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many units of affordable housing have been built in the Portsmouth South constituency in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [78967]

  Mr. McNulty
  The only information available is for the local authority area of Portsmouth and for the last four years. The numbers of houses built by registered social landlords in Portsmouth were 279 in 1998–99, 37 in 1999–00, 95 in 2000–01 and 151 in 2001–02. There were no houses built by the local authority during this period.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what discussions Ministers and officials of his Department have held with members of the review team evaluating the Right to Buy scheme; what was discussed; when they were; and who the participants were; [79590]

  (2) when the review of the right to buy scheme will be published; [79602]

  (3) what the estimated cost is of the evaluation of the right to buy scheme being undertaken by the review team; [79604]

  (4) if he will publish the (a) names and (b) qualifications of the review team undertaking the evaluation of the right to buy scheme. [79603]

  Mr. McNulty
  Researchers at Heriot-Watt University have been commissioned to investigate the scale, nature and impact of exploitation of the Right to Buy rules.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister research contracts are awarded through a standard procurement process, by competitive tender. The experience and skills of tenderers are assessed carefully as part of this process. This research project is subject to normal project management procedures and disciplines operated by professional and policy officials. It is subject to review by a stakeholder group drawn from housing practitioners and representatives of lending institutions and local government.

  The cost of the project is £92,650, excluding VAT.

  The results are expected by the end of this year, and will be published thereafter. It is standard practice for all Office of the Deputy Prime Minister research publications to include the names of the authors, and for any other researchers to be acknowledged.

  Urban Summit
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, how many(a) Ministers, (b) Members of the other House taking the Labour Whip and (c) elected Labour councillors are (i) speaking and (ii) chairing themed discussions at the Urban Summit. [79342]

  Mr. McNulty
  In total about 150 people contributed to the Urban Summit as speakers, chairs or pannellists. There were 13 Ministers (including 3 members of the other House), 7 elected Labour Councillors (including one member of the other House) and one further member of the other House taking the Labour Whip speaking at the Urban Summit, either at plenary sessions or in themed sessions. One Minister chaired a Chemed session, another was chaired by a member from the other House taking the Labour whip and a third by an elected Labour Councillor.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many of the advertised(a) speakers and (b) chairmen of the themed sessions of the Urban Summit come from the private sector and are not members of Government-appointed public bodies. [79341]
  424W
  Mr. McNulty
  More than 23 speakers, including plenary session speakers and panellists, and 3 chairs of the themed sessions came from the private sector. Information on how many of these are members of any Government appointed bodies is not readily available.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he plans to take to disseminate the results of the Urban Summit to(a) hon. Members, (b) councillors and (c) Members of the other House belonging to the (i) Conservative and (ii) Liberal Democrat parties. [79345]

  Mr. McNulty
  The results of the Urban Summit will be disseminated in a variety of ways. In particular, the messages and ideas coming from the Summit are to be fed into the development of the long term plan for sustainable communities which the Deputy Prime Minister will be presenting to the House in January 2003. A report of the proceedings of the Summit will be deposited in the House of Commons library. More generally, information on the outcomes from the debate and discussion at the Summit will be posted on the Urban Summit website, www.urbansummit.gov.uk.

  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the SSA is, for each local authority in England(a) by service block and (b) in total for 2002–03; what these figures would be if 2001 census data had been substituted for mid-year 2000 population estimates; and what the difference is between the two sets of figures expressed (i) in £s and (ii) as a percentage of 2002–03 SSAs (A) for the relevant service block and (B) in total. [79873]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested has been placed in the Library of the House. The 2001 census population data have been used, as requested, rather than the mid-2001 population estimates which we intend to use to calculate the 2003–04 Formula Spending Shares (FSSs).

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, how many of the speakers and chairmen of the themed seminars of the Urban Summit are members of the(a) Conservative, (b) Liberal Democrat and (c) Labour parties. [79340]

  Mr. McNulty
  Speakers and chairs were invited to take part in the summit on the basis of the contribution they could make. The choice of speakers for each themed session was made in consultation with the chair of that session. We hold no information—other than for those where it is clear eg MPs, Councillors—about their membership of any political parties.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many of the advertised(a) speakers and (b) chairmen of the themed sessions are (i) Conservatives and (ii) Liberal Democrat local councillors. [79343]

  Mr. McNulty
  One of the speakers at a themed session was a Conservative Councillor. From the information available none of the speakers were Liberal Democrat Councillors. None of the chairs of the themed sessions were Conservative or Liberal Democrat Councillors.

  Transport
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on the transport implications of his oral statement of 18 July. [72112]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I made clear in my statement on 18 July that the strategy I announced for sustainable communities would link policies on housing, planning, transport, education, health and regeneration. I will be having discussions with all relevant colleagues as I prepare the Communities plan.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 28 October 2002,Official Report, column 522W, on renewable energy, what discussions he has had with the Scottish Parliament about its revised planning guidance on renewable energy; and if he will make a statement. [79075]

  Mr. McNulty
  We are currently preparing the revised draft planning guidance on renewable energy (PPS 22). In doing so, we have been in discussion with a number of interested parties including the Scottish Executive. There will be further consultation, and discussions will continue ahead of issuing the draft guidance at the turn of the year for public consultation.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many applications have been(a) received and (b) approved for development on Green Belt land since 1997, broken down by region; and if he will make a statement. [79681]

  Mr. McNulty
  Applications for planning permission are considered by local planning authorities in the first instance. The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) of 17 October 2002,Official Report, column 926, on the green belt, if he will list the locations and number of hectares respectively of new green belt land earmarked since June 1997. [77381]

  Mr. McNulty
  Since June 1997 new Green Belt has been earmarked in Development Plans in the following locations:

  Hectares

  Stockport

  8

  Basildon

  340

  North Hertfordshire

  3600

  Dacorum

  1000

  North Tyneside

  1672

  Blyth Valley

  2800

  Tynedale

  7300

  Castle Morpeth

  200

  Gateshead

  1500

  Sunderland

  520

  Co Durham

  12000

  30940

  426W

  Hectares

  Removals from the Green Belt are:

  Newcastle

  543

  Bradford

  90

  633

  Total addition

  30307

  Planning Guidance
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, what advice he gives local authorities and planning inspectors on how they should define whether a proposed development close to the edge of an existing conurbation is(a) an urban extension or (b) a new settlement. [77864]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government's planning policies for housing are set out in PPG3 (Planning Policy Guidance note 3,Housing). PPG3 explains that planned extensions to existing urban areas are likely to prove the next most sustainable option for new housing development after building on appropriate sites within urban areas, and that new settlements can be large-scale additions to existing settlements or freestanding. PPG3 does not define urban extension or new settlement in any further detail.

  The characteristics of alternative forms of new development are discussed in the 1993 Department of Environment research report Alternative Development Patterns: new settlements. Urban extensions are described as development that takes place at the edges of existing urban areas, and new settlements as urban growth that is accommodated by a new focus for development that is freestanding.

  Seller's Pack
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the introduction of the Seller's Pack. [79680]

  Mr. McNulty
  We are committed to making it easier for people buying and selling homes through the introduction of a seller's pack, and the necessary legislation will be introduced as soon as Parliamentary time allows. The seller's pack will make the home buying and selling process more transparent and certain, and so reduce the stress and wasted costs suffered by hundreds of thousands of consumers each year when transactions fail or are delayed.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will publish the evidence on which he based his statement that the right-to-buy scheme is being abused: and if he will make a statement. [79601]

  Mr. McNulty
  Anecdotal evidence from various sources, including local authorities and media advertisements, strongly suggested that the right to buy rules were being exploited in some areas. Researchers al Heriot-Watt University have been commissioned to investigate the scale, nature and impact of such exploitation. The results are expected by the end of this
  427W
  year, and will be published thereafter. The difficulties experienced on the Ocean Estate in Stepney, East London, are well documented.

  Council House Stock
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the local housing authorities who have transferred council house stock amounting to fewer than 499 properties to a single alternative social landlord since 1988, and state in each case(a) the grant from Government to write off debt, (b) the total cost to the local authority in professional fees, (c) other relevant costs of the transfer and (d) the capital receipt. [78917]

  Mr. McNulty
  No payments have been made by the Office of Deputy Prime Minister, or its predecessor Departments, since arrangements were put in place in 1999 toward repaying local authority housing attributable debt on transfers of fewer than 499 dwellings. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not keep a record of local authorities who have transferred fewer than 499 properties to registered social landlords, the cost to the local authority of professional fees, other relevant transfer costs or capital receipts in such transfers.

  Housing Authorities
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, how many local housing authorities have applied for a place on the LSVT programme for each year since 1993; and how many were successful. [78915]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister record the number of local housing authorities who are accepted onto the Large Scale Voluntary Transfers disposals programme each year. The information for the years in question is set out in the table below.

  Year of Programme

  Number of Local Authorities Successfully Gaining a Place

  1993

  13

  1994

  12

  1995

  11

  1996

  5

  1997

  17

  1998

  23

  1999

  25

  2000

  22

  2001

  271

  2002

  202

  Note:

  1Between 1993 and 2000 the duration of each transfer programme was one year. This period was extended to 2 years from 2001.

  2There are 5 more authorities who have a place on the disposals programme held open for them while their schemes are further developed.

  Valuation Tribunals
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to increase the powers of authority of the tribunal chairman and clerk to obtain facts and information in order to increase the parity between the appellant and the Valuation Office Agency in disputes. [79253]
  428W
  Mr. Leslie
  There are no plans to increase the powers of authority of valuation tribunal chairmen and clerks. Tribunals already have wide ranging powers to conduct hearings in such a manner as to ensure just handling and to adjourn hearings to enable relevant information or facts to be provided.

  Government Office for London
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the annual expenditure of the Government Office for London was; how many full time employees or equivalent there were in each year since its establishment; and if he will make a statement. [79597]

  Mrs. Roche
  Government Office for London (GOL) Running Costs expenditure is as follows (£m):

  1996–97

  14.1

  1997–98

  13.5

  1998–99

  16.0

  1999–2000

  16.0

  2000–01

  13.2

  2001–02

  13.2

  No staffing figures are available prior to 1999. Approximate full time equivalent posts from April 1999 are as follows:

  April 1999

  390

  April 2000

  370

  April 2001

  240

  April 2002

  260

  The number has subsequently risen to approximately 295, chiefly due to the transfer to GOL from the Home Office of 19 crime reduction staff (in June 2002) and 10 Drug Prevention Advisory Service staff (on 1 October).

  "Your Region, Your Choice"
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total cost to the taxpayer was of producing the North West Regional Assembly publication, "Your Region, Your Choice-Revitalising English Regions"; and how many copies were printed. [79706]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This document was produced by the North West Regional Assembly as a response to the Government's White Paper,Your Region, Your Choice; Revitalising the English Regions. The publication and its content and costs are a matter for the Assembly.

HEALTH

  Faith Communities
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list projects involving faith communities which are supported by his Department. [71847]

  Ms Blears
  The Department recognises the diverse health needs within communities and the key role played by faith organisations, supporting National
  429W
  Health Service and social care organisations, to improve the health and well-being of local people. The Department's central funding should be viewed as complimentary to additional funding by local NHS and social care organisations working with local faith communities.

  The Department's main funding support to voluntary/not for profit organisations is the Section 64 General Scheme under the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968.

  Grants Awarded through Section 64 General Grants Scheme

  Organisation

  Purpose of funding

  Grant Awarded

  Muslim Khatri Association

  To take forward the Department of Health's cancer and coronary heart disease prevention campaign by undertaking community education and health development activities in the Highfields area.

  £102,000

  Arab Women's Group (Muslim organisation)

  To organise road shows within Arab catchment areas in Britain including community centres, Places of worship to provide information in Arabic on health, legal and welfare issues targeted at the Arab community.

  £72,000

  Muslim Doctors and Dentists Association

  To promote healthy living in minority ethnic community centres run by the Muslim Doctors and Dentists Association specialists by organising seminars and producing leaflets.

  £87,000

  Jewish Care

  The Mental Health Outreach Project was originally piloted by Jewish Care in 2001. Support is tailored to the individual needs of service users and in line with the aims of the NSF. The team work to encourage and empower service users, to combat discrimination and to promote social inclusion both nationally and within the context of Jewish tradition and culture. The pilot has been successful and a waiting list now exists particularly as outreach targets people who are hard to engage.

  £121,000

  Asian Family Counselling Service

  The Naya Rasta—"New Hope" project aim is to reduce the dependence of depressed Asian men and women on anti depressants. The project aims to offer clients one-to-one counselling as well as being part of a self-help group.

  £105,000

  AIDS Care Education and Training (ACET)

  ACET's aim is to deliver prevention initiatives through a programme of sexual health education, and training for those who are working for and with young people.

  £154,000

  The CARA Trust

  The Trust provides pastoral care for people affected by HIV/AIDS; their relatives and friends; professional and voluntary carers.

  £71,000

  Jewish AIDS Trust

  Jewish AIDS Trust (JAT) provides culturally and religiously sensitive HIV and sexual health education/prevention programmes to a wide range of Jewish organisations. JAT is the only agency in the UK targeting this particular minority ethnic community.

  £25,000

  Mildmay Mission Hospital

  Mildmay is the UK's only specialist provider of HIV/AIDS palliative care services offering an integrated package of residential and day care services to people living with or affected by HIV/AIDS.

  £420,000

  Projects funded through Vote 2 (Improving access to health services for black and minority ethnic groups)

  Organisation

  Purpose of Funding

  Amount of Grant

  Network of Sikh Organisations

  To promote work on the prevention of coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes, cancer through seminars with health professionals and the Sikh community and to develop newsletter in Punjabi/English to promote health messages to the Sikh community

  £107,000

  National Council of Hindu Temples

  To work nationally with Hindu Temples to provide advice and information on health issues such as coronary heart disease, cancer, diabetes, mental illness for the Hindu community.

  £110,000

  London Central Mosque Trust and Islamic Cultural Centre

  To take forward the Department of Health's smoking cessation campaign especially during the times of the Ramadan and Eid. Also to help coordinate and establish links between health service providers and the local Muslim organisations.

  £110,400

  The Swaminarayan Hindu Temple

  To fund the post of an outreach health worker to undertake health promotion and education among the Hindu community in relation to coronary heart disease, stroke, screening etc. This includes the preparation of tobacco education audio-visual and printed materials for the worshipers

  £85,000

  Mauritian Islamic Welfare Association

  To develop a training pack to improve the speech and language development of minority ethnic children and to undertake health promotion and screening programme aimed at the Asian community

  £121,000

  Muslim Cultural Heritage

  To set up a healthy living lifestyle project including smoking cessation among the local Muslim population

  £49,055

  430W
  Additionally there are smaller budgets managed by policy teams within the Department which are used to develop initiatives to improve access to healthcare, for example working through faith communities with black and minority ethnic groups on priority areas such as coronary heart disease, mental illness and cancer.

  Grants Awarded, in the information provided, represents the amount of funding made available from 2002–3 onwards. The grant awarded will reflect, in some cases, the final year of a funding phase a three year funding ending in 2002–3.
  431W

  Projects funded through Vote 2 (Improving access to health services for black and minority ethnic groups)

  Organisation

  Purpose of Funding

  Amount of Grant

  The Muslim Council of Britain

  Set up a smoking cessation clinic and promote the clinic through community events.

  £25,000

  Agan Khan Health Board (The Ismaili Centre) A Muslim Organisation

  To produce a video resource and handbook promoting awareness on diet relating to coronary heart disease and diabetes within the Asian community

  £40,000

  Growth Hormone Deficiency
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what plans he has to deal with medical problems associated with growth hormone deficiency. [73351]

  Jacqui Smith
  Clinicians are currently able to prescribe growth hormone, also known as somatropin, to patients with growth hormone deficiency.

  The National Institute of Clinical Excellence did recommend the use of growth hormone in children earlier this year. It is currently appraising the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of human growth hormone in adults. There was an appeal against their 20 August 2002 final appraisal determination. This appeal has been partially upheld. Further work will be done in this area with a final decision expected early in the new year.

  Oxygen Therapy
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many users of oxygen therapy there are in Huntingdonshire. [74231]

  Ms Blears
  The number of users of oxygen therapy is not available centrally.

  Breast Cancer
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent representations he has received on the availability of taxanes; and if he will make a statement; [74214]

  (2) how much was spent on taxanes for breast cancer for the most recent financial year available, broken down by (a) health authority and (b) health trusts; and if he will make a statement; [74212]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the number of women benefiting from treatment for breast cancer (a) before and (b) after publication of the most recent NICE guidance; and if he will make a statement. [74213]

  Ms Blears
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) published its review of taxanes (docetaxel and paclitaxel) for the treatment of breast cancer in September 2001.

  There have been no recent representations on the availability of taxanes.

  All health authorities have confirmed that they are implementing the NICE appraisals. However, the Department does not hold central data on the number of patients treated with a particular drug or on the amount spent on individual drugs. NICE estimate the additional cost to the National Health Service of
  432W
  implementing the guidance on taxanes to be around 16 million per annum for England and Wales and that around 5,000 women are likely to benefit from the guidance.

  Hospital Staffing Levels
  Andrew Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make a statement on staffing levels at Oldchurch Hospital, Romford. [75106]

  Mr. Hutton
  The annual workforce censuses do not provide information for individual trusts. Oldchurch hospital is part of Barking, Havering and Redbridge National Health Service Trust, which was formed in April 2001. There is therefore no comparable historical information.

  The Department's vacancy survey collected information for the whole trust as at 30 March 2002. The trust has been ensuring that the impact of vacancies on the quality of care provided to its patients is minimised by being one of the first trusts in London to use the NHS Professionals service. NHS Professionals is a NHS temporary staffing service aimed at reducing reliance on expensive nursing agencies. The trust is also very active in pursuing the Improving Working Lives initiative. A steering group, with cross-trust representation, including staff-side, has been meeting since April to take forward the Improving Working Lives action plan, aimed at achieving practice status early in 2003.

  Criminal Records Bureau Checks
  Annette Brooke
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, what provision is being made for local authorities incurring additional costs from hiring agency staff whilst waiting for checks to be completed by the Criminal Records Bureau on permanent care workers. [77088]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  The National Care Standards Commission has issued guidance about taking on staff while a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check is being undertaken.

  Before they could work in a care setting, agency staff would themselves need to undergo CRB checks. For example, under the Care Standards Act, there is an obligation to ensure a criminal records check has been obtained from the CRB in relation to all people beginning work at a care home for adults who have regular contact with the residents of the home. This includes volunteers and agency staff.

  GP Training
  Mr. Roger Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what plans his Department has to improve the training provision for GPs in relation to audiology and other ear, nose and throat services. [77109]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government are investing significantly in training provision in the National Health Service for all staff including general practitioners (GPs). The Department and the Royal College of General Practitioners are working together to develop guidelines for the appointment of GPs with special interests. A specific guideline for the appointment of a GPs with special interests in ear, nose & throat will be published shortly. Any training implications of this will be determined locally and will depend on local service needs, national priorities and the needs of individual GPs.

  Placements (Vulnerable Children)
  Annette Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of the cost of specialist residential placements for vulnerable children was contributed by health authorities in(a) Dorset, (b) Somerset and (c) Hampshire in (i) 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02; [77086]

  (2) what guidance the Department gives to health authorities in England on the criteria to use when deciding how much to contribute towards the cost of specialist residential placements for vulnerable children. [77380]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has not issued guidance to the National Health Service on the cost of specialist residential placements for vulnerable children. Such funding is a matter for local determination.

  The information requested for Dorset, Somerset and Hampshire is not held centrally.

  Splints
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make a statement on the prevalence of the free supply of splints to disabled people on the NHS(a) nationally and (b) in Gloucestershire. [76960]

  Jacqui Smith
  Figures are not collected centrally on the numbers of orthotic devices which are supplied through the National Health Service.

  Child Protection
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what the recommended thresholds for(a) providing child protection services, (b) instigating child protection inquiries and (c) convening initial child protection conferences are. [78041]

  Jacqui Smith
  Where a child is suspected to be suffering, or likely to suffer significant harm, local authority social services departments are required by section 47 of the Children Act 1989 to make enquiries, to enable the local authority to decide whether it should take any action to safeguard or promote the child's welfare.
  434W
  Where, following the outcome of section 47 enquiries, the agencies most involved judge that a child may continue to suffer, or to be at risk of suffering significant harm, the social services department should convene an initial child protection conference. The aim of the conference is to enable those professionals most involved with the child and family to assess all relevant information; to make judgements about the likelihood of a child suffering significant harm in future; and to decide what future action is needed to safeguard the child and promote his or her welfare, how that action will be taken forward, and with what intended outcomes.

  If a decision is taken that the child is at continuing risk of significant harm, his or her name will be placed on the child protection register, and it will therefore be the case that safeguarding the child requires inter-agency help and intervention delivered through a formal child protection plan. It is also the role of the conference to formulate the outline child protection plan, in as much detail as possible.

  A child's name may not be placed on the register, but he or she may nonetheless be in need of help to promote his or her health or development. In these circumstances, the conference should ensure that arrangements are in place to consider with the family, what further help and support might be offered.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason the Chief Inspector of Social Services does not publish an annual report into how well children are being protected from harm. [78019]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Chief Inspect or of Social Services produces an annual report to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State on the general state of social services. This report includes a section on children's services.

  The Chief Inspector also produces national reports, covering a five yearly rolling programme of in depth inspections of councils' children's services.

  In addition, last Winter the social services inspectorate (SSI) led the first of an ongoing series of three yearly major inter-agency inspections of safeguards for children. The SSI designed and coordinated this inspection, which took place in eight local authority areas, working with the seven other statutory inspectorates who are involved with services to children and families—OFSTED, the HM Inspectorates for Prisons, Probation, Constabulary. Magistrates' Courts Services and the Crown Prosecution Service, and the Commission for Health Improvement—to look at how well local services ensure the safeguarding of children and how well they work in partnership to address child welfare concerns. The SSI drafted the report of the inspection and published it on 14 October 2002.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what proportion of children on child protection registers do not have allocated social workers. [78026]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not held centrally. However, it is of interest that all children on the child protection register in the councils visited during last winter's children's safeguards inspections had an allocated social worker.
  435W
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many children at residential and boarding schools are on child protection registers. [78040]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to(a) establish multi-agency safeguarding teams including social workers, health professionals, police and other child professionals, (b) strengthen area child protection committees by increasing their resources and (c) establish a child safeguarding board to provide greater protection for children. [79688]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 5 November 2002]: Area child protection committee (ACPC) expenditure and administrative 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 interagency training.

  The Joint Chief Inspectors' report Safeguarding Children, published on 14 October 2002, contains a recommendation that the Department should 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 high 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 Climbié. The issues raised by Victoria's case are wide-ranging, in terms of both policy and practice, and it is therefore important that we do not do anything that would pre-empt the outcome of the Inquiry. The recommendations of the Joint Chief Inspectors' report and those of the Victoria Climbie Inquiry will provide us with an authoritative basis for any reforms to child protection that may need to be made, and if radical reform is necessary we will implement it. The Government will respond to both reports after it has carefully considered them.

  Suicides
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many suicides have occurred in accident and emergency departments in each of the past five years. [78002]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information is not collected centrally on the number of suicides in accident and emergency departments.

  Children's Rights
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, who the Children's Rights Director is. [78042]

  Jacqui Smith
  The first ever Children's Rights Director for England is Dr. Roger Morgan.
  436W
  The role of the Children's Rights Director, located within the National Care Standards Commission, was established by the Care Standards Act 2000. The primary role is to safeguard those children who are in receipt of a range of regulated services. These services include those provided by children's homes, independent fostering agencies, local authority fostering services, the welfare aspects of boarding schools and, in due course, residential family centres, voluntary adoption agencies and local authority adoption services.

  Regulations specifying the Children's Rights Director's functions commenced on 24 May 2002 and were debated in Standing Committee on Thursday 4 July 2002.

  Suicide Reduction
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what progress has been made in meeting the Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation target on suicide reduction. [78050]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Worthing, West on 18 June 2002,Official Report, column 148–149.

  Child and Adolescent Mental Health
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many children were waiting to be referred to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services in each quarter in the last two years. [78030]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information is not collected centrally in this form.

  Social Services
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason social services departments are not always contactable by accident and emergency departments during the evenings. [78025]

  Jacqui Smith
  It is the responsibility of local authorities to make sure that they have proper systems for responding to emergencies when they arise.

  The White Paper, Modernising Social Services, reminded local authorities of the need to "provide reliable and sufficient out of hours services". In October 1999 the social services inspectorate published a report of its inspection of social services out of hours services entitled Open All Hours. The report encouraged social services managers to review their out of hours provision and contained guidance on providing out of hours services.

  Spanish Nurses
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many Spanish nurses have worked in the NHS in each of the last three years in(a) the UK, (b) Lancashire and (c) the Lancashire Teaching Hospitals Trust; [77606]

  (2) how many Spanish nurses are working in the NHS in (a) the UK, (b) Lancashire and (c) the Lancashire Teaching Hospitals Trust. [77605]
  437W
  Mr. Hutton
  Over the last two years, the Department has been working closely with the Ministrio de Sanidad y Consumo—the Spanish Ministry of Health—to give Spanish nurses the opportunity to come and work in England.

  Between January 2001 and October 2002, 508 Spanish nurses have taken up positions as a result of this government to government initiative. We do not routinely collect information about overall numbers of international recruits into the National Health Service, including those from Spain

  NHS Organisation

  1997(£m)

  2002–2003 (£m)

  North Yorkshire Health Authority

  5.9

  N/A

  North & East Yorkshire & Northern Lincolnshire Health Authority

  N/A

  4.0

  Harrogate Health Care NHS Trust

  3.164

  3.558

  Scarborough and North East Yorkshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  3.441

  3.816

  York Health Services NHS Trust

  5.273

  5.0

  Hambleton and Richmondshire Primary Care Trust

  N/A

  1.890

  Craven, Harrogate and Rural District Primary Care Trust

  N/A

  1.980

  Selby and York Primary Care Trust

  N/A

  4.320

  Scarborough, Whitby and Ryedale Primary Care Trust

  N/A

  2.225

  Total

  17.778

  26.789

  Sources:

  North & East Yorkshire & Northern Lincolnshire Heath Authority.

  The 2002–2003 costs relate to anticipated expenditure at 31 March.

  Any comparisons between 1997 and 2002 would be influenced by inflation and the transfer of Trust management costs into PCTs where services have transferred, e.g. community and mental health services.

  In addition, following the changes resulting from shifting the balance of power, the North & East Yorkshire & Northern Lincolnshire Health Authority (HA) covers a much wider geographic area than the former North Yorkshire HA. Many of its functions have been devolved from the former regional office of the Department.

  EU Working Time Directive
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the implications of extending the Working Time Directive to junior doctors(a) for medical workforce planning and (b) on their training; and if he will make a statement. [77505]

  Mr. Hutton
  The impact of the European Working Time Directive (EWTD) has been taken into account with the planned expansion in the consultant workforce. The NHS Plan makes a commitment to 1,000 more specialist registrars by 2004. In addition, we have introduced a "floors and ceilings" flexibility to allow the National Health Service with an initial ceiling of an additional 540 posts for the period of 2002–2004 and this will reviewed later this year.

  Many solutions to achieve EWTD compliance for junior doctors will involve other professions. Large increases in the nursing workforce and allied health professions have already been achieved and there is a commitment to maintain these levels of growth. These increases in the non-medical workforce will support the development of the non-medical practitioner roles
  438W
  Lancashire organisations that have participated in the recruitment are Trafford General Hospital NHS Trust, Stockport NHS Trust and Trafford Acute NHS Trust. The Department does not have information on numbers currently working in NHS hospitals.

  NHS Running Costs
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total running costs of NHS organisations serving(a) the Vale of York constituency and (b) North Yorkshire were in 1997; and what the total is now. [77835]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  required. The main impact of these practitioners will be in reducing the need to cover at senior house officer level.

  It will be inevitable that the changes needed to achieve EWTD compliance will significantly affect the working patterns of doctors in training and also change the traditional one-to-one relationship between a training grade doctor and their consultant.

  The Department is currently undertaking a consultation exercise on the Chief Medical Officer's report Unfinished Business: Proposals for reform of the Senior House Officer grade. The report provides proposals for reform of postgraduate medical training, taking into account that proposed reform would be introduced at the same time as implementation of the EWTD. The report argues that the EWTD and training reform are mutually dependent—the EWTD will require reform in training, which in turn can support implementation of the Directive.

  A key proposal in Unfinished Business is that new and shorter higher specialist training programmes should be introduced which would lead to the award of an earlier certificate of completion of specialist training (CCST) for those satisfactorily completing training in the "generalist" elements of a specialty. This would have the effect increasing the flow of trained doctors.

  The Department will be working with the Deans and the Royal Colleges to ensure that NHS trusts are supported in delivering training with good advice on training models and as a first step the Conference of

  439W
  Postgraduate Medical Deans (COPMED) has produced a document Liberating Learning. This sets out approaches to providing training in the EWTD context.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions his Department has had with representatives of the British Medical Association concerning derogations for junior doctors from the Working Time Directive; and if he will make a statement. [77507]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health and the health departments of the devolved administrations have, on several occasions over the past year, held discussions with the British Medical Association junior doctors' committee about derogations for junior doctors from the European Working Time Directive (EWTD). Discussions came to a halt in July as the two sides did not reach a collective agreement on derogation. The Government intends to derogate for junior doctors from the EWTD by amending the 1998 Working Time Regulations.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many care home places are available in the London Borough of Hillingdon; what percentage change this represents on figures for each of the last three years; and what the forecast is for care home places for the coming year. [77959]

  Jacqui Smith
  The number of residential and nursing care home places in Hillingdon is shown in the table at 31 March for the years 1999 to 2001. Data for 2002 is not yet available.

  Forecasts of the number of care home places are not made.

  Number of Resident and Nursing Care Home Places in Hillingdom at 31 March, 1999 to 2001

  As at 31 March

  Residential

  Nursing

  Total

  Change Over Previous Year (%)

  1999

  820

  460

  1,270

  —

  2000

  960

  410

  1,360

  7%

  2001

  920

  490

  1,400

  3%

  Note:

  1. Residential data refer to Hillingdon Local Authority; nursing data refer to Hillingdon Health Authority.

  GP Recruitment
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to increase the number of GPs in the NHS. [77511]

  Mr. Hutton
  A range of recruitment and retention initiatives are currently in place or being developed to help increase the number of general practitioners (GPs), including: international recruitment, promoting improving working lives initiative in primary care, the delayed retirement scheme, more flexible employment arrangements through personal medical services, the recently announced extension to the flexible careers scheme to include GPs and the golden hello scheme which will shortly be extended to include qualified 440W
  doctors who are not currently working in National Health Service general practice who return to take up a NHS post.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make a statement on progress made in GP recruitment in the last 12 months. [77144]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 4 November 2002]: Between 30 September 2000 and 30 September 2001, the number of general practitioners (GPs), including unrestricted principals and equivalents, restricted principals, assistants, GP registrars, salaried doctors (para. 52 SFA), personal medical services others and GP retainers working in the National Health Service increased by 466. A spring census was carried out on 31 March 2002, which shows a further increase of 176.

  The government has introduced and is developing a significant number of initiatives to boost the recruitment and retention of GPs. These include golden hellos to new and returning GPs, delayed retirement payments, flexible career scheme, extension of the improving working lives initiative to primary care and international recruitment.

  Competition Commission
  Mr. Alien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the long-term implications of public spending of the recent judgment on Bettercare by the Competition Commission. [78416]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on 30 October 2002.

  Learning Difficulties
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many children in Surrey aged(a) 0 to five, (b) five to 11, (c) 11 to 16 and (d) 16 to 18 years have been diagnosed as having (i) severe learning difficulties and (ii) moderate learning difficulties at the latest date for which figures are available. [78370]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Fragile-X Syndrome
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children aged(a) 0 to five, (b) five to 11, (c) II to 16 and (d) 16 to 18 years have been diagnosed with fragile-X syndrome at the latest date for which figures are available. [78368]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not collected centrally. Studies have indicated that fragile-X syndrome has an incidence of about 1:4,500 in males and 1:8,000 in females.

  Community Equipment Services
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional resources have been allocated in this financial year for community equipment services; and how this has been allocated. [78572]
  441W
  Jacqui Smith
  In this financial year £28 million was allocated to health authorities to help them to meet the NHS Plan targets for community equipment services. That funding has now been distributed to primary care trusts. In addition, funding was allocated to local councils for the same purpose via the personal social services settlement. For both sets of organisations the funding was apportioned and distributed as part of their baseline funding allocations.

  Nurse Retention
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what determinants of job satisfaction are employed in assessing nurse retention policies. [78928]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Human Resources in the NHS Plan underpins all staff retention policies. It sets out how the National Health Service should become a model employer, that values its staff and improves their working life and how it should offer a model career that gives greater access to personal development underpinned by a fairer pay system. All of the measures contained in the Human Resources in the NHS Plan will help to improve the job satisfaction and morale of all of the staff employed in the NHS.

  Asthma Deaths
  Annette Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if his Department will ask primary care trusts to introduce enquiries into asthma deaths as a matter of course; [78624]

  (2) what plans his Department has to introduce confidential enquiries into asthma deaths as a means of research into prevention and cure of this condition. [78623]

  Jacqui Smith
  There are currently no plans to require primary care trusts to introduce enquiries into asthma deaths or to extend the range of confidential enquiries to include asthma deaths.

  Management of asthma mainly takes place in primary care. The chronic disease management programme, introduced in July 1993, provides arrangements for health promotion under the general medical services national contract for general practitioners. People with asthma will also benefit from the emerging expert patients programme which will—via the National Health Service—provide training in self-management skills for people with long term chronic conditions.

  The Medical Research Council, which is funded by the Department of Trade and Industry, funds medical research as part of the Government's funding of the research base. The Department of Health spend on directly commissioned research projects on asthma since 1997 is an estimated £7.24 million.

  The number of deaths from asthma is gradually declining. The Office of National Statistics report that the International Classification of Disease, ICD9 493 (Asthma) recorded for England and Wales that in 1998 there were 1366 deaths caused by asthma and by 2000 that had fallen to 1272 deaths.

  Barnet Hospital
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress on visiting times for accident and emergency services at Barnet Hospital. [78901]

  Mr. Hutton
  Improving patients experience of emergency care is essential. In light of this,Reforming Emergency Care was launched in October 2001, supported by a £118 million investment. It sets a long term programme of reform supported by extra investment and new capacity to address one of the public's key concerns about the National Health Service— waiting in accident and emergency (A&E).

  A&E waiting times at Barnet General Hospital have improved steadily through the year from an average of only 45 per cent. of patients being seen within four hours in the quarter ending 30 June 2002 to over 70 per cent. being seen within four hours during October 2002.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans there are to discontinue services provided at Barnet Hospital; and if he will make a statement. [78899]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are no plans to discontinue services provided at Barnet hospital.

  Quality Protects Programme
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress of the Quality Protects Programme. [78974]

  Jacqui Smith
  Quality Protects is the Government's five-year programme to ensure that children in need, including looked after children, receive the care, safety, security and chances in life that all children deserve. We are currently in the fourth year of the programme. It has been popular—with local government, with the voluntary sector and with children and young people themselves—and has led to new and improved services for children across the country.

  There is real evidence that it is beginning to improve children's lives. For example, since Quality Protects began we have seen:
  More corporate working across councils and greater understanding of councils' and councillors' role as "corporate parents";
  More partnership working with voluntary organisations;
  An increase in the proportion of children looked after placed for adoption-3,100 looked after children were adopted in England in the year to 31 March 2001, 12 per cent. more than in the previous year and 39 per cent. more than in 1998–99;
  Children in care experiencing fewer placements-16 per cent. of children now experience three or more placements in one year as opposed to 19 per cent. in 1997–98;
  A reduction in the number of re-registrations on the child protection register from 20 per cent. in 1997–98 to 14per cent. in 2000–2001;
  More support being given to care leavers;
  More councils listening to children and young people in their care;
  Improvements in the collecting and use of management information.
  443W
  We shall shortly be publishing an overview report of councils' fourth annual management action plans, which set out their progress in and future plans for implementing Quality Protects.

  Social Workers
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 21 October 2002,Official Report, column 128W, on social workers, if he will provide the provisional recruitment and departure figures referred to. [78832]

  Jacqui Smith
  The number of individual applicants for social work training was 4703 in 2001. The provisional figure for 2002 is 5093.

  The 2002 figure is adjusted to an estimated full year figure based on the very small number of additional applications made after October in 2001.

  We do not collect centrally figures on retirements.

  NHS Targets
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many NHS staff are armed services reservists; and what(a) assessment he has made of the impact of call up connected to the war on terrorism on NHS services and (b) adjustments will be made to current year targets in the NHS. [78713]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not hold information centrally on the number of National Health Service staff who are armed service reservists. The Department reviews constantly its readiness to deal with demand on NHS services of this nature. The Department does not plan to make any adjustments to current year targets in the NHS.

  Operations Costs
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost of an in-patient operation on(a) the NHS and (b) a private hospital was in the last 12 months. [78695]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the average cost of a wide range of treatments and procedures carried out in the National Health Service is included in the national schedule of reference costs. Reference costs for 2001–2002 were published on 1 November. They may be found at www.doh.gov.uk/nhsexec/refcosts.htm and a copy has been placed in the Library. The Department does not collect information on the average cost of operations carried out in private hospitals.

  Bed Occupancy
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average bed occupancy rate was at Eastbourne District General Hospital in each of the last 24 months. [78700]

  Ms Blears
  Figures on the average daily number of available and occupied beds for each National Health Service trust are published annually on the Department's website at http://www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity. Data is not available on a monthly basis.

  Asylum Seekers
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether local authorities will be given further provision to their social services budgets relating to asylum seekers' residential accommodation following the ruling on Westminster City Council v. National Asylum Support Service on 17th October. [78647]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Law Lords judgment on the Westminster City Council v. National Asylum Support Service appeal of 17 October 2002 upholds the decision of the Court of Appeal given on 10 April 2001. There are no plans to provide local councils with additional funding as a result of the judgement.

  Abuse of Parents
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the numbers of children who physically abuse their parent or parents. [78823]

  Jacqui Smith
  Data on the number of incidences of adults abuse is not collected centrally.

  Lifeline Equipment
  Candy Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1), what assessment has been made of the cost of free provision of lifelines through the NHS; [78994]

  (2) what financial assistance is available to older people for the purchase of lifelines through the NHS. [79050]

  Jacqui Smith
  Lifeline alarm systems are not normally purchased or provided by the National Health Service and no assessment has been made of the cost of doing so. "Lifelines" are 24-hour alarm services usually triggered by a call button in the room or worn around the neck. The equipment that supports them is frequently installed in residential or sheltered housing provided by local councils or registered social landlords. Depending on local eligibility criteria some landlords make a charge to residents to cover the ongoing cost of the equipment and specialist call centre.

  Care Homes Staff
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many applications for care homes staff have been(a) received and (b) processed by the National Care Standards Commission in each month since April. [79410]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Care Standards Commission exists to regulate and inspect social care and independent health care services. It has strong powers of enforcement to ensure that services meet the required standards. The Commission does not receive applications from care home staff.

  The processing by the Criminal Records Bureau of criminal records checks for staff in care homes is a matter for the Home Office.

  Dentists
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to assist refugees with dental qualifications to practise in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [79003]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are committed to enabling refugee dentists to access the training opportunities they need to succeed in the National Health Service. Over the last two years £1 million has been made available to various projects designed to help refugee health professionals, including dentists, prepare for work in the NHS, by providing English language and clinical skills training, along with guidance on gaining employment in the NHS.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1), how many people are waiting to sit each part of the international qualifying exams to practise dentistry in the UK; and if he will make a statement; [79002]

  (2) what measures he is taking to assist those with overseas dental qualifications who are not refugees qualify to practise dentistry in the United Kingdom. [79001]

  Mr. Hutton
  The General Dental Council (GDC) regulates dentistry in the United Kingdom and all practitioners must be registered with the Council.

  Dental qualifications obtained in the European Economic Area (EEA) that reach minimum training standards are mutually recognised throughout the EEA.

  The GDC recognises certain overseas dental qualifications as being eligible for registration. Dentists qualifying in Australia, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Malta— only up to 1978, New Zealand, Singapore and at most South African dental schools before 1 January 2001 are eligible for registration with the GDC. Dentists qualifying in other countries or in any other non-EEA country after 1 January 2001 are required to take the GDC international qualifying examination or Bachelor of Dental Surgery before becoming eligible for registration.

  Details of individuals waiting to sit each part of the IQE are as follows:

  Part A

  53 Candidates have been invited to sit exams in November 2002. There are currently 95 candidates on the waiting list and a capacity for 100 in March 2003.

  Part B

  45 candidates will sit exams in November and January 2003. This leaves 59 candidates on the waiting list and a capacity of 92 during the period March to July 2003.

  Part C

  77 Candidates will sit exams in November 2002, January and February 2003. This would leave 34 candidates on the waiting list and a capacity of 32 places in April-May 2003. Further examination dates are to be confirmed.

  Undergraduate Training
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the Government's policy is on the training of medical undergraduates in prescribing practices for antibiotics; and if he will make a statement. [79698]
  446W
  Mr. Hutton
  Individual university medical schools determine their own undergraduate medical curriculum in the light of recommendations from the General Medical Council's education committee, which has the statutory responsibility to determine the extent and knowledge and skill required for the granting of primary medical qualifications in the United Kingdom.

  The education committee's most recent recommendations on undergraduate medical education are contained in Tomorrow's Doctors which was published in July 2002. It states that graduates must know about and understand the effective and safe use of medicines as a basis for prescribing. This includes side effects, harmful interactions, antibiotic resistance and genetic indicators of the appropriateness of drugs.

  Microbiologists
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 22 October 2002,Official Report, column 259W, on microbiologists, what information his Department collates on the number of microbiologists working in the NHS. [78527]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 31 October 2002]: Healthcare scientists and doctors work as microbiologists within the National Health Service. The Department's workforce censuses collect detailed information to specialty level for the medical workforce but do not record the number of healthcare scientists working as microbiologists.

  As at September 2001 there were 570 doctors (400 consultants) working in the medical microbiology and virology specialty, increases of 60 and 40 respectively on the numbers employed in 1997. The information currently collected by the Department does not differentiate between microbiologists and virologists.

  The Department's vacancy survey collected information on the medical microbiology and virology specialty for the first time this year. Nationally as at 30 March 2002 there were ten consultant vacancies in this specialty.

  Ministerial Visits
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, when he next plans to visit a hospital in Europe. [73920]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 15 October 2002]: There are currently no plans for any Ministerial visits to any hospitals in Europe.

  Lancashire Air Ambulance Service
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what support he(a) gives and (b) intends to give the Lancashire Air Ambulance Service. [77893]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 30 October 2002]: The Lancashire Air Ambulance received £239,000 in 2002–2003 and will be provided with further support in the next financial year. Discussions for further funding is still to be finalised on the extent of the support required by air ambulance services nationally.

  Care of the Elderly
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many(a) reviews are being undertaken and (b) action plans are being developed to correct shortcomings reflected in the Better Care Higher Standards Charter, as set out on page 172 of the milestones of the National Service Framework for Older People; [78423]

  (2) what steps his Department has taken to ensure that the Better Care Higher Standards charter is working, as set out on page 172 of the milestones of the National Service Framework for Older People. [78422]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 31 October 2002]: We plan to carry out a review of the effectiveness of the charter by March 2003. This will include an analysis of local charters for 2002–03.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what estimates his Department has made of the change in the number of the elderly in England over the next 30 years; and how this will affect the requirement for residential and nursing care. [77149]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 4 November 2002]: The personal social services research unit (PSSRU) long-term care model was developed by the PSSRU at the London School of Economics as part of its research programme funded by the Department. This model projects that the total number of number of people aged 65 and over will increase by 60 per cent. between 2000 and 2031.

  In the recently published Improvement, Expansion and Reform: The next 3 years, we set the target of an increase of 6,000 in the number of people in care homes supported by councils over the three years to 2006. This is in acknowledgement of the increasing population of older people.

  Gosport War Memorial Hospital
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the investigation into the suspicious deaths at the Gosport War Memorial Hospital. [78426]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 31 October 2002]: Following publication of the Commission for Health Improvement report into the care of elderly patients at the hospital, the Chief Medical Officer commissioned Professor Richard Baker to undertake a clinical audit. As the hon. Member is aware there is also an ongoing police investigation. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further until the results of both investigations are clear.

  Health Authority Planning
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedures he is putting in place to ensure StHAs have designed their planning processes before the next financial year, as set out in paragraph 6.7 of the document Improvement, Expansion & Reform: The Next Three Years [78420]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 31 October 2002]: The document Improvement, Expansion and Reform sets out the vision for services over the next three years,
  448W
  describing how national commitments translate into targets for the National Health Service and social services. The process and timetable for developing plans at a local level were also contained in this document.

  The new planning process involves streamlining current arrangements into a planning system based on a single three year local delivery plan. This process will be reinforced by the announcement of three year financial allocations to primary care trusts, giving the NHS locally the ability to plan for the medium term more effectively than in the past.

  Child Obesity
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out his definition of obesity in children. [78429]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 31 October]: The simple classification of body mass index (BMI) for obesity in adults is not applicable to children. This is because the ratio of the rate of weight gain to height gain changes during normal growth, especially around puberty. Therefore, age and sex-specific reference data—centile cut-off points—are necessary to interpret the BMI measurement.

  There is on going debate as to the most appropriate cut-off point to define obesity in childhood. Two different approaches are commonly used and both demonstrate that the prevalence of obesity is increasing in children in England.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people, broken down by(a) age, (b) sex and (c) ethnicity were affected with Type II diabetes in each of the last three years. [78430]

  Jacqui Smith
  An estimated 1.3 million people in England have diagnosed diabetes, of whom around 85 per cent. have Type 2 diabetes. A break down in the form requested is not available. However, the frequency of diabetes is higher in men than in women. Prevalence rises steeply with age. Type 2 diabetes is up to six times more common in people of South Asian descent and up to three times more common in those of African and African-Caribbean descent, compared with the white population. It is also more common in people of Chinese descent and other non-white groups.

  Overseas Nurses
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 16 October 2002,Official Report, column 869W, on ethical foreign nurse recruitment, if he will estimate the number of nursing agencies in the UK that recruit nurses from overseas. [78528]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 31 October 2002]: The Department does not collect statistics on the number of nursing agencies in the United Kingdom recruiting from overseas. The information contained in the code of practice website is monitored and updated routinely.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what progress has been made in reducing the use of bank staff within the NHS. [59185]

  Mr. Hutton
  [pursuant to his reply, 12 June 2002, c. 1315 W]: I regret my previous answer contained a numerical error.

  The data on the overall the NHS workforce should read that it has "increased by 4.3 per cent. to 1,166,600.", and not, as my original answer suggested "1,1666,000".

  Hospital Admissions
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make a statement on the number of(a) admissions to hospital, (b) visits to a GP and (c) other interfaces with the National Health Service that were alcohol related and their combined cost in each of the last five years. [67020]

  Ms Blears
  [pursuant to her reply 12 July 2002, c. 1267 W]: I regret my previous answer was incorrect. This was a mathematical error.

  Number1 of asthma-related2 deaths in England and Wales by age group, 1997–2001

  number of deaths

  Age Group

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Calendar Year 20013

  00–04

  4

  3

  6

  2

  7

  05–09

  10

  9

  6

  7

  6

  10–14

  7

  12

  11

  13

  13

  15–19

  16

  9

  20

  13

  16

  20–24

  22

  10

  22

  23

  7

  25–29

  27

  13

  13

  17

  17

  30–34

  20

  21

  21

  26

  15

  35–39

  28

  31

  32

  19

  26

  40–44

  41

  37

  31

  46

  38

  45–49

  43

  41

  55

  58

  41

  50–54

  67

  73

  61

  78

  58

  55–59

  75

  112

  85

  73

  71

  60–64

  110

  82

  88

  84

  89

  65–69

  135

  146

  143

  103

  117

  70–74

  200

  166

  157

  164

  127

  75–79

  200

  194

  178

  185

  158

  80–84

  191

  179

  165

  146

  162

  85+

  243

  228

  270

  215

  300

  All ages

  1439

  1366

  1364

  1272

  1268

  Notes:

  1Figures are for deaths occurring in each calendar year.

  2Defined as deaths where the underlying cause of death was coded as asthma (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD9), code 493 for the years 1997 to 2000 and International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD10), codes J45–J46 for the year 2001).

  3Details of the effect of the change in classification in 2001 are described in a report published in May 2002.i

  iOffice for National Statistics. Results of the ICD-10 bridge coding study, England and Wales, 1999. Health Statistics Quarterly 14 (2002), 75–83.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics.
  450W
  In table 1, National Health Service hospital admissions where there was a primary diagnosis of selected alcohol related disease, the total figure for 1997–98 should read, 45,800.

  In table 2, Estimated cost of alcohol misuse to the NHS, England and Wales, 1999, the total cost to NHS should read, £208 million.

  Asthma-related Deaths
  Mrs. Annette L. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many asthma-related deaths there were in each of the last five years, broken down by age group. [78622]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mrs. Annette Brooke, dated 6 November 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question concerning how many asthma-related deaths there were in each of the last five years, broken down by age group. [78622]
  The figures requested are given in the table below:

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

National Care Standards Commission
Lord Peyton of Yeovilasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the way in which the National Care Standards Commission performs its duties is satisfactory.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I am satisfied with the performance of the National Care Standards Commission, and with its progress to date.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the noble Lord may find himself in a rather lonely position. Would he, generally speaking, encourage a situation where preference and priority are given to those within the National Health Service who might sometimes make people feel better as opposed to the host of others who will do no such thing? If people go around laying down the law, they should make clear their authority for doing so and that the rule is quite clear, is known, is relevant and is necessary. In the case I brought to the notice of the Minister, is he aware that a small operating theatre used for many years for minor surgery carried out with a local anaesthetic is suddenly upgraded and told it must adopt quite different standards and have two to three feet added to the size of the premises for no purpose at all at a cost of £60,000? Of course, the people who give such instructions do not care about the money.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord will be glad to know that I am not entirely isolated in my view as to the progress made by the National Care Standards Commission. I believe that many observers who have seen it in operation over the past few months believe that it is making a sound start. I agree with the noble Lord that those who are to be regulated should know under what law they are being regulated, that they should know, on the basis of the regulations and the national minimum standards, what is expected, and that the whole process should be transparent.
As regards the substantive issue, I have asked the National Care Standards Commission to look at the specific case raised by the noble Lord. Clearly, I cannot comment further. The National Care Standards Commission seeks to ensure that standards are of a high quality in order to ensure that the public interest is served. But I accept that it needs to adopt a
708
common-sense and proportionate approach to the inspection and regulation process. I do not disagree at all with the noble Lord about that.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, how does the Minister defend the Government's decision announced last Friday that various tasks in relation to care homes that were supposed to come under the aegis of the Criminal Records Bureau will be indefinitely suspended, including the listing of those who have harmed vulnerable adults? The decision has been announced because of the chaos at CRB. What action will the Government take to put matters right?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, some of the challenges facing the CRB have been well documented in this House. I do not think that I need to go over them again. The National Care Standards Commission has stated that staff may be appointed on the basis of a self-declaration concerning any criminal record subject to satisfactory completion of other relevant checks such as the POCA register. Staff must then be properly supervised and not work alone. It seems to me, in view of the CRB difficulties, that the commission has made the proportionate response for which the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, asked.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the National Care Standards Commission cannot do its job effectively because, as with so much else in the Department of Health, the Government get involved in the tiniest details such as what the inspector should do about the size of doors in care homes? Is there any possibility that we shall hear in the Queen's Speech next week that Her Majesty's Government will forswear micro-management?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness will surely know that I cannot possibly anticipate the Queen's Speech. Of course, we do not want to micro-manage the health service or the care system. That is why we introduced our policy of shifting the balance of power, why 75 per cent of the budget of the NHS will, from 2004, be spent by primary care trusts and why we are developing our ideas for the establishment of foundation trusts. Having set national standards for the NHS that the previous government never, ever set, we are in a position where we can decentralise the service much more than the previous administration ever did.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, are the Government doing anything to replace the number of care homes that are now being shut as they cannot meet the present standards?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we must be cautious as regards believing everything that is said in relation to cuts in the number of beds due to the standards being set by the commission. The net loss of care homes over the past four years is 19,000, not the much larger figures often mentioned. The average national occupancy rate is around 91 per cent. I do not

709
ignore the fact that there are problems within the care home sector. That is why we have encouraged local authorities to review the fee structure. I hope that over the next few years as more resources go into personal social services that will lead to secure and stable relationships between local authorities and the care home sector. I also make the point that the whole purpose of setting up the commission was to ensure high standards for the public.

Private Finance Initiative
2.37 p.m.
Lord McCarthyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What proportion of private finance initiative deals completed since 1997 have been:

(i)examined by the National Audit Office;

(ii)found to provide equal or better value for money than their appropriate public sector comparator.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, from April 1997 until July 2002, some 412 private finance initiative (PFI) contracts have been signed. These are listed on the Office of Government Commerce website. These statistics are updated periodically. The next update will follow publication of the official PFI statistics which are reported to Parliament twice each year.
I understand that the National Audit Office has issued some 24 reports on the PFI and these are listed on the NAO website and can be found in the Library of the House. Government policy is that all PFI deals are assessed against the public sector comparator where one is required as part of the assessment of their value for money. Projects will proceed only if individual accounting officers are content that they provide equal or better value for money than the alternative methods of procurement.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I am bound to press that Answer a little. The Minister said that 412 private finance initiative contracts have been signed and that 24 were checked up on. That is less than 5 per cent. What about all the others? How are we to know when they are examined—if they are examined—whether they will constitute better value than the traditional way of financing these projects? How will the others be examined? The Minister said that these projects proceed only when they pass the better value test. However, the reports of the National Audit Office do not say that. Will the Government produce rather more sophisticated long-term evaluations of the PFI?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I said that there were 24 National Audit Office reports. Some of those reports cover much more than one private finance initiative. One of them, for example, is a survey of 120 of them. A figure of rather more than 5 per cent is involved.
710
The NAO does not report to the Government. Its value for money studies certainly include the public sector comparator as a test. However, it says,
"non-financial factors, such as the contractual incentives…to deliver on time and budget",
are also of importance. I am afraid that the situation is not as simple as my noble friend Lord McCarthy would like to think.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, the Government said that their treatment of those items in the national accounts conforms with all accounting rules. Is the Minister aware that the executives at Enron said much the same? They had cleverly used the rules to hide the true extent of their liabilities. Are not the Government doing exactly the same to understate their liabilities by £100 billion?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government had no incentive whatever to try to take items off any balance sheet, and we do not. The criterion for PFI projects is value for money. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, is aware of the joint statement of 24th October from the NAO and the Office for National Statistics. They said that these,
"are not … alternative ways of looking at the same issue",
but,
"fundamentally different activities undertaken for distinct purposes and using different criteria".
That is why there is no question of any concealment.
Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, in terms of value for money, major concern is now being expressed about the PPP for London Underground? Some £400 million has been spent on consultants. Will the Minister take this opportunity to dissociate himself from the London Underground official who was quoted earlier this week as saying that this extraordinary sum is a mere drop in the ocean?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we do not recognise the £400 million figure that has, I agree, been widely quoted. We suspect that any such calculation is likely to include the cost of London Underground staff and advisers who would have to be employed irrespective of which programme for the regeneration of London Underground is undertaken.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, the Minister said that the criterion was value for money. Is not the implication of that statement that in all of these cases, public money is available as an alternative to funds raised through the private sector? Will he clarify—this point has become increasingly important in view of the straitened situation that will face the Government—how many projects would not have gone ahead unless they had been conducted under a private finance initiative?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are two responses to that. First, we must make it clear that PFIs are not being undertaken, as they were under the previous government, as an alternative to public

711
investment. Public investment in all of these activities has increased under this Government; it is continuing to increase and is planned to increase. Those are not alternatives. Secondly, I do not know whether it is appropriate to say that public finance is "available", as the noble Lord, Lord King, suggested. However, we are not in any danger of breaching either European rules—because, as is known, our debt has decreased from 44 per cent of GDP to 30 per cent of GDP since we came into office—or our own rules, in relation to which we now take proper account of investment and amortise it over the life of the asset.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, will my noble friend consider organising a short seminar for the House so that we can understand the difference between PPPs and PFIs, which might in turn help to raise awareness throughout the House?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I have been accused of being incomprehensible—
Noble Lords: Never!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, by my noble friend Lord Barnett, no less. It is certainly true that a great deal of questioning on these matters is ill founded.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, if the £400 million figure is disputed by the Minister, will he tell us precisely what the figure should be?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is no precise figure. This is an ongoing process. You can make up figures as you wish.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I said, "You can"; I did not say, "We can".
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I was pleased to hear that the Government have no interest in concealment. That is news to those on these Benches. I shall not ask the Minister to agree that the next Pre-Budget Report will show rapidly rising levels of public debt, because I know that even if he agreed with me, he would find a clever way of not doing so. I ask him to commit in that Pre-Budget Report to giving a comprehensive statement of the Government's liabilities, including those under PFI, whether or not they have persuaded the ONS to score them off the Government's balance sheet.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know whether the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, framed her question was a clever way of
712
avoiding quite accusing me of concealment. I suspect that it was. I shall not anticipate the Pre-Budget Report in any way.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if the Minister sets up—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn):My Lords, we are already in the 16th minute.

Zimbabwe
2.46 p.m.
Lord Astor of Heverasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to allegations of political manipulation of food aid in Zimbabwe.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, it is a fundamental principle of all humanitarian assistance and agencies working in Zimbabwe that humanitarian aid is targeted on the basis of need alone. We deplore the blatant use of food for political gain in the recent Insiza by-election and the obstruction of the work of some non-governmental organisations, which appears to be politically motivated. Aid has been suspended where there have been credible reports of abuse.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that there is no shortage of food aid to Zimbabwe? Tonnes of grain lie rotting at the Breitbridge border post and in Durban because of the monopoly of the grain marketing board. Is she further aware that that board is headed by Air Marshal Shiri, who was responsible for the massacre of thousands of Matabele 20 years ago and is now systematically starving people and then supplying food in order to manipulate the electorate and enable Mugabe to cling to power?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever. There is food aid that could be got to many starving people in Zimbabwe. A frightening statistic is that by the end of this year we believe that 7 million people—that is, half of the population of Zimbabwe—will be in need of food assistance. The monopoly of the grain marketing board means that DfID does not have control over distribution through the marketing board. Where we do have control—that is, through the World Food Programme and NGOs—we monitor the situation very carefully. Where abuse is evident, we stop the aid.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is now overwhelming evidence in Zimbabwe of partisan distribution of food aid and that the ZANU-PF militia is using starvation as a political tool? Is she also aware of growing concerns in Matabeleland of another wave of genocide?
Baroness Crawley: Yes, my Lords, we are very much aware of the point raised by the noble Lord today and

713
in our debate last Friday. He makes the point well and does so rightly. As he knows, ZANU-PF seized 3 tonnes of grain from the World Food Programme, as a result of which the WFP had to suspend distribution. We are aware of what is going on. Where we have control and are in touch, as donors, with NGOs and through our relationship with the World Food Programme, we do everything we can to ensure that the poor people of Zimbabwe are looked after.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, at times of such famine and such distress, it is usually the women and children who suffer disproportionately? Can my noble friend tell the House whether any specific actions have been taken in order to ease their burden?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. I believe that the whole House will agree that DfID's record in Zimbabwe has been very strong. A year ago, when it saw the humanitarian crisis that was developing, DfID put into place a £2 million supplementary feeding programme which meets the needs of some of the children, pregnant women and nursing mothers so that at least they have a meal a day.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, is the Minister aware of reports of Hutus from the Democratic Republic of Congo being trained in Zimbabwe in what one might call "advanced military techniques"? Secondly, given that the Minister has pointed out that DfID's major weapon is to refuse food aid where there is evidence of clear political manoeuvring in its distribution, is there any possibility that, by approaching NePAD or the other southern African countries Mozambique, Angola, South Africa and so on—we can get an African group to beg the Government of Zimbabwe to allow the food to be properly distributed?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, because of her great experience in this area the noble Baroness will know that the agenda of the SADC/EU meeting, which my noble friend Lady Amos is attending at the moment, includes not only political issues in Zimbabwe but also the question of how we shall overcome the impending humanitarian crisis in the whole of southern Africa. That is very much part of the SADC/EU agenda.
Lord Judd: My Lords, My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us who were closely identified with the Zimbabwean struggle for liberation when it was based in Mozambique feel nothing but dismay at the way some people have shanghaied power for their own interests and are indulging in corruption and allowing themselves to be led by greed at the expense of the people as a whole? Does she accept that strong support exists for the Government in their determination to see that, whatever is done in response to the awful things that are happening in Zimbabwe, the ordinary, innocent people will not suffer? Does she also accept
714
the need for maximum co-operation in the strategy between government and humanitarian, nongovernmental organisations, which have a very special role to play?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The whole strategy of the Government has been to isolate the corrupt regime but to support as much as possible the people of Zimbabwe.
Lord Blaker: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we have another important Question and we are in the 23rd minute.

Paul Burrell Prosecution
2.53 p.m.
Lord Goodhartasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will review the circumstances surrounding the prosecution of Paul Burrell and report to Parliament.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): My Lords, a full statement was made by the prosecution in court last Friday and the facts of the case are already known. I have placed a copy of that statement in the Libraries of both Houses. The Crown Prosecution Service will be considering carefully the lessons of what has happened. But, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has stated, there is no need for an inquiry. It is important to recognise that this was a unique set of circumstances.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will be well aware that this case has aroused great public concern. Does he not feel that the best way to allay that concern would be to conduct as soon as possible a full and speedy investigation of the facts surrounding the case and to publish a report? Does he agree that many questions are not answered by the statement made by the prosecution and that they need to be answered? They include: when and by whom was the decision to prosecute made; was that decision kept under regular review once it had been taken; were the DPP or the Attorney-General involved in the review process and, if so, when; did the prosecution at any stage try to claim public interest immunity and, if so, for what material; and was the Crown Prosecution Service put under undue pressure by the police to proceed with the prosecution?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked a large number of questions. I shall deal with those which are most important. First, he asked whether the case was kept under review. The answer is: absolutely. Leading counsel was instructed and in this case, as in any other, the prospects of success were kept under review by counsel and by the CPS. The noble Lord asked about the PII issue. There was never any question in my mind of withholding disclosure of the

715
information and yet continuing with the prosecution, and no attempt was made to do so. No Minister was asked to give a PII certificate or to sign one; a draft certificate was not ever prepared; and nor was any consideration given by anyone to preparing such a certificate to place before the judge. That is not an issue. The judge agreed to postpone the disclosure of information until further inquiries had been carried out and a. fuller picture obtained so as to enable properly informed decisions to be made, in particular, as to the future conduct of the trial.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, why did not the police ask the Queen about the detail of the conversation with Burrell? Was my noble and learned friend consulted by the DPP prior to the decision to pull the case?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, in my belief, neither the prosecution nor the police are to be criticised in any way for not approaching Her Majesty. The fact is that, in a detailed 39-page statement served by Mr Burrell on the police as a response to their questions, no mention was made of any meeting with Her Majesty. Earlier this year, he served a defence case statement, which is supposed to set out his general defence to identify what further things the prosecution should disclose. He gave an account of a meeting but did not indicate that he had told Her Majesty about this matter. So far as concerns my role, I was not asked to advise. I did not give a view as to whether the case should continue. I was kept informed, as I am in relation to high-profile cases, by a brief report provided to me on a monthly basis.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, as the other Lord Carlisle, QC, in this House, perhaps I may thank my namesake for the most welcome and substantial publicity that he has achieved for us both. But, on a serious note, perhaps I may put to the Attorney-General that the simple answer to the theories of conspiracy in this case is for him to accept, as I believe he does, and to state that this was merely a classic example of a case which, under full exposure of cross-examination in the Crown Court, collapsed, and collapsed to the extent that the prosecution felt it improper to continue.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his new, second, career. I agree with what he said. This was an entirely proper way to proceed. The information having come to light, even though Mr Burrell had not mentioned it himself, it was proper for the prosecution to consider it, take it into account and take the decision as independent prosecutors. Leading counsel did so and it would not be proper to continue with the case.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, if there was no application for public interest immunity under the accepted procedure, what was the prosecutor doing locked together with the judge for a period of time?
716
Under what law, rule or practice was that permissible? What were they discussing? Was it social arrangements?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the prosecutor believed that it was right, and so did the judge because she agreed with it, to postpone disclosure in the public interest while further inquiries and a decision were being made as to the future conduct of the action. I believe it is right to describe that technically as a public interest immunity application. I do not believe that it is what most of us would think of as a public interest immunity application—that is, an attempt to keep back the evidence but continue with the trial. As I said, there was no question in my mind of keeping back that information and continuing with the trial.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will my noble friend say what precedents there are for the defence counsel not to have been included in the discussion that took place in this case?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, there are many precedents for that. The judge was satisfied that what was ta king place was proper. One such occasion is the making of a public interest immunity application.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General explain to the House whether there was ever any hard evidence that Mr Burrell had sold or intended to sell or dispose of for gain any of the items in question? If not, why was the prosecution brought?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, clearly evidence of sale is not necessary in theft cases. Independent lawyers and independent leading counsel considered that there was proper evidence to proceed without evidence that property was ever sold. The principal plank of the case was that Mr Burrell had retained property for four years without apparently telling anyone that he had done so.

Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Whitty will repeat a Statement being made in the other place on the response to foot and mouth inquiry reports.

Standing Orders (Public Business)
3.1 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Amendments to Standing Order 40 are intended to give effect to our decision on 24th July to meet on Thursdays at 11 a.m. and to take Starred Questions at 3 p.m. Most of the other amendments were proposed by the Procedure Committee in the third and fifth reports. The amendment to Standing Order 47

717
implements the recommendation that Peers in charge of Bills should move a Motion after Second Reading to determine the type of Committee to which the Bill will be referred. The others are drafting amendments to bring Standing Orders up to date. Your Lordships will be pleased to hear that a new edition of Standing Orders, incorporating those amendments, should they be approved, will be published for the start of the new Session.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to public business be amended as follows:
Standing Order 37 (Short and time-limited debates)
In paragraphs (1) and (2), leave out "Short Debate" and insert "balloted debate".
Standing Order 40 (Arrangement of the Order Paper)
In paragraph (1), at end insert ", except on Thursdays, when business other than Unstarred Questions may be entered before Starred Questions".
In paragraph (3), at beginning insert "Subject to paragraph (1),".
In paragraph (3), leave out "except Starred Questions".
In paragraph (6) leave out "on a draft order laid under section 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 or".
In paragraph (7), leave out ", (5) and (6)" and insert "to (6A)".
Standing Order 47 (Commitment of bills)
Leave out paragraph (1) and insert—
"(1) After second reading, Bills are committed to a committee on a motion in the name of the Lord in charge of the Bill (except that in case of a Bill of Supply or a Bill certified by the Speaker as a Money Bill the House may order that the Bill be not committed.)"
Standing Order 51 (Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills)
In paragraph (6), leave out "Northern Ireland Act 1974" and insert "Northern Ireland Act 2000".
Standing Order 64 (Sessional Committees)
Leave out "Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee" and insert
"Constitution Committee
Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee
Economic Affairs Committee"
Leave out "European Communities Committee" and insert "European Union Committee".
Standing Order 72 (Affirmative Instruments)
For Standing Order 72(1) substitute:
"72.—(1) No Motion for a resolution of the House to approve an Affirmative Instrument shall be moved until:
(a) except in the case of any Order in Council or draft Order in Council made or proposed to be made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern
718
Ireland Act 2000, or a draft remedial order or remedial order laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998, or a draft order proposed to be made under section 1 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, or any subordinate provisions order made or proposed to be made under that Act, there has been laid before the House the report thereon of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments;
(b) in the case of a draft order proposed to be made under section 1 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, there has been laid before the House the report thereon of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee; and
(c) in the case of a draft remedial order or remedial order laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998, there has been laid before the House the report thereon of the Joint Committee on Human Rights:
Provided that the report is laid

(i)in the case of a draft remedial order, within 60 days of the laying of the draft order or

(ii)in the case of an order not approved in draft, within 119 days of making the order,

such periods to be calculated in the manner prescribed by Schedule 2 to the Act; and
(d) in the case of a Hybrid Instrument, the proceedings under Private Business Standing Order 216 or 216A have been terminated."
Standing Order 73 (Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments)
In paragraph (1) leave out "Northern Ireland Act 1974" and insert "Northern Ireland Act 2000".
In paragraph (1) leave out "and any draft order proposed to be made under section 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994".
In paragraph (1) after "Human Rights Act 1998" insert "and any draft order proposed to be made under section 1 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, or any subordinate provisions order made or proposed to be made under that Act".—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them with the amendment to Standing Order 51, and that the Standing Orders relating to Public Business be printed as amended. (HL Paper 189)

Commonwealth Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Employment (Northern Ireland) Order 2002
3.2 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostynrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th October be approved.

719
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships will have seen, there are three orders relating to Northern Ireland. It may be convenient if I deal with the first distinctly and with the second and third together.
The Employment (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 contains a series of measures designed to give employees rights in terms of their employment. It includes the right to two weeks' paid paternity leave, either when the child is born or around the time when a child is placed for adoption; a new right to 26 weeks' paid and 26 weeks' unpaid adoption leave; amendments to existing rights during (and after) maternity leave; and a duty on employers to give serious consideration to requests from parents of young children to work flexible hours.
Extensive public consultation has taken place and there has been widespread public support. In another form, this measure was about to enter the penultimate stage of its passage through the Assembly. Before suspension the Northern Ireland Assembly voted on 7th October to approve all of its provisions. This order simply gives rights to those who are employed in Northern Ireland, and they are the same as those available in England and Wales.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th October be approved.(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for bringing forward this order. It is sad that it has to be brought to this House and that it has not been dealt with in the way intended previously. I support the order.
Lord Laird: My Lords, on behalf of my Ulster Unionist colleagues, I am happy to give a broad welcome to the order before us today. As a Unionist, my reaction tends to be supportive when legislation from Great Britain is extended to Northern Ireland. However, my inclination is generally even more positive when the legislation appears to be beneficial to people in the Province.
As noble Lords may he aware, the Employment (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 is almost identical to the Employment Bill which was being debated by the Northern Ireland Assembly prior to its unfortunate suspension. That Bill was considered by the Assembly Employment and Learning Committee that subsequently published a report on its findings. The committee's views were generally welcoming, particularly in light of the Bill's provisions on the extension of maternity leave, new rights on adoption and paternity leave and pay, and an obligation on employers to consider seriously requests from parents of young children to work flexible hours.
However, there were also some reservations about the Bill and. having been in touch with Dr Esmond Birnie, the Ulster Unionist chairman of the committee, I know that many of those reservations continue to exist now that the legislation is in the form of an order: for example" there is a concern with regard to the
720
widening of eligibility under the terms of the order, which is a worry that I share. There seems to me to be little point in bringing forward positive legislation such as that before your Lordships this afternoon unless we can ensure that as many people as possible are enabled to benefit from it.
One suggestion put forward by some committee members in an effort to improve the situation was that the word "worker" should replace the word "employee" in the legislation. It was argued that this amendment could well have made an additional 5 per cent more people become eligible for the benefits. However, I see that that advice has been ignored in the order and I would be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could tell me the reasoning for that.
The committee also expressed concerns about the extension of the right to request flexible working to those with other caring responsibilities, such as elderly parents, as well as the removal of the age barrier of six years, above which working parents of children would not be permitted to request flexible working hours from their employers. Similarly, committee members also came to the view that the right to request flexible working by parents of disabled children should not be limited by the age restriction of 18.
On a final point, the Employment Bill was expected to come into operation in February 2003. However, there were concerns raised that a "gap period" potentially existed whereby mothers who are expected to give birth from the week beginning 6 April 2003 could actually give birth as soon as late-November 2002. In cases such as those, when a birth expected after 6 April 2003 occurs prior to the regulations coming into operation, the parents would be excluded from the statutory entitlements included in the legislation.
Having read the order before us today, I see that its provisions will come into operation on such day or days as the Government may by order appoint. Is the Minister yet in a position to indicate when that might be?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am not in a position to deal with that last point. As soon as I am I shall write, as I hope I always do, to the noble Lord, placing a copy in the Library.
On his point about premature birth, that would obtain in most circumstances of employee protection. On the phraseology in the order, my understanding is that it mirrors the legislation that obtains in the rest of the United Kingdom and it certainly continues the phraseology that has been used, as far as I am aware, in the pre-existing legislation.
I am able to give the noble Lord more up-to-date information. We intend to make the necessary regulations as soon as possible after the Employment (Northern Ireland) Order receives Royal Assent. I believe that is a more satisfactory answer than the one I was able to give a moment ago.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Suspension of Devolved Government) Order 2002
3.9 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostynrose to move, That the order laid before the House on 15th October be approved [38th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move the second order standing in my name on the Order Paper. As I indicated a moment or two ago, there are two orders, which, for the convenience of the House, should be taken together.
The first order is the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Suspension of Devolved Government) Order. Your Lordships will be aware that when I repeated Dr Reid's Statement we had a certain amount of discussion about the events that led to the suspension, and indeed the decision to suspend, the Assembly in Northern Ireland.
It was of course a matter of regret to all of us because the devolved institutions were making a significant difference to life in Northern Ireland. As I indicated, I think on 15th October, we concluded ultimately that suspension was the least bad alternative.
One of the significant problems, which your Lordships identified on the last occasion when we discussed this question, is a lack of trust on all sides of the community. There were concerns as to whether there was a proper commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic methods.
I want to reiterate that this is not a suspension of the agreement, simply a suspension of the Assembly. We felt obliged to suspend the devolved institutions, the Assembly and the Executive. We shall continue, as a government, to do our very best to implement the rest of the agreement. Plainly, we have to ensure that good government is available to those of our fellow citizens who live in Northern Ireland. Your Lordships know that two further members have been attached for the time being to the Northern Ireland Office ministerial team—my honourable friends Angela Smith and Ian Pearson. The Minister of State and the present Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State have taken on new responsibilities. There is a good deal of work to be done. The new Secretary of State, my right honourable friend Mr Murphy, is meeting the Irish Government today.
The order almost speaks for itself. It is dictated by the terms of the Northern Ireland Act 2000. This means that the Assembly has lost its law-making powers, as we saw a moment or two ago; neither it nor its committees may meet; and Ministers in the devolved administration cease to hold office, although on restoration of devolved government they may resume them. Executive powers generally will be exercised by the Northern Ireland departments, subject to the direction and control of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. There is a power to legislate by Order in Council, as your Lordships noticed a few moments ago.
722
These arrangements will be familiar to those of your Lordships who know Northern Ireland well. They do not significantly differ from the powers of direct rule that, regrettably, existed from 1974 to 1999.
There was a substantial legislative programme before the Assembly. Some of the legislation it was considering was quite urgent. We shall bring forward some Orders in Council reflecting such Assembly Bills.
During the earlier period of direct rule, it was frequently the practice to supplement the scrutiny given to draft Orders in Council by making them available, in advance of their being laid here, for public consultation. We propose, in so far as we possibly can, to continue that practice, which I hope your Lordships will agree is a sound and proper one. We shall aim to look to 12 weeks' consultation, which I hope your Lordships will agree is a reasonable period. There will need, as before, to be exceptions, such as technical financial orders and social security parity measures. There may be occasions of urgency, where such consultation will not be practical.
I know that your Lordships are anxiously concerned about these matters. I have trespassed a little on your Lordships' time to explain the background.
The next item is the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) Order 2002. This is much more technical. It provides that during suspension of the devolved Assembly expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in exercising the functions of the Assembly Commission and in relation to members' remuneration and pensions is to be defrayed from the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland rather than from moneys provided by Parliament.
Under devolution, the Assembly Commission is funded from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. In a period of suspension the Northern Ireland Act 2000 provides that it should be funded by moneys provided by Parliament. That has the legal consequence of requiring such funds to come from the United Kingdom Consolidated Fund. During the period of suspension in 2000, it was found that the accounting arrangements which had to be put in place between the NIO and the Assembly to abide by that requirement were, first, administratively cumbersome and, secondly, wasteful of resource. Therefore, for this period of suspension, to simplify matters and to introduce this purely technical adjustment, your Lordship's assent is asked for.
I stress that no one loses from this. It simply means that Northern Ireland public expenditure remains exactly as it was. I hope that those explanations are helpful. I commend these orders to the House.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 15th October be approved [38th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
3.15 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for setting out the terms of these orders before us today, in

723
particular the second one, with which I have no argument. Indeed, I have little argument with what he said about the first one either.
Since devolution was established in 1999, this is sadly the fourth occasion on which we have had suspension. It takes away, once again, from the people of Northern Ireland their Executive, their Assembly and all the institutions that flow from the Belfast agreement.
This is deeply regrettable because I believe that, notwithstanding the interruptions that have taken place, the events of the past three years have once again underlined the benefits of devolved government for the people of Northern Ireland. It is without doubt—as I have said before in this place—a far better alternative than direct rule from Westminster.
The people of Northern Ireland deserve an administration formed by local politicians and directly accountable to local politicians for the decisions they make. So devolution on a widely inclusive basis should remain our objective.
However, I should put on record that we, the Official Opposition, would not have started from here—as a Tipperary man once said. Faced with the circumstances that have led to his order, we would have preferred the Government to have delivered on their promise on 24th July and tabled an exclusion Motion before the Northern Ireland Assembly. Had that failed, they should not have hesitated to take the power here at Westminster to exclude any party in breach of its obligations from the Executive. That would have ensured that the guilty were punished. Instead, the Government took the decision to suspend and punished the innocent along with the guilty.
Of course having gone down that route, we shall support the Government's efforts to find a way through the current impasse provided that their approach is balanced. In that context, I welcome the new Secretary of State, Mr Paul Murphy, to his post and wish him the very best. We cannot afford a repetition of the policy of one-sided concessions to republicanism that has characterised the Government's approach since the agreement was made four-and-a-half years ago.
The key ingredient in all of this, and the ingredient that is in such short supply—as Mr Trimble has said on many occasions—is trust. The reasons for that are all too apparent and lie in the consistent refusal of republicans to fulfil their obligations under the agreement.
Most of us in your Lordships' House are all too aware of the charge sheet that has built up against republicans over the past year. However, none of these activities is compatible with the part of the Belfast agreement that calls for a commitment to,
"exclusively democratic and peaceful means".
In fact, they are totally at odds with the definition of the ceasefire set out by the Prime Minister during the referendum campaign in May 1998.
These breaches come on top of other aspects of the process—for example, the Patten report, which, as Mr Trimble said in the other place, does not itself comply
724
with the agreement, and the one-sided concessions to republicans—that have done so much to undermine mainstream, moderate unionist confidence in the agreement and the process. In short, people in Northern Ireland are acutely aware that. in implementing the agreement, the Government have been anything but even-handed. It is worth noting that when people say that the concessions are all one way, they are not necessarily always thinking of the agreement; many of them do not know the details of the agreement anyway. The resulting lack of trust between all parties to the agreement and the crisis that came to a head last month meant that the institutions were unsustainable.
I am the first to admit that a great deal of the violence of recent months has been caused by so-called loyalists. I condemn loyalist violence unequivocally and without reservation. It must be tackled with the full force of the law and its perpetrators put behind bars, where they belong. Your Lordships will be aware that this is not the first time I have said this from the Dispatch Box. Yet, unlike the republicans, none of the loyalist groups is attached to a political party that has been—or is likely to be—represented in the Northern Ireland Executive. Sinn Fein, on the other hand, had, until suspension, two Ministers in the Executive while remaining inextricably linked to an armed, active and fully capable terrorist organisation—PIRA. That is a crucial distinction.
The focus of our comments is fixed on republican transgressions of the agreement because it is republicans who have created the crisis in the institutions and in the political process in Northern Ireland. It is with republicans that the primary responsibility lies for getting the process back on track and creating the circumstances in which devolution can be restored.
One thing is certain: there can be no more fudges or taking republicans on trust. That has now happened three times, and three times that trust has been abused by the republican movement. Republicans cannot go on riding two horses. It is no good Martin McGuinness saying one day that his personal war is over, and, the following day, the IRA breaking off contact with General de Chastelain. Such behaviour simply does not wash. They must commit themselves unequivocally to exclusively democratic politics. That means IRA disbandment and IRA decommissioning, which, this time, must be done in a manner designed, in the IRA's words of 6th May, 2000, to "ensure maximum public confidence". It means that, for the republican movement—Sinn Fein and the IRA—the war must be over. It is worth noting that that has been clearly spelt out by all the pro-agreement parties in Northern Ireland, by the Dublin Government. by the Government of the United States of America and by the British Government. All concerned believe it to be the way, except for Sinn Fein, which is notably silent on the matter.
We enter another period of direct rule. The people of Northern Ireland today have no confidence in the ability of Her Majesty's Government to solve the crisis. The Government appear to have no clear plan

725
or strategy for returning the Province to devolved administration. The Government must quickly regain the confidence of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland in the peace process if they are to succeed in their task and hold elections to Stormont on the due date. Primary responsibility for the impasse rests with republicans. But a great deal hangs on the Government too. Crucially, they must end the misguided and counter-productive policy of endless one-sided concessions to republicans, including the further reforms to policing that the Government plan to propose this autumn. Those reforms would allow convicted terrorists to sit as independent members of district policing partnerships. Ulster needs a police force that is capable of putting the terrorists on the run; not a police service that the terrorists themselves run.
We need real leadership from the Government, not just some strong words from the Prime Minister. We need to see determination to act—at long last—if republicans do not fulfil their obligations. That is how the Prime Minister's recent speech in Belfast will be judged: not by what he said, but by what he does. In their discussions with the parties, the Government must negotiate an overall package that deals with each of the outstanding elements of the agreement that still require implementation. It means that all parties must be aware of their obligations and what they must deliver, and it means clear sanctions and penalties for breaches and non-compliance.
As the fact of the order confirms, the process is in deep trouble. However, as my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition made clear in Londonderry three weeks ago—I was there, with other noble Lords—we also have an opportunity to get it right. Crucially, if we are to stem the flow of confidence away from the agreement, we must return to the principles that the people of Northern Ireland voted for in the referendum of May 1998. Above all, violence and the cancer of paramilitarism throughout Northern Ireland must end. Otherwise, I fear, we will find that we are back here in six months' time to renew the order and that, once again, the temporary expedient of direct rule will assume a permanence that nobody—not least the people of Northern Ireland or myself—wants. I support the order.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, when last we discussed the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly on 15th October, I predicted that it was likely to last for a long period. Nothing that has happened in the past three weeks inclines me to alter that forecast. The interim has, it is true, offered some signs for optimism. The Prime Minister's speech went down reasonably well in the circumstances, and Mr Gerry Adams's responses to it have been relatively measured. Against those two reasons for mild optimism, there have been several setbacks to progress. The IRA formally severed links with General de Chastelain; loyalist paramilitary thugs continue with the most appalling punishment attacks, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, observed; and the
726
dissension within Official Unionism has delivered some rebuffs to its leader, Mr David Trimble. Of those bad omens, the most depressing, in a way, is the last. It reveals that the attitude of the Ulster Unionist Party is hardening and is likely to be more negative.
On 15th October, I remarked that, if progress towards the restoration of the Assembly were not made and elections to it were postponed beyond May, the Assembly would probably not be restored in the foreseeable future. In that event, I said, a London-Dublin condominium would provide the de facto government of Northern Ireland and, increasingly, the de jure government. The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, misunderstood my words and said that I was calling for a condominium: I certainly was not. I said that, if the negotiations failed, such a condominium would be the inevitable result. I also said that the elections scheduled for May should be held whatever the state of the negotiations. The people's voice should be the final arbitrator, if all else fails. If that means that the outcome is that the DUP and Sinn Fein become the two main parties in the Assembly, so be it.
The Minister stated on 15th October that the May elections stood. I am worried by the use of the verb "to stand" in that context; it is a rather weak one. As some of your Lordships may have experienced, someone can be standing one day and legless the next. The Liberal Democrats are firmly committed to elections in May, if not before. Can the Minister give an undertaking that they will take place, come what may?
Finally, I return to the issue of how much longer the Government will agree to the continuation of salaries and other perquisites of Members of the Assembly, which is of relevance to the modification Order before the House. When I suggested stopping payment for the duration of the suspension, I was upbraided by the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, who said that the dedication of all politicians in Northern Ireland was such that they could not be bought. I agree with that: I was not seeking to buy them in any way. On the contrary, I am sure that they would not want to be paid while the Assembly is suspended. When will the Government announce a date for considering salary payments? It should be before Parliament rises for Christmas.
Reluctantly, we accept the need for the orders, and we support their passage.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, the orders before us today have been brought forward as a direct result of the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly. This should be—and no doubt is—a matter of regret to us all. However, that suspension need not have happened.
Last week we learnt from Mr Mark Durkan, the leader of the SDLP and former Deputy First Minister, that the Prime Minister had told him there were grounds to exclude Sinn Fein from the Northern Ireland Executive, thus avoiding any need for suspension. Indeed, in an interview with BBC Radio

727
Ulster's "Inside Politics" programme, Mr Durkan claimed that Mr Blair also tried and failed to persuade him to support a motion in the Assembly to this end.
Your Lordships will recall the background to the current crisis in Northern Ireland. In the wake of alleged republican involvement in gun running from Florida, in training FARC rebels in Colombia, in a break-in at Castlereagh police station and a litany of violent and criminal activities in various locations across Northern Ireland, we then discovered that Sinn Fein/IRA had been involved in a long-running and sophisticated spying operation directed against the Northern Ireland Office including the private office of the Secretary of State himself.
As soon as the spy ring was uncovered, it quickly became clear that Sinn Fein/IRA's place at the heart of the government of Northern Ireland was untenable. However, it should not have been left to the then First Minister, Mr David Trimble, together with his Ulster Unionist colleagues in the Assembly to, in effect, force the British Government's hand.
Following a meeting at Downing Street, Mr Trimble let it be known that he had told the Prime Minister and the then Secretary of State, Dr John Reid, that they had a week to bring forward a motion for debate by the Assembly to exclude Sinn Fein from the Executive. A failure to do so would lead to the resignation of Mr Trimble and his Ulster Unionist Ministers. As we now know, the Government decided to take a very different route by suspending the Assembly and the other institutions created as a result of the Belfast agreement. If ever there was a case of punishing the innocent along with the guilty, this was it.
Not only did the Government decide to act contrary to the advice of Ulster Unionists by deciding to take the option of suspension; they acted against the wishes of the Alliance Party which also argued that Sinn Fein Ministers should be excluded from office. This is why Mr Durkan's comments are so important. In revealing that Mr Blair himself had been contemplating following this course of action, Mr Durkan in effect confirmed that the suspension of devolution in Northern Ireland came about at the behest of the SDL.P. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal can expand on this in his reply.
The noble and learned Lord may also wish to reflect on the reasons why, given that the SDLP was refusing to support an exclusion motion, to which the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, alluded, the Government did not decide to bring forward legislation giving themselves the power to exclude Sinn Fein from the Executive. Since we now know that Mr Blair believed there were grounds for exclusion, was it a neglect of responsibility—or perhaps even a loss of nerve—which led him not to do so?
The SDLP has long argued for the resurrection of a power-sharing executive in Northern Ireland. But, given such an executive and the chance to keep it in existence, it could not summon the moral courage to do so. I find that difficult to fathom. Much is made—quite rightly, given that they are one and the same—of
728
Sinn Fein's links with the IRA. However, perhaps not so much is made of the SDLP's relationship with Sinn Fein.
I believe that it is time for us—and, more importantly, the SDLP itself—to re-evaluate those relationships. The consequence of the SDLP's decision to press for and achieve the suspension of the institutions is that it has presented the IRA with a veto on its future. Surely that is an irresponsible way for a democratic political party to behave.
It is important that devolved government is restored to Northern Ireland as soon as practicable. Devolution was a great success. People liked it and they wanted it to continue. The obvious question for us now is how it might be restored. The idea of a further act of IRA decommissioning has been suggested, but I am afraid that that would no longer be all that is required; indeed it falls far short. Something of much greater significance is needed. We need to see an end to the IRA.
Last week Mr Martin McGuinness said publicly that his "war with the British is over". That statement is to be welcomed. But we need to hear that the war of every other IRA member is over and we need to see evidence that this is the case. In other words. the IRA itself must be stood down.
In concluding my remarks it would be remiss if I did not refer to the increasingly barbaric acts of violence being carried out by so-called loyalists. Noble Lords will, like me, have read with horror over the weekend about the crucifixion of a young Catholic man by loyalists in Belfast. Those of us who have lived in Northern Ireland all our lives and have been involved in Northern Ireland politics for most of our lives would tend to regard ourselves as fairly shock-proof. But every so often something happens which makes us realise that we are not as shock-proof as we thought. That barbaric act was such an incident.
Loyalist paramilitaries must be dealt with, but they must be dealt with by the legitimate forces of law and order, not by the illegitimate force of the IRA; in other words, the activities of loyalists should not be used by the IRA as a reason for continuing its existence.
I want to see devolution restored to Northern Ireland. But this time it must be for keeps. It must be given permanence. I regret that these orders had to be brought forward and I greatly hope that, when devolved government returns to the Province, we will never again have to debate their like in this House.
The Lord Bishopof Portsmouth: My Lords, these Benches support the orders placed before us by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal. We stress what has been said already: the return of direct rule is a regrettable necessity, but we recognise that any immediately available alternative would have been worse.
It is important in this atmosphere—I use that word advisedly—to keep a sense of perspective. 1t is important to note that what has happened is not surprising, although regrettable. No one who knows Northern Ireland could ever have thought that the

729
Good. Friday agreement would lead immediately to an Easter in which the solution of all problems was somehow realised.
I quote from a recent publication's jacket cover a remark by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, the Archbishop of Armagh: "Reconciliation cannot be enforced". Meanwhile, we need to do everything we can to develop institutions, conventions and opportunities that promote confidence-building and enable all these heart-rending places to have a voice that is heard.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, no one in your Lordships' House would take objection to the presentation of the order. It is deeply regrettable; we could preface our remarks by saying, "Here we go again". This is the fourth time we have seen the transfer of powers to Northern Ireland and back here again.
We are facing a tremendous difficulty in Northern Ireland. Unless we see the realities and unrealities of the situation, we may never be in the position of trying to bring about a resolution of the conflict. I wanted to see devolution in Northern Ireland. I supported devolution while at all times at the back of my mind I realised that built into the Good Friday agreement were all the reasons why it should fail. The agreement was built on a Catholic and Protestant head count; a nationalist and a Unionist head count. Once sectarianism had been built into the agreement, all the MLAs and politicians who were elected to the Stormont Assembly would have to pay attention to what type of votes were sending them there.
Politicians in Northern Ireland are like politicians everywhere; they have to take into account all the reasons why a certain section of the electorate votes for them. In Northern Ireland, it has ever been so since the 1920 partition. One section of the community voted against partition and will never accept it; the other section of the community voted for it and want it to remain.
Have we done anything by way of the Good Friday agreement to do away with that formidable division? I do not think that we have. The one thing which the Unionists allegedly obtained—it has been continuously referred to since the Good Friday agreement—is that the Irish Government took Articles 2 and 3 out of their constitution and substituted for them the principle of consent. The Unionists were told that nothing could change in Northern Ireland unless they gave consent to it..
That did not have to be written into the agreement and it was no great favour or concession given to the Unionists because Northern Ireland could never be united without the consent of the Unionists, whether it was written down on paper or not. Although the Dublin Government gave up their claim to the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland under Articles 2 and 3, that should never have been implemented either, outside a civil war in Ireland or the Irish Republic sending up troops into Northern Ireland. So there
730
were two so-called concessions—one to the Unionists and one to Irish nationalism—and neither of them were worth the paper on which they were written.
However, during the past two or three years we have seen various Ministers in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I have to say that some of them were carrying out a difficult and unique job in the circumstances and were being very successful. That goes for the DUP Ministers, who allegedly did not recognise the Assembly. Some of them were the best Ministers we had in Northern Ireland. I find it difficult but I must say in all honesty that I believe that Peter Robinson was one of the best Ministers we had. The other Members for Derry were also good Ministers. Whether I dislike and sometimes detest the activities of Sinn Fein, I think their Ministers were acting responsibly too.
All those people were in place because they had a mandate from the Northern Ireland electorate. Sinn Fein and the SDLP would say, "You can't exclude us. No matter our inextricable links with the IRA, so many thousands of people voted for us". Under the arrangements that were made for the elections, they were entitled to have their places within the ministry.
The Unionist party—which Unionist party are we talking about? There are three or four unionist parties in Northern Ireland which disagree in a family way with each other, but they are under one tribe. So we have two tribes in Northern Ireland; some of them may be disparate and fight among themselves but there is the Catholic nationalist tribe.
I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and I agree wholeheartedly with what he says about the conversation which allegedly took place with the Leader of the SDLP, the Deputy First Minister, who gained the impression that the Prime Minister, in circumstances in which he could rely on the support of the SDLP, would have been prepared to exclude Sinn Fein from the Assembly because of its links with the IRA. From what I heard, the Leader of the SDLP said that he could not give him that guarantee.
Therefore, however much the SDLP might disagree with Sinn Fein and its links with terrorist organisations, there was no way that it would vote for its exclusion from the Assembly. So there we have it in clear black and white. There will always be an alliance between the nationalists—there is no way that any section of nationalism will run away from Sinn Fein. The same thing happens on the other side of the fence.
I was sorry that the former Northern Ireland Secretary, Dr John Reid, left when he did. In a short conversation I had with him in the company of other noble Lords, I sincerely felt that he had a grasp of the Northern Ireland situation. He represented a Scottish constituency and was aware of the sectarian divisions that had taken place in Scotland. I had intended to have further discussions with him but within a week it was announced that he had left Northern Ireland. He recognised the serious divisions that exist.
Now we are in the position of asking: do we bring back the Assembly? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, and I do not believe that the

731
Assembly will come back in a short time. I believe that it is very much on the back burner. The reason that it is on the hack burner is that the elected representatives, the MLAs in Northern Ireland, cannot find agreement to bring about the restoration of the Assembly.
The mandate which the MLA representatives have had in Northern Ireland was due to run out on 1st May next year. Do we have that election or are we frightened of the results? Do we say that Sinn Fein may become the majority nationalist party and that Democratic Unionists may become the majority Unionist party and that we will not abide by that conclusion of the electorate?
Where does that put us? Where does that put the argument for democracy in Northern Ireland? Democracy is allegedly brought about by the will of the people and if a majority of the nationalist population in Northern Ireland want to vote for Sinn Fein and a majority of the Unionists want to vote for the Democratic Unionist Party, who are we to say that they should not do so? That would be the will of the electorate. Therefore, if we say that we are not going to have elections, we are saying, sotto voce, that we are not going to have democracy. That is what we are saying.
I realise the tremendous difficulty which now faces this Government. I say that even though the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, may disagree with me, I speak from experience. I have had nearly 40 years in politics in Stormont, in local government and the rest. If those MLAs are kept on pay in Northern Ireland, if they are given recognition as public representatives and the longer they are able to go to Stormont and use whatever facilities are available, they will not mind how long the suspension takes because they are being given all the credit for being elected representatives. I went through that myself. I know exactly how I felt and I know exactly how they feel. It means that there is no impetus, no pushing by those MLAs to do what they can to bring about a quick resolution of the conflict. So do we have an election in May next year? Even though I might be frightened of the outcome, I believe that there should be an election next year, whatever the will of the Northern Ireland electorate.
Over the years, I have said to many of my colleagues that it is a tragedy that there is no Labour Party in Northern Ireland. At the moment, there is the SDLP, but that set of initials does not mean very much to anyone with a socialist conscience. As I said to Dr John Reid when I last spoke to him, if a candidate with a socialist conscience and Labour principles were to stand for election to the Assembly—whenever that election may take place—some wise people might depart from their tribes and vote for him and elect him as a Labour candidate. He would then go to Stormont and people there would ask him, "Are you a nationalist or a unionist?" He would say, "I am neither. I am a Labour man". They would then say, "Well, you cannot come in here. We do not allow Labour people in here. We allow only nationalists or unionists". Does not that show how in-built are the divisions? We cannot have there the kind of normal politics that are recognised in this part of the world.
732
I am glad that the Lord Privy Seal has retained the Northern Ireland portfolio because he is readily approachable and understands Northern Ireland. I hope to have further discussions with him.
No one can object to this order, but if we are to bring about the restoration of the Assembly it must be in a way in which there is no danger of it falling apart again. It must be built constructively and steadily so that there is no danger of your Lordships having to come back to this issue again.
The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, referred to decommissioning. That is no longer an issue in Northern Ireland. No one ever believed in decommissioning anyway. Someone must have said that someone had spoken to General de Chastelain and then he said that he saw a gun, but the Unionist Party never believed that any significant amount of arms had been decommissioned. The latest IRA gesture of saying, "We are going away in a huff now. You took away our Assembly so we are not going to talk to General de Chastelain", did not have any effect at all. The world has progressed far since decommissioning became an issue.
So decommissioning is no longer an issue, but all kinds of other structures must be thought of, brought about and voted on. They must be there and put into place with the assurance that when the Northern Ireland Assembly again comes into operation it will not be brought down on a sectarian headcount.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, like many others who wish to see the full implementation of the Belfast agreement by all parties to it, I regret the renewed suspension of power-sharing. When this happened the Government promoted two of their Back-Bench Members to fill the ministerial vacancies. In doing so, they missed an opportunity to continue the principle of power-sharing, which might have been done by appointing two new Ministers capable of representing all traditions, including the two main political and religious ones, in Northern Ireland. That might have happened by making use of the flexibility available through the membership of your Lordships' House.
Power-sharing remains, however, in one important sector—namely, in the make-up of the police authority. I trust that this will long continue because it is so important for the acceptance of essential policing by all sections of the population. As policing is not and never was a devolved matter, I suggest that it is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government to ensure the continued representation of all major strands of opinion in that authority. I urge all political parties to support that aim.
As to the Assembly itself, I follow the general line of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. Would the Government consider recalling the Assembly for one specific purpose even while power-sharing remains in temporary abeyance—that is, to draft a Bill of Rights tailor-made for the needs of Northern Ireland? It is remarkable that this subject is one on which all political parties in Northern Ireland have long been agreed, at least in principle. It is not

733
enough to say that the United Kingdom Human Rights Act applies in Northern Ireland. This already has to be supplemented and applied in detail by a whole range of ombudsmen, advisory and regulatory commissions and so on. The whole subject deserves to be drawn together in a comprehensive measure, which should also set out the duties and responsibilities of citizens.
I commend this idea to your Lordships and to the Government as something which could usefully employ the energies of the elected Members of the Assembly and, at the same time, prove a catalyst to wider political agreement and inter-communal trust.
I also urge the Government not to forget the Civic Forum. Surely this consultative body could examine the performance of the many statutory boards and quangos in Northern Ireland, some of which, at least, could become more user friendly.
In short, the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Ministers should not feel themselves too fettered by direct rule. On the contrary, they should use imagination to preserve all possible strands of power-sharing, public dialogue and consensus.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I find myself in warm agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, on two points. I deeply regret the departure of Dr John Reid—although I welcome his successor, naturally, and I hope that the change will work well. I also agree with the noble Lord very strongly that where the decommissioning matters is on the streets of Northern Ireland. The need to disarm the paramilitaries is an issue which it is logical to consider now while we are thinking of what to do next and, I hope, of what bargains may be struck with Sinn Fein/IRA.
It is evident that there will be bargains. The Minister, Jane Kennedy, was reported in the press as saying in Dublin last week that the Government, rightly, remain fully committed to the peace process and to the idea of delivering the outstanding commitments in the agreement, not in stages but all at once. I know that that is an echo of a sentence in the Prime Minister's speech, but I find it disturbing. I very much hope that no commitments are being made to deliver all at once until we have seen some action from Sinn Fein/IRA.
4 p.m.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, the debate is somewhat depressing. I am sorry to say that what has happened was prophesied by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, some months ago when we debated the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, and by other noble Lords from Northern Ireland. I, for one, do not welcome the order to suspend devolution in Northern Ireland.
There have been some interesting comments in the debate. I followed with interest the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, to human rights. I ask him to study the Belfast agreement in further detail. As one who worked for several years towards reaching that
734
agreement, I must remind the noble Lord that there were specifically five requirements for initiatives on human rights in the Republic of Ireland. It is time that he studied what progress has been made by the Republic of Ireland in complying with the requirements of the Belfast agreement in relation to human rights.
The spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the noble Lord, Lord Smith, was clearer today in his attitude towards a condominium. I thank him for making it perfectly clear that he is opposed—and strongly opposed—to a condominium of joint rule by the Dublin government and Her Majesty's Government in Northern Ireland. That is progress from what we heard last time. I remind the House that careless talk about a condominium creates problems within Northern Ireland. If ever there were a condominium proposed—as seemed to be the impression in the last debate—it could lead to civil war and nothing less. I remind noble Lords that when the Conservative governmentand it was the Conservative government—imposed the Anglo-Irish Agreement in Northern Ireland providing for much less than a condominium, it led to tremendous civil strife in Northern Ireland and had to be removed. It was as a result of the influence of the present Government during the talks at Stormont and the conclusions of the Belfast agreement which brought that agreement to an end. So let us have no careless talk about a condominium.
The salaries of Members of the Assembly at Stormont have been reduced. It is all very easy to say, "Oh, forget about them—give them no salary." But they were elected until May next year. They are still operating from their offices, representing their constituents. I had a telephone call this morning from a MLA asking me to assist with a visa for two people in the city of Armagh. If you take away their salaries and destroy the elected representation in Northern Ireland of all the political parties—the Ulster Unionists, DUP, Alliance, SDLP and the various groups that represent paramilitary organisations—you are actually undermining the infrastructure of democracy in Northern Ireland and what degree of experience and leadership there is within the political parties. I do not think that it helps democracy in Northern Ireland simply to take the easy way out and say, "Do away with their salaries. Do away with all locally elected representatives in Northern Ireland". That is too pessimistic an approach for what may happen in Northern Ireland next year.
Devolution has been a great success. Our employment has increased. Our population has passed 1.7 million people. We now have a lower unemployment level in Northern Ireland, believe it or not, than the average in the European Union and a lower unemployment level than in many regions of Great Britain. There has not been net emigration, which I knew for most of my lifetime, but net immigration. More people are coming into Northern Ireland now than leaving it.

735
Investment has increased; tourism has increased. So even devolution has a successful side to its performance. But it has fallen, as prophesied, for two reasons. I am sorry to have to mention the second one. The first one is well known—the fact that Sinn Fein-IRA are inextricably linked and that a spy ring was discovered within the offices of the Northern Ireland Secretary of State and Sinn Fein-IRA got their hands on secret documents and messages between the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the President of the United States—and many other issues as well. That is what happened.
But the Government also helped to bring down power sharing and the Belfast agreement because the policy of Her Majesty's Government in recent years has been to diminish the Britishness of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. That was not part of the Belfast agreement. The agreement firmly said that Northern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom and that that status could not be changed without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. But then the Government proceeded to remove the Union flag from buildings. We pointed out to the Lord Privy Seal—I fear that he did not accept the seriousness of it at the time—that in removing the Crown coat of arms from Crown court houses, as he proposed and pushed through this House against our opposition, he was further alienating unionist opinion against the Belfast agreement. So the agreement lost support.
The Patten report has been mentioned. It did not comply with the Belfast agreement. It was contrary to some of the issues in the agreement. For example, it did not suggest that there should be equality of opportunity. That is what the Belfast agreement said. What did the Patten report say? It said that everyone had to be treated equally: nationalists and unionists must be equal. That is different from equality of opportunity.
I suspect that later this month Her Majesty's Government will be bringing forward new legislation in relation to policing in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Government are listening carefully because if the new legislation involves further compromises towards Sinn Fein-IRA, that will help to bring down the Northern Ireland Policing Board, the one last remaining power-sharing operation in Northern Ireland, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, mentioned. I hope that if any new legislation is forthcoming, it will also address the needs and requests of the majority Ulster Unionist community.
I ask the Lord Privy Seal to let us know what is happening to the North-South Ministerial Council. As he knows, it is linked to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Since the Northern Ireland Assembly has now been suspended, I assume that the North-South Ministerial Council will also be suspended in the interim.
Like other noble Lords, I welcome the appointment of Mr. Paul Murphy as our new Secretary of State. We worked with him very closely in preparing the Belfast agreement, and he is very welcome back. I hope that
736
once again he concentrates on the issue of investment into Northern Ireland. It was disappointing to read yesterday that although Sir Reg Empey—our Minister for investment in Northern Ireland—at an Irish-US business summit in Washington last September had succeeded in getting the US Health and Human Services Secretary, Mr. Tommy Thompson, to agree to come to both the Republic and Northern Ireland to discuss investment, that visit is now only going ahead in the Republic. The United States, on the recommendation of the US consul general in Belfast, decided not to proceed with the visit to Northern Ireland. That kind of negative thing is damaging to our economy. I am sorry to see the US consul general in Belfast party to that decision.
I return to the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Fitt and Lord Rogan—suspension as against exclusion of Sinn Fein-IRA. The Ulster Unionists, the DUP, the Alliance Party and now apparently the Prime Minister were in favour of exclusion. Exclusion would have meant devolution continuing in Northern Ireland if the SDLP were not simply the yes men for Sinn Fein. That appears to be the case because the leader of the SDLP, Mr. Mark Durkan, announced at his party conference on Saturday that the Prime Minister was suggesting—I assume in a private conversation at 10 Downing Street but he let it out of the bag—the idea of exclusion but that the SDLP was not prepared to support such a proposal. That means that the SDLP in essence was in favour of Sinn Fein remaining in the Executive in Northern Ireland.
My last point is in relation to an election in May next year. In a letter from the Privy Council last week, I was told that 20 per cent of the people of Northern Ireland have not registered this year for the next election. Already 20 per cent are not on the electoral register. That shows a decline in an interest in democracy in Northern Ireland. People are tired of all the in-fighting and disappointments. How can you have public interest in an election to a body that does not exist? I fail to see how we can proceed with an election in May next year unless in advance of that date the power-sharing Executive has been restored to Stormont. If we were to ask the people of Northern Ireland to vote in an Assembly election next year and tell them, "Well, there is no Assembly—just vote and see what happens in the years ahead", we would get a very poor response.
Let us definitely have an election next May, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, suggested. I would like to have it. But, first of all, let us ensure that we have something there that we are going to elect people to attend and participate in.
In the meantime, I would not be as pessimistic as some noble Lords. There have been advances in Northern Ireland over the past few years. I am still optimistic that something may happen next spring, after January, that will make it possible for the power-sharing Assembly to be brought back into operation.

737
And if it is not then, as an Ulster Unionist, I am very happy to continue with direct British rule of Northern Ireland from London.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I, too, regret yet another failure, although it was inevitable. It is inevitable that this kind of procedure will continue. In this remembrance season, perhaps we should be mindful of the old military maxim:
"Always exploit success, never reinforce a failure".
I hope, therefore, that we can concentrate on exploiting the success so manifest, for example, in Wales, which has its devolved administration—not legislature. In 1979 a previous government produced such a plan for Northern Ireland. They were told by the Foreign Office and the Dublin Government jointly that "it was not enough", to quote the words of a former Prime Minister. But those two elements—the Foreign Office and a foreign government—should have known that the choice of "not enough" and "nothing" were one and the same thing. If you say that something is "not enough", the alternative is nothing at all. And that has been, and will continue to be, the case.
After four years of experiments, surely the time has come to adopt the Welsh blueprint, which, if necessary, could be adapted as confidence develops. I am quite certain that those steps would bring nearer an assembly with the necessary modifications in time for its election next year.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for long. My thoughts on the present circumstances have been well and truly articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, so I shall not repeat what he said. I shall speak neither with the benefit of hindsight, because that is not particularly helpful, nor with the pessimism that has been expressed by some speakers today.
I wish to exact a very specific promise from the Government in terms of what will happen over the next four, five, or six months. Whatever may be felt in terms of the shortcomings of the Belfast agreement, I am not in the privileged position of being able to disown it; indeed, I was part of that process. I have been part of public life in Northern Ireland for 30 years-20 years of which I spent as an elected representative. Hence, there is no point in pretending that mistakes have not been made, or that, if they have been made, I had nothing to do with them.
The reality is that we made an agreement in 1998 that provided an opportunity for people to move through a transitional process. No one who was realistic thought that it was something that would happen overnight. It was meant to be a transitional process, designed to give people who had been on the very extremes of violence the opportunity to move into a democratic mode, or to give support to those who represented them within a democratic mode.
My criticism of government in the past four years is that they have forgotten the obligation on elected members to adhere to "exclusively peaceful" means,
738
which were the most important words written into the agreement. Immediately Sinn Fein members were elected, both Adams and McGuinness said—though they have now changed this—"Well, of course we never were in the IRA". But we knew that they were. We know that the IRA and Sinn Fein are the same. They are not parallel; they are the same organisation. That is the important point. Sinn Fein cannot exist, or fight elections, without the consent of the army council of the IRA. The president of Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams, is a full honorary member of the army council of the IRA. Of course, there are others, but I shall not go into that detail on this occasion.
Government turned a blind eye to that situation. Government treated the two organisations as though they were separate; and, therefore, Sinn Fein did not have to demonstrate that it was operating by "exclusively peaceful" means. The promise that I want to exact from the Government today is that, from here on, no one will try to hide the reality of the two parts of the same organisation. If government do that, we shall stop having concessions made to one organisation while at the same time the Government say, "Of course, we shall get tough with the other side". If I have to prove my case, I can do so. I simply draw attention to the people who were active as terrorists in Colombia and the role that they played in the electoral processes of Sinn Fein prior to that. Noble Lords will know what I mean.
If the Government can give us that commitment today, I believe that the people of Northern Ireland will get over the pessimism that has been articulated in the Chamber this afternoon. I am sure that they will do everything that they can to get behind the Government to achieve progress. Short of that—and here I join the pessimists—we are doomed to another failure.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the Government really had no choice in the end but to bring forward these measures, and to close down temporarily—I hope, very temporarily—both the Assembly and the Executive. I believe that John Reid was a most excellent Secretary of State. In the event of him being replaced, I can think of no person better than Paul Murphy, with whom I had the privilege to serve for about two-and-a-half years in Northern Ireland when we moved towards the first devolution, to take on that role. Paul Murphy had the respect of all sides, not just on the day that he arrived in Belfast but after having served there for two-and-a-half years. He earned that respect because people knew that he understood the issues and had a very balanced approach towards moving forward. If we are to be optimistic, I believe that Paul Murphy is capable of taking the process further.
I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, who said that the Government treated Sinn Fein and the IRA as separate. That is not true. When I had such responsibilities, I remember constantly using an expression like, "The Government accept that Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked". To my knowledge, we have never said, or accepted, that there

739
was a separateness between Sinn Fein and the IRA. It does no service to the Government's efforts to make the peace process work to suggest otherwise.
The real problem with the present situation is that there will now be a political vacuum. The danger with such a vacuum is that the men of violence tend to try to fill it. The biggest threat at present is not that some of the people who have accepted peace will take up arms, but that the people who have never accepted a peaceful way forward will use the vacuum that currently exists and fill it with violence. That is the real danger.
The various parties in Northern Ireland, which have been mentioned in today's debate, have a much more limited margin for manoeuvre than has been suggested. I do not believe that it is necessarily fair to make suggestions about what the SDLP could do; nor do I believe that the demands made of the Ulster Unionists over recent months have been realistic. Indeed, people have often demanded of David Trimble more than he could reasonably be expected to deliver. That very limited margin for manoeuvre poses real difficulties for the Secretary of State. However, it has to be accepted as it is inherent in the situation there.
The pay of members of the legislative Assembly has been mentioned. I agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, on the matter. I believe that it would be a mistake to say, "We are going to cut off your pay as an incentive to getting on with the peace process". These people have given up their other careers in order to serve their constituencies across the political spectrum. We should allow them to continue to do that with pay, albeit reduced. If we say that their pay should be stopped and that they should return to their other careers, the peace process will have an even more difficult passage and the period of direct rule will be longer than it ought to be. As I say, I believe that it is right to continue to pay those people.
There are real difficulties as regards whether the elections should take place. Part of me agrees with the sentiments expressed by the Liberal Democrats; namely, that we should not stop the process. On the other hand, having an election campaign at a time when the political representatives are somewhat neutered as the Assembly has been suspended is rather difficult. It will add an air of artificiality to the process that is not healthy. I am in two minds about that. I would rather leave that decision to the Secretary of State in the light of the circumstances that arise in the early part of next year.
Finally, there is a success story. We have had a successful Assembly in Northern Ireland for several years. We have had a successful Executive there for several years. Ministers of all parties there have behaved responsibly and have made proper decisions. For God's sake, let us not throw that away.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I echo the remarks of my noble friend Lord Glentoran. We on this side of the House very much deplore the continual concessions to nationalists at the expense of loyalists. In our view the Government have taken the easy option of suspension rather than exclusion.
740
I refer to the remarks about the relationship between Sinn Fein and the SDLP that have been made by several noble Lords. I very much bear in mind the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that is. that there are two sections in Northern Ireland. I believe that he has often used the word "tribalism". We on this side would like to see the SDLP become a more positive influence in the Province and stand up and be counted.
The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, in his perceptive speech said that the continued violence of the loyalists must not be used as an excuse for the IRA to continue in the same vein. We have questions for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal. What is the Government's strategy? In particular, will the Minister clarify Ms Jane Kennedy's remarks in Dublin which, as my noble friend Lady Park said, suggest that we are to have the implementation of Weston Park almost in one leap? Are we to have elections? The noble Lords, Lord Kilclooney and Lord Fitt, made perceptive remarks in that regard. If I understood the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, correctly, he said that the elections should take place to test whether the extremist vote will emerge as we expect.
In conclusion, the view of this side of the House is that the recreation of trust will require leadership, patience, strength, determination and courage. Noble Lords on all sides of the House very much hope that the Government exhibit those qualities. I am encouraged by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, as regards the capability and promise of the new Secretary of State. If the Government can deliver the aim that I have mentioned they will certainly have the support of this party.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful, as always, for an interesting debate. All noble Lords have made at least one comment with which I agree.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, who said that the present situation is a great disappointment. Other noble Lords agreed. It is a disappointment but it is not a terminal catastrophe. The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, made some extremely powerful points. He said that the level of unemployment had substantially declined and that the population had increased. He also referred to the good economic outturn. He is right to point out that had those results been brought about in any other part of the United Kingdom they would have led to great rejoicing. That point should not be overlooked. We do Northern Ireland a great disservice by not constantly repeating the points that the noble Lord mentioned.
I hope that we shall continue on a bipartisan basis. We never departed from that when the previous government were in power. It is extremely important to put party political advantage on one side. I suggest with great respect that as regards the people of Northern Ireland it is deeply irresponsible not to do our utmost to maintain a bipartisan approach.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I make it absolutely clear that we have no intention of breaking the bipartisan agreement. I said that we would support the

741
Government. We welcomed the appointment of the new Secretary of State. However, we reserve the right to be critical of certain tactics that may be used; that is our job.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I accept that entirely. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, in my extensive dealings with him both in the Chamber and outside, has ever varied. But I agree with what other noble Lords have said; namely, that sometimes language needs to be considered with great care—I do not address my remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran—and needs to be used—I refer to places other than this House—with great care and scruple.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred to disbandment and decommissioning. I do not know the motive of the IRA in saying that it was withdrawing communications with General de Chastelain. A short time ago I had the great privilege of spending a good deal of time with General de Chastelain and asking his opinions. I simply do not know the tactical basis of what was done. However, I took the trouble to watch the recent programme on Martin McGuinness in which he said that his war with the British state was over. If he meant what he said, it is fairly unambiguous and, I should have thought, is cause for optimism.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, asked me about the elections, as did other noble Lords. I shall deal with that as a distinct topic. The elections are still set to take place on 1st May 2003. Suspension of the Assembly does not change the fact that elections are set by law for 1st May of next year. I do not want to intrude into private grief between the noble Lords, Lord Kilclooney and Lord Smith of Clifton. I hope that I am far too wise—at least in this context—to get involved in that. However, I can tell noble Lords that today the Secretary of State will announce his determination with regard to salaries and allowances. I do not know what that will be but as soon as that announcement is made, I shall ensure that a copy of it is placed in the Library of this House so that noble Lords will have an early indication of it.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, asked me about the North/South Ministerial Council. It cannot meet at the moment as it is composed of Ministers from the devolved administration and Ministers from the Government of the Irish Republic. There are none of the former, therefore it cannot meet.
As regards what may have been said in the United States, I have tried to obtain information on that, but I have no knowledge of it, nor does anyone from whom I am able to obtain information.
The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, mentioned—as, I believe, did others—what was going on in Colombia. I simply remind your Lordships that a trial is about to start there. I believe that it is better if I do not comment on that.
A number of questions were asked about what the Prime Minister may or may not have said to Mr Durkan in—I use quotation marks, as did the noble
742
Lord, Lord Kilclooney—"a private conversation". As I understand it, the Prime Minister's consistent approach has been that there was a range of circumstances, which had to be examined carefully. The Government's conclusion at the end of the day—I adamantly believe that it is the right one—was to go for suspension.
The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, said that it is important that devolution should be returned as soon as possible. I could not agree more. That is—to answer the question of another noble Lord—the Government's strategy. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth for his support and to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, who has frequently assisted me outside the Chamber with his views—he has enormous experience of Northern Ireland. He is right: Dr Reid was an extremely effective and powerful Secretary of State.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dubs and to other noble Lords who spoke of the qualities of Paul Murphy. I know of those qualities personally. When there was a Conservative government and we were in opposition—it seems a long time ago now—he and I were colleagues on the shadow Northern Ireland team. He is a man of great qualities and he is admired, respected and trusted across the whole community.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised various questions. I agree with him about the importance of the Policing Board. It is essential that it should operate on a cross-community basis. We constantly urge Sinn Fein representatives face to face—I have done so myself—to discharge their obligations and join the Policing Board. I am not entirely without optimism that that may come about. I have no timetable.
The noble Lord also asked about bringing back the Assembly for one day. To put that in context, noble Lords will remember that the Belfast agreement required the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to draw up proposals for a Bill of Rights to be enacted in Westminster legislation. Broad consultation is continuing. I do not see the virtue of bringing back the Assembly just for one day when in any event—
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I did not mean that that should be done just for one day. I meant that it should be done for long enough to draft a whole Bill; it will be a complicated Bill.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I understood that the noble Lord was speaking metaphorically; I simply went to his point. I understood what he meant, which was that there should be a recall for a specific purpose and none other. My answer remains the same. I do not believe that there would be great virtue in recalling the Assembly for that purpose because in any event we do not know the timetable by which the Human Rights Commission will report on that point.
As I said, two new Ministers have been appointed. It is essential that the people of Northern Ireland—I say this with great respect because I do not live there—are entitled to have good governance, which, with the

743
present suspension of the Assembly, needs to be discharged by Ministers who have ample time and energy to devote to the problems and difficulties of Northern Ireland. I take the point about the civic forum.
What my honourable friend Jane Kennedy said was simply a repetition of a section of the Prime Minister's speech. The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, said that devolution had been a great success; I agree with him. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, for suggesting that one could learn a great deal from the Welsh blueprint. That will be a source of great comfort to our colleagues who make the National Assembly for Wales work.
The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, said that he would not exhibit pessimism. I agree. He said that the Government must not try to hide reality; I hope that we do not. My noble friend Lord Dubs fully dealt with that.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, asked what the Government's strategy was. As I said, it is to work with all due determination—and, of course, with a balanced judgment—towards elections in May and the restoration of devolved government, which I believe all noble Lords want. He also spoke about the necessity of the recreation of trust. That is so, and that is what the Government are determined to do.
I have dealt with all of the observations of noble Lords because I believe that on such an occasion it is better to deal with points as fully as I can rather than simply to make general remarks.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) Order 2002
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 15th October be approved [38th Report from the Joint Committed—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Goldsmith: Personal Statement
4.36 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to make a personal statement.
In answer to a question from my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours this afternoon, I said that I did not give a view as to whether the prosecution case against Mr Burrell should continue. In doing so, I was under the misapprehension that I was being asked about the decision last year to begin a prosecution. In fact, I now realise that I was being asked whether I was consulted on the decision to pull the case. I apologise to the House for that misunderstanding.
I am anxious to state the correct position as soon as possible. The correct position is as follows. I first learnt about the case shortly after my appointment.
744
The Director of Public Prosecutions had drawn the case to the attention of my predecessor in May last year. Thereafter, the case was included in a list of high-profile cases in respect of which brief reports are provided to Law Officers on a monthly basis. We were not asked for and did not give our views about whether the case should proceed. On Tuesday last week, the Crown Prosecution Service and counsel drew my attention to the new information that had been disclosed by the Palace to the police. Naturally, my views were sought on how to proceed in the light of that development, and I gave them. But in the end, as I made plain should be the case, the decision was made by the Crown Prosecution Service following further consideration and having taken leading counsel's advice.

Foot and Mouth Disease
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend Margaret Beckett on the Government's response to the FMD inquiry reports. The Statement is as follows:
"I wish to make a Statement on the Government's response to the foot and mouth disease inquiry reports. That response is being published today.
"When the inquiry reports were published in July I told the House that I accepted that mistakes had been made and that I was determined to learn the lessons of what happened in 2001. The independent inquiry process that concluded in July has enabled us to do that, and to move forward quickly to implement their recommendations. We are indebted to Sir Brian Follett and Dr fain Anderson, and I pay tribute again to them and to their teams for producing such thorough and useful reports so quickly. The Government accept virtually all the detailed recommendations of the Lessons to be Learned report, and firmly endorse the lessons which Dr Anderson draws. The recommendations made by the Royal Society will also play a major role in shaping the Government's work in this area. A separate report from the NAO is currently under consideration by the PAC.
"The Government's response to the inquiries contains a wide range of commitments and actions, including a stronger general framework for emergency preparedness, with special emphasis on response and disease control in an outbreak of animal disease, and work on strengthening disease prevention. Alongside publication of this response today, the latest version of our contingency plans is available on our website for comment and consultation.
"Inevitably some of this considerable body of work is work in progress, and much requires further development and an open and transparent process of consultation with a wide range of players

745
including the farming industry, the wider rural community and other key players such as the local authorities.
"Dr Anderson identified three key areas for handling any outbreak: systems, speed of response and the necessity for good science as the basis of that response.
"As the House may recall from my July Statement, some steps, such as the establishment of a civil contingencies secretariat, have already been taken. From next year it will be supplemented by dedicated contingency planning teams in every region, based in the government offices.
"Plans are being developed for training and rehearsal of contingency plans together with other players, such as local authorities. In addition, procedures are being drawn up to ramp up organisation, should this be required, including the maintenance of a register of staff willing to serve in an emergency, and their competences and skills.
"Both inquiries called for a body to provide advice to DEFRA's Chief Scientific Adviser in emergencies and for a review of priorities in animal health research. A science advisory group has been set up, some additional funding for veterinary teaching and research has been identified and the review of priorities is under way. The Government are committed to funding necessary research into animal disease and to increasing spending on that.
"Work is also under way on how to identify and manage risks as part of DEFRA's own development plans. In particular, a risk assessment report on illegal imports is in preparation and I hope to receive it before the turn of the year. In the meantime, we have secured the agreement of Commissioner Byrne to a ban on personal imports of meat. We have put resources into detection and enforcement, including piloting the use of detector dogs. I can announce today that the Government have agreed that responsibility for anti-smuggling checks on animals, fish, plants and their products, including meat, should be placed under one body—Her Majesty's Customs and Excise—as soon as that can be achieved.
"However, no import controls can ever be 100 per cent effective. That is why both inquiries emphasised the role that animal movement controls can play in checking the spread of disease. The Government have accepted the advice that the 20-day standstill rules should remain in place until a detailed risk assessment and wide-ranging cost-benefit analysis have been completed.
"We have commissioned the necessary economic and modelling studies from experts outside DEFRA with the aim of deciding on a proportionate level of controls and, in particular, on whether a movement standstill of 20 days strikes the right balance between the disease-control benefits and the costs on the industry and livestock markets. Emerging findings from those studies should be available at the end of this month to feed into decisions on the
746
shape of movement controls to apply from next February. We expect full and final results in the first half of next year. As the inquiry reports recognise, the farming industry, too, shares responsibility for minimising disease risks and has a crucial role to play, particularly with regard to biosecurity. We shall work closely with the industry in following up the inquiries' recommendations in this area.
"We also intend to work closely with the industry in developing a comprehensive animal health and welfare strategy, which has been called for by both inquiries and the policy commission. It is important that we share an agreed vision, which must cover protection of public health, animal disease prevention and control, and animal welfare. Informal discussions with stakeholders are already taking place before the launch of a public consultation exercise later in the year across the breadth of the stakeholder community. The strategy will draw on the inquiry reports and will provide a vehicle for implementing many recommendations.
"We shall also use the consultation on the strategy as a means to discuss with stakeholders the best mechanism to provide regular reports on animal disease preparedness so that the lessons learned as a result of the 2001 outbreak and the recommendations of the inquiries are implemented and help to ensure that the experience of 2001 is never repeated.
"But the House will want to know what else would be different in any future outbreak of foot and mouth disease. A national movement ban would be put in place as soon as the first case was confirmed, as my noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary announced in the summer when our interim contingency plan was published. Restricted infected areas—blue boxes—would be declared from the start in a minimum 10-kilometre radius around infected farms. But public rights of way would need to be restricted only in a 3-kilometre radius from those farms.
"International and EU rules are based on the need to eradicate what is an unpleasant as well as a highly infectious disease. Hence, the basic strategy in all FMD-free countries is that, as a first step, animals infected with foot and mouth disease and animals which have been in contact with them have to be culled. But what both inquiries say, and what the Government accept, is that, in some circumstances, additional action may be needed to control an outbreak. In that case, emergency vaccination will form part of the control strategy from the start. That would be emergency vaccination to live, provided of course that scientific and veterinary advice was that that would be the most effective course.
"The inquiries themselves point out that the use of emergency vaccination to live raises a number of very difficult issues—scientific, logistical and economic. But the Government are committed to tackling those issues, in consultation with interested parties, with the aim of being in a position to trigger

747
an emergency vaccination campaign should the need arise. But the issues are substantial and this process will take some time to complete.
"That does not mean that wider culling strategies will never again be needed. We must maintain a full armodury of weapons to tackle these diseases; hence our insistence on the flexibility proposed in the Animal Health Bill and in the Lessons to be Learned report to allow for pre-emptive culling so as to enable us to deal with an outbreak more quickly with fewer losses of animals and least disruption to the rural economy.
"The Government are consulting on a 'decision tree' on FMD control which would set out the factors to be taken into account in deciding the best disease-control strategy for different circumstances. But we have to remember that each outbreak is unique, and we cannot prescribe in detail in advance how best to meet it. There will still be a need for scientific and veterinary judgment at the time.
"For the longer term, the Royal Society recommended that research was needed on a vaccine that could be used routinely rather than just in an emergency against all strains of FMD and for all species. The Government recognise that that would be desirable as a long-term goal and will encourage international collaboration to that end. But the House will appreciate that we are some considerable way from achieving that.
"In short, a mere three months after publication of the inquiry reports, the Government are today able not only to respond formally to those reports but to identify a massive programme of work and reform which is under way. Nothing can ever erase the horrors and the tragedies of the 2001 epidemic of foot and mouth disease in the UK. But we can all resolve to establish more effective safeguards and, should those safeguards fail, an even more effective response".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.46 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place by his right honourable friend earlier today. However, I have to ask why the Statement has been delayed until now. Are the Government so totally inept that they were unaware that, until last Monday, your Lordships were still debating the Animal Health Bill on which these reports and their responses directly impinge? Is it not ironic that the Animal Health Bill has passed through its final stage in this House and needs the approval of another place today before it can be passed? Or are the Government totally unscrupulous in holding back necessary information until it is too late for your Lordships to take it into account in considering the Bill that has been before us?
Whether the Government have been inept, ironic or unscrupulous, I find the timing totally unacceptable. This House knows and appreciates the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. He is always courteous, patient and
748
accommodating. It is not him that I am speaking about but the department, which, I believe, has failed this House very badly.
I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. There is much in it that we welcome. We on these Benches accept many of the central suggestions and recommendations that have been made. In particular, we also want to record our thanks to Professor lain Anderson and Sir Brian Follett for their very thorough work.
Perhaps I may highlight the question that has been challenging us throughout the passage of the Animal Health Bill—that is, the question of vaccination and of vaccination to live. Having received the booklet today, I looked back to see what was said. Recommendation 10 states that emergency vaccination should he considered as part of the control strategy from the start of any foot and mouth outbreak. The Minister confirmed that today and we are grateful for that. Recommendation 28 lays aside one of the difficulties that we have been facing--that is, it will be possible to distinguish vaccinated from vaccinated-infected animals. I hope that puts to rest that particular issue.
We also welcome mention in the Statement that a civil contingencies secretariat will be established. We welcome, in particular, the fact that it will be based in every region and that local input will be taken into account. I hope that designated decisions can he taken at that level. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that in his response. Presumably local decisions will be made locally and will not have to be taken back to the centre.
We also welcome the appointment of one body which will be responsible for anti-smuggling checks on imported animals, fish, plants and their products, including meat. As was said, that has been allocated to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. I understand from the Statement that that body will be set up as soon as possible. Again, perhaps we may be given an indication as to when it will kick in.
We also note that a science advisory group has been established. How much will the funding cost; what period will the initial funding cover; and to how many centres will the money be given?
We welcome the explanation of the 20-day standstill rules. That will be reported on by February next year, but most noble Lords bitterly regret that that issue was not addressed before the Animal Health Bill passed through this House.
I believe that all noble Lords will be particularly pleased with section nine in the booklet of responses, to which the noble Lord referred. It states that in the future there will be no more mass pyres. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that as it is hugely important.
We on these Benches, and I suspect those from other parts of the House, are keen to have proper disease controls in place. We worked so hard on the Animal Health Bill to ensure that they are robust. Perhaps in recent debates on the Bill we have fallen out with the Government because we feel that the provisions have bones but not enough flesh, and we have tried to add more flesh to the arguments.

749
I draw the attention of the Minister to compensation. In the past it has been borne by the public purse. One finds on page 46 confirmation of rumours of what we knew would happen that the Government are to move away from public purse compensation towards requiring an animal disease insurance to cope with problems that may occur in future. I understand that a group has met three times to discuss animal disease compensation and animal disease levy and insurance options. Can the Minister tell the House more about that?
The Statement mentions imports, particularly illegal imports. We have expressed extreme concern about legal imports to this country from countries that have disease, particularly foot and mouth disease. Further explanation of that by the Minister would be welcome.
As I said fairly sharply at the beginning, I am tired of having to respond to matters that have been produced a day late, as in the case of the Animal Health Bill. We were awaiting government amendments so that we could proceed. I believe on all sides of the House that noble Lords want to ensure that the new legislation is robust and workable. It would have been so much better to have had this document available, even a week ago. I question why it has taken three months to produce. Could it not have taken two months and three weeks to produce so that we had a chance?
4.53 p.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I thank the Minister who has worked hard in relation to aspects of the Statement. I also thank Sir Brian Follett and Dr Iain Anderson and their teams for their work on the reports that we are discussing.
I too find the timing astonishing. I was used to responding to Welsh Statements in the other place with half-an-hour's notice, but to try to respond to this with little notice will be rather more complex. The publication of this document is important. Section 2 mentions the setting up of a civil contingencies secretariat which is extremely important because it was obvious from the start of the outbreak in 2001 that contingency plans were not in place. This will right that wrong.
Dr Iain Anderson said in his report that there were three key areas: systems, the speed of response, and good science. I want to comment on the systems to which he referred for tackling the outbreak mentioned in the Lessons to be Learned report. Being hands-on in terms of farming, I mention the farming systems. I believe that the farming systems took DEFRA by surprise. DEFRA appeared surprised that they have moved on so much in the past 20 years or so, including the activities of dealers. One needs to study such matters well—perhaps not in the way in which Mao Tse-Tung did by putting bureaucrats on farms, a comment which I see the Minister appreciates—and more in-depth knowledge of farming and farming systems would help a great deal. When a body is
750
appointed to look at the situation, I sincerely hope that there will be adequate input from those with practical farming backgrounds, so that the matter will be treated with in-depth knowledge and so that it can head off certain misunderstandings that have occurred in the middle of outbreaks.
There is a section on funding for animal health research and on teaching and research. The Minister knows that we took great care to bring that forward in debates on the Animal Health Bill. I am also concerned about the State Veterinary Service and, in my view, the inadequate number of state vets. Had more such vets been in place at the start of the outbreak, matters may have progressed better. In welcoming the increased funding of, in particular, research, I remind the Minister that in 1983 Pirbright had 13 vets, but by 2001 it had only four. I hope that all those wrongs will be put right to ensure that in future we shall have a proper contingency plan for Pirbright so that it can function properly immediately an outbreak occurs.
I want to refer to a number of other issues. The Statement addresses the issue of imports which is particularly welcome to me. I thank the Minister for appearing to have accepted the amendment on imports and the methods of dealing with it that are in the Bill. I am grateful to him for that.
Clearly if Her Majesty's Customs and Excise is to be the overall organisation, we need to know what extra resources will be required to ensure that it is an effective organisation with personnel and technology that can tackle the matter. As far as I can see, at the moment there is one video and two dogs tackling the problem. I am sure that that will be put right by the organisation, but speed is necessary. That is an important point.
There is also the vexed matter of animal movement controls that we exhaustively debated on Monday under the 20-day standstill rules. If new rules are to come into effect in February—16 months after the last case of foot and mouth disease—that is a matter for criticism. We need to know whether the Government, as they say in the Statement, will use other methods of movement control following a reduction of the 20 days and it is important to know what kind of controls they will be.
I know of one case where animals arrive on one farm that is 25 miles from another farm owned by the same farmer, but standstill occurs also on the farm 25 miles away. That kind of situation is a nonsense and at the moment makes farming almost impossible.
The animal welfare situation is important. The majority of farmers adhere strongly to animal welfare. But I wish that to be pursued in the case of the rotten eggs in the bottom of the barrel, and there are one or two. The whole farming industry should not be criticised for them.
I am particularly anxious that the National Assembly for Wales and the Farmers Union of Wales are consulted fully on these matters. In terms of the national movement ban, which is immediate when an outbreak occurs—and I welcome that as being

751
Sensible—I should like to know what the strategy will be. I would like to know what the parameters will be for example, a 10-kilometre radius around infected farms—and the whole issue of European Union rules and what impact they may have on this particular Statement.
I believe that there is a necessary sharing of burdens regarding this matter. In particular, there has to be a sharing between the Government in terms of DEFRA, the scientific community and the farmers. At the moment, the farmers shoulder nearly all the burden. I am sure that the Minister will enlighten us and demonstrate how this can be evened out in the future so that we all share our responsibilities.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords opposite for their comments. I have five minutes in which to reply. As regards vaccination, there is a significant change in approach. People have to understand that it will not replace the culling of diseased animals, animals on the premises and dangerous contacts, which were a significant proportion of the animals killed last time. It is following that that we look at emergency vaccination as a tool. That will require clearing some of the difficulties before we can fully implement it.
The noble Baroness asked about devolution of decisions. The general strategy will be determined centrally but implemented locally. With a range of tactics available, some decisions will be taken locally. The noble Baroness also asked about Customs and Excise taking over the range of responsibilities for control of illegal imports. Some details need to be sorted out but it is intended that that will take place as rapidly as possible next year.
The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, asked about resources. In addition to the resources already allocated for personnel and the experiments to which he referred, the spending review has allocated a total over three years of £25 million. The exact division has yet to be determined, but the bulk will be on control of illegal imports.
The noble Lord referred to farming systems and the need to engage farmers in the whole process. That was one of the difficulties last time. There has never been a rehearsal involving all the public authorities, let alone farmers. The intention is to bring farmers into that process so that they are familiar with it and so that we are familiar with farming practices.
As regards the noble Lord's questions about the State Veterinary Service, we will provide adequate funding. The other benefit will be a single line of command with vets, as far as possible, co-located with others. So there would be clear co-ordination of all functions at the regional level.
In relation to the 20-day standstill, which both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord continue to be somewhat critical of—no doubt we shall return to this matter later in the week—the issue of how we have changed the 20-day standstill has not remained the same. We have adapted, in particular, to the autumn
752
standstill. But in order to move to a permanent regime we need the full evidence required of us by the Royal Society and Anderson reports. That will be available in outline by the end of the month—in time, therefore, for us to take some decisions on the next big batch of movements in February next year.
The noble Baroness spoke about pyres. We shall have a different hierarchy of disposal. Mass pyres will not form part of our disposal, whatever the level of culling.
As regards research, the noble Baroness asked about the cost of the science advisory group. That is not a significant cost of itself because it consists of key personnel brought together to advise. The substantial expenditure referred to on research is riot for the science advisory group. That will be spent in a number of different locations. The science advisory group will primarily be something that can be plugged into the whole control of the disease, but it will be there on a continuous basis before any disease hits us.
The noble Baroness referred to what she said was the delay in this report. In fact the report has been brought forward to ensure that it can be considered in this Session of Parliament. The reports were made in July. Those noble Lords who demanded a full-scale legalistic public inquiry will recognise that we would not have received the results of that inquiry by now, let alone the government response to that inquiry. We are therefore somewhat ahead of where many noble Lords were urging me to be only a few months ago. We have a detailed inquiry, plus government commitments on organisational change and on resources, plus a whole new approach to the Government's relationship with the farming and other interests involved should we ever be faced with this dreadful disease again.
Lord Carter: My Lords, can the Minister say more about vaccination? The Statement talks about the proposal to trigger an emergency vaccination campaign should the need arise. It refers to the recommendation of the Royal Society that research would lead to a vaccine—presumably a single vaccine—that could be used routinely rather than just in an emergency against all strains of FMD and for all species. I understand that it is called a polyvalent vaccine. How long would it take to produce such a vaccine? To return to the emergency situation, is the intention to have a stock of vaccines available for all the major strains of FMD that might occur in order for the emergency vaccination scheme to work?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Royal Society recommendation, which we accept, was that we should help initiate an international effort to try and find a single "polyvariant"—I think is the term—vaccine. We need to pursue that in the EU and the 01E. There is no such vaccine at the moment. I cannot give any indication of how soon science will produce one.
As regards the immediate situation and having vaccine on standby or available for an emergency situation, it is the intention that we would cover what

753
I understand are the seven main strains of foot and mouth most likely theoretically to break out. That position should be achieved in the time needed to clear up the other difficulties in setting up a vaccine option. That is already under way.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, my noble friend on the Front Bench mentioned that at the back of the book the Government say that they will expect farmers to insure against foot and mouth rather than get compensation. No doubt before the Government contemplated this they discussed the matter with the insurance companies. What is their attitude to a risk which is largely determined by government action and not by individual farmers whom they would be insuring? Are the insurance companies happy about this?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the last part of the main part of the report refers to discussions which are ongoing between the Government and the insurance industry as to whether some sharing of the risk of the cost of compensation should be established, either in an insurance form or on a levy-based form. There are no final conclusions. It would be right to say that at this point the insurance industry is unlikely to be prepared to take anything like the full risk. We are therefore looking more thoroughly at a levy-based system which could be phased in with the Government still taking the main responsibility in the early years of such a system. Final decisions have yet to be taken.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, the Minister will not be surprised if I intervene on that point. My first request is that he should keep the Royal Society report under his pillow every night, as it deals with the key issue of how we avoid a mass slaughter of animals, if there is another serious outbreak of foot and mouth disease. It goes without saying that slaughter is the right policy for the infective animals and direct contacts, but it also goes without saying that we must plan for and achieve the necessity of vaccination-to-live beyond that.
The report makes some direct references to what we should do, and I shall pose two questions to the Minister about that. The report states categorically that,
"Important advances have taken place within the last year, both technically and in public attitudes, which would allow emergency vaccination to develop into a prime control strategy because we can distinguish vaccinated from vaccinated-infected animals".
The report also says:
"With significant effort by DEFRA, this should be possible by the end of 2003".
That is to say that we can achieve the things necessary to put ourselves into that position. I have made that point before, but I make it again, for it is most important.
I was a little disappointed to hear the Minister say in his Statement that the Follett report should "play a major role". That sounds like the sort of drafting that I did, when I was in the Ministry of Agriculture,
754
Fisheries and Food. We do not want the report to "play a major role": we want it to be carried into action by the end of 2003. Will the Minister make it clear that the Government intend to carry through the recommendations for specific action set out in paragraph 29 of the report, so that we do not have again the terrible circumstances that we had before? I am convinced that we can avoid such circumstances in the future and that only preparatory action is needed to achieve that.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, with regard to the feasibility of introducing vaccination, the Government are confident that the problems can be resolved. However, there are still problems. We are confident that the technical advances mean that we can now distinguish between vaccinated animals and diseased animals. That must be strictly validated, but it would be within the timescale.
There is still some public concern, but we do not see that there is any reason why vaccinated meat should not get into the food chain, subject to the usual rules. Therefore, the anxieties of the trade, which were said to reflect consumer anxieties, should not prevent us from using vaccination in some future outbreak. My noble friend—call him "my noble friend"; I beg his pardon—the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, says that we are avoiding a mass cull. We are, of course, attempting to use all measures to limit the number of animals killed, but it is important to recognise that the categories to which he refers and to which the Royal Society and I have referred represent a significant number of animals in the kind of epidemic that occurred last time.
I hope that the other measures in the report will limit the initial cull problem with diseased premises and direct contacts. After that, vaccination would play a major role, but there may need to be other strategies as well, including the use of extensive, pre-emptive cull, as recommended by the Anderson report. The combination of that and greater emphasis on vaccination at that point will, undoubtedly, limit the number of animals killed.
The noble Lord said that I should sleep on the Royal Society report. I have done that for several months now, and I think I have absorbed most of its lessons. The Government have accepted some lessons in principle, if not necessarily entirely in detail, but we certainly accept the general strategy of the Royal Society report, including its views on vaccination.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I share with my noble friend Lady Byford the view that we should welcome many of the points made in the report, although there has been little time to study the response in detail. There are one or two points that we should identify. One important issue is the national identification of livestock, so that we know where animals are and where they are going. The other, which has been mentioned in several debates, is the importation of meat and. meat products. That is an important issue in the prevention of future outbreaks of disease—not only foot and mouth disease but many others.

755
I am slightly puzzled about the "blue box" area restriction on the movement of animals for 10 kilometres around infected premises. Public rights of way are to be restricted for only three kilometres. I know that several committees have said that the dangers are minimal, but it would seem to be more sensible to have, initially, a ban on all movements—on footpaths and of livestock—within 10 kilometres.That could then, perhaps, be reduced to three kilometres in due course, once the local outbreak was under control and was no longer an immediate danger.
I welcome the report's clarification of the position with regard to infected premises, the cull of in-contact animals and the cull of contiguous animals. There is an important difference. In the past few months, people have been confused about in-contact animals and contiguous animals. Now, a contiguous cull will be restricted to in-contact animals, and vaccination will be used, something that we all welcome. However, if we are to get to the desired position with regard to vaccination, we will need a vaccine that produces prolonged immunity and can differentiate between vaccinated animals and infected animals. We can do that experimentally, at present, but we cannot do it on a wide scale. The vaccine must cover several of the main strains. It should he a polyvalent—the word that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, sought—vaccine.
It would not, of course, be realistic to try to produce a vaccine against all the strains of foot and mouth disease in the world. However, we know the main strains and where they come from. It will take a lot of effort, and we have, at Pirbright, a centre that is world-class in research into foot and mouth disease and other viral diseases. I hope that the Government will immediately provide the extra funding for that work, so that we are not left unprepared. Over the years, Pirbright has lost some good people through retirement, and there is a need to recruit good scientists immediately.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend realises that questions to the Minister on a Statement should be fairly short and to the point. Other noble Lords may wish to intervene.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I am coming to my question.
The £25 million that has been promised will last only five years. It must be for longer than that. Will the Minister assure the House that such funding for veterinary research and teaching will continue beyond the five years?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it takes me all my time to get the Chancellor to agree to any funding beyond the normal three-year cycle. We have got to five years, so I am doing well. However, I cannot imagine, given the disaster that we faced, that any Minister of Agriculture would think that research funding would be adequate at anything significantly different from that level.
I agree with the noble Lord about livestock identification. It is important, although it will take some time to get a full system in place, particularly for sheep.
756
The blue box movement restrictions were primarily directed at animal and vehicle movements and the movements of people who had been handling animals. They proved effective in the latter stages, when we were able to impose them on the last of the outbreaks. There is no equivalent evidence that any walker or rambler spread the disease in the last outbreak or any equivalent outbreak elsewhere.
The noble Lord and the House have to realise that the impact of closing down significant parts of the countryside during that epidemic not only on non-farming business and tourism but also on some farming business was devastating— in our judgment an unnecessary effect of the measures brought in at that point, which, with hindsight, we would not repeat.
The noble Lord rightly refers to clarification of different categories of animal. He possibly overstates the fact that we would always use vaccination in relation to extensive and pre-emptive culling. We would have the full armoury of weapons but vaccination would play a more major role in our strategy than was the case until we received these reports.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for making the Statement. Has he had any feedback from his honourable friend Mr Elliot Morley in another place about a meeting at the Royal Society last night at which his honourable friend spoke? Sir Brian Follett gave a good quick breakdown of his report. He stressed vaccination to live and biosecurity over and over again. We have not spoken much about biosecurity. Does the Minister agree that it is vitally important that information on biosecurity is dispersed as widely as possible?
The president of the National Farmers' Union also spoke last night. He stressed the importance—to which I had not given much thought—of biosecurity information being tailored to the geographic and demographic situations that apply across the country, because they are all different. Will the Minister bear that in mind when drawing up protocols?
The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, mentioned tracing and animal movements. I notice that in their response the Government have agreed to a livestock identification programme with electronic identification of individual cattle, sheep and, if necessary, pigs. I am sure that goats will be included as well, because goats are extremely difficult to identify with tags.
How far is that programme progressing? It is highly important. The hedges of Britain are festooned with cattle ear-tags and sheep ear-tags. There is a welfare problem with animals' ears being nicked: when the tags come out, the ears become infected. If we can have electronic tagging and reading as soon as possible, that would be very helpful with the tracing of livestock movements. Will the Minister also tell us what is happening with tracing out-of-ring sales at markets?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my honourable friend Elliot Morley has reported back to us on the Royal

757
Society discussions. He felt that there was a reasonable consensus between Sir Brian Follett, the NFU and himself on the importance of both biosecurity and vaccination strategies in any future disease control.
Biosecurity is important; it needs to be tailored a little but there are some essential principles. That is one of the reasons why we and the farming sector need to draw closer together in terms of how we observe and enforce biosecurity. There is a large responsibility on the farming industry as well as government in ensuring that that happens. It is not just a few rotten apples in the farming industry who need to tighten up on their biosecurity; a great deal of mainstream farming needs to observe better biosecurity.
We are making progress as rapidly as possible on the tracing system. It is a huge system, particularly where the entire sheep flock is engaged, and we need to get it right. The EID will be used for other purposes as well as disease control, so there is also a European dimension. I cannot give the noble Countess a timetable as to when we will reach a comprehensive system, but we are moving as rapidly as possible, in part in concert with our European colleagues. I agree that it is important we achieve that.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I pose two questions on the lack of urgency which many of us feel characterised the Government's response. We welcome much of it greatly and warmly. The ban on personal imports is excellent, as is the responsibility for anti-smuggling going to Customs and Excise and the immediate national movement ban. But is any progress being made on the pilot project with dogs? This has been going on for some time. We were told that there were two; we need at least 2,000.
Will the Minister give more prominence to two excellent pieces of news in the report, which are not in the Statement and which should be made more publicly known and celebrated? They are the immediate alerting of the Armed Forces in the case of another outbreak and the completely different hierarchy of disposal. It would be excellent if the Government made those two provisions better known; they would be greatly welcomed by an anxious public.
I return wearisomely to vaccination. The Royal Society recommends that emergency vaccination should be seen as a major tool of first resort. The policy should be to vaccinate to live. That necessitates an acceptance that meat and meat products from vaccinated animals should enter the food chain normally. Are the Government doing anything to educate the public to accept animals vaccinated against foot and mouth disease as they readily accept animals vaccinated against many other diseases? There is no mention of that matter in the Statement, or even, so far as I know, in the response document.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, acceptance into the food chain is necessary. That is partly an issue for the public, but also for the people who claim to interpret the public's views: the retailers and the trade. That
758
process will be going on in parallel with solving the technical problems of preparing a vaccination strategy.
The experiment with dogs is a pilot study that will be eventually taken over by Customs and Excise, which has responsibility in other areas. It started in September after a previous false start in which we were hoping to obtain New Zealand dogs. We are now using Metropolitan Police dogs. The pilot should be completed within a couple of months. We will then draw conclusions as to whether we can expand it and whether we need 200 dogs, or however many. A pilot study is a pilot study but the total number will be determined in part by the outcome.
The Armed Forces provision is one aspect of what we would do immediately if a case was alerted. I apologise. I have gone over my allowed 20 minutes.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
5.27 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): 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 Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO WORDS SO RESTORED TO THE BILL AND MOTIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO BE MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS AND REASONS
[The page and line refer to HL Bill 89 as first printed for the Lords.]
LORDS AMENDMENT
14 After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
"British citizenship: registration of certain persons without other citizenshipThe following shall be inserted after section 4A of the British Nationality Act 1981 (c. 61) (registration as British citizen)—
"4B Acquisition by registration: certain persons without other citizenship(1)
This section applies to a person who has the status of—

(a)British Overseas citizen,

(b)British subject under this Act, or

(c)British protected person.

(2) A person to whom this section applies shall be entitled to be registered as a British citizen if—

(a)he applies for registration under this section,

(b)the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person does not have, apart from the status mentioned in subsection (1), any citizenship or nationality, and

759

(c) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person has not renounced, voluntarily relinquished or lost through action or inaction any citizenship or nationality."

(2) In section 14(1) of that Act (meaning of British citizen "by descent"), in paragraph (d) for "section 5" there shall be substituted "section 4B or 5"."
The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—
14A Line 17. at end insert "after 4th July 2002"
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14A to Lords Amendment No. 14.
Amendment No. 14 would provide British overseas citizens, British subjects and British protected persons having no other nationality, with an entitlement to acquire, on application and subject to some further requirements which I shall presently explain, British citizenship. In doing so they would also acquire, automatically, the right of abode here. In other words, they would no longer be subject to United Kingdom immigration controls but could come and go at will, subject to the usual requirements for proof of right of entry on arrival. Additionally, as EU citizens under the Treaty of Rome, they would acquire the rights of free movement and establishment which are conferred on such citizens by that treaty.
The requirements for acquisition of British citizenship under the clause as inserted by this House would be as follows. First, the applicant must be a British overseas citizen, British subject or British protected person. Secondly, the applicant must have no other nationality or citizenship on the date of application. Thirdly, the applicant should not previously have given up an alternative nationality or citizenship whether through action or inaction on his or her part.
As regards the third of those requirements, some have expressed concern that it would be unfair to exclude from the entitlement those who gave up another nationality at a time when the consequences of doing so in terms of future admissibility to the United Kingdom appeared different from what they were following our abolition of the special voucher scheme. We are sympathetic to that concern and the effect of Commons Amendment No. 14A would be that loss of another citizenship by whatever means would only disqualify if such loss occurred after 4th July 2002. That was the date on which we spelt out our intentions as regards British overseas citizens and clearly gave notice that the proposed entitlement to acquire British citizenship would not be extended to any other person who enjoyed or had enjoyed the security of another nationality.
Noble Lords will recognise a strong similarity to the proposition brought before your Lordships' House at an earlier stage in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. We are extremely grateful to him for helping us to find efficiencies that needed to be exercised. We hope we have matched the concerns raised by the noble Lord because we want to get the matter right and we now have the opportunity to do so. I commend the Motion to the House.
760
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14A to Lords Amendment No. 14.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, perhaps I may put on record my thanks to the Ministers, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, at Third Reading when he agreed to take the matter back, look at it and establish what provisions were necessary. I am delighted by the way he has assisted in the matter.
At Third Reading, I drew the Government's attention to the likely injustice to certain British overseas citizens in Kenya and the provision which was made on registration. I believe that Amendment No. 14A meets our concern. It is an honourable outcome for those whose one hope of registering as a British citizen would have been taken away. This is an example of how detailed scrutiny of legislation can help remove anomalies, for which I am grateful to the Minister. I hope only that he will take the opportunity to publicise the provision so that a small group of people can exercise their right as soon as possible and the matter can be usefully concluded. Again, I thank the Minister.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for reporting the amendment from the House of Commons. I endorse the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, we will of course use our best endeavours to give the matter wide publicity so that it is widely understood how people can benefit. I am grateful to him for all his efforts.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
16 After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
"Disapplication of section (Consequential and Incidental provision) in relation to Part 1
Section (Consequential and incidental provision) shall not apply to this Part."
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
16A Because the power to make consequential and incidental provision should not be restricted in the manner proposed.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 16 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 16A.
Lords Amendment No. 16 and the ancillary Amendments Nos. 45, 88, 126, 192, 216 and 224 had the effect of disapplying the consequential and incidental order-making power added by the Government at Third Reading. We discussed the issue clearly and strongly at Third Reading and I want to explain why the Government feel so strongly that the power is necessary and that some of the concerns that have been expressed are, I am glad to say, without foundation.

761
The House knows that powers of this kind are nothing new. The Education Act 2000 and the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 contain similar provisions, as have previous Acts of Parliament since 1992.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, had concerns about the timing. We would not have acted at this late stage if it were avoidable. It was a consequence of the way in which the Bill had fortuitously evolved following the agreement reached with the French about seeking to manage the situation in northern France. We had originally hoped that we would be able to include all the necessary consequential and incidental provisions within the Bill.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. It might be helpful if he were to explain how the agreement with the French—presumably that relating to Sangatte—made it necessary to introduce this clause about statutory instruments and secondary legislation. For someone who does not know all the detail, it is hard to understand why it is necessary.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall gladly give one illustration. The agreement with the French required us to have the powers to bring in juxtaposed controls at Channel ports. We did not have those powers because they sat only in the Eurotunnel legislation and therefore a late amendment had to be introduced. The power in this clause is because of a number of late amendments of that type and it has not been possible to be certain that all the consequential and incidental provisions have been identified.
On the issue of scope, there was obviously concern and, I believe, misunderstanding. I am asking the House to agree to a Commons amendment which clarifies the scope of the power in response to the representations made across the Chamber at Third Reading. I am pleased to be able to do so, and I am pleased that we were able to respond in the Commons.
I stress that the power is wholly consequential and incidental. It is about tidying up. It would not allow the Government to make provision which was not purely consequential or incidental on something already in the Bill. Yesterday, Mr Oliver Letwin stated:
"If the sole purpose of the clause as currently phrased is to rectify a direct conflict of laws, to rectify minor discrepancies of reference and to clarify matters where a lack of clarity would otherwise prevail, it is of course harmless.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/11/02; col. 227.]
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary replied, at col. 228:
"The hon. Gentleman asked whether the narrow interpretation was correct. The answer is yes. We do not seek to introduce parent legislation by edict, fiat or anything else".
Mr Letwin also asked about the issue of jurisprudence. Like him, legal advisers have been unable to find any relevant jurisprudence on this matter. Due to the exceedingly minor nature of the changes made by such a power and the fact that they
762
are clearly linked consequentially or incidentally to primary legislation, it is extremely unlikely that such a challenge could ever by brought. The power would not allow either this Home Secretary or any future Home Secretary to introduce a new provision of a type referred to during debate in the Commons.
I cannot list a large number of instances where we would use the power for the circular reason that they have not yet been identified. We would have rectified them if they had been identified. It is about updating paragraph numbers; ensuring that cross-references are correct; and inserting missing words—again, only in the eventuality that these numbers are wrong, the cross-references are incorrect and the words are missing as a consequence of provisions introduced in this Bill.
Assuming that the Bill becomes law, the Home Secretary cannot say, for example, "I don't like the way the two-year time limit is working and as a consequence I'll use the consequential power to lower or raise it". That would be completely ultra vires and he would not be able to act in that way.
The extremely limited nature of the power therefore poses no threat to the conduct of future business as suggested. It would also be interpreted very narrowly by the courts. All it gives the Government is the opportunity to make sure that this Bill, as enacted by Parliament, is able to function in the way that Parliament wants it to when passed. We cannot amend or alter anything unless it is consequential or incidental on a provision of this Bill. I commend the amendment to the House.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 16 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 16A.—(Lord Filkin.)
Lord Goodhartrose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 16 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 16A, at end insert "but do propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
Before Clause 137, insert the following new clause—
16B "Expiry of section (Consequential and incidental provision)
Section (Consequential and incidental provision) shall cease to continue in force after a period of twelve months unless an order providing for its continuation in force has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 225 is designed to give power, by order, to make consequential and incidental amendments, including amendments to other statutes. Therefore, it is indeed a Henry VIII power. Such a power is, as the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, has said, fairly common. I served for four years on the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. During the course of that service I saw a considerable number of similar amendments.
I checked the statutes for the year 2000, and in that year more or less similar clauses appeared in: Section 426 of the Financial Services and Markets Act; Section 119 of the Care Standards Act; Section 105 of the

763
Local Government Act; Section 128 of the Postal Services Act—admittedly, in that case limited to the modification of local Acts of Parliament; Section 109 of the Utilities Act; Section 277 of the Transport Act; and Section 77 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act.
The need for these clauses to tidy up details has been stated by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin. It is due to the complexity of modern legislation, which makes it difficult to identify every existing piece of statute law which needs to be repealed or amended.
The power is a legitimate one. However, there are two matters in connection with this particular power which have caused concern. The first was the width of drafting, which led to not unreasonable fears that the clause could be used for purposes over and above those indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin. The width of that power is unusual, although not unique. That objection is cured by Amendment No. 225A.
The second matter that caused concern was the fact that the clause was introduced by amendment at the last possible stage. Although the Minister has explained why it was done at that stage, it is unique in my experience for such a clause to be introduced by amendment at any stage of a Bill. For that reason, we have proposed Amendment No. 16B, which imposes a sunset clause at the end of the first year. That surely gives the Government time to trawl through existing legislation and to identify any inconsistencies that remain. After one year, that should be unnecessary.
One factor that has contributed to the problems arising from the clause is that there is no standard form of a consequential and incidental powers clause. My check on the clauses used in the year 2000 showed considerable variations. I suggest to the Minister that one solution to this problem would be that, following agreement—no doubt through the usual channels—the matter should be referred to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for a report. That report should, first, identify when it is legitimate to use a consequential and incidental powers clause; it should identify in such cases what would be an acceptable form or forms for such a clause; and it should indicate whether a Henry VIII element in such a clause should normally require the affirmative procedure, as this clause does, rather than the negative procedure, which is more generally used in the other clauses that I have mentioned. This would prevent similar problems arising. I hope that the Minister will be able to take that point on board, although I do not expect any assurance on it today. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 16 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 16A, at end insert "but do propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
Before Clause 137, insert the following new clause—
16B "Expiry of section (Consequential and incidental provision)
Section (Consequential and incidental provision) shall cease to continue in force after a period of twelve months unless an order
764
providing for its continuation in force has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament." "—(Lord Goodhart.)
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, right reverend Prelates on these Benches are often sceptical about Henry VIII powers and we should like to associate ourselves with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am grateful for the Government's clarification regarding the scope of the clause and, in particular, for the Home Secretary's statement yesterday (at col. 228 of the Official Report on proceedings in another place) to which the Minister has referred. I should, however, like to press the Minister for further enlightenment along the same lines as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
In another place, the Minister of State cited a number of precedents for the inclusion of such a clause. I should like to concentrate on the precedent that the wording used in this clause, as amended in another place, might set. She read out the clause dealing with consequential and incidental provision in the Adoption and Children Bill. The honourable lady then stated:
"That is no different from the provision before us.. The. Bills that have come before the House in the past few days have all contained this provision".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/I1/02; col. 225.]
With respect to the honourable lady, that statement is plainly incorrect. The crucial words, in my submission, in the clause in the Adoption and Children Bill. quoted by the Minister of State, are the words that define the purposes for which the Secretary of State can make provision using secondary legislation. The Adoption and Children Bill states that he can make such a provision,
"for the purposes of, in consequence of or for giving full effect to any provision of this Act".
The clause inserted into this Bill at Third Reading, as amended in another place yesterday, uses a much broader term; namely, the words,
"in connection with the provision of this Act".
There is, therefore, no mention in the clause that we are considering today of the fact that any order needs to comply with the purposes of the Bill to be consequential upon it or to give full effect to it. It merely needs to be "in connection with a provision" of the Bill.
Indeed, in all the examples cited by the Minister of State, the words "in connection with" did not appear at all.
Secondly, I should like to ask the Minister about the absence of another term that I had thought might be included in the light of last week's debate. Your Lordships will recall that, in the light of the memorandum submitted to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Home Office stated, at paragraph 4, that it wished to use this power

765
to provide for a "transitional period" in respect of appeals under the carriers' liability regime in Schedule 8.
The clause as amended allows the Secretary of State to make only consequential and incidental provision. However, yesterday in another place, when the Minister of State cited the precedents that I have just mentioned (at cols. 224 and 225 of the Official Report), all the provisions that she cited from previous enactments included the word "transitional".
There are two possible explanations for the absence of the power to make transitional provision under the clause as amended. One is that in all the enactments cited yesterday by the Minister of State in another place, and in others not cited by her, the inclusion of the word "transitional" was unnecessary, as it was already covered by the words "consequential" and "incidental". If that is the explanation, this House and another place have been enacting otiose provisions for many years.
The other explanation is that, because the word "transitional" is not used, transitional provisions cannot be made under the clause as amended, only consequential or incidental provisions. If that is the case, either the Government have got the drafting wrong, or they are planning to make the transitional provision under some other power.
I welcome the Government's attempts at clarification, but I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to the points that I have raised.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, it may be of interest to your Lordships that, following the important debate on this issue at Third Reading I asked the legal adviser to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to produce a report on the various versions of clauses of this kind which have appeared in recent legislation. Such a report will be put before the committee in the near future. I hope that the proposal made by my noble friend Lord Goodhart will be listened to by the usual channels and that there will be an opportunity to consider the issue in all of its ramifications, including that mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I think that my noble friend Lord Kingsland was unaware that there is a corrected version of Hansard, and I hope that there will be consequential amendments to his speech to reflect the actual columns that now stand in the corrected version.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall respond first to the thoughtful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, addressing directly the question of the sunset clause. As he and other noble Lords have said, there are a number of examples in which the power to make consequential and incidental amendments already exist. They are not subject to sunset clauses. We do not think that that would be desirable, because we could not be certain of identifying all the changes that may be needed within 11 months; others may turn up and
766
it is superfluous to keep returning to extend such a provision. Having said that, we shall make every effort to identify those amendments as quickly as possible; it is clearly desirable to do so, as far as we are able.
On the noble Lord's important and interesting questions about whether there is scope for reflection on the different forms of words used in such powers and whether that is the product of happenstance or is for good reason, I was going to say that I shall not interpose myself between discussions of the usual channels, but shall let them proceed. However, the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, has helpfully signalled that the Delegated Powers Committee will move on that. No doubt the Government will want to reflect on its comments and give their views on any report that it produces. Those processes are all thoughtful and sensible.
I turn to the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, which, as ever, are good and difficult. He asked why the provision is different from that of the Adoption and Children Bill and why the absence of the transitional terms. The power in that Bill is wider; for example, it includes supplementary provision and anything necessary in consequence of the Bill when enacted. For reasons that the House will understand, we have taken only the narrow powers that we need, especially in the light of the tone and feeling of our discussion last week. On the question of why there is no transitional provision, I am advised that we see no need for it. That is why there is no mention of that in the Bill. I sincerely hope that we are right in that respect. I commend the Motion to the House.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, Amendment No. 16B does not concern a matter on which that I feel that it is appropriate to challenge the decision of the other place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
17Clause 14. page 9, line 8, at end insert—
"( ) An accommodation centre shall be established only when the Secretary of State is satisfied that the proposed location is suitable to the needs of the persons to be accommodated therein."
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
17A Because it is unnecessary to restrict the power to establish an accommodation centre in the terms proposed.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 17 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 17A.
We have rightly given considerable attention to accommodation centres at each stage of the Bill. Our aim in establishing such centres is to trial a system that provides for faster processing of asylum claims, minimises the impact on local services such as health and education, and provides the support that has been asked of the state by asylum seekers. Those are the three fundamental aims of accommodation centres.

767
We have listened to many debates on various issues relating to accommodation centres: their size, location, how long people will stay in them, the facilities that should exist, how we will process cases more quickly and how we may be encouraged to proceed even more quickly. We have also considered inspection arrangements, ways to ensure that residents are treated fairly, and conditions of residence. We have undertaken to carry out a thorough and transparent evaluation of those pilot accommodation centres once they are operational. I shall not weary the House by listing the significant number of alterations that we have made on the subject of accommodation centres in response to the good scrutiny that the House has given the measures.
We have never pretended that there is only one way to achieve those three aims, but we have some essential principles. Those are proper, decent and appropriate support for destitute asylum seekers; the importance of faster processing; the fact that it is reasonable to share across the country the responsibility for looking after asylum seekers while their cases are being considered, rather than concentrating it in only a few places; and improving contact management—for obvious reasons, there is no point in our losing contact with people while they are going through the process.
Within the ambit of those principles, we are prepared to be flexible. Throughout consideration of the Bill, we have listened and responded to points made by noble Lords and others. We have made clear that our minds are not closed on the operation of those principles. For example, yesterday, my honourable friend Beverley Hughes said that we will trial a smaller centre for single men only. She said that it may house about 400 people. I make clear, as she did, that that is not a firm figure, although 400 may well be the upper end of what is envisaged. As I said on Report, the number could be as small as 250.
I can again confirm what was said in another place: the smaller trial centre may be in or on the edge of an urban area. Let me emphasise that point categorically. Naturally, given that the first few accommodation centres, which are undergoing their planning process, have been in rural areas, there has been some question about that. This is not a rural-only policy and never has been. On the other hand, neither is it an urban-only policy; nor should it be.
I shall not weary the House with a description of the locations of the 60,000-odd people who are currently in National Asylum Support Service accommodation—I have done so during debate on the Bill's previous stages—but they are entirely in urban areas, in most of our major cities. It is right that our major cities make their contribution by providing support and accommodation for asylum seekers while their cases are considered. Equally, there is no reason why that responsibility should fall only to them. I do not think that the House would think that reasonable. So we are saying neither only urban nor only rural. We
768
must pragmatically consider where it is best to provide accommodation centres that meet the principles and provide for the needs.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, a large number of organisations are involved with asylum seekers and refugees. Have the Government been in conversation or discussion with them? Is there any other example of single-sex provision being made? If so, will he give a chapter-and-verse outline?
6 p.m.
Lord Filkin: I would be delaying the House needlessly if I listed everyone to whom we have spoken about the provisions, or with whom we have exchanged correspondence. That is part of a proper process of publishing a White Paper, considering comments on it, publishing Bills and going through the detailed scrutiny process. On recollection, this must he our 13th or 14th day of debate on this Bill, and I am glad to say that a range of external organisations have been vigorous and vocal in their representations.
I am not certain whether I fully understood the thrust of the noble Lord's question on single-sex provision. We responded directly to previous representations on the matter in the House by saying that there would be a centre for single men. I think that I indicated that such a revision would be beneficial, not least because many asylum seekers are single men. There were doubts about whether single women should be mixed with single men, and about whether it was always desirable to mix families with single men.
There are no simple answers. It would be naïve for anyone to think that there is one simple model that is totally right. Our initial proposed model is an accommodation centre that is substantially freestanding and able to provide support itself without burdening other local services, and which can itself provide the legal services that guarantee much faster processing and avoid the paper chase about which we have all been rightly critical. Although there is much to commend that model, in response to representations we are saying that it is right and sensible to look at alternative models. As I said earlier, we will develop a smaller centre for single men on their own, which may be located near, or in, an urban area.
We will continue our very helpful discussions with the Refugee Council on its core and cluster models. There are interesting possibilities. We have not resolved all our differences, but we continue to negotiate with hope and good faith. It would be desirable if we could conclude such negotiations so that we would have a third model and a third option. I am signalling three options, which could apply in a rural area, an urban area or—to be pedantic—on a rural-urban fringe. If my maths serves me correctly, we are already talking about nine possible permutations within the scope of the changes that the Government made previously and announced yesterday.
We have not closed our minds to other alternatives. Noble Lords previously suggested to me that we might have a family-only centre. There is no reason for us to

769
rule that out automatically as nonsense or to say that we are not prepared to consider it. That does not mean that we will accept the proposal, but we will consider it, because it is sensible to think about how we can fulfil the principles.
We remain committed to the benefits of the freestanding model, which is why we are pursuing our proposals for the two accommodations centres at Bicester and at RAF Newton. Those developments will take their course subject to planning permission decisions, which are out of the Home Office's hands. As we announced yesterday, we have decided not to pursue our proposal for a centre at Throckmorton airfield. The decision was made not because the site is not suitable but because we have been unable satisfactorily to settle the land acquisition arrangements that would allow the site to be developed within an acceptable timeframe for the trial. For a variety of reasons, I am sure that the House will welcome that.
A centre as large as one with 750 places can be an effective means of supporting asylum seekers and providing the necessary processing speed that we all want. Having a mix of models seems intelligent, because in practice it would allow research of the alternatives. That evaluation will be seriously thorough and will allow Members of this House to engage in the process of evaluating what works best and why. We know that as a nation we must support destitute asylum seekers. We know that as a nation we want to accelerate the process of doing that so that we can conclude these issues, give refuge to those who justify it and remove those who do not. We are convinced that accommodation centres are a crucial part of that answer. However, our minds are flexible about which models would be best for different asylum seekers. That is why pilots, trials and evaluations are carried out. None of us knows now which would be the perfect answer. It is common sense to try a model and then to evaluate it.
The effect of the amendment would be to open up scope for unreasonable challenges to the location of an accommodation centre. We touched on the matter previously and are clear about it. The amendment would create the possibility of delay and uncertainty, before and after planning consent has been secured, and throughout the life of each centre.
It is an implicit and enforceable principle of administrative law that the Secretary of State should not exercise his powers unreasonably. We will not locate accommodation centres in areas where we are not satisfied that we can provide for the needs of asylum seekers. It is also implicit in Clause 45 as the Bill left the Commons that support will be provided having regard to a person's personal circumstances. I emphasise that point because it may be germane to many concerns. We made clear in earlier debates that we would not house someone in a centre if it could not deal with his or her needs. As I am sure that the House will appreciate, that does not imply that we are extending a personal preference so that people can choose where they will go.
770
We have listened very carefully to the many important debates on the Bill. We have opened a considerable range of alternative options and have signalled our interest and commitment in seeking further sensible options and finding out whether they meet the principles that I announced today and many times previously. For those reasons, it is important to allow trials to proceed. The amendment is not only unnecessary; it is positively risky and dangerous, for the reasons I suggested.
I hope that the House will agree that Amendment No. 17 is an unnecessary addition to the Bill. I commend the Government's position on this.
Moved, that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 17 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1 7 A.—(Lord Filkin.)
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsrose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 17 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 17A, at end insert "but do propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
17B Page 9, line 8, at end insert—
"( ) In determining the location of premises provided under this section the Secretary of State shall have regard to the needs of the persons to be accommodated therein.""
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 17B is an amendment in lieu. As the Minister said, yesterday the Government made some significant concessions on this Bill, having listened to the views expressed in this House and in the country beyond. We welcome 90 per cent of those concessions. We have always made clear that we want this Bill on the statute book and we want it there soon. But the Bill needs to be effective and fair in its operation. We wish to remove defects which, if left, would require the legislation to be revisited with further amending Bills over the next year.
The amendments in this group bring us back to the issue of where accommodation centres should be located. Newspaper reports in advance of debates in another place yesterday led us to hope that the Government had listened to our objections to their plans to build huge centres in rural areas each accommodating 750 people, and that those plans would be abandoned. When the Minister Beverley Hughes spoke in another place yesterday, our hopes that the Government had thought again on this principle were dashed. She announced that the centre on Throckmorton airfield was being dropped because of planning problems and that the other two huge rural centres would go ahead. She said at col. 151 of Commons Hansard that she still considers the site to be suitable. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, has repeated that today. That means that the Government have not recognised the fallibility of the model. They have not solved the problem. The only offer on the table was that the third centre would now contain 400 or 450 single males. The Minister said yesterday:
"That will allow us to test the alternative approach against the larger centres".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/11/02; col. 150.]

771
No, that is exactly what will not happen. It does not make this an effective trial. The Government's approach is still flawed.
The Refugee Council has confirmed to me today that the idea does not meet its proposal for a cluster and core approach, which would require smaller centres of about 200 people in each as satellites around a nucleus, where services such as health or legal advice could be properly provided. This system could be sustained in or near urban areas.
The Minister in the Commons said yesterday that the Government would continue working with the Refugee Council. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, has repeated that today. However, there is no commitment or budget to start a trial alongside the three existing large centres. We are given yet another hope, which I fear will be dashed.
We are left with the trial of pilot schemes that is not effective and does not encompass the type of centre that we believe is the way forward. The Minister has said that the Government wish to be flexible about the trial. You cannot be flexible when you have only one model to trial. That does not work.
When accommodation centres are established, their success will depend on their ability to meet the diverse cultural, social and linguistic needs of the people who will live in them. We believe that those needs will best be met by locating much smaller accommodation centres close to communities that already provide for the needs of those who come from similar cultures.
Even the Home Secretary has acknowledged to the chief executive of the Immigration Advisory Service that placing such large centres away from urban areas is likely to lead to isolation and potential institutionalisation, with consequent possible psychiatric difficulties for those who are placed there. That is his comment.
The huge weight of opinion inside and outside Parliament is that the Government have got their pilot modelling wrong. The Refugee Council, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the Law Society, Shelter and the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association, to name but a few, all say that the proposed huge centres in rural areas will cause serious problems for those accommodated in them and, potentially, for the local residents. The sites at Bicester and Nottingham are so isolated from community life that building centres there would close down any opportunity for the Government to reconsider which services, such as education, should be provided on site. If, later today, the Government were persuaded by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth that education should be provided off site in mainstream schools, the location of those two centres would effectively close down that option.
The smaller the number in each centre, the more likely it is that they will be efficient, humane, decent and safe. The debate on this matter has sprung from two different visions of the way ahead on how to proceed with locating and operating accommodation centres. Our vision was of small, one-stop shop centres in urban areas, each devoted to handling the cases of
772
asylum seekers from a particular area, country or region. At each there would be the relevant translators, lawyers and adjudicators, who would become expert in the affairs of that region. That would allow everything to be done fairly and rapidly.
I have tabled my amendment in lieu to give the Government another opportunity to reflect properly on these matters. It is very reasonable. It merely requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the needs of asylum seekers when he determines the location of an accommodation centre.
The Minister has helpfully made it clear today that the Government do not intend to put centres where they are not suitable to the needs of the people who live in them. That is not the reality of what we have heard so far about the siting of the pilot centres. If the Government reject my modest amendment, they will signal to the world that they will not have regard to the needs of asylum seekers when deciding where to locate accommodation centres. That would be wrong.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, am I right in understanding that the noble Baroness is saying that there are no circumstances in which accommodation centres of any size should be sited in rural areas?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, has given me the opportunity to say that I believe that all communities throughout the country would benefit from having accommodation centres trialled in and around them, where they are suitable for the people who will be in those centres. That may well include rural areas, if there are smaller centres around a nucleus providing the services, as envisaged by the Refugee Council. However, the only guarantee we have from the Government is that the model for their pilots is not flexible, but is flawed. The centres will not be suitable for the people who live in them. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 17 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason 17A, at end insert "but do propose Amendment No. 17B in lieu thereof".—(Baroness Anelay of St Johns.)
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, there is serious concern about the consequences for children and families of their being placed in isolated rural areas. There is serious concern about their mental and emotional wellbeing in those centres. The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, and my noble friend Lord Chan have expressed concern about child protection and the emotional wellbeing of children in accommodation centres. Can the Minister go further in assuring the House that the screening and assessment of families will be adequate? Specifically, can he say that where local authority social services departments are involved, their work will be fully funded and not capped? He may be aware of the local resentment bred by such under-funding of locally commissioned services.

773
Some of the children arriving in the centres will be coming not with their mother or father, but with a guardian who may be a virtual stranger to them. We do not want a repeat of the Victoria Climbie case, in which a stranger was given charge of a child. We know the consequences of that. We need to be very careful that children are properly assessed and their families are properly examined.
We need a complete assurance that the evaluation of the pilots will be robust. I am grateful to the Minister for emphasising how thorough and transparent the evaluations will be. We know that the Government are keen to learn as much as possible from these experiments. I should be grateful if the Minister would offer some assurance that the evaluation will include a report by a child mental health professional—a child psychiatrist, a child psychologist or a child psychotherapist—on emotional wellbeing in the centres. Dr Matthew Hodes, senior lecturer in child and adolescent psychiatry at Imperial College and a specialist in ethnic minority children, would be most willing to discuss the commissioning of such a project. The availability of robust evidence will be invaluable when we consider the future of accommodation centres.
I thank the Minister and his colleagues for their assiduity in providing information in response to my concerns throughout the course of the Bill.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, from this side of the House, I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. We seem to be getting different information. For example, last week I read that one Minister at the Home Office said that the closure of Sangatte depended on setting up accommodation centres in this country. I hope the Minister will confirm that that is not so. I do not want France to interfere with or dictate what we should do in this country.
The difference is simply a matter of looking at the model that has been recommended by the Refugee Council. We say this because we were rather interested when the debate started yesterday in the Commons and the Government announced that one of the centres would not be proceeded with. I suspect, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, that this is on the practical grounds of difficulties with planning applications and so on.
It is important to have a smaller accommodation centre, but that was qualified in that it is likely to be solely for men. This causes us considerable concern because we are not in a position to compare like with like. The Refugee Council model is interesting because it states that facilities should be provided in the community. There is a difference therefore between facilities that are provided within a large accommodation centre and facilities that are provided by the community for the people in a smaller accommodation centre. A comparison would ultimately give some indication of which model is likely to be successful and of how we should proceed in future.
774
We are, after all, talking about a pilot project. There is nothing fundamentally wrong in looking at a small accommodation centre based on a model which looks to the community for its support—thereby saving government resources—and ultimately being in a position to evaluate it.
The Conservative amendment is even more modest than the one that was won on Third Reading. It seeks to insert "shall have regard to" in place of "only when the Secretary of State is satisfied".
I hope that the Minister can assure the House that the centres will be located so that those in them can travel easily by public transport which is within their means. I also hope that the Government will ensure that such centres will be in places where appointments with legal representatives holding franchises in immigration law at the appropriate specialist level are possible, and that services such as those provided by opticians, dentists, local advice centres, citizens' advice bureaux and places of worships are available. Why should the Government provide them when they are all available within the community? That would probably provide an ideal way of comparing the two models.
We have rehearsed these arguments at various stages throughout the Bill. I hope that even at this late stage the Minister will find it possible to take into account the modest Conservative amendment and that we will proceed with a smaller centre on the basis of the Refugee Council model.
Lord Judd: My Lords, the case put by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, was very constructive. As I understand him, he is looking to the Minister to provide reassurances when he replies to the debate that will put our minds at rest. I join him in that.
I have great respect for the noble Baroness for having returned to this issue. It is important that she should. She has, not for the first time in our deliberations, put her case with moderation and real humanity. We all respect that.
When my noble friend comes to meet the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and which are of concern other noble Lords, he really must remember that we are talking about individual men, women and children and that, in the context of asylum seekers and others, we are talking about people who may have been through the most awful traumas. To take any risk of adding to their psychological difficulties and social problems which have arisen as a result of the experiences that they have had by the processes we have introduced is unthinkable. When so many people with so much experience and expertise in this area are saying that part of what the Government are still proposing is almost certainly going to cause problems and damage, I find it difficult to understand why the Government insist on continuing with that part of their proposals.
The Government are saying that they regard it as an experiment, but we should not be experimenting with people who, in many instances, have been through enough stress, pressure and trauma already. From that

775
standpoint. I hope that my noble friend will take very seriously the points that have been made and provide rather more convincing arguments in his response than he did in his introduction.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it is very good news that the noble Lord is supporting my noble friend because it is important that she has tabled the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, reminded us that we are, after all, only talking about a limited experiment. I forget how he worded it, but that is the gist of what he said. It is extraordinary that so much of the discussion on the Bill has been about accommodation centres—and yet, at any given time, we are talking about only some 3,000 asylum seekers out of some 80,000 whose cases are being dealt with.
I wonder—perhaps I am being a dreadful cynic—whether the Government expected and wanted the response of the press and the public, which is that most people now think that the majority of asylum seekers will be housed in accommodation centres. They will not he. It will only be one in 25 at any given moment. The rest will be settled in the community in many different ways.
So I slightly wonder whether this experiment is entirely about what we are told it is about or whether it has got a slightly different agenda to give the public confidence. I have said that before and I feel even more so that that is the case after reading the report of the debate last night in another place.
That having been said, we must carry out the experiment as well as we can. As has been said, this is about people. The accommodation centres will house people who have been suffering greatly, and they must be right for them, as they must be right for the communities in which they are placed.
My noble friend is giving the Government the opportunity to accept an amendment which will allow for infinite flexibility in this experiment. I do not know whether there will ever be a situation where, say, half of asylum seekers are in accommodation centres—I doubt it very much—but, should they be, it is very important that the system is flexible from the start.
I hope that the Minister and the House will take the amendment seriously. It may not say everything but it gives the flexibility required without harming the other provisions in this part of the Bill.
Lord Desai: My Lords, it is difficult to argue against the amendment, but I spoke against it at an earlier stage and I shall try once more—my inhumanity bit—and see what happens to my reputation.
Despite what the noble Baroness said in answer to my noble friend Lord Corbett—especially in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said—the recommendation seems to be that we cannot have asylum seekers anywhere but in urban areas. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said that you have to have places of worship, lawyers—and no doubt ethnic food
776
places—and so on. The idea is that the entire burden of accommodating asylum seekers in centres will fall on urban areas.
But urban areas are currently taking the bulk of the burden because, as my noble friend said, some 50,000 or 60,000 people are now living in urban areas. A small experiment is proposed by the Government—four centres. My noble friend has come back and said, "Okay, not four centres. Maybe fewer. Maybe one or two of 750 and some of 400". But no, that will not do either. The rural areas which are normally pleasant and green, where people love to live, will alienate foreigners. Foreigners are foreigners. Foreigners cannot have our green and pleasant land. They cannot be accommodated in low-density areas with lots of fresh open air. No, they cannot do that. Why? Because if they live like that, their children will be disturbed. So their children have to live in crowded urban areas and they have to go to schools where they will probably—I have said this before—get beaten up. That is what happens to strangers in small schools.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, the noble Lord is putting words into my mouth.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I did not say that the noble Lord said that. I said that last time.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, the argument that I was using was not between urban and rural areas. I was saying that if accommodation centres are to be set up, there ought to be one project on the Refugee Council model in an urban area where we can compare like with like. The type of service talked about as being provided in the community is the very type of service that the Minister is effectively providing in accommodation centres. Let us look at where the actual benefit occurs.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I have great respect for the noble Lord, who knows so much more about this than I shall ever know. I hate to contradict him. If he reads tomorrow what he said, as I listened the sense was very clear—that the centres cannot be located anywhere except where all the facilities are available. I have only lived in urban areas. I lived in London and now I live in Hastings, for weekends, so I know how strained are urban areas. The argument clearly is that rural areas must bear none of the burden and that, no matter what people say, rural areas will not accommodate any asylum seekers—not even one or two centres.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, my noble friend is getting himself quite waxed up about the issue of urban areas.
Lord Desai: Why not?
Lord Judd: My Lords, can he address in his interesting remarks an issue that concerns some of us very deeply and is partly related to urban areas—size and accessibility?
Lord Desai: My Lords, I said at an earlier stage that in Islington, where I was chairman of the Labour Party

777
for some years, a council estate of 750 would be regarded as bijou and very desirable because it was small. Many citizens live in much larger council estates. They would be shocked that your Lordships thought that a centre accommodating 750 people was very large. In a sense, the Government's argument has always been that the people in centres should not live there a very long time and that if one wants to minimise their length of stay, those people must have sufficient legal and other facilities within the centres to expedite their cases. No one has yet argued that there are not economies of scale in that respect. If you try to do this at a level of 250 people, all you will do is lengthen the stay of those unfortunate people. In your desire to do well by them, the unintended consequence would be that you would stretch out their misery more. If you want to do that, do that—but do not think that is a humane thing to do.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, we are talking about something that does not yet exist. We are talking about somewhere where none of us hope we ever will live. We appreciate the Government's desire to get on with this legislation but we have a right to set certain parameters. That is why I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for the amendment. I hope very much that the Minister—who is not quite in the league of Job but is almost getting there—will listen carefully.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I am new to your Lordships' House and still learning its ways but it would be as well to remind ourselves just what we are talking about.
We are talking about a government proposal to set up accommodation centres as part of a response to an undoubted public demand that we deal more effectively and efficiently with claims for asylum in this country. The process needs to be both faster and fairer to avoid the long days that presently arise in too many cases. People outside will not understand if they get the impression that there is any attempt in your Lordships' House to obstruct these general endeavours.
Listening to the debate, I get the impression that, perhaps with reluctance, there is general support for the idea of accommodation centres except that we do not want them in rural areas—they can only be in urban areas; they must not accommodate more than 250 persons; they must be in clusters; and they must have access to buses and trains. When one adds all those things up, people listening to your Lordships' debates may get the impression that there is not much enthusiasm for accommodation centres in the first place.
As I understand the proposal—and as my noble friend the Minister, with his enormous patience, will no doubt remind us—and despite what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, the proposition is for a trial. As the right reverend Prelate said, there are no such centres at the moment. We do not know what we are talking about in that sense. As my noble friend the Minister made clear earlier, the Government are
778
seeking the authority of your Lordships' House for a trial of about nine variations of the proposal, which he explained at the beginning of the debate.
I get the impression that there are noble Lords who, against a background of general support, are only willing to support the idea if their definition of the ideal accommodation centre is the one proceeded with and therefore there cannot be an experiment. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Judd argued against an experiment.
Lord Judd: My Lords, there is a certain amount of ventriloquisation going on in this debate. I argued against including in an experiment a model which, it was widely agreed, had too many dangers to be risked among people who had already experienced so much trauma. I also raised the question of the very concept of experimenting with people who may have been through the most terrible experiences.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I have great respect for those organisations who have doubts about the whole proposal but that does not make them right. We can respect their concerns and doubts but they know no more than any of us—including myself—what may be the result of this experiment. We regard this as an experiment but we are here talking about the most efficient, effective and sensitive manner in which we can deal with applicants for asylum, many of whom have had tremendously traumatic experiences—I will not weary the House with the arguments I made earlier—but who may find sanctuary, comfort and support within the walls of accommodation centres that would not otherwise be available to them if they were housed in the wider community while their claims are processed.
I do not know whether that is right or wrong but no one else in this House does either—which is why I hope very much that we will allow the Government to have this experiment, so that we can learn from what goes on and over time develop methods of properly dealing with applications in a way that avoids long delays and the further upsets to peoples' lives caused by processes that go on for years when the answer is no and they have to be deported back to their home countries.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, perhaps I may reply briefly to the noble Lords, Lord Corbett and Lord Desai. None of us who knows a little about the immigration business—I should add that I am a former immigration Minister—are against experiments to try to find out how such centres can work better, more efficiently, more quickly, and, above all, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, observed, more humanely, for those concerned. Some of the people about whom we are talking have been through trauma, and have had a terrible time in their own country. When they come to this country, they are looking for decency and justice.
We have spent too much of the time allocated for this Bill talking about accommodation centres. All the experts involved—namely, the Refugee Council, the

779
Immigration Advisory Service, and so on—say that it is a bad experiment; and, indeed, a very expensive one. On that basis, one is inevitably led on to ask, "Why do it?" Perhaps I may read a statement from yesterday's debate in the House of Commons:
"Why are we going down the road of vastly expensive accommodation centres, which no one wants and no one in their right mind thinks will be a success, when we might spend a fraction of that money to employ a minority of the people involved to improve the present system, so that it does indeed become firm, fast and fair?"—[Official Report, Commons, 5/11/02; col. 183.]
Those were the words of Glenda Jackson, Member of Parliament for Hampstead and Highgate. She was not pressing for refugees to be put in rural areas because they should not be placed in urban areas. She made the point that she does not actually believe that this experiment will work. That is what lies at the heart of this debate. That is why I very much approve of the amendment moved by my noble friend on the Front Bench.
After all, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, my noble friend's amendment is very modest. It simply asks the Secretary of State to,
"have regard to the needs of the persons to be accommodated",
in these accommodation centres. Surely the Secretary of State will not "not have regard" to such needs. Evidently, the Minister of State for the Home Office who replied to the yesterday's debate in the other place made the point that she did not like the original amendment. that we sent to the Commons because she was frightened of judicial review. No judicial review would decide that one place is suitable while another is not; the judicial review would decide whether it was the decision of a "reasonable person" to put an accommodation centre in a certain area.
Where does the fear of judicial review lie in this even more modest amendment? It can apply only if there is a real fear among Ministers on the government side that they will make the wrong decisions. Surely they should not attempt to vote on this issue with that thought already on their minds. If they are to take the right decisions, and if they believe this to be a fair trial—I agree with the concept of fair trails—they should support this amendment as being a perfectly fair idea for the Secretary of State to pursue.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Renton, with whom I served in the House of Commons, albeit on opposite sides. In this debate we have heard the words "flexibility" and "experiment". It is quite right for us to recognise that we are dealing with people who have their own opinions, people who have attitude, and people who are beset by children; in other words, people of all kinds. Therefore, it is very important for us to argue for flexibility and experiments.
There is one comment that we have not heard from my noble friend, who is rather curt as regards the issues that arise in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, cited some of the organisations that have written about these concerns. Perhaps I may add some further names to that list: the Immigration Advisory Service;
780
Amnesty International; the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association; the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux; the Law Society; the Commission for Racial Equality; Shelter; the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants; the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture; and the Electronic Immigration Network. Each of those organisations has a proud record. They know a lot about refugees and asylum seekers. After we have considered this amendment tonight, I expect my noble friend to say that sensible and constructive discussions will take place with all those organisations.
The Government do not know everything; we do not know everything. The issue of asylum seekers and refugees is highly complex. I believe that my noble friend has a duty to inform this House of what he and others in the Home Office intend to do. This is all very well, but we are considering this amendment at the last moment and the Government have given us their view on the situation that confronts this House. However, all the time we are dealing with people. That is why it is impossible for us to come to any hard-and-fast conclusions tonight. This debate must continue. Every organisation that I cited is against the idea that rural circumstances should prevail as regards accommodation centres. They may be wrong in that respect. But, with the depth of their experience, I believe that they are probably not wrong.
Over the next six months, or in the coming year. the Government have a duty to bring forward their own propositions. This House and another place should be constantly informed. That is not an unreasonable request. At present, the House is informed by way of question and answer; but that is not good enough. We are entitled to have a full report within 12 months--and, indeed, a further report after another 12 months—as regards what is happening because, as I said before, we are dealing with people.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I shall briefly respond to the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, who, incidentally, does know his way very well around this place. In his soothing tones, the noble Lord told us about the Government's new policies. But I put it to him that the concept of separation was introduced by the Government. None of us would be so concerned this evening about what is a very modest amendment if it were not for this sense of taking asylum seekers away from the community in the interests of speed as regards their applications and placing them, and educating them, somewhere else. I wish to speak later on the question of education, but one must remember the services that are so closely connected with the concept of accommodation centres. I urge all noble Lords to support this significant amendment moved by the noble Baroness.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, no one has answered the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that concentration is the best way of speedily processing applications, which is the object of the whole exercise. I do not wish to dwell on recent history, but, a few years back, the Conservative Party was

781
advocating a removals agency, the work of which was to be facilitated by large concentrations of asylum seekers. Now, when the Government have adopted some of the less obnoxious aspects of that proposal, it has taken a completely different view. So, there are some politics involved here. I do not in any way impugn the humanitarian motives of noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the amendment, but that is worth bearing in mind.
No one is proposing that these centres become permanent ways of life. People are not expected to stay there a long time. The object is to process people quickly and then enable those who are allowed into Britain to establish themselves wherever they want. It seems to me that concentration and the economies of scale that result are the most efficient way of getting people through the system quickly so that they can start to lead a normal life and recover from the trauma of the whole experience. Scattering them does not seem to be the best way of achieving that.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, on that point. With his usual intellectual acuity he has put his finger on the central issue that noble Lords have often wandered away from and ignored.
The central purpose of accommodation centres is to see whether we can fulfil our obligations to provide support to people in ways that do not increase the burden on local communities—as we already know how that operates—and that significantly increase the speed of dealing with their cases in a fair and proper way. As there may be one or two noble Lords who have not enjoyed every moment of our past 14 days or so of discussion, I remind the House that we intend to ensure that the accommodation centres that we propose will have facilities on site to deal with the legal processes. I refer to the initial hearing with legal advice that we shall discuss later and an appeal to the courts through the Immigration Appellate Authority. In other words, all the documentation, the people and the lawyers will come to the accommodation centres. That is why we are optimistic that the speed of processing will significantly increase and that we shall reduce—indeed, I hope eliminate—the paper-chase that has been characteristic of some previous practices in this respect.
Noble Lords are perfectly entitled to argue that they want people to be housed in small centres. However, in our view, those would not comprise accommodation centres in any sensible meaning of the word. We cannot see how they could have the legal facilities on site of the kind that we are talking about. Therefore, if noble Lords want slower processing, they may by all means vote for options that do not pilot an integration of facilities on site. Noble Lords are welcome to do that but I consider that such a step would completely close our minds to intelligent experimentation. There is a linkage between speed and the size of accommodation centres as regards the realistic possibility of having judicial facilities on site.
782
There is a related point about speed that is highly relevant to the humanitarian issue. We believe that we shall be able to deal with initial decision-making in two months, or we hope substantially less, and to deal with an appeal to the Immigration Appellate Authority on site substantially faster than has been the tradition to date. Most people who are accepted for asylum following their initial application will be out of an accommodation centre and settled into the community within two months. A small proportion of claims are accepted after appeal to the Immigration Appellate Authority. Those people should be out of an accommodation centre and settled into the community a few months after the legal process has been completed. We believe that what we are proposing will result in faster processing and will get people out of accommodation centres either into the—
Earl Russell: My Lords, does not the word "processing" sound rather more appropriate for cheese than for people?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, that is a good debating point. I believe that I have apologised previously for using the word "processing". I said that it was a slightly insensitive term. However, I am certain that noble Lords understand what I mean by it and that I do not need to repeat that discussion. On a previous occasion I apologised of my own volition. I should have hoped that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would have recollected that without my repeating it. I seek not to take too much time on such issues.
As I say, size is relevant to speed. Speed is relevant to humanity if one can get people settled into the country more speedily or, if I may be direct, out of the country if they no longer qualify for asylum.
I refer to the flexibility that the amendment seeks. That flexibility already exists in the provisions of Part 2. Those provisions do not describe any particular site or location for accommodation centres. We have said that centres will meet the needs of residents. Clause 26, as it left the Commons, set out a range of facilities that may be provided to residents. There is a power in subsection (3) of that clause to add by order to that list of facilities.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, that the amendment would open up an increased probability of frequent judicial review. He may ask what is wrong with that. The answer to that is: delay, delay, delay. If noble Lords want more delay, they should vote for that measure.
I refer to the advocacy of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on child protection issues. The director of social services has responsibility for asylum seekers in that area, as he has for any other resident. He has a full responsibility to protect children from abuse or any other form of neglect. The Children Act will apply fully in that regard. We have already said that child protection will comprise one of the duties of the monitor who has been provided under the Bill. Earlier debates indicated that noble Lords are content with the protection afforded through legislation such as the

783
Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000. Of course, unaccompanied children will not be housed in accommodation centres.
We shall ensure that children in centres have access to appropriate mental health facilities. We are discussing with the Department of Health how to provide those facilities. We shall ensure that there are arrangements to identify any mental health problems in children and that appropriate liaison and referral processes are in place to do so. We shall evaluate those services as part of the study. We are discussing with the Department of Health funding for social services in that respect. I may not have covered all the points that the noble Earl raised, but it might be more efficient if I deal with any that I have not covered by letter, as I believe that we have discussed them previously on a number of occasions.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked about Sangatte. I t is not the case that France is running our asylum policy. The Bill as a whole is crucial to addressing concerns with our system that have been expressed in this House during our many days of debate. I refer to concerns that all share, including the French, with regard to draw factors, slowness and whether we attract more people to us and to northern Europe as a consequence.
I turn to the central question. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, did not refer to it with his usual tact. He basically said that we should not experiment. I could not disagree more. Of course we should experiment because what we have at present is not good enough. It is not good enough for children; it is not good enough for families and asylum seekers; and it is not good enough for the country in terms of the slowness and paper-chase of the system. We already know what accommodation centres look like that do not have integral facilities. In continental Europe there are plenty of examples of—to put it tactfully—clusters of several hundred asylum seekers put together in a building with little support or services on site. We studied those and we did not consider that they were satisfactory. That is why our model is vastly different. We seek to provide the support that people need, to fulfil our obligations and to deal with their cases expeditiously. We do not need—
Lord Judd: My Lords, I take seriously what my noble friend is saying. But does he not agree that if he is asking us to accept the case for experiments, it is not acceptable to include in those experiments people who are at risk and who have been through—I repeat—possibly extraordinary trauma and to include arrangements that so many people with insight and experience say are dangerous?
7 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I was about to come to those issues.
We also know of another model. The model does not involve several hundred—perhaps 200 or 300— people living in accommodation, of which there are plenty of examples in continental Europe; it involves
784
20 or 30 people living together in clusters of units and obtaining their services in local communities. We know what that model is like because 50,000 people in Britain who are asylum seekers are currently receiving services of that type. It is not very good. That is why we cannot be so complacent as to believe that the present system will do and that we should not look at something else.
There is not time to go into detail about what is wrong with the dispersal system; we have discussed those issues on many occasions in this House. There are considerable problems for families. They feel isolated and at times experience harassment. They suddenly move to an area in which they know no one and they have to find a school place and obtain support services. That is bewildering and such people feel lost. They find it extremely difficult to cope with that dispersal. They may be in that dispersal area for only six months while their case is considered, after which they move on.
Under the current system, a family comes into an induction centre, is put into emergency accommodation, is moved to a dispersal area 200 miles away where they may be for six months and, if they get a "yes", they choose to move somewhere else. We argue that that is a nonsense for the family. It is not good. The argument that we should not experiment I find amazing. I find it amazing at times that it comes from some of the organisations that I believe are genuinely arguing for their candidates.
We must experiment to try to make the system better. I sometimes wonder whether some of those advocating that we should continue what we are doing and not try any such proposals base that on a belief that when anyone has claimed asylum, they should never be removed. It would be lovely if we were in a world in which that was possible, but it is fantasy-land.
I am in danger of losing my ill-earned reputation for being quiet and tolerant.
In conclusion, the amendment would effectively damage the objectives. It would open us up to delay and judicial review. We have signalled our willingness to experiment with a variety of different forms so far— I repeated those commitments from the Dispatch Box—
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords—
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I should be most grateful if my noble friend would not press the matter.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I asked the Minister if he would continue after this debate to see the bodies that I mentioned or any representative body in order to persuade them that the Government are right in carrying out a sensible experiment. That is all that I asked him to do.
Lord Filkin: Yes, my Lords, we will continue the dialogue, particularly with the Refugee Council. We would be pleased to do so. Over the summer, I was glad to have a whole range of discussions with people. The

785
Government will not give a mandate or veto to any external organisation; nor would noble Lords expect me to do so.
I have spoken at length. I strongly urge the House to reject the amendment for the reasons that I have advocated and in the interests of asylum claimants to this country.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in this debate. As ever, in his helpful way, the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, once again made my case for me. He rightly referred to the fact that there is a public demand that the chaos that the asylum system of this country has fallen into since the Government came to power has to be sorted out.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, twice as many people are seeking asylum in this country; there is a backlog that would take more than 43 years to clear on the Government's present plans for accommodation centres. That is what I call chaos.
We have debated this matter in great detail and I shall not repeat some of the excellent points that have been made from all sides of the House. The Minister reminded us—courteously, as ever—or those of us who are old lags at this game, that we are 14 days old today in our consideration of this Bill.
I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. This is necessarily a telegraphic debate; the noble Lord was not able to be with us on the previous 13 days. I assure him that if he had been, he would have heard details about the plans to which I have referred for a nucleus and satellite system, whereby the nucleus would provide those important services. He rightly pointed out the need to achieve economies of scale.
We agree with the Government that there should be intelligent experimentation in modelling and piloting when setting up the new accommodation centres. The problem is that we believe that the Government's model will not involve intelligent experimentation. The Government are still intent on effectively establishing one model: that is, two large centres in rural areas and another of 400 or 450 single men; we are yet to find out.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I have given as clear a commitment as I can. We are keen to pursue and develop the core and cluster model to which the noble Baroness referred.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. I pointed out in more detail in my opening remarks that our hopes had been dashed previously. A hope is being held out today without the budget or the plans that should go with it; it falls alongside the existing plans that the Government have put before us. That is our difficulty.
786
It is not my intention to promote the urban/rural debate. When the noble Lord, Lord Desai, was discussing accommodation centres, he seemed to be suggesting that asylum seekers would be living in some green and pleasant land. Let him go and see Bicester or Nottingham; does he think that they are a green and pleasant land for asylum seekers to live in?
The Government have made significant concessions on various matters, which I welcome. Am I being churlish in asking them to reconsider their stance on this modest amendment? It would not be damaging. After all, why should there be frequent judicial reviews? If my modest amendment is added to the Bill, why would people want judicially to review their way out of what appears to be, from the Government's point of view, a successful future in accommodation centres? It is not churlish to ask the Government to do what is right, decent and humane. I ask the House to give another place the opportunity to discuss this matter once more and I ask the Government to think again.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Gould of Potternewton): My Lords, the original Question was that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 17, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 17A, but do propose Amendment No. 17B in lieu thereof. The Question is that this amendment be agreed to.
7.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 17B) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 171; Not-Contents, 120.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Chan, L.

Addington, L. [Teller]

Colwyn, L.

Alderdice, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Craigavon, V.

Ampthill, L.

Crathorne, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Arran, E.

Dholakia, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Astor, V.

Elles, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Elton, L.

Attlee, E.

Feldman, L.

Avebury, L.

Flather, B.

Barker, B.

Fookes, B.

Bhatia, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L,

Blaker, L.

Fowler, L.

Blatch, B.

Freeman, L.

Boardman, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Geddes, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Glentoran, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Goodhart, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Goschen, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Greaves,L.

Burnham, L.

Hamwee, B.

Byford, B.

Hanham, B

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Henley, L.

787

Higgins, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Patten, L.

Hogg, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Peel, E.

Hooper, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hooson, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Howe, E.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Prior, L.

Hylton, L.

Quinton, L.

Jacobs, L.

Rawlings, B.

Jellicoe, E.

Razzall, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Reay, L.

Joffe, L.

Redesdale, L.

Jopling, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Kimball, L.

Rennard, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Renton, L.

Kingsland, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Rogan, L.

Lindsay, E.

Roper, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Liverpool, E.

Russell, E.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Lucas, L.

St Jon of Fawsley, L.

Luke, L.

Sandberg, L.

Lyell, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L

Sandwich, E.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Selsdon, L.

McNally, L.

Sharman, L.

Maddock, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Mancroft, L.

Sharples, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Marlesford, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Methuen, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Stewartby, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Monson, L.

Swinfen, L.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Taverne, L.

Mow bray and Stourton, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Moynihan, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Newby, L.

Tope, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Noakes, B.

Waddington, L.

Northbrook, L.

Wakeham, L.

Northover, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Walmsley, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Wilcox, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Brookman, L.

Alli, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Andrews, B.

Burlison, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Carter, L.

Bach, L.

Chandos, V.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Christopher, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Billingham, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Blackstone, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Boothroyd, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Bragg, L.

Crawley, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

788

Davies of Coity, L.

Lockwood, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Desai, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Dixon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Donoughue, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Dubs, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Elder, L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, I,.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Massey of Darwen, B

Evans of Watford, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Mitchell, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Filkin, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Gale, B.

Morriss of Manchester, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Moser, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Nicol, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Orme, L.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Parekh, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Greengross, B.

Pendry, L.

Greenfell, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Radice, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Rooker, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Harrison, L.

Sawyer, L.

Haskel, L.

Sheldon, L.

Hayman, B.

Simon, V.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Skidelsky, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hoyle, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.(Lord Chancellor)

Thorton, B.

Turnberg, L.

Islwyn, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Jeger, B.

Weatherill, L.

Jeger, B.

Whitty, L.

Jones, L.

Wilkins, B.

Kilclooney, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

King of West Broomwich, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Kirkhill, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Listowel, E.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

[*sec col. 812]
Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
7.19 p.m.
LORDS AMENDMENT
19 Clause 15, page 9, line 12, after "centre" insert "for a maximum period of four months save in exceptional circumstances"
The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendments in lieu thereof—
19A After Clause 22, insert the following new clause—
"Length of stay
(1)The Secretary of State may not arrange for the provision of accommodation for a person in an accommodation centre if he has been a resident of an accommodation centre for a continuous period of six months.
(2)But—
(a)subsection (1) may be disapplied in respect of a person, generally or to a specified extent, by agreement between the Secretary of State and the person, and
(b)if the Secretary of State thinks it appropriate in relation to a person because of the circumstances of his case, the Secretary of State may direct that subsection (1) shall have effect in relation to the person as if the period specified in that subsection were the period of nine months.
(3)Section 45 is subject to this section.
(4)The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (1) or (2)(b) so as to substitute a shorter period for a period specified."
19B Page 18, line 35, at beginning insert "An order under section (Length of stay) or"
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 19 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 19A and 19B in lieu thereof.
The issue of length of stay was debated in another place. The amendment brought forward by the Government was welcomed there. Oliver Letwin commented:
"we accept it as the best that the Government are willing to offer. I am grateful that the Minister gestured towards reducing it further".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/11/02; col. 164.]
Simon Hughes added:
"the proposal for a six-month limit is greatly welcome. It will set a discipline…The new proposal marks progress and we will not disagree with the Government".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/11/02; col. 172.]
This amendment will mean that a resident will remain in an accommodation centre for a maximum of six months unless, in the particular circumstances of the case, the Secretary of State decides that it is appropriate that the person should remain for a short time longer. If he does decide that, it will be for a maximum of a further three months.
We have also provided for an order, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, to be made allowing Parliament to shorten either or both of the six-month and the additional three-month periods. That is a clear indication that we are not simply saying that we accept that these limits are as good as it gets; it says that we shall continue to do all that we can to drive down processing times in the way that we have done since we came to power in 1997 in order to secure a speedy, fair and credible system.
The amendment recognises that there will be exceptions. If, for example, someone is due to receive a determination shortly after the six-month limit, we believe that it would make sense to require that person to remain for a short period beyond six months rather than subject him to upheaval. Of course, the intention will be to complete as many cases as possible end-to-end within the initial six-month period or less. But in cases which are particularly complex, documentation will need to be obtained from overseas or from other organisations. There will also be cases where asylum seekers have themselves delayed the process. In those instances, it is sensible to ensure that we have the capacity to require the applicant to remain for a short
790
while longer in the accommodation centre. There may be other circumstances in particular cases in which it may be appropriate to require a person to remain for longer than six months. We intend to set out clear guidance on that area and will publish it as appropriate.
Furthermore, our amendment ensures that a person may remain in an accommodation centre if he wishes. Whatever views we may have about accommodation centres, it would make no sense to require someone to leave where they wished to stay.
The remaining amendments with which we are disagreeing—Amendments Nos. 25, 26, 41, 42 and 44—are consequential.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 19 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 19A and 19B in lieu thereof.—(Lord Filkin.)
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, these amendments refer to the suggestion that was made in the House of Commons by my honourable friend Simon Hughes. He thought that six months should be the maximum time but was prepared to acknowledge the need for flexibility in individual cases. We are delighted to see a time limit on the face of the Bill and I thank the Minister.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I also thank the Minister. This government clause is more significant than the credit given to it outwith the Chamber and another place has demonstrated. The Government have recognised in the final part of the clause that maybe we shall achieve the correct piloting and modelling in relation to accommodation centres. It will be possible to reduce the time spent in those centres to less than six months, and I hope significantly less than six months. I welcome this pragmatic move forward by the Government.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration of Commons amendments be adjourned until 8.25 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, may we not carry on with the Bill?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there has been discussion on this matter and there is agreement across the Chamber that we shall break now to deal with the dinner-hour business.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I think we should divide on the matter.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, no one has discussed the matter with me. My name is associated with the following amendment and I press for this matter to be dealt with now.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I had expected that we would take the dinner-hour business now.

791
That was agreed across the Dispatch Box. I acknowledge the point made by the right reverend Prelate that I had not discussed it with him. I had not realised that he expected the House to carry on with the Bill. I believe that it is wise to break now. We have had a long debate and there are several other amendments to be considered thereafter.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Cyprus
7.26 p.m.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglassrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made towards resolving the problems of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this short debate on Cyprus, specifically Northern Cyprus, a region too often given the "blind eye" treatment and frequently misrepresented within the United Kingdom. More significantly, and with dire consequences for Turkish-Cypriots, the European Community has scandalously manipulated the issue.
I do not have time to retrace in detail the history of the past 40 years. Suffice to recall that the Greek/ Turkish arrangement for an independent Cyprus under the 1960 Treaty of Alliance precluded both enosis (union with Greece), the Greek and Greek Cypriot preference, and taksim (partition of the island), favoured by Turkey and Turkish Cypriots.
The Treaty of Guarantee committed Britain, Turkey and Greece to underpin and safeguard that arrangement. Yet between independence in 1963 and the 1974 Turkish "peace operation"—or invasion, depending on one's point of view—the Turkish-Cypriots endured a nightmare of discrimination, persecution and ultimately murder by their Greek-Cypriot neighbours. The 1974 Turkish action was fully justified and curtailed genocide that was already assuming monstrous proportions.
On 28th December 1963 the London Daily Express reported:
"We went tonight into the Turkish Cypriot Quarter of Nicosia in which 200 to 300 men women and children had been slaughtered in the last five days. We were the first Western reporters there and we saw sights too frightful to be described in print. Horror so extreme that the people seemed stunned beyond tears".
The American Under-Secretary of State, George Ball, stated that the Greek Cypriot leader's,
"central interest was to block off Turkish intervention so that he and his Greek Cypriots could go on massacring Turkish Cypriots".
Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon recalled:
"No one who lived as I did in Cyprus in the 1960s will forget what was happening. It was an attempt at the systematic elimination of a community. It was ethnic cleansing before that phrase came into vogue in the Western media".
I do not suggest that every Greek-Cypriot colluded in those atrocities. History shows that many of them died as a consequence of Grivas/Makarios treachery.
792
Like the IRA, EOKA operated on the theory that orchestrated murder and mutilation can keep an entire people in fearful subjection. Later, on 15th July 1974, five days before the Turkish operation, hundreds of Greek-Cypriot supporters of Makarios were slaughtered and were buried by the truckload in mass graves when mainland Greek forces overthrew the Makarios regime. One can only regret the Cold War pressures and strategic geographical considerations that precluded Britain from fulfilling her treaty obligations at the time. I do, however, pay tribute to our armed servicemen and women who have, since 1974, manned the Green Line and helped sustain peace on the island.
If one refuses to acknowledge what the Greek Cypriots did to the Turkish Cypriots—whom they outnumbered four to one—then one will not understand why the Turkish Cypriots established their own state. Nor will one comprehend why today they must not agree terms that may seem reasonable to outsiders but would put them at risk again.
I must ask why Britain—my nation—continues to be party to actions by the European Union that condemn a small, peaceful community of Turkish Cypriots to an economic, political and cultural wilderness, while concurrently embracing nations that until recently have been our sworn enemies.
That question cannot be answered without giving consideration to the recent "enlargement" deliberations by the European Union. The decision to exclude Turkey, our faithful ally for the past 80 years, while admitting a divided Cyprus in a situation that would enhance the Greek Cypriot south while further impoverishing the Turkish Cypriot community in the north, is surely perverse.,
I cannot accept protestations that the European Union would ensure equity. Is it not the European Union that imposes an embargo on exports from the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus; the European Union that has sustained the embargo on direct flights into the TRNC; the European Union that has allowed Greek influence to dictate, effectively, that Cypriot history must be considered only from the moment Turkey sailed to protect a besieged people from barbarism?
Do we as a nation, while we preen ourselves on our human rights record, on our equality agendas and on our world leadership, do anything to ameliorate this injustice? No. We turn a blind eye; we raise no ripples on a "Sea of Humbug". And to what effect? Industrious Turkish Cypriots must abandon their beloved island and seek their livelihood in the UK, the USA and elsewhere. Hence, the Turkish Cypriot population gradually decreases and Greek Cypriot propagandists make much of that.
The European Union is effectively contributing to social engineering—dare I use the phrase "condoning social extermination"? We are helping to accomplish the "final solution"—what the Akritas Plan designed by Makarios, Yorgadjis and Clerides failed to accomplish by oppression and murder in the 1960s.

793
Not only are a people affected by the imposed isolation of the TRNC; the whole ecology of the Mediterranean may be put in jeopardy through financial constraints that preclude comprehensive, sustainable and scientifically planned environmental programmes in the area.
Worldwide, protected areas are set aside to conserve nature and landscapes with, invariably, international support for such objectives. In poorer regions financial support is made available through NGOs and the commercial sector. When decisions are made and actions implemented, national parks are sustained by inbuilt tourism programmes. How can that happen in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus when, after almost 30 years of peace there, we in Europe still fail to acknowledge its existence? The Mediterranean region is a global priority for conservation. Can that be achieved without cognisance being taken of Northern Cyprus as a major element in the equation?
Is there to be no recognition, no co-ordinated international programme, no resources, no tourists, no realism and no hope? Time is running out for the protection and maintenance of the biodiversity of the Karpaz; and the need to set up a national park—even more extensive than is often talked about—is a priority.
The town of Dipkarpaz and numerous villages could be restored within their own present boundaries to accommodate literally thousands of tourists who would, as I have for years, come to enjoy the natural environment and cultural heritage of the area. That is the viable alternative to gradual encroachment of development based on individuals' desire to have a skyline villa or a stretch of unspoiled beach. It is the alternative to ecological destruction.
Some good work is being done on a shoestring budget. On the initiative of my good friend, Kutley Keco—a resident of Girne and a devoted conservationist—there has been a successful programme supported by Glasgow and Swansea Universities to study and to help protect the habitat of the endangered green turtle, which nests on Northern Cyprus beaches. But that is only a fraction of what needs to be done. I do not have time to speak about the significance of the Kyrenia Mountains or the Klidhes Islands. Suffice to say that millions of migratory birds move through here annually and that unique flora and fauna exist now, but that, without realistic and timely international support and understanding, we shall negatively "change the face of nature".
My allocated time is gone. I am grateful for your Lordships' attention and to those who will participate in this debate. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, will be able to indicate some understanding by the Government of the enduring plight of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, its people and its environment.
It will not be adequate to be told merely that the United Kingdom Government, "support the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General". That does not stand up to close analysis because the United Nations,
794
so far, has not been an impartial interlocutor. It has taken the Greek Cypriot side on the fundamental question—that the Greek Cypriot administration is the government of all Cyprus. That is not the case. That can never, ever again be the case.
There can be a solution on the island, but it has to be one that guarantees—absolutely guarantees this time—the integrity of the Turkish Cypriots.
7.37 p.m.
Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, in the various debates that I have listened to in the other House over many years, uppermost in the minds of participants has been a recognition of the rights and the security of Turkish Cypriots as well as the rights and security of Greek Cypriots. It is right and just that that should be the case.
In this short debate the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, provides a welcome opportunity at a crucial period in negotiations on the Cyprus problem to raise a few questions about the current status of those talks. Most importantly, it enables the Government, in their dual role as a guarantor of the independence and territorial integrity of Cyprus and a member of the Security Council, to bring together for us today the strands of the negotiations and to let us know the precise situation.
It is my understanding that, at the start of this year's talks between the leaders of the two communities, June was agreed as the target date for reaching an agreement on an agenda that was set by the United Nations Secretary-General.
That agenda required discussion of four core issues: the constitution of Cyprus; its territorial integrity; its security; and the combined issue of refugees and properties. Alas, it seems that progress was disappointingly slow, if not static. I understand that Mr Denktash did not wish to examine the core issues set down by the Secretary-General before pre-conditional proposals establishing two sovereign independent states in Cyprus, which would between them sign a treaty for a common structure. The Denktash proposals were outside the parameters set by the Security Council resolutions and therefore they were as unacceptable to that body as they were to President Clerides.
I make that point because I have before me a press statement issued on 9th July by the Security Council. It which expresses disappointment that progress remained slow and that the June target date for agreement had not been met. The statement stated:
"They [the Security Council] noted in this regard that the Turkish Cypriot side had been less constructive in its approach so far and had declined to support the goal of resolving the core issues by the end of June".
The statement goes on to urge both sides to cooperate fully to meet the requirements of Resolution 1250 and to work with Mr Alvaro de Soto for a

795
settlement that takes full consideration of relevant Security Council resolutions and treaties. I shall quote a little further from the statement:
"They"—
the Security Council, of course—
"strongly underscore the need for the Turkish side in particular to move in this direction".
Will the Minister confirm that the Government will not allow a divisive element to enter into the talks and that they remain firm in their support of the legitimacy of Security Council resolutions and that the desire of the Government and their aim is a unified Cyprus, which means a single sovereign state? Is that the Government's position?
Early last month, though no substantial breakthrough had taken place at a meeting in New York between the two leaders, the UN Secretary-General used his good offices once again and established the setting up of two committees composed of representatives of both communities to consider the laws and international treaties that must be applied following a solution of the Cyprus problem. His intervention to keep the two sides together and to keep them talking must be welcomed. Can the Minister tell the House whether the two communities have nominated their representatives and whether the committee is in talks on those matters? Will she also confirm, at so close a date to the European summit in Copenhagen next month, that the solution of the Cyprus situation will not be a pre-condition for the accession of the Republic of Cyprus to the European Union?
I shall conclude on this note, as I have only four minutes in which to speak.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It has gone.
Baroness Boothroyd: Yes, it has.
The time has now come when, in Whitehall jargon, there is a need to know. There is a need to know the Government's view of the obstacles to progress, a need to know the Government's view on the factors that contribute to the failure to make substantive progress in the talks. With that in mind, I look forward to the Minister's response.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Friends of Cyprus. The Question is about resolving the problems of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. The short answer is in two parts. First, the problems stem largely from a regime linked to the Turkish lira, which has lost half its value in 12 months. The economy has declined by 10 per cent in the same year and added 2 million to the number of those without work. Secondly, the most effective way to resolve the problems of Northern Cyprus is for the two communities on the island to agree a solution that would end the false division of the island so that both Cypriot communities can make the most of EU membership. That could also reverse the
796
position that, sadly, there are more Turkish Cypriots in London than in Northern Cyprus because of the lack of economic prospects.
The call for a solution and for EU membership was launched in summer by Mr Ali Erel, a Turkish Cypriot businessman, in a document called The Common Vision of a Turkish Cypriot Civil Society, now supported by 90 NGOs and others. There is now a virtual consensus among Turkish Cypriots on the need for a settlement, for membership of the European Union and for Turkey to be given the rendezvous date that it seeks for the opening of talks on its application to join the EU in five weeks' time in Copenhagen. For those and other reasons, I believe that the two Cypriot communities have now, after long years of hurt and division, been presented with a triple golden opportunity. There is a win for both communities in Cyprus being given a date to join the EU in Copenhagen. The biggest short-term winners will be those living in the north.
There is also a win for both communities from agreement to establish a bi-communal, federal state. There is a win for Turkey in getting a date to open its negotiations on EU membership, on which the new government in Ankara has said they are keen. For the first time, the move is positively supported and encouraged by Greece. Thirdly, there is a win for both communities, their mother countries and the region from further rapprochement between Turkey and Greece. It is encouraging that Mr Recep Tayyip Erdogan, leader of Sunday's winning party. the AK party, has responded immediately to an invitation from Greek Prime Minister Simitis to make an early visit to Athens.
I understand that there is substantial agreement between the leaders of both Cypriot communities on the setting up of a federal state that gives maximum autonomy, meets the proper security concerns of both communities and ensures full respect for human rights. There are important issues to settle: freedom of movement between both parts of the federal state; the rights of property; and the eventual removal from the island of foreign troops, other than those under UN or NATO control. I understand that the United Nations is soon to table proposals based on progress so far in the talks to deal with those and other important issues.
There are, perhaps, five weeks before the Copenhagen summit for the great prize of an end to the Cyprus problem to be won. It would compound the tragedy if the two Cypriot communities and their political leaders squandered the unique opportunity to build a better future together for themselves and their neighbours.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, on securing the debate. The timing is most apposite, as we digest the political significance of Turkey's election results, not only for Turkey but for the wider international community. In addition, it was only last month that the EU announced its bold decision to opt for what has

797
been dubbed a "big bang" enlargement in 2004. Historic and laudable though that goal undoubtedly is, we would be foolish to underestimate the difficulties still to be resolved, not least with regard to Cyprus.
It is the fervent wish of all who care about Cyprus to see a united Cyprus by the date of its accession. That is the aim of the EU, although it is also the EU's position that a settlement to the Cyprus problem is not a pre-condition for accession. I understand the rationale for that, but I shall return to the question of whether it is a realistic option.
Movement in the peace process seems now to depend upon the submission of a solution plan by the UN Secretary-General, but it is unclear whether there will still be enough time to reach a framework settlement before the Copenhagen European Council next month. Can the Minister say when she understands that the UN Secretary-General's proposals will be submitted?
The slow progress in negotiations is bad news for all of Cyprus, but particularly for Northern Cyprus whose political isolation, as we heard, has served to impoverish the Turkish Cypriots and has caused much economic hardship. The dwindling community of Northern Cyprus has been cut off from the rest of the world for the best part of three decades. Its people increasingly crave the normalisation of politics in the region. The noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, rightly said—opinion polls back him up—that 90 per cent of Turkish Cypriots want to be part of Europe. However, until that happens, there is little to encourage the younger generation to stay. Economically underdeveloped and internationally unrecognised, Northern Cyprus has little to offer its people. EU membership could change all that, almost overnight.
The EU has also admitted the possibility of a far less rosy future. Although the EU has stated that a political settlement would facilitate the accession of Cyprus enormously, it has also made it clear that no third country can have a veto over a candidate country's accession and that there is no legal obstacle to Cyprus joining the EU if a settlement is not reached. Legally speaking, perhaps, there is not; but, practically, it is far from a risk-free strategy and depends as much on the relationship between Greece and Turkey as on the Cypriots of both communities. While heavily armed Turks and Greeks still face each other across the Green Line, the Cyprus dispute will continue to sour relations between Greece and Turkey. The fact is that Greece and Turkey play an important role in Cyprus, and relations with those two countries dominate Cypriot politics.
It is an ironic twist that the Cyprus negotiations have entered this new and urgent phase just as Greece is poised to assume the EU's rotating presidency in January. The prospect of navigating the diplomatic minefield that would arise from a situation in which a NATO country had an army of occupation garrisoned on territory in the EU is a grim one indeed. Equally, if the Republic of Cyprus were to join the EU in the absence of a settlement, what incentive would there be
798
for Northern Cyprus to compromise and negotiate, if the EU door is shut in its face? We should consider the reported comments of Mr Denktash last month, made as he left the UN building in New York:
"Only one point. If EU takes Cyprus as a member, talks are ended and Cyprus is divided forever".
There is still a chance that there will be a breakthrough in the direct talks in Cyprus before the EU summit next month. We are entering a crucial time for efforts to resolve the Cyprus problem, and I hope that the Minister will be able to report some positive developments.
I believe that there is hope and that it is possible to find a solution that addresses the legitimate concerns and vital interests of all, but I am concerned by the slow speed of progress. There is no shortage of incentives to find a solution. A new EU with the whole of Cyprus in it would be better for both Cyprus and the EU. After all, the raison d'être for the creation of the European Union was to facilitate the reconciliation of enemies and to prevent war and conflict between members. Nowhere do those sentiments have more resonance than in Cyprus today. Nothing would be a more fitting memorial to the EU's founding fathers' vision of "a Europe whole and free" than the accession of a reunited Cyprus in the first wave of enlargement of the twenty-first century.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, on his Question. It comes at a timely moment—a sensitive period when Cyprus is seeking to join the European Union and there is an encouraging rapprochement between Turkey and Greece. We congratulate Mr Erdogan on his considerable victory in the recent election in Turkey.
I have known Cyprus for over 30 years. I bought a house there in 1972, prior to the island's division into two separate entities and administrations. I have been back to that house every year since then. It happens to be in what is now called the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. In 1972 it was in the Republic of Cyprus, but in my opinion such a country constitutionally has ceased to exist.
We must not go into the background in detail, but Turkish Cypriots form 22 per cent of the population. There will never be a settlement in Cyprus without their agreement. Both sides must reach an agreement. You cannot have a united Cyprus just by asking for it: you must obtain an agreed Cyprus in which both Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots come together in agreement and have that agreement approved by the two communities in their own sectors of the island.
The treatment received by the Turkish Cypriots was terrible: the 22 per cent of the population they comprise were forced into 3 per cent of the island's territory. Your Lordships can imagine the dreadful situation. Then there was a Greek-inspired coup from Athens, overthrowing the Greek Cypriot President, Makarios. Then the Turkish Government and army intervened, in their role as one of the lead guarantor powers of Cyprus. There have now been two separate

799
entities for 30 years. We must not live in the past. We must accept that we have moved on by 30 years: two communities; two entities.
In Kosovo there was a similar ethnic dispute between the Kosovans and the Serbs. The Serbs lost their homes, as the Greek Cypriots did in Northern Cyprus. What did the world say about Kosovo? It did not say the Serbs must return to their houses. In fact the international community is encouraging Kosovans to live in what Serb houses still remain. This is a contradiction. In Kosovo financial support is being provided to Kosovans to occupy the empty houses, whereas in Cyprus some people are living in the past and saying that the Greek Cypriots must have the right to return to Northern Cyprus.
I do not know whether the Minister has been to Northern Cyprus; perhaps she will tell the House. Most of the Greek Cypriot houses do not exist; they have either collapsed and disappeared through 30 years of deterioration or people have built new houses on top of them. Houses do not remain for people to return to.
I turn to enlargement. There are two reasons why there has not been great movement in the talks: first, the recent illness of President Denktash, who is in the Presbyterian hospital in Washington after a heart operation. That is bad news because it could delay the talks; we wish him well. The second is the foolish decision by the European Union to tell the Greek Cypriots that they do not have to reach a settlement but will be brought into the European Union whether or not there is a settlement. That removed the incentive from the Greek Cypriots to reach an agreement.
That is now the core problem. There is no encouragement to the Greek Cypriots to reach agreement with the Turkish Cypriots. I hope that there is an agreement. The Turkish Cypriots want one and the Greek Cypriots certainly want one. It can be on the basis of what exists in Belgium: some kind of federalism in which the Greek Cypriots have their sector and the Turkish Cypriots have their sector but there is overall sovereignty for international affairs.
If there is not an agreement and the European Union goes ahead with enlargement, I fear we will have a situation where Turkey does not annex Northern Cyprus but integrates it. It is already well on the way in doing so. As has been said, the lira is already the currency; and the telephone and postal systems are integrated with Turkey. In almost every respect Northern Cyprus is already integrated.
7.55 p.m.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, my contribution will be brief as my knowledge of this beautiful island is desperately small. In declaring my interest I must tell your Lordships that I visited Cyprus at the invitation of the Republic of Cyprus Government for three days in June this year. Your Lordships will say that that is hardly enough time to form much of an opinion. But it showed in the starkest and clearest way how desperately we need to find a solution to what is commonly referred to as "the Cyprus problem".
800
I pay great tribute to the people who made my visit so interesting. Their generosity and hospitality were overwhelming. They answered all my questions without flinching, even when we talked about the time my brother had been fighting there in the British Army in the 1950s. They expressed a great weariness and anxiety about their future and I promised to do what I could to help their process towards accession.
I was fortunate enough to meet a number of Ministers: those for foreign affairs, the interior, justice and public order; the deputy chairman of the House Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, the head of the Negotiating Delegation for the Accession of Cyprus to the EU, His Excellency the President of the House of Representatives, the Chairman of the House Standing Committee on European Affairs, the Deputy Mayor of Nicosia, and senior civil servants; as well as our own High Commission. So your Lordships will see that my time was filled with meetings.
But while I was there I witnessed at first hand the desperation and anger felt when a comment was made about there needing to be a "new state" of Cyprus. This was taken literally, when I understand it was not meant to have been. But it was a clear indication that the language we use in this highly charged atmosphere is crucial. Misunderstandings can arise where there should be none; and however frustrating and time-consuming it might be to find the right words to help both sides of this debilitating dispute move forward, I urge Her Majesty's Government to continue to find them.
I come to this debate from a brief but intensive visit to Cyprus. My reasons for going were to see for myself how its accession plans were progressing. I found that it was very much on course to assume membership of the European Union, and it is to be warmly congratulated on that.
But essential problems remain. Turkey has threatened to annex the north if the EU accepts Cyprus, and Greece has warned that it will veto the expansion programme if Cyprus is refused entry. As we have heard, the June date for a basic accord on the future of the island has come and gone and still there appears no resolution.
Meanwhile, the families on both sides seek information and closure on the fate of their loved ones who disappeared during the 1960s and 1970s, when inter-communal violence escalated. I saw for myself the place where relatives stood every Saturday, and have done so ever since those dark days, holding up photographs of their family member. It was a lonely and dusty site on the Green Line, guarded by a UN soldier, and it left me with a profound feeling of sadness.
I therefore ask the Government what they are going to do to help resolve this essentially humanitarian problem. What progress has been made to share information and set up a joint DNA bank which will help identify any exhumed bodies? This was, I understand, suggested by the UN in 1997.

801
The Cyprus problem has been called "a quiet crisis", and indeed we in the EU appear to be jogging along to accession of the 10 applicant countries without hearing too much of the problems this will heap on us all should a solution not be found. The benefits of accession for both Northern and Southern Cyprus will be a prize beyond worth. It is my fervent hope that my next visit will be to a united island, whose people live and work together in mutual recognition and respect of their cultures and who can go forward into a new progressive age as members of an enlarged and enhanced European Union.
8 p.m.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that I come from a divided island. I know how, after reading a few books, speaking to a few people or visiting a few towns, it is easy to claim that you are an instant expert and to give advice. I do not wish to stand here before you today as an instant expert on the Cyprus problem. I certainly feel it is not possible unless one has been several times to both Northern and Southern Cyprus. I am pleased to say that I have been to both on several occasions.
I want further to highlight what my noble friend Lord Maginnis of Drumglass mentioned: the economic, political and cultural wilderness in which Turkish Cypriots find themselves as a result of crippling embargoes imposed by the Greek Cypriot administration.
Since 1963 Turkish Cypriots have been prevented from reaching their full economic potential. The Greek Cypriot administration has imposed very stringent economic sanctions on the Turkish Cypriot area: an all-embracing embargo, coupled with an intensive campaign of hostile anti-Turkish Cypriot propaganda, that has led to the almost total isolation of the Turkish Cypriot people from the rest of the world.
The Turkish Cypriot people have been effectively denied their right to engage in political, economic, social, cultural and sporting contacts with the rest of the world. And we, the British, European and international community not only turn a blind eye but actively participate in these embargoes. We do so by recognising the Greek Cypriot regime.
Let me give your Lordships a few brief examples. In April 2001, the Greek Cypriot leader, Mr Clerides, admitted that the Greek Cypriot administration had imposed an embargo on all ports and airports in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, declaring them closed and illegal. The Greek Cypriot administration refuses entry to Southern Cyprus for all foreign visitors who have chosen to enter the island through seaports and airports in the North. For those who wish to cross from South to North, there are restrictions on the duration of stay, and this does not even allow for an overnight visit. Nor are visitors to the North allowed to purchase any goods or souvenirs.
The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, has already mentioned the embargo on direct flights into the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. I have
802
experienced this myself. While I thoroughly enjoyed my visit to both parts of the island, I can well understand how the necessary stop-over in Turkey adds to the inconvenience of travelling to Northern Cyprus. The extra expense and time required undoubtedly discourage tourists from visiting this beautiful part of the island.
Your Lordships will also be aware that in July 1994 the European Court of Justice held that member states of the EU could only import fruits and vegetables carrying certificates of origin from the "Republic of Cyprus". Without access to international markets, how can Turkish Cypriot economic sectors develop? With no one willing to import Turkish Cypriot goods, much of the area's agricultural crops—citrus fruits, vegetables, potatoes, wheat and barley—are simply left rotting in the fields.
Greek Cypriot hostility was also directed against the British bank, HSBC, at the beginning of this year. HSBC was the first major foreign bank to open branches in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. The Greek Cypriot authorities, however, began campaigning against their presence in Northern Cyprus. They sent a senior manager of the Greek Cypriot Central Bank to London to put pressure on the British Financial Services Authority to stop the HSBC's operations in the North. Mr Clerides himself issues further threats and is reported to have said, "We will do what it takes and act accordingly".
Whatever suggestions are put forward for the resolution of the Cyprus problem, I believe that we in the UK should stop participating in these inhumane embargoes. We express concerns for human rights around the world, yet for nearly 40 years we have stood back and allowed one part of a small island to deny the rights of the other to economic development. Are we going to do the same for another 40 years?
8.5 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, compared to many of those who have taken part in the debate, I am a relative newcomer to the Cyprus conflict. Last year I spent some time in both sides of the island. I then convened what became the Open University Institute study of ways to resolve the Cyprus conflict, with participants from both sides of Cyprus, from Greece and from Turkey. I was closely associated with the study of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, has referred. It proposed a Belgian framework to get away from the theological argument about two states, one state which takes place between the two parties. I rapidly discovered that if you attempt to be unbiased on the Cyprus question, both sides accuse you of being hostile towards them. It is one of the sad elements in this issue.
However, I do not recognise the picture painted by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. There have been atrocities on both sides and one hears about them at length from both sides. Some of the people see 1960–64 as more important, others see 1974 as more important. Once one looks at the conflict, it is clear that the basis

803
for a settlement is relatively straightforward. The heads of agreement put forward by the United Nations in 1992 trades territory for guarantees for the Turkish minority—a property settlement which does not involve full restitution. The Greeks in the South must recognise that. Recognition on both sides that joining the European Union provides external guarantees and external constraint and prosperity for both, in particular for the North, is the only basis on which we can agree.
Outside countries, including our own, have to be involved in pushing both sides towards a compromise. That means the Greek Cypriots must recognise explicitly that there are limits on restitution of property and on the pursuit of legal claims; and a full acceptance of Turkish guarantees and of a continuing Turkish troop presence. However, on the Turkish Cypriot side there must be a move away from the dreadful theology of separate states—at least for 10 minutes—before one has a unified federal state. Furthermore, there must be a full acceptance by Mr Denktash that there is to be a constructive negotiation. I am sorry to say that there is a remarkable lack of understanding of the European Union and of integration. In Northern Cyprus there is a need for a crash programme for education and training. During my latest visit to Brussels I was pleased to meet a Turkish Cypriot intern in the Commission, because that is precisely the kind of thing the Commission should be doing.
The United Kingdom has major interests at stake. Part of the island is sovereign-base territory. There are no fences between the sovereign-base territory and the rest of the island, and whether we like it or not we are deeply involved. I am happy to say that, on the whole, the UK Government have made a constructive effort. I wish that other European Union governments, apart from the Greeks, were more actively involved in support.
The situation in the North is adverse. Emigration is continuing, and to judge from some of the Turkish Cypriots to whom I spoke, it is driven not only by economic despair but by political despair in opposition to a rather corrupt regime. There were those who told me that emigration is likely to continue until there are only Anatolians left, in the absence of a settlement. It costs a huge amount. It costs the Turkish mainland a huge amount to support the Northern Cyprus economy. The economy rests fundamentally on gambling and offshore higher education.
Thankfully, we now have a new Turkish Government—and a majoritarian Turkish Government. Thankfully, we have the most enlightened Greek Government we have yet had, particularly with the Foreign Minister, Mr Papandreou, playing a most constructive role. So we have a window briefly open between now and Copenhagen which must be utilised. I very much hope that Her Majesty's Government, together with their EU partners, the United States and the UN, will bring the greatest possible pressure to bear on both sides to seize that opportunity.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, for initiating this debate at this crucial time. The noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, mentioned the negotiations between the two leaders—for which this is a crucial month. We on these Benches hope that a settlement can be achieved that satisfies both Greek and Turkish Cypriots, as well as Greece and Turkey. Can the Minister throw any light on whether the Government feel that a framework agreement can be attained by 12th December?
Cyprus is on course for membership of the EU in 2004. While we welcome the accession of Cyprus, we are concerned about the consequences for Turkey. Turkey's intention to become a member of the EU is most welcome. However, if Cyprus accedes to the EU as a united island, the Ankara government will consider annexing northern Cyprus. That would have serious implications for Turkey's plans to join the EU.
Although the application for membership of the EU was deemed to have been made in the name of the whole island, in practice initially only the southern two-thirds of the island would stand as a full and active member. This understandably concerns many Turkish Cypriots. However, in the long run there must be many benefits for them, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan said.
The noble Lord, Lord Corbett, drew attention to the lack of economic prospects. At present, Turkish Cypriots are isolated because the TRNC is recognised only by Turkey. To acquire a passport, a citizen of the TRNC must apply to the Turkish embassy and must often travel to Ankara while his or her application is processed. Turkish Cypriots cannot take part in international events or be members of global organisations. As several speakers have said, their population is falling fast due to emigration.
An international embargo on trade means that Turkey is the only available market for produce from the TRNC, whose economy is financed entirely by annual injections of cash from Turkey. As a result, initiative and private enterprise are being stifled. The tourism boom, so obvious in the south, is almost entirely absent. The recent devaluation of the Turkish lira has widened the gap between the two communities, and it has been estimated that per capita income in the south is as much as seven times greater. Many Turkish Cypriots see membership of the EU as a way of reducing this gap. The EU has earmarked more than 200 million euros for the development of northern Cyprus—once partition has ended.
Some Greek and Turkish Cypriots have made progress towards working together. The respective Chambers of Commerce have agreed on a joint training programme at an estimated cost of 1.5 million euros. The programme provides for the training of middle-sized businesses and information about how the EU is developing.
Alongside the talks on political disputes there is the issue of missing persons—on both sides of the Green Line. We welcome the UN Secretary-General's appeal

805
to both sides to address this issue seriously. We welcome also the recognition by the two leaders that, although the issue should be dealt with separately from the main talks, it must be dealt with in parallel with those talks.
The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, mentioned biodiversity. I want to mention heritage and conservation. At present, both communities remain cut off from their parts of their heritage. The Green Line divides the past as well as the present. Churches and mosques have become the tools of political bargaining and manipulation on both sides. UNESCO has not provide any assistance to the Turkish Cypriot authorities to preserve common cultural heritage. I am unsure whether that has anything to do with the TRNC's lack of recognition as a political entity. Clearly, the sooner a settlement is achieved, the better the chance that Cyprus's heritage, both Greek and Turkish, will be preserved effectively.
As the debate has made clear, Cyprus's future remains uncertain. All parties stand to gain from the opportunities over the coming months. I hope that the outcome of negotiations will satisfy the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, and all those with an interest in the future of Cyprus.
8.14 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, perhaps I may add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, on initiating this most interesting and vigorous debate. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part.
We have entered a crucial period in Cyprus's history. As the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, indicated, there are five weeks between now and the Copenhagen European Council when I and all those with the best interests of all Cypriots at heart hope to see a reunited Cyprus invited to join the European Union. This would be an historic moment indeed—a long and wounding division in Europe healed by the Greek and the Turkish Cypriot communities choosing to come together once more, united in a new and wider Europe.
We all agree that both sides of the island of Cyprus have suffered immeasurably. However, in this debate we are discussing the particular problems faced in the north of Cyprus. Turkish Cypriots face restrictions in their trade with the European Union and with the rest of the world—although I assure the noble Lords. Lord Maginnis and Lord Rogan, that the British Government do not impose any restrictions on trade other than those that have arisen under international law: the UK is an important Turkish Cypriot market. Tourism faces a constant battle as the reputation of the north for beauty struggles with the lack of direct flights. As both goods and tourists have to travel via Turkey, so costs rise and the Turkish Cypriots lose their competitive edge. Inward investment is rare because of the north's unrecognised status; and the economic problems felt in Turkey have had a knock-on effect in the north too. The result has been massive
806
economic migration. We estimate that in the UK there are 100,000 Cypriots. To put that in perspective, there are only 180,000 currently living in the north of Cyprus.
I regret that the consequences of the legacy of bitterness and strife that has dogged Cyprus since independence in 1960 have affected each and every Turkish Cypriot life in this way. But I must state categorically that we, the Government, do not and will not recognise a separate state in the north of Cyprus.
I firmly believe that the only way to solve the problems of the north of Cyprus is through a comprehensive and lasting settlement which is seen as just by both sides. No one is asking either side to "sell out". Both sides have important principles at stake which they will not be expected to give up. The Government believe that such a settlement is within grasp. I urge Mr Denktash and Mr Clerides to reach out and take this opportunity to create a new Cyprus—a new Cyprus that would release the potential of all Cypriots, secure within an enlarged European Union.
As the House will know, Mr Denktash and Mr Clerides have been in face to face talks since January to find a settlement. The United Nations Secretary-General has asked that the details of the talks remain confidential. But I must repeat that any settlement must be seen as just by both sides. Insecurity—an issue raised by a number of speakers—lies at the heart of the fears of Greek and Turkish Cypriots. The two have not lived together for 30 years, in some cases 40 years. Mistrust reigns. We must first achieve a settlement that ensures that the physical security of the two sides is guaranteed. That means that a settlement must banish the twin nightmares of the two sides: the Turkish Cypriots' fear of domination by the Greek Cypriots; and the Greek Cypriots' fear of secession by the Turkish Cypriots and formal partition.
I repeat that a settlement that meets all those needs is within grasp. That is the prize to which my noble friend Lord Corbett of Castle Vale referred in his helpful speech. The United Nations is working hard to bridge the remaining gaps between the two sides. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in sending our strong support to Kofi Annan—and his special representative, Alvaro do Soto—for his efforts to help the two sides to come to the just and lasting settlement to which the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, and other noble Lords referred.
Yes, this is a two-step process. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said, we need a settlement reinforced by the accession of a reunited island to the European Union. The European Union has consistently made it clear that its aim is for a reunited island to join the European Union. It has promised to accommodate the terms of a settlement, which may mean substantial exemptions from EU law. But let me make clear that we and our European Union partners will act according to the 1999 Helsinki European Council conclusions, which stated that a settlement was not a precondition for accession but that all relevant factors would be taken into account.

807
The Copenhagen European Council will take decisions on Cyprus' accession. The outlook is good. I look at the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, when I say that because she strongly underlined that point in her speech. The latest regular report from the European Commission shows that Cyprus has closed more chapters than any other candidate country and has met the political criteria. To the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, I say that the European Union door is open to Cyprus. Let it be open to the whole of Cyprus: to all Cypriots.
Obviously, our debate has centred on Cyprus, but I should also mention Turkey's candidature for the European Union. I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney. and other noble Lords that the Government strongly support Turkey's candidature. We look forward to the day when Turkey is seated around the table of the Council. Important reforms passed by the Turkish Government in August have brought that day closer. The Brussels European Council made clear that Turkey's progress had brought forward the opening of accession negotiations. At Copenhagen, we and our partners will decide on the next stage of Turkey's candidature.
As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in another place on 28th October, for our part, we look forward to Turkey's membership of the European Union in accordance with the conditions that all candidates must meet. Turkey's accession would be good for Europe as well as for Turkey. So we will do all that we can to bring about a decision at Copenhagen moving forward Turkey's candidature to the next stage.
Noble Lords will note that I am talking exclusively about what we want with regard to a settlement and to the Copenhagen European Council. I shall not enter into speculation about what will happen if we do not get what we want—if we do not get what is best for all Cypriots and for Europe. To contemplate failure is to invite failure. At this historic moment, that is the last thing that should be on our minds.
Noble Lords raised many points. I shall try to deal with as many of them as possible before my time elapses. If I miss out any noble Lords, perhaps they will forgive me and I shall ensure that they receive written answers to their questions. The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, mentioned the need to lift trade embargoes on Northern Cyprus and said that the fault lay with the EU. We defend vigorously the right to trade with Northern Cyprus—as we did in the European Court of Justice case. Of the long list of embargoes given by the noble Lord, only the restrictions on trade have anything to do with the EU. Technical difficulties created by the non-recognition of Northern Cyprus will be overcome by a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement of the Cyprus problem and through the accession of a reunited island to the EU.
The noble Lord also said that the United Nations was not impartial. I strongly disagree. All countries on the Security Council have given Kofi Annan and his special advisers strong support in that matter. The
808
noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, also mentioned UN resolutions. The basis of talks is UN Security Council Resolution 1250, which states that settlements shall take full consideration of UN Security Council resolutions. I see that the noble Baroness shakes her head.
Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, will the Minister respond to the question that I asked in my speech? That is what I am asking her to do.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, that is what I am trying to do. We support the single state of Cyprus. I already mentioned that, which was the crux of the question asked by the noble Baroness.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked whether accession of a divided island would be problematic. We fully agree that it would be. That is not what we want. That is why the European Union wants to admit a reunited island at Copenhagen. The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, asked me whether I had visited the north of Cyprus. I have not yet had that pleasure. Many years ago, as a Member of the European Parliament, I found myself in the buffer zone in a march that brought together Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot women. I was overcome by the heat and, as I came round from fainting, a UN officer was looking down on me and saying, "Oh, another Euro MP asleep on the job!" That is my experience of the Cyprus buffer zone.
I shall of course write to noble Lords who have asked specific questions and I thank all those who have spoken for the positive nature of the debate. We have a great and historic opportunity.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
8.28 p.m.
Consideration of Commons amendments and reasons resumed.
LORDS AMENDMENT
20Page 9, line 16, at end insert ", and
(c) there is a place available in an appropriate maintained school for any dependant of school age"
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
20A Because the power to provide accommodation in an accommodation centre should not he restricted in the manner proposed.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 20 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 20A.
The issue of providing education for children in accommodation centres has understandably prompted passionate and strong debate because of' concern about the needs of children. For reasons that I shall try to explain, the Lords amendment strikes at the heart of what accommodation centres need to provide. It would therefore make them unworkable

809
and frustrate our ability to conduct the kind of experiment that we previously discussed. However, we have not been deaf to arguments raised during previous stages of the Bill. In the drafting of the clauses, we have sought to address two causes of concern.
It has always been our policy that those whose education needs cannot be met in an accommodation centre can attend a school. We have now made this provision much clearer, stating that it applies where the special circumstances of the child call for provision that can only, or best, be provided by the authority.
Secondly, we have made clear that the provision that a child who is a resident of an accommodation centre may not be admitted to a maintained school or a maintained nursery— which caused anxiety at the last stage—is now explicitly subject to the flexible provision allowing children to attend a school where their special circumstances call for it. So the policy is not inflexible and is focused on the individual educational needs of the child. Examples of those who might come within the provision are those with complex special educational needs or very talented or gifted children. It might also encompass children with a high level of fluency in English or who have been studying for international exams and have reached a stage that needs to be continued at a school. Provision will depend on the individual circumstances of each case and will be addressed as such. These flexible provisions make it explicit that the child's interests and needs are properly considered and can be properly responded to.
I shall now discuss some of the more general arguments about education in accommodation centres. I affirm that the status quo for asylum seekers' children is not good. We debated the matter during the previous stage, so I apologise for touching on it now, but it is highly relevant to these discussions. Children and their parents may travel a long distance and arrive in the United Kingdom with little or no command of English. They are moved into a school where English is predominant. They have little or no support in adapting to that environment. Children learn fast, as we pointed out in other debates. Nevertheless, for the first few months it is a difficult and challenging environment for children who may be traumatised. They will have little understanding of the culture, a poor command, if any, of English, and they may be moving into a hostile environment. There is evidence from previous debates of the possibility of bullying. They may be entering a school halfway through the school year, or, even worse, at the end of the school year with the result that they will get no education at all for two or three months during the summer.
There are concerns in dispersal about the safety of the environment for the whole family, which I will not go into. As we discussed previously, the challenges faced by schools when a child may attend for only a few months are considerable. The rather crude term for that is "churning". Considerable burdens are placed on schools when there is a constant turnover of children who stay for only a short period before
810
moving on. One may say, "So what? The school must learn to cope with that". But we believe that such a turnover affects other children in the school, because it affects the stability and ability of teachers to cope with their general needs.
These are strong arguments for our position that children should be educated in an accommodation centre while their families' asylum claims are considered. I repeat that we are talking only about children being educated in centres during the limited period before a decision is made on their case. If they are accepted for asylum after the initial interview, which is when most acceptances occur, they will leave the accommodation centre within a couple of months at most. Some may be granted asylum only after they have made an appeal to the IAA, but that proportion is much smaller. If they were accepted, they would be moved out and resettled permanently in the country as quickly as they wish.
Rather than feeling any iota of embarrassment about the education of asylum seekers' children in accommodation centres, I feel the reverse. We are right to pilot this experiment, because there are problems with the existing situation. It is already getting late, so I will be brief in building on the other reasons why, apart from the disadvantages of dispersal for families recently arrived in the country, accommodation centres potentially provide better services for asylum seekers' children by comparison to schools. Schools are not tailored to cope with asylum seekers' children; they are trying to meet the educational needs of all children. First, the curriculum can be tailored to the needs of asylum seekers' children. That is extremely important. The centres do not have a curriculum focused on teaching seven or eight year-old English children who are fluent in English and have had several years of schooling. It can be focused on the needs and skill levels of groups that have much less educational experience, much less English fluency, and for whom some aspects could be better rebalanced slightly.
In accommodation centres it would be possible to provide much more intensive language training for children, for two or three months, which would benefit them regardless of whether their parents' asylum application for permanent residence in the United Kingdom is successful. Because parents will be at the same location, the potential for parental involvement in their children's education in accommodation centres is significant. We want to build on that potential, because parents' active participation in their children's education is in the interests of children and parents.
In an accommodation centre, children can adapt to a structured education routine in a more protected environment without suddenly being thrown into a primary school in, for example, Newcastle or Glasgow, where they would have no support and no people of a similar background or language. That would be a harsh, exposed learning experience. Accommodation centres provide the potential for a much more structured adaptation to schooling and to Britain, albeit for a limited period, which is all that is needed. An accommodation centre is clearly a safe

811
environment. There is plenty of evidence from the Save the Children report on Glasgow to illustrate some parental anxieties about their children's safety, particularly during their early months in a new environment. An accommodation centre also allows a concentration of expertise. We would expect that some teachers would be very keen to teach in accommodation centres. They would start to build centres of excellence in teaching children with foreign languages how to adapt to education and the British culture and way of life, which would render them better fit for resettlement, if it is decided that that should happen.
It is justifiable to make an illustrative comparison of what happens to children at present. They enter an induction centre, where they stay for one week or 10 days while their essential climatisation takes place and their needs are assessed. They are then moved to emergency accommodation. They may stay there for a month or two, until NASS dispersed accommodation is found for them. They then move to NASS dispersed accommodation, which could be several hundred miles away. While they are there, they must begin the challenge of finding a place in a school. There is no guarantee of a school place given through NASS emergency accommodation. They have to go through the difficult process of negotiating for a school that has a vacancy and will take them in. The child then moves into that school, where they stay, while living in dispersed accommodation, until their asylum claim is accepted or rejected. The status quo is extremely unsatisfactory for the educational needs of the child, given the frequency of those moves.
In comparison, under the accommodation centre model that we want to pilot, the children will move straight from an induction centre into an accommodation centre that will provide them with accommodation, refuge, support and a place in an educational environment much more geared to their needs.
The final argument for accommodation centres being strongly in the interests of children is that they are likely to lead to faster decisions. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, quoted earlier his experience of going to Oakington. He said that the people there were pleased with Oakington, despite the slightly anomalous situation, because it led them to a fast decision. If I understood him correctly, the reason was that they appreciated the speed and certainty. They knew they would get an answer.
Children in an accommodation centre will move to an answer on whether their parents are going to stay in a centre much more quickly. That is fundamental to our argument on the necessity of the centres.
To summarise, accommodation centres with education on site are central to our end-to-end managed system, from induction to accommodation centres to resettlement or removal. They were signalled clearly in the White Paper and the proposal has been through the House of Commons twice. The amendment about to be moved is an insistence on the Lords having its way over the Commons. That cannot
812
be right, above all because we are confident that accommodation centres providing education and support for children will deliver excellent education and excellent support.
Noble Lords are right to say that we cannot be certain of that, but we think it fundamentally right that we pilot and test it in practice and evaluate it. There are in principle some very strong reasons—
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will my noble friend give way?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall finish in a few seconds. There are very strong reasons why this is so. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 20 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 20A.—(Lord Filkin.)
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, before I call the amendment, I must make a correction to the numbers announced at the Division earlier this evening. The number voting Content should have been 173 instead of 171.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouthrose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 20 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 20A, leave out "not".
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I am grateful to the Ministers, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, for their patience. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, for a number of conversations that we have had in the past few weeks. I realise that we are at a late stage, but I also realise the extent—almost unprecedented in this Parliament—of the opposition to the proposal from the Government Back Benches in another place and the number of abstentions there.
The more this question has been probed, the more disturbed many of us have become by the implications of the clause. It is a moral issue of how we treat children. They belong with other children. They should not live and be educated on their own. It is also a practical issue of how we educate them in familiar contexts. We have to start with the models that we have. I remain unconvinced by what the Minister has said. I realise that we need to get on, but I shall answer one or two of his points.
I am pleased about the flexibility being offered, but I do not think it is enough. The status quo is not good enough, but the existing burdens can be met through the current system. The Minister raised a question about dispersal. That raises the question of the location of the school. The Minister said that the curriculum can be tailored. Why not use existing special needs provision? He said that teachers were keen on centres of excellence. Why extend the already

813
pressed teaching profession with another layer? He spoke of the interests of the children, but what he said reflected the educational side of the equation, not the issues of accommodation and living and being isolated from other children.
Opposition to the proposal comes from a considerable body of opinion from contrasting sources. They are not all groups of people known for resisting change. All these bodies have written to the Home Secretary. I have the documentation here. I shall not bore your Lordships by quoting them, but I shall allude to them. Opponents include all the teaching unions and the Children's Consortium, which covers Save the Children, the Children's Society, Barnardo's and the National Children's Bureau, whose pupil inclusion unit has produced research questioning such a move. The Local Government Association has written of experience in Tower Hamlets and Newham, stressing the mutual benefits of other children being educated alongside asylum seekers. Bill Morris has written from the TGWU's Asylum Coalition. Church leaders have also been involved. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Glasgow and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York wrote to the Home Secretary. It is sede vacante at the moment at Canterbury, but I do not need to guess what line the most reverend—but not yet right honourable—Primate the Archbishop of Wales would take.
Then there is the guidance officially endorsed by the DfES. I shall quote two paragraphs from Educating Asylum Seeking and Refugee Children, issued this year. It says:
"Rapid enrolment and regular attendance at school is highly desirable for asylum seeking and refugee children. Children should be offered a school place as soon as possible after arrival in the authority".
The joint DIES and NUT guidance, Relearning to Learn, says:
"Providing a separate curriculum would only accentuate the 'difference' of refugee children and prevent them from benefiting from working with other pupils. Teachers will recognise that the relearning process—and especially the acquisition of English—will be most rapid if new pupils engage and work with other children in the class. Experience and research with other pupils for whom English is an additional language bears this out".
How can the Government proceed in the face of such opposition, not only from outside groups, but from documentation endorsed by the DfES hitherto? In brief, this is not joined-up thinking, joined-up education or joined-up strategy. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 20 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 20A, leave out "not".—(The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.)
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I have changed my mind twice on the issue. I know a bit about this, because I have been the chairman of a local education committee. I have also read last night's
814
debate in the other place. It is the greatest possible pity that the House of Commons did not have this clause first. Last night, one after another, Members of Parliament from constituencies with large numbers of asylum seekers—not refugees—pointed out the problems that the Minister has referred to this evening. They are genuine problems for schools.
That was my first thought when I read the clause. I said in Committee that I thought the Government had a big problem by having big accommodation centres and having to educate the children separately, because people would want them to be in normal schools. Last time we had the debate, many people, including a number of Cross-Benchers, made extremely passionate speeches, as did the right reverend Prelate, about the importance of children being educated together. I agreed with them. I also thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, from the Department for Education and Skills, who normally does terribly well, gave a rather weak reply. I understand that she was asked to do it at the last minute. It was a Home Office matter. I had a lot of sympathy for her, but I found her reply so weak that I voted against the Government. I had changed my mind. Since reading the House of Commons debate, I have gone back to supporting the Government in this matter.
I should say to the right reverend Prelate, in regard to the meeting in which the noble Lord was cheered to the echo when he said what he said, that the reason for the people there supporting separate education is that they were confusing refugees—people who had been granted asylum—and asylum seekers. Indeed the quote made by the right reverend Prelate referred to both refugees and asylum seekers.
The position is completely different. Children who are asylum seekers are in a transitional state and do not know whether or not they will stay. Whether or not one believes that accommodation centres are right, these children are in a transitional state and do not know whether or not they will stay. They may or may not know a little English and so on. I listened very carefully to the Minister and he put the right case on this issue.
I suggest to noble Lords that they should speak only of asylum seekers and not at all about people for whom decisions have already been made. That is a completely different question. There is every reason then for people to be educated together. The local authorities which have been making the case for the education of these children have a different agenda; they will be able to control where the asylum centre is located by doing so.
I beg noble Lords to speak only of asylum seekers, who are in a completely different situation. I am sorry that I have changed my mind twice. I have a conscience about it and I want to confess.
Lord Moser: My Lords, I support the views expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. I find the clause very disturbing. I speak both from the point of view of my involvement in education and as a successful asylum seeker 66 years ago.

815
I am conscious that we are talking about a small number of people, but that does not reassure me because they are very important. Even for 10 people it is important that we get it right. I am conscious that we are talking about a transitional group, including people who may not stay, but we should treat them on the supposition that they may stay and get it right from the beginning. If they then do not stay, so be it.
I am not reassured by the constant reference to this being an experiment. If it were not so late in the day I would give the Minister, with the greatest respect, a lecture on what is an experiment. He does not need a lecture from me, but this is not an experiment in any sense that a scientist, social scientist or statistician would accept. An experiment means that you have alternative ways of proceeding; that you have rigorous ways of allocating different victims, or whatever, to those alternative options; and that you have rigorous ways of judging which has succeeded. This is not an experiment. The Government have decided what to do, roughly speaking, and they will then say whether or not it was a success. That is a political view, but this is not an experiment.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. We have put on record a number of times that the "trial"—if that is a word the noble Lord prefers—will be very thoroughly evaluated, and that evaluation will be put into the public domain. There is an alternative comparison of the outcome for children and others in accommodation centres in the sense that there is a control group, if you want to look at it, of those children of some 50,000 asylum seekers who are in dispersed accommodation. We are well placed to make a comparison to see which is better. We shall do so and we shall put the results into the public domain.
Lord Moser: My Lords, the temptation to give my lecture gets ever stronger, but I shall resist it. I still do not regard this as a genuine experiment, but I must move on.
I find the arguments in favour of this trial unconvincing. I shall be very brief because the right reverend Prelate has made most of the points. First, the fact that these children have come from traumatic, stressful and interrupted school systems and experiences—as, indeed, I did in 1936—makes it even more the case that they should get into a normal school environment as quickly as possible.
Secondly, the fact that they know little English—as I did not either when I came—makes an even stronger case for getting them into a school. One learns English not by having a good English master in front of one but by mixing with children. You learn English very, very quickly that way, so, for me, that argument counts for nothing.
As to the argument in a Home Office paper that such children will be liable to bullying and racism—so was I in Nazi Germany—I find it rather sad and pathetic. Children on the whole are very tolerant, flexible,
816
helpful and friendly. Of course there will be some bullying, but it will soon be over. That is not at all a strong argument.
The argument that there will be focused teaching by expert teachers in the accommodation centres does not convince me one iota. What is important is not that the children have good teachers but that they are together with many other kinds of children in the classroom—taught by, it is to be hoped, good teachers. So, again, integration into a normal environment is crucial.
As to the argument that schools are under great pressure, which has not been advanced by the Minister today but is much evident in the documents, the teaching profession—the heads and the teacher unions—if I may say so without disrespect. is far ahead in its thinking of Members of the House of Commons in this debate. It has shown in a number of statements that its members are willing, prepared and eager to accept asylum seeker children. If the children are there for only two weeks or two months and then go on, they will have had a good experience and met many English children, and the English children will have learnt from them.
For all these reasons the case for integration, for normal school life for these children—even if they are small in number and here for a very short time—is the main argument.
Perhaps I may support what I say with a personal recollection. I do not wish to make too great a comparison between the experiences of Nazi refugees and what is happening now, but there are some relevant experiences and I shall talk about one of them. The fact that within weeks—certainly months—I became a very happy boy in English life here owed everything to the fact that I was immediately in an ordinary school environment. It was not that the teaching was particularly brilliant but that I spent my day with children of my own age, being naughty with them, being nice with them, getting to know different attitudes and so on. Some of them were quite tough on me but most of them were nice. It was those early weeks and months that made me feel that this is a wonderful country and made me begin to be a committed person and, finally, a citizen.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is there not a danger—particularly as far as the big institutions are concerned—that the children will become institutionalised quite quickly, maybe in one month, maybe two? I cannot think that they will avoid that fate in anything like the sort of period that we are talking about.
Lord Moser: My Lords, that is for argument. I must sit down because others want to speak. That is a good argument. I must finish. I urge the Government, if it is not too late, to think again purely from one angle—

817
letting these children, as soon as they come, mix as much as possible with other English children, especially in schools.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he kindly tell us whether he had any command of English when he joined the English school? That is quite relevant to the children today.
Lord Moser: My Lords, a little less than now. I did have some command of the language but, on the whole, not much. That was much helped by having to speak the language because I was with other kids.
9 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, in thanking the right reverend Prelate for the opportunity to return to this subject, I take up that last point. What worries me sometimes in our deliberations is that we get into an either/or situation. The point about English is that it is not either/or. I come from a family of teachers and most people who have been involved in education will say that one of the best ways of developing language is to be among others and contemporaries with whom one uses language casually as well as formally.
Some specific assistance is also extremely helpful and important. It is not either/or; it is seeing the right combination. I wish that we looked more at getting the balance right in our deliberations.
I do not make the point facetiously that for many of your Lordships and myself a period of three, four, five or six months is just another three, four, five or six months in what has sometimes been called the waiting room. For a child of school age, three, four, five or six months can he crucial in their development. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Moser, made so well is terribly important. It is not just what goes on in the classroom. Part of education is social—sports, recreation and being together. That is why it is so important that children who have been through the most awful experiences should be able to share that social aspect.
It is also very important in our considerations to be a little more tough in our analysis of the allocation of resources. It is very tempting to say that it is more economical to have specialist assistance available in one place—the accommodation centre. Let us pause for moment and consider how many different years would be taught together in an accommodation centre. Will there be the same quality for each year and stage of education that would be available outside? If there were to be the same quality, what would it really cost? Would that be more economical than putting in specialist assistance to help local schools or whatever to fulfil the task that we are asking of them? We have not heard a rigorous economic analysis of the proposition put before us.
I know that some of your Lordships do not like the phrase but we talk a lot about the determination to make a success of our multi-cultural society. We have to think about the message that we are giving to our
818
own youngsters in what we say about not enabling the youngsters in accommodation centres to intermingle with them. I have been accused of being a romantic but I am not ashamed. I always regard that as a compliment. A little romanticism in politics is terribly important. I am not sure where the human species would have got without it. The kind of society in which I would like to be living is where the teachers, head teacher and local authority get together and say, "Hey, look at this place. What can we do to help? What can we do to make a place for these youngsters in this terrible situation—even if their parents are a load of charlatans pretending to be asylum seekers when they are not?" And your Lordships know my position on that argument.
We should be asking, "What can we do to protect those children? We do not want them further damaged. Come on—let us make a home for them. Let us make them feel at home. Let them join in and see how we manage". Then, as a sensitive, imaginative government, we should look at making sure that the available resources are used intelligently, flexibly and imaginatively to help the process.
What I have found objectionable—I spoke very strongly even by my own standards, if that does not sound too arrogant, at a previous stage—is that the language in the Bill is so negative as to be beyond belief: that they shall not be part of the local community. We really must do better. The real argument is flexibility. My noble friend the Minister conceded in his introduction that there is room for some flexibility. The issue is that the flexibility has not gone nearly far enough.
I suspect that I have been irritating my noble friend the Minister—who is a friend beyond measure—and that he will not like my saying that he is a sensitive man who understands the arguments being deployed and is doing his best to field the Government's line. That is always a very difficult position. I say that as one who has been a junior Minister in government.
We need more specific indication of how imaginative flexibility will be there and how part of that will be not only a determination to protect these youngsters from any further damage, to enable them to make the best of even the few weeks or months, but also how we are going to turn what could be a negative situation into a positive situation in terms of our own multi-cultural society.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the Minister for the number of occasions when we have engaged in discussions on this matter. Indeed, he even interrupted his summer holidays in order to discuss the issues involved. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, for her courtesy in seeing us. But, as I shall explain, the differences still remain between us.
We should bear in mind the admission made by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, that, despite the provision that the Government have in mind, we have to accept that a substantial number of children of asylum

819
seekers in this country will still be educated within mainstream schools because they will not be living in the accommodation centres.
We must also bear in mind the fact that during last night's debate on the matter in the other place 42 Labour MPs voted against the Government's intention on this matter. Interestingly, those 42 MPs represent areas such as Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, and London—people who have substantial, long experience of asylum seeking children. They are the type of MPs who receive letters and much pressure in this respect, yet they were keen enough to say that the Government are wrong.
It became very clear in the House of Commons that the Government were not prepared seriously to entertain the Liberal Democrat suggestion that LEAs should be the providers of education, complete with the option to educate children in mainstream schools if they chose so to do. The Government sought to criticise our suggestion on technical grounds rather than engage with the debate. When pressed to do so, their arguments did not convince us. Effectively, there was nothing new that the Government could offer, despite all the intentions to ensure that LEAs should be at the centre of the process.
My colleagues questioned the Minister in the other place and asked whether she was seriously suggesting that segregation was the best preparation for integration. The Minister replied that it was not segregation for the children because they would be taught with other asylum seeking children. Perhaps I may draw the Minister's attention to a number of formal investigations carried out by the Government's own body, the Commission for Racial Equality, as regards the transporting of children elsewhere for educational purposes in which such measures were found to be literally against the spirit of the race relations legislation. Is the Minister genuinely convinced that this ultimately helps those who settle in this country in terms of their integration in the community?
Ideally, the Liberal Democrats would have preferred the choice of whether or not a child was educated in accommodation centre, with the LEA providing the education, or being the arbiter of who provides it. But, again, this was criticised by the Government on the grounds that it made LEAs the arbiter. I thought that they were the best people, because they have knowledge regarding the appropriate provision for individuals in a particular area.
Despite our pleading with Ministers and our communications with the Home Secretary, we have been unable to convince the Government of the seriousness of the case for the LEA to make such provision. In the light of all these concerns, we are bound to support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth in his amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, on the Wednesday evening that this amendment was first moved by the right reverend Prelate I was attending a dinner meeting. I
820
did so with a clear conscience because, at first sight, I thought it highly unlikely that the amendment would be carried into the Bill. In my state of mind at the time, it seemed to me that it should not be included in the legislation. It is a sad coincidence that the amendment has appeared again on this Wednesday night when I was due at exactly the same dinner party. In the interim, I have read the Report stage debate in the Official Report and my mind is now a great deal more open.
I, too, have had experience of education not only as a recipient but also as a teacher—though in the secondary and primary sectors, not in higher education. Like other noble Lords, I believe that children are the prime concern in this issue. While not wishing to be in any way patronising or superior, I have to say that I believe the debate has become a little simplistic. It appears to assume that every school into which the child of a potential member of our society from abroad is received will be small, well-endowed, happy, and free—it seems—from bullying, and that every teaching facility set up in an asylum centre will be large, under funded, strict, and unfriendly. Life is not like that. Two of the years that I spent teaching took place in a comprehensive school with 1,500 children on a slum-clearance estate in Nottingham where bullying was endemic and where I once had a knife drawn on me. That was many years ago, well before that sort of thing came to be thought of as common.
Recently I attended a fantastic conference set up by a Member of the other place—Diane Abbott. She is one of the black representatives of inner-city London. The aim of the conference was to consider what is happening to black children in London schools. I was one of 11 white faces there of about 1,000 people. What is happening to black children in inner London schools is horrifying. Some children report that they feel safer in a gang on the streets than they do in school. What, one parent asked, is it that turns the little cherubs we loved in our arms into gun gangsters?
Something is very wrong with education in many inner London schools. I do not say that people are not doing a brilliant job in some of those schools and that some of them are not very good. But, please let us not think that all we have to do to a young person, or perhaps a very young person, without a word of English in order to make them feel safe, happy and at home is to put them into one of those schools. Like the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I agree that it is not an either/ or case.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The word that he has not used, but that I think is crucial here—I wonder whether he agrees with me—is "flexibility" as regards the Government not saying that the provision shall be in

821
accommodation centres and society not saying that it shall be in schools but rather considering what is the best arrangement in a particular situation.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I was about to refer to subsection (DM of Clause 26. The clause states:
"The Secretary of State may arrange…to be provided to a resident of an accommodation center…education and training".
I refer to the word "may". It seems to me that the proper course is to have a base in the accommodation centre where children can be prepared—whatever length of time that may take—to enter whatever school is suitable within the district. If no suitable school is available but only schools where they would be either terrorised or neglected, they should stay in the accommodation centre until they reach their home, whether that be in this country or another. If there is a good school nearby, they may need very little preparation before entering it.
If I was a traumatised child arriving in this country accompanied by my parents—we should remember that many of these children are unaccompanied—and as soon as I began to settle I was taken away from my parents, as was mentioned on Report, having already been frightened out of my wits by what had happened to me, I should not find that comforting at all. I should be terrified. If I was a teacher working under great pressure with a class that I had the greatest difficulty keeping in order, and to it was added two children with no word of the language that I spoke and I had no special needs assistance, I should think that that was highly damaging to the school.
Both those circumstances have to be taken into account before a decision is made with regard to such children. I ask the Minister to give an undertaking with regard to the provision in subsection (1)(f) of Clause 26. What confidence can be reposed in the expectation that good education facilities will be provided in the accommodation centres? If he can give me reassurance on that point, I shall vote with the Government; if he cannot, I shall vote against the Government.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I abstained—I was not alone on these Benches in so doing—on these amendments at the previous stage. They were then numbered 34 and 35. Although I do not totally embrace the stance taken by my noble friend Lord Judd or that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, their interventions have been enormously valuable as they have led to meetings with my noble friend the Minister. As I understand the position, those meetings have resulted in a much better exposition by the Government of the intended relationship between what are now Clauses 31 and 32.
As my noble friend Lord Judd said, we were shocked by the provision in subsection (2) of Clause 31, which states:
"A child who is a resident of an accommodation centre may not be admitted to a maintained school".
822
However, I believe that there is some substantial measure of flexibility in the clause that enables pragmatic solutions to be found. Therefore, I believe that the Government are moving sufficiently to be supported in this regard.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I have two questions for the Minister and point out that my pendulum is still swinging. If children are fluent in English, could they go to a mainstream school? If children have special disabled needs, could they go to a school that caters for those needs? Surely there should be, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, flexibility if the child's interests are to be paramount.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I supported the right reverend Prelate on the previous occasion and the time before that, and I shall do so again as firmly as I can.
After the latest concessions, which were dressed up a little by the noble Lord, Lord Lea, I half expected the Government to rethink their policy. Almost all of their supporters in schools and the teaching unions have made it clear that there should be one education system in this country. Many Labour Back-Benchers said the same yesterday but we have not heard any real concessions.
I accept that the occasional use yesterday and today of the word "segregation" is unfortunate but it shows the extent of exasperation among many parliamentarians—as well as voters—who cannot believe that their own government can be carrying out that policy. I heard the Minister today refer to the burden on the present system and a Minister in another place indirectly referred to the destruction of classes under the present system. I am surprised that such arguments are being made at this very late stage without much back-up.
On the moral imperative, the right reverend Prelate said it all. I want to add a few more thoughts on the practical implications. I do not believe that separate education will work. I mentioned special needs last time. My noble friend Lady Masham would like to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, that special needs will be met in schools. I am grateful to her for the letter that she wrote to me about that.
It would be impossible to meet all of the curricula requirements even for those larger groups of asylum seekers in accommodation centres. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, mentioned the Liberal compromise that was offered; that is, that LEAs should decide how best to manage education in each centre. However, the Minister rejected that. I can only hope that he will reflect in the next few days still further. When those children eventually arrive in accommodation, the LEAs will be given a much fuller role.
I turn to the Conservative position. I am dismayed to see the Conservative Benches empty. We heard from the Conservatives quite positively on this issue at earlier stages. The Conservatives have drawn back from the issues of education on the grounds that they are so closely linked with the time factor. I believe that

823
they argued quite reasonably that if the Government can meet their targets of processing in a few weeks—none of the rest of us thinks that they can—there will not be any time for mainstream education. In a sense, the previous vote covered the present vote.
The Conservatives are talking about more rapid dispersal—I heard the right honourable Oliver Letwin do so yesterday—perhaps through reception centres close to the port of entry or smaller centres. Mr Letwin used the phrase, "one stop shop centres". Unfortunately, those approaches are not part of the Government's thinking. It would be nice to hear from the Conservative Front Bench whether that approach represents the Conservative view; we have not heard it. I am sorry that the Government have not moved further towards the concept of smaller centres; that was being taken up with the Refugee Council.
I listened last week to asylum-seeking children for the first time. I was very moved by what they had to say. A boy from Afghanistan said:
"For all of us freedom from fear, the hope to rebuild our lives and be normal is most precious even if it is for a very short time … the main point is that we do not want to be treated differently from the rest of the society".
My noble friend Lord Moser made that point most powerfully. All of those children said that they did not want to spend time only with other asylum-seeking children, who would be from similar—troubled—backgrounds. They saw school as a way of escaping unhappy memories and beginning to rebuild a normal life. They viewed the Government's proposals as a way of putting up new barriers rather than building bridges.
I conclude with a brief statement from a representative of Save the Children. She said:
"We have a duty to these young people—a duty to treat them with the same care, compassion, dignity and respect that we would want for our own children. Whether or not they remain in this country … we should be able to … say that during their time here we did everything we could for them; that we provided them with the services, the support, the care and the opportunities that every other child in this country has. If we cannot do that",
she said,
"we have failed them—failed some of the most vulnerable children in our society".
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I want to enter the debate briefly. I did not speak on the previous occasion we considered these issues. However, I abstained because I was unhappy with the phrase, already referred to this evening, in Clause 31(1) under the heading of "Education: general":
"a resident of an accommodation centre shall not be treated as part of the population of a local education authority's area".
I found the words "shall not" so inflexible and so rigid that I could riot accept them. Therefore, I abstained. I then went to see my noble friends Lady Ashton and Lord Filkin and, as other noble Lords have said, they were extremely courteous. They listened to my difficulties and I believe that they have taken action on them.
I want to return to the term "inflexible". I know that my noble friend Lord Judd, for whom I have tremendous admiration, does not consider that the
824
matter of flexibility has gone far enough. I believe that it has. With the introduction of the new sentence and the cross-references from Clause 31 to 32, there is now enough flexibility for authorities to act for children who are able to enter our education system.
I shall not repeat arguments about there being a certain stage for a child. As my noble friend Lord Judd said, such a child will have experienced traumatic experiences. Some may benefit from going into schools; some may not. I now believe that the Bill provides flexibility for each individual child That is what we are discussing. We are not talking about a mass of children; we are talking about each child who comes forward. I believe that the Bill now allows each child to be considered in his or her own right, and that is why I shall support the Government this evening.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, this aspect of the Bill arouses tremendous emotion, and rightly so. It is a very crucial personal matter and I still wish to support the right reverend Prelate's amendment. We have been told that a move into temporary accommodation will take some time and will then be followed by another move. It is at that stage that schooling could be looked for.
I return to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, because it is one I wanted to make myself. A week is a long time in a child's life. By that stage, he will want to move around. Children who are taught English in an accommodation centre will be taught it with a whole range of other children because it will be their second language. If they get into a school quickly, quite apart from the all-important role of learning with other children and feeling the atmosphere of the place, they will also be in a far better position to pick up the language. Children pick up languages very quickly from their peers, and the younger they are, the better.
I am surprised at the level of support expressed for this amendment by the professionals. The NUT is strongly on side. I also refer to the Refugee Children's Consortium. I am glad to say that my own ex-organisation—I have just stood down as president of UNICEF UK—is part of that. Those organisations have a wealth of knowledge and understanding of children as they spend a great deal of time with them. I cannot but feel that this is important enough, despite the flexibilities that have been added to the Bill, to divide the House. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will do so.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Parekh: My Lords, the hour is late so I shall be brief. A couple of years ago I was privileged to chair a commission that dealt with a number of issues, including asylum seekers and how their children should be educated. We looked at evidence on all sides including a comparative study of what happens in other countries. I want to share with the House one or two thoughts.
The arguments that have been advanced by my noble friend Lord Filkin about why asylum seekers' children should be educated separately are good and I

825
endorse them. At the same time they are one-sided and there are arguments on the other side. I shall give three good reasons why it is important that asylum seekers' children should be educated in mainstream schools.
First, it is good for our children to know something about the world and what it means to be scarred by traumatic experiences. It expands their range of sympathy and gives them some understanding of the state of the world.
Secondly, if asylum seekers' children were allowed to stay, mainstream education would be an invaluable experience for them and might facilitate their integration. If they were refused permission to stay, they would take away with them something of the greatness of our way of life. I cannot imagine a better advertisement for the British way of life than having been educated in our schools.
Thirdly, when children are deeply scarred, it is extremely important for them to have a normal structured way of life, within a structured environment. It is not good for them to live with others who are similarly scarred and who are likely to end up aggravating each other's feelings of alienation.
What should we decide? On the one hand, there are good reasons why it is important that the children should be educated in separate schools where they can provide some support to each other and where there are the advantages of scale. On the other hand, there are arguments that point in the other direction. The answer would appear to be, as was said earlier, flexibility. Children could be educated in either way, provided we allow for enough opportunities for breaking with the system and allowing them to be educated separately.
However, flexibility turns out to be a tricky matter. Flexibility can lead to discretion. The Bill does not lay down clear criteria for deciding who should be educated where. Also such flexibility appears to assume that, all other things being equal, children should be educated separately and only in isolated cases should they be educated in mainstream schools. My research draws the opposite conclusion. Other things being equal, it is good for children to be educated in mainstream schools. Only when we feel that that is not to their advantage, or to the advantage of our children, may some provision need to be made to educate them separately.
My feeling is that there is a great deal to be said for the amendment proposed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. As all the educational institutions have pointed out, and as my research and my commission's research indicate, it is good for asylum seekers' children to be educated in mainstream schools, but if it were to be shown that in certain cases an exception needed to be made, we may allow for flexibility.
Lord Bhatia: My Lords, I make a case for the teaching of English. I will share a couple of personal experiences about the teaching of English to teachers or to adults.
826
About 40 years ago I was in a small village in Germany. I had come from East Africa for some training. My hosts were going to look after me for six months while I was training. They met me at the station and said: "We have a big problem here about how you will cope with the German language. We take it that you do not speak or understand German." I said: "Yes, you are absolutely right". My hosts told me, "For your information, you are probably speaking to the only English-speaking persons in this village".
There was a dilemma about where to place me. How could I learn German quickly in the best possible way? To this day I remember the solution they found for me. They said: "We do not wish to send you to a quick German-speaking institution where you could pick up the language very quickly. We would recommend, if you agree"—and I agreed with them—"that you go and stay with a family who have three or four young children. You live with them. The parents and the children do not speak English, but you will learn your German very quickly from the children". Within a month I was able to converse reasonably well in the German language.
The point I make is that the teaching of English here is a problem—as far as I can make out from noble Lords who have spoken earlier. I believe that if children in accommodation centres are sent to mainstream schools they will learn English much faster than if they are taught English in a separate school at the accommodation centre. Secondly, there is a double benefit, those children who go to mainstream schools and learn English quickly will be able to pass on that English to their parents who also need that language facility.
I have personal experience as a member of the reception groups which met with the Uganda refugees who arrived here. Some of the people in the groups were also asylum seekers. I recall vividly a conversation that I had with some parents. They said: "We know we have a problem here". There were a couple of areas in the UK where advertisements had been taken out in the papers which stated:
"Please don't send refugees from Uganda to our part of the country".
The parents were saying, "We really do not have much hope for ourselves with the kind of reception that we read in the papers. Our only worry is that our children can be placed in the schools as quickly as possible. That is the main thing that we are concerned about".
I believe that we need to take note of one matter. I have had some interesting conversations, both with the Minister as well as with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton. I feel that they should not look at the issue from the point of view of whether one is an asylum seeker or whatever. Let us remember that these children have not come here as asylum seekers or refugees. They have been brought here without understanding why they are here. They are children who have accompanied their parents. They do not understand whether they are asylum seekers or otherwise.

827
Secondly, some children arrive on their own. Here again, they have not taken a decision to come to this country to seek asylum. Parents—and I know this from my experience from Africa and also from the subcontinent—who feel vulnerable to attack within their own countries and are not able to leave that country to seek asylum elsewhere, think first of their children. They send their children—in some cases, at the cost of their lives. They say, "We are not safe here, but we cannot do anything about it. Let's save our children and send them abroad to an asylum-seeking country and perhaps the UK".
We must consider such children not as asylum seekers but as children who do not understand why they are here. All that they want to do is get on with their life. All that they want to do is to go and play and learn with their fellow young people in the country, instead of being locked up in an accommodation centre. That is how such children will see it. It is bad enough that they will be put in an accommodation centre, but they will also be placed in a school where they are separated from all other children.
I beg your Lordships' House to consider the matter carefully. We are dealing with vulnerable children who have no idea why there are here. We must not look upon them as asylum seekers, refugees or anything else except children.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am privileged to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia. He spoke from his personal experiences; there is nothing quite like that.
I participate as a former Member of Parliament for an inner-London area. In that environment, I found that young children who mixed with other young children who talked to them and played with them, and from whom they were separated only by age and ability, were able to learn the language and impart that language to their parents. They benefited enormously from that.
There is a great danger that children will be institutionalised in the bigger accommodation centres, whether they hold 750 people or fewer. That is a real danger. Why should they, innocents that they are, be institutionalised—imprisoned—by what they happen to see and what they witness? As a former Member of Parliament and as somebody who had a lot to do with the issue in my professional life, I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, said has a great deal of credibility. I ask my noble friend to say why the noble Lord and I are wrong.
Lord Joffe: My Lords, I shall ask the Minister four brief questions about flexibility. First, who will decide whether exceptional circumstances exist? Secondly, will the views of parents and children be taken into account? Thirdly, will there be any safeguards, such as a right of appeal? Fourthly, does the Minister think, on the basis of the Home Office's immense experience, that a significant number of cases with exceptional circumstances will arise? By significant, I have in mind something more than 25 per cent.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I am tending to move towards the Government's position on the
828
matter. However, sitting here and thinking about the process over the past few weeks, I feel increasingly angry—I may be wrong to do so—that, although the White Paper was so long ago, it is only towards the very end that we have started to think about how education and health provision would work out in the centres. It typifies our problem with thinking about children. For so many years—until recently—we gave children so little thought in the context of our care system, for instance.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the debate tonight, like previous debates on the issue, has been led well by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth who exemplified its informed nature. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, was right to charge these Benches with not having allowed a voice in this debate, but he was wrong to chide us in saying that we had no voice. We have taken an uncomfortable position throughout the debate in admitting that this is an excessively intractable problem. But overall what matters beyond anything else is that we take into account the interests of the children.
When I was a magistrate and sat as a chair of the family court, we were trained to consider the interests of the child as paramount, from wherever they came; and that must be the case. But in policy terms there is a problem. My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, as so often in these cases, illuminated the debate by confessing that she had changed her mind. If we can do nothing else by listening to a debate fully and carefully, we should have the courage to change our mind. I am grateful to my noble friend for her contribution.
My right honourable friend Oliver Letwin in another place yesterday made the point that he is in two minds over the issue. He said,
"Nobody in the House would claim that it makes sense to argue strenuously about whether a child who has just arrived in the country and may go home six weeks later should have separate or a mainstream education".
He went on, I suspect speaking as a father,
"We are all a bit queasy—indeed, some of us are more than a bit queasy—about the idea of children being educated separately for months or years".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/11/02; col. 165.]
We have heard from the Government how they have made strenuous attempts to reduce the amount of time spent in accommodation centres, for which we are grateful. They have a long way to go yet, but they have made a proper move on the matter.
There is an intractable problem. On the Front Bench we take what appears to be the easy option, but is not, of abstention. But we make it clear to our Back-Benchers who have listened to the debate that we find no fault if they chose to make up their own minds and vote in their own way.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, it is at this time of night that the Chief Whip normally sidles up to me and whispers in my ear, "Keep it brief; no one's listening to you and you won't change their minds in any event". Despite that, I feel that it is proper to respond to some, if not all, of the issues raised during the debate.

829
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, has made some powerful contributions throughout her 13 or 14 days on the Bill. I have not always agreed with them, but I have frequently been forced to go away, think again and return with further argumentation. She put her finger on the matter when she reminded us of what many MPs relate to us from their experience in the Commons: in their constituencies this is not a problem-free status quo, either in terms of the interests of children of asylum seekers, or in terms of schools or other school children in those schools where this degree of turbulence is taking place.
I again listened carefully to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, but he did not address the arguments about the difficulties of the current situation. One can say that we should throw more money at schools and we should try to minimise the problems of turbulence, but we cannot get around the problem of what happens to a child who is moved into a school for a short period and then has to be moved out again for the variety of reasons I gave when I spoke initially.
The current situation is not good, and I make no apology for repeating what I said during the discussion on accommodation centres. The noble Lord, Lord Moser, is right that we should do right from the beginning. I should not be standing here now if I believed that what we are proposing as a trial was not right in principle, for the arguments I have set out. I gave those arguments—I shall not repeat them—in terms of the ability to give specialist support and tailored education for a short period while accelerating the decision-taking. Those families who go into accommodation centres have a number of considerable benefits compared with the experience of families who are moved two or three times around the country into dispersed accommodation.
However, neither I nor the Government are so arrogant to believe that it is axiomatic and beyond proof that we might be wrong on that. We are not saying that we are now going to build 20 or 30 accommodation centres around the country and drive them in over the next two to three years come what may. We are saying that we will move forward cautiously and prudently and I would have expected some acknowledgement of the pragmatism of that position. We are basically saying that we will provide spaces for about 3,000 people; probably four or so accommodation centres. We will see how in practice whether what we believe will be a better system works.
What I find almost irrational about the debate is the unwillingness to allow a trial of that kind to go ahead. It seems to me to beggar common sense when in many areas the current situation is so poor. We are seeking to conduct a small-scale experiment and then to evaluate it openly. I find it difficult to know how one operates in a world of public policy when one is not prepared to try to improve things in a variety of ways. But enough of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Moser, said that the way he was welcomed in Britain was good and the House recognises what an asset he has been to British society
830
since then. Most of us have read of his work and his teaching over many years and have been pleased and proud to have done so. But he was accepted as a refugee when he arrived. We have 80,000 a year coming to us asking for refugee status and the sad fact is that most of those will not qualify under the Geneva Convention to remain here. That means that we must look at how we manage the situation.
Yes, children should be in normal school as soon as possible, but as soon as possible is when we know that they are going to have a permanent place here. That is when the case for integration is strongest.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, was right, as often, to say that substantial numbers will still be educated in dispersed accommodation. According to my arithmetic, if we have, say, 150 children in four centres, we are not talking about many more than 500 children in accommodation centres being educated for the first few years. I do not know how many children we have in NASS accommodation, but we have 50,000 people in NASS accommodation and 20 per cent of them are families. So there is a large number.
That is not an argument one way or the other, but in my view it is certainly an argument for sensible experimentation rather than completely shutting our minds to looking at whether we could make it better for children and better for the speed of decision-making which is in the interest of families and children.
My noble friend Lord Judd rightly argued for flexibility. But flexibility is of two kinds. One is related to what we have said about special needs and recognises the requirement to pay attention to the needs of children. If the needs of children cannot be met within accommodation centres and the facilities that can be provided, they should not and must not be educated in accommodation centres. That I repeat.
The other argument for flexibility is the one we have just debated; that is, having an open mind about whether we can make it better in different ways. It seems to me the height of inflexibility to say that we must dig in on the status quo and refuse to consider any other form of sensible public policy experimentation. I do not understand that.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, as one of many distinguished former Home Office Ministers who have spoken in our debates, asked whether there would be reasonable provision. The Home Office and the DfES are discussing the amount of funding that needs to be provided to make the education in accommodation centres of good quality. It will be dealt with through the contract process, but the safeguards are that Ofsted will inspect every single education facility in the accommodation centres within their first year of operation. It will repeat inspections if it believes that to be necessary, or serve warnings under its powers. Therefore, there will be a strong Ofsted spotlight on them.
Secondly, the statutory monitor in the Bill has a duty to inspect, including how the education facilities are working. Thirdly, the advisory group from the local community will go into the accommodation centre and it is meant to pick up on the concerns and

831
experiences of people in there, including children. We therefore believe that there are some strong inspection safeguards.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I tend towards his point. How are we to know what the needs of these children are? I sense that very little is known about how we can thoroughly assess their needs.
To return to my earlier point. We seem to have come very late in the day to a discussion of education, the health side of things and how social services will be involved. What has been said is welcome, but will the Minister say a little more about how the needs of children will be assessed so that they are not missed?
Lord Elton: My Lords, to supplement what the noble Earl has said, will the Minister link his remarks to the policy in Clause 32(3) whereby the Secretary of State gives guidance as to what is to be done when an accommodation centre certifies that a child needs to go to another school? I apologise for not giving notice of that question.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Perhaps I may address that point first and return to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel.
I sought to signal that a whole range of inspection processes gives us confidence that the educational provision and the care in centres will be of a high standard.
I turn briefly to the role of the LEA, which is germane to that question. First, the LEAs will have a role. We shall endeavour to encourage the local education authorities to put themselves forward as bidders to provide education in the centres. We know that a number of LEAs are keen to do so, either individually or in a consortium. We believe that there are great merits in that for all kinds of reasons, as the House will understand. It will be open to LEAs to do that as part of a wider LEA or local government consortium.
The Bill provides absolute clarity as regards the power of local authorities to provide such services in accommodation centres. But even in a situation where the education on site is not provided directly by the LEA, we want to encourage links between the accommodation centre and the LEA. Even at a basic level this can involve the exchange of guidance, best practice or facilitation of visits to a school.
As to Clause 32(3), if an assessment is made that a child's needs are better met outside the accommodation centre, the LEA has a responsibility to ensure educational provision outside the accommodation centre—which is as it should be.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am trying to be helpful. The point is that that duty is influenced by the relevant guidance issued by the Secretary of State. I am asking the Minister to give some indication as to how the
832
Secretary of State would use guidance to establish what proportion of pupils or what kinds of pupils would receive this sort of provision.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I signalled some of the general principles at the beginning of this debate. I gave the instance of a child with high fluency in English, who was exceptionally gifted and who had special educational needs. Let us say, for example, that the child was at the point of taking the international baccalaureate in the country from which he or she had come. It would be almost self-evident in such cases that the interests of the child could be better met outside the accommodation centre. I am not ducking the question, but I cannot say much more than that at this stage. We should consider it crucial to deliver clear and strong advice to that effect to LEAs and accommodation centres as part of the pilot.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked about the assessment of children's needs. He also suggested that we had been slightly tardy in these matters. I do not believe so. A White Paper setting out these provisions was published in February. A considerable amount of work has been undertaken between the Home Office, the Department of Health and the DfES. M y noble friend Lady Ashton has been with me throughout these debates, partly because she is passionately interested in the development of good education in accommodation centres and partly because she believes that it is a right policy. So there is not a wafer between the Home Office and the DIES on the issue. Both departments think it to be right and in the interest of children.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Judd asked whether I am just fielding the Government's line. No, I am not. I am a Minister, but I actually believe that what we are doing is right, sensible and sane. That is why [am speaking so clearly and strongly. I should be horrified if the House, despite the provision having been twice affirmed by the House of Commons, shut the door on what I consider to be intelligent public policy development and experimentation. That would strike me as the height of irrationality.
10 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, today is the 58th anniversary of the death of William Temple, the wartime Archbishop of Canterbury and a valued former Member of this House. His name figures for minor commemoration in the Church calendar; we remembered him this morning in my chapel; and I shall quote briefly from the end of a book that he wrote in 1942 entitled, Christianity and Social Order. I shall be brief tonight: I realise that I have kept up all you Labour Peers. Do not worry, we shall have a vote, just let me conclude. Poor things!
William Temple wrote:
"Every child should have the opportunity of an education till he is of maturity so planned as to allow for his (or her) peculiar aptitudes and make possible their full development".
I simply do not believe that the clause, however well intentioned, will realise that aim; in my view, it will seriously delay it.

833
I shall briefly address one or two points made in the debate. I am grateful to all those who have contributed to it, however they vote. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, perhaps I am not the person to absolve her, but I am sure that she will be absolved. But the constituencies of the Members of Parliament voting against the Government last night contain many asylum-seeking children. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, implied that point and was perhaps less polite than I should be in noting that 42 Labour MPs voted against the Government.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, yes, simplistic is one way of interpreting the character of the debate. I do not believe that schools are perfect, but the existing system is where to start. On the question of flexibility, again I make the point—but I shall not speak Danish this time—in my book, "may not" is "must not". I am glad that flexibility has appeared, but we have had to beat it out of the Government and it is simply not enough. Legislating for flexibility can be a slippery business. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, for his wise words: we should start with the norm and be flexible thereafter.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, I absolutely respect those who abstain. Perhaps those on the Conservative Benches will therefore be patient when bishops suspend judgment on certain matters. I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Filkin. (I am really turning the knife tonight; I am enjoying this. I hope that those on the Liberal Democrat Benches will buy me a gin afterwards!) I take the Minister's point about throwing money at schools, but the Government are throwing money at useless accommodation centres—or rather accommodation centres in a useless project. We bishops may have our heads in the air, but we jolly well have our feet on the ground. The signal that we are picking up from sensible, serious people involved in education is that the project is not good.
As for not being willing to allow even a trial, I can answer only that, frankly, we mistrust its negativity. If such a small number of children are involved, why go to such lengths to provide for them as a norm? Adapt the status quo.
We have heard some assurances tonight and it has been a good debate. But the clause is ill-founded because it is a Home Office policy into which educational provision has been made to fit. The clause is impractical, because our education system is already fully stretched. How is a new kind of teacher to be recruited for a 51-week year? It is a question of the allocation of resources, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said. It is rather late in the day to get those, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said. The clause is not only ill-founded and impractical; it is unnecessary. Proper use can be made of special-needs provision by adapting it.
Finally, the clause is wrong. This is not the way to treat children. Nothing I have heard tonight has persuaded me that "segregation" is an inaccurate description of what this measure is about. Segregation is not in the best interests of children. Having kept all your Lordships up so late, I must seek the opinion of the House.
10.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 20B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 84.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller]

Newby, L.

Alderdice, L.

Northover, B.

Ampthill, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Avebury, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Barker, B.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Bhatia, L.

Redesdale, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Rennard, L.

Chan, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Dholakia, L.

Rogan, L.

Goodhart, L.

Roper, L.

Greaves, L.

Russell, E.

Greengross, B.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Hamwee, B.

Sandwich, E.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller]

Hylton, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Joffe, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Taverne, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

McNally, L.

Tope, L.

Maddock, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Walmsley, B.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Moser, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Alli, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Andrews, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bach, L.

Grenfell, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Blackstone, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Borrie, L.

Harrison, L.

Bragg, L.

Haskel, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hayman, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hoyle, L.

Carter, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Chandos, V.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Jones, L.

Crawley, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Listowel, E.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Lockwood, B.

Desai, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Dixon, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Dubs, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Elder, L.

Elton, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Mitchell, L.

Filkin, L.

Monson, L.

Gale, B.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

835

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Pendry, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Thornton, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Turnberg, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Whitty, L.

Sawyer, L.

Wilkins, B.

Simon, V.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.16 p.m.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENTS
25 After Clause 22, insert the following new clause—
"Length of stay: family with children
(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring him to consider whether accommodation should be provided for a person and his dependants outside an accommodation centre under a provision of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) where—

(a)they have been residents of an accommodation centre for a continuous period of time specified in the regulations, and

(b)at least one of the dependants is under 17.

(2)The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring him to provide accommodation for a person and his dependants outside an accommodation centre under a provision of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) where—

(a)they have been residents of an accommodation centre for a continuous period of time specified in the regulations,

(b)at least one of the dependants is under 17, and

(c)the person requests that he and his dependants be provided with accommodation outside an accommodation centre.

(3)Regulations under subsection (1) must provide that where paragraphs (a) and (b) of that subsection apply to a person and his dependants, the Secretary of State must consult the person in the course of the consideration required by that subsection.
(4)Regulations under subsection (2) must provide that where paragraphs (a) and (b) of that subsection apply to a person and his dependants, the Secretary of State must give the person an opportunity to make a request of the kind referred to in paragraph (c).
(5)Where the Secretary of State provides accommodation outside an accommodation centre in pursuance of regulations under this section he shall take any necessary steps to ensure that residence in the accommodation provided does not breach a residence restriction within the meaning of section 21.
(6)The Secretary of State may inquire into and decide a person's age for the purpose of regulations under this section.
(7)Section 45 is subject to regulations under this section."
The Commons disagreed to Lords Amendment No. 25 but propose Amendments Nos. 19A and 19B in lieu thereof.
26 Insert the following new clause—
"Length of stay: general
(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring him to provide accommodation for a person outside an accommodation centre under a provision of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) where the person—

(a) has been a resident of an accommodation centre for a continuous period of time specified in the regulations, and

(b) requests the provision of accommodation outside an accommodation centre.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide that where paragraph (a) of that subsection applies to a person the Secretary of State must give him an opportunity to make a request of the kind referred to in paragraph (b).
(3)Where the Secretary of State provides accommodation outside an accommodation centre in pursuance of regulations under subsection (1) he shall take any necessary steps to ensure that residence in the accommodation provided does not breach a residence restriction within the meaning of section 21.
(4)Section 45 is subject to regulations under this section."
The Commons disagreed to Lords Amendment No. 26 but propose Amendments Nos. 19A and 19B in lieu thereof.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 to which the Commons have disagreed. I spoke to these amendments when dealing with Amendment No. 19.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 to which the Commons have disagreed—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
28 Clause 26, page 13, line 28, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State may arrange for the provision of facilities in an accommodation centre for the use of a person in providing legal advice to a resident of the centre; and must provide a resident of an accommodation centre with access to legal advice from suitably qualified advisors."
The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendments—
28A Line 4, leave out from "centre;" to end of line 5
28B Line 5, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State shall take reasonable steps to ensure that a resident of an accommodation centre has an opportunity to obtain legal advice before any appointment made by an immigration officer or an official of the Secretary of State for the purpose of obtaining information from the resident to he used in determining his claim for asylum."
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 28A and 28B to Lords Amendment No. 28.
Debates during the passage of the Bill have focused strongly on access to early legal advice as an important part of a swift and fair initial decision-making system that would reduce the scope for delay. During debate we have also made clear that residents would have access to legal advice and that, as part of the managed process that we will bring to accommodation centres, residents would be able to see a legal adviser prior to their initial asylum interview. Our commitment to this has always been clear.

837
To confirm and deliver on this commitment, the amendment, in response to representations made at the previous stage of the Bill, requires the Secretary of State to take reasonable steps to ensure that a resident has an opportunity to obtain legal advice before the initial substantive asylum interview. This addresses clearly the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, when the amendment was introduced; it focuses clearly on the initial stage. The asylum seeker will arrive at the accommodation centre knowing the date of the substantive asylum interview and will be able to see the legal adviser at the accommodation centre before this, assuming that he or she wishes to do so.
Let me explain what we mean by "reasonable steps". We are all agreed that we want to cut out opportunities for delay, so we need to ensure that an amendment does not inadvertently allow a person to disrupt the system by failing to turn up for interview. We spoke about this on a number of occasions. I do not believe that noble Lords want to create opportunities for delay. The amendment as introduced in this House would, we believe, lead to the risk of challenge by persons who deliberately missed their interview with the legal adviser and then sought to delay their substantive asylum interview as a result. Because we do not want that to happen, what we have introduced makes our obligations clear—the Secretary of State must take reasonable steps to ensure that a resident has an opportunity to obtain legal advice.
Oliver Letwin accepted in another place that it was the best he could persuade the Government to provide. Half a crumb is better than none, and it was accepted and received with gratitude.
The amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons tabled today by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, seeks to add to the amendments. In particular, it seeks to require the Secretary of State to ensure that a resident has a reasonable opportunity to obtain and consider legal advice and has a reasonable opportunity to have an adviser present at the appointment. Genuinely, I do not believe that takes us any further. It is not clear to me what,
"a reasonable opportunity to…consider legal advice",
might mean in practice. Again, I would have concerns that a resident would be able to use that to delay the substantive interview—if, for example, he claimed to need more time to consider the advice. It will of course be open to advisers not to attend the interview with the resident. We do not want to discourage this, but nor would we want to insist on this in case it caused further delay.
The second part of the amendment deals with the quality of advisers. We are also agreed that the quality of legal advice must be guaranteed. All solicitors and advice agencies holding contracts with the Legal Services Commission are checked to ensure that they meet certain standards and provide a quality service. The Community Legal Service logo is a special mark of quality to affirm that. To provide advice on
838
immigration and asylum matters, solicitors and advice agencies must have a contract in that specific category. The legal advice available must be independent; otherwise the quality mark will not be awarded. So we do not believe that there is any need for that part of the amendment.
I hope that the House recognises that we have made substantial movement towards acknowledging the representations made by noble Lords—particularly the noble Earl, Lord Russell—at previous stages. For those reasons, we do not think that further amendments are necessary, but we have accepted the thrust of the noble Earl's previous representations and have been pleased to do so.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 28A and 28B to Lords Amendment No. 28.—(Lord Filkin.)
Earl Russellrose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 28A and 28B to Lords Amendment No. 28, leave out "Amendments Nos. 28A and 28B to Lords Amendment No. 28" and insert "Amendment No. 28A but do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28B and do propose the following amendment in lieu thereof:
28C Line 5, at end insert—
"(2B) The Secretary of State shall ensure that a resident of an accommodation centre has a reasonable opportunity to obtain and consider legal advice from a person who meets the requirements of subsection (2C) before any appointment made by an immigration officer or an official of the Secretary of State for the purpose of obtaining information from the resident to be used in determining his claim for asylum and to have such a person present at the appointment.
(2C) A person meets the requirements of this subsection if he is a qualified person or an exempt person within the meaning of section 84 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and, if applicable, the advice falls within the scope of—

(a)his registration if he is registered under section 84(3) or,

(b)his certificate if he holds a certificate under section 84(5) of that Act." "

The noble Earl said: My Lords, as when some well-graced actor leaves the stage, the eyes of men are idly bent on him that enters next. I guarantee that I shall not detain the House as long as we were detained on the last amendment.
As the Minister said, this amendment is a concession and as such it is to be welcomed. But I hope that the Minister understands that it is the duty of Oppositions to look gift horses in the mouth. The amendment is good. It reads well. But one must ask James Bond's question of whether,
"it reads better than it lives".
I hope to probe its meaning a little further, and that the Minister will be in a position to satisfy me.
A lot depends on the meaning that the Government attach to the word "opportunity". There is obviously here a serious problem. I was struck very much by some of the examples quoted in another place by Mr. Letwin. He came across cases of individuals who had two or three different Home Office records in slightly

839
different names. In such cases he said that different decisions are sometimes made in relation to two or three different sets of records about the same person.
One is tempted to ask the question with which the Sadducees tempted Christ at the Resurrection:
"Who's wife shall she be?".
What is to happen when there are three different decisions about the same person? That is the sort of thing that proper legal representation from the beginning ought to prevent.
The Minister in another place had several objections. 'One was to the words "suitably qualified". Frankly, I understand. I have had that question in my mind myself. Since then, I have been better advised. We have taken the decision, since I have been better advised, for a more precise definition: that the adviser should be from those who are approved by the Immigration Commission registrar under the 1999 Act. That criterion is one that the Government themselves have constructed and which I hope therefore they will not think is in any way intended to obstruct them.
The Minister said that there was a danger that the amendment might inadvertently allow a person to disrupt the system by failing to turn up for an interview. The Minister in this place inadvertently omitted the word "inadvertently". If the amendment were to have that effect, it would be very inadvertent indeed. That would be totally contrary to our intention in laying the amendment and, as far as I can see, totally contrary to the meaning of the English language.
The word that we used was "access"; the word that the Minister in another place used in the Government's amendment is "opportunity". We meant those words to mean the same thing. If that is also the case with the Government, then we are in agreement. 13ut the question is how far that agreement goes. Clearly, as my honourable friend Mr Hughes remarked, it is not enough to give people the addresses of the Refugee Council, the Immigration Advisory Service and the Refugee Legal Centre and then go ahead and arrange an interview without doing anything more. Can the Minister say how he will interpret a "reasonable time"? As the Government are using that phrase, we are entitled to ask how it will be interpreted. Further, is the length of time that is a "reasonable time" recognised to be affected by how many days within that period are working days, how many are public holidays and how many are week ends?
Will a "reasonable time" be affected by the supply of lawyers in the area concerned? Will it be recognised that a "reasonable time" may be longer in a case of complexity involving either a language for which interpreters are in very scarce supply or one involving, say, mental health disabilities or torture, where there is a clear difficulty in getting adequate testimony in the time available? Are the Government prepared to recognise that their normal assumption of delivery in two working days after posting is now totally inadequate? Nothing posted on Friday can be counted
840
on reaching me across London in under five days, as my Whips' Office knows very well. That view is simply out of date
We have accepted, with gratitude, Commons Amendment No. 28A, which I believe does rather better what we sought to achieve. However, we are worried by what the Government mean by the word "reasonable" in Amendment No. 28B, so we have provided Amendment No. 28C as an alternative. This would allow for a "reasonable opportunity" to obtain legal advice before the Home Office goes ahead with an interview. We are concerned that the interview should not take place before the person has had a good chance to obtain legal advice. We do not say that people must take that opportunity; we do not say that failure to take that opportunity should prevent the interview. We say that failure to give that opportunity should provide a reason for postponing the interview.
Finally, can the Minister reassure me that our interpretation of these provisions and the Government's is very much the same? I hope that the answer to that question is yes. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 28A and 28B to Lords Amendment Not 28, leave out Amendments Nos. 28A and 28B to Lords Amendment No. 28" and insert "Amendment No. 28A but do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28B and do propose Amendment No. 28C in lieu thereof.(Earl Russell.)
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, with respect to Amendment No. 28B, I entirely endorse the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I have one question for the Minister. Amendment No. 28B says:
"The Secretary of State shall take reasonable steps to ensure that a resident of an accommodation centre has an opportunity to obtain legal advice"—
I need go no further. In construing this amendment, would it be reasonable of me to insert between the words "obtain" and "legal" the expression, "access to subsidised"?
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for tabling Amendment No. 28B, especially for the inclusion of the words,
"an opportunity to obtain legal advice before any appointment"—
a point that I endeavoured to make during a previous stage of the Bill. The amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, may be better still; I do not know. At least, I hope that we can settle for Amendment No. 28B.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, first, I wish to address the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on the meaning of "opportunity". It is a slightly philosophical question; therefore, I approach it with caution. There is a danger of tautology here. We shall ensure that an accommodation centre resident has a

841
real opportunity; that is, sufficient time to seek and take up legal advice prior to the date of the initial interview for determining the asylum claim.
The statute places a duty on the Secretary of State, or his agents in the accommodation centre, to demonstrate that they have acted reasonably. I shall not be drawn on the exact number of days that may be involved as that will depend on the circumstances. Clearly, a sufficient number of qualified lawyers have to be available; otherwise, the test will not be met. The complexity of a case might have a bearing on the matter if, for example, evidence was required of torture or other such matters. I do not say that it would be required automatically but it is perfectly possible that it might be. Therefore, a Secretary of State or his agent acting reasonably would have to take those factors into account. Mental health factors might also have a bearing on the amount of time that was needed.
The interview would not take place before the asylum seeker had had a reasonable opportunity to receive legal advice. That may appear to be a circular argument but it is not intended to be so. The statute places a real burden of responsibility on people who are exercising the judgment that we are discussing. They should be looking over their shoulder at the fact that there is a legal duty on the Secretary of State to provide that opportunity.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, asked about access to subsidised legal advice. I do not believe that that is necessary as, in practice, all residents of accommodation centres will, by definition, be destitute. Therefore, legal advice will be provided to meet the responsibility that the Secretary of State is effectively imposing on himself through the clause. Therefore, the question is otiose.
As regards qualified advisers, I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will accept that the amendment is necessary, as those who have the LSC quality mark will, by definition, come within the terms of the amendment. That, therefore, provides the security that he seeks.
I have one or two further points. As regards sufficiency of supply of legal advisers, the Secretary of State is required to be reasonable. We shall provide legal advisers on site via the Legal Services Commission. If an asylum seeker is, through no fault of his own, unable to take up legal advice before the interview date, we shall consider on a case-by-case basis whether the interview should be rearranged. I hope that that is helpful. I hope that I have satisfied noble Lords on those matters.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful but I hope that, before the Minister sits down, I may ask him a further question that I should have asked. Roughly what sort of length of notice will be given to the applicant of the date the interview is arranged for? The Minister said that applicants would be given reasonable notice. How long roughly would that be?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I say from recollection that when an asylum seeker is in an induction centre and a determination has been made that he will be given support in an accommodation centre, he will be told at the induction centre the date of the proposed interview in an accommodation centre. He therefore then has to move to the accommodation centre. I would expect that there will be at least a week between the date on which they were notified in the induction centre of when they will have their initial interview, and the initial interview taking place. If I am wrong—I am slightly on my own on this point at the moment—I shall write to the noble Earl. In fact, that is right.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister, who answered with great care and considerable thought. I accept that many of these issues may well affect the amount of time that should be allowed rather than that they will necessarily so affect it. That is the real world. I also hope that he accepts that when an interview is held without the applicant having received advice, one would want to be very certain that that was due to the applicant's acts of omission rather than to any failure on the Government's part. That is the point that should be monitored. The Minister's intentions in this regard are benevolent. It is important to all of our objectives that this should be got right.
I believe that the Minister has made a sincere and genuine attempt to do his best, which is all that any of us can do. I thank him warmly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 28C, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
38 Leave out Clause 31
The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
38A Page 16, line 7, at end insert "(subject to section 32)"
38B Page 16, line 20, at end insert "(subject to section 32)"
38C Page 16, line 25, leave out "316(3)" and insert "316(2) and (3)"
38D Page 16, line 32, at end insert "(subject to section 32)"
38E Page 17, line 14, leave out "person" and insert "body" [Amendment No. 38F not moved.]
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 38 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 38A to 38E to the words so restored to the Bill. I spoke to these amendments on Amendment No. 20.
Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 38 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 38A to 38E to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
39 Clause 32, leave out Clause 32
The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendment to the words so restored to the Bill—
39A Page 17, line 29, at end insert "on the grounds that his special circumstances call for provision that can only or best be arranged by the authority"
[Amendment No. 39B not moved.]
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 39 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 39A to the words so restored to the Bill. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 20.
Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 39 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 39A to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
41Clause 33, page 18, line 27, at end insert—
"( ) section (Length of stay: family with children),"
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
41A Because the amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 25 to which the Commons have disagreed.
LORDS AMENDMENT
42 Page 18, leave out line 28
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
42A Because the amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 25 to which the commons have disagreed.
LORDS AMENDMENT
44 Page 18, line 35, after "section" insert "(Length of stay: family with children), (Length of stay:general) or"
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
44A Because the amendment is consequential on Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 to which the commons have disagreed
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 44 en bloc to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 41A and 42A. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 19.
Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 44 en bloc to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 41A, 42A and 44A.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
45 After Clause 36, insert the following new clause—
"Disapplication of section (Consequential and incidental provision) in relation to Part 2
Section (Consequential and incidental provision) shall not apply to this Part"
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
45A Because the power to make consequential and incidental provision should not be restricted in the manner proposed.
LORDS AMENDMENT
88After Clause 51, insert the following new clause—
"Disapplication of section (Consequential and incidental provision) in relation to Part 3
Section (Consequential and incidental provision) shall not apply to this Part."
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
88A Because the power to make consequential and incidental provision should not be restricted in the manner proposed.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 45 and 88 en bloc to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 45A and 88A. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 16.
Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 45 and 88 en bloc to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 45A and 88A.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
99Clause 58, page 32, line 19, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
99A Because it would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 99 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 99A.
It may be helpful if I explain the reasons for the Government's resistance to your Lordships' amendment; namely, the travel expenses incurred by those complying with a reporting restriction shall, as opposed to "may", as it was in the original power, be met. A duty to pay travelling costs in all cases would add unnecessarily to the overall costs to the taxpayer because there would be no control over whether it was reasonable to pay the costs in the first place or whether the travel cost claimed was at a reasonable level.
A duty to pay in all circumstances could lead to absurd results. For example, we would have a duty to pay the travel expenses of a person who lived within walking distance, even if he travelled by taxi or some other, perhaps more expensive, means of transport. Also, if there were a duty to pay in all circumstances, we would have to pay even if someone clearly had their own means to pay; for example, if a person was in employment.
Until recently, those required to report had to attend their local police station. That meant that the distance from a person's home to the place of reporting was reasonable and that the costs of travel, if any, were low. However, as a consequence of the Government's

845
commitment to a more managed asylum process, asylum seekers are now more likely to be required to report to an immigration officer—perhaps at a reporting centre. We believe that that is more efficient. Immigration officers are clearly better placed to perform that service; they can make decisions based on the most up-to-date information; and they can give asylum seekers information about their claim.
The change also has the beneficial effect of allowing police officers to concentrate more on their core tasks of policing and catching criminals. In our view, police officers cannot and should not be expected to be able to provide the same service as immigration officers.
To allow for this provision, a number of reporting centres have been established and it is planned that more may open in the future. That is certainly our thinking. It is reasonable to expect asylum seekers who are seeking protection in the United Kingdom to comply with the asylum process, including a requirement to report. But we accept that for some—particularly asylum seekers in receipt of support—the costs of travel to comply with a reporting restriction may be prohibitive. It is in those cases that we intend to meet the costs of travel.
We have not previously provided for travel costs. Therefore, this is a new approach from the Government. If we were to go with the amendment and if this House were to insist on its original position, essentially we should be obliged to sign up to a very open-ended commitment. No government should do that; it is not the way that government should work. It would be a blank cheque. We believe that it would be very costly and we do not believe that that is the right approach.
Therefore, we cannot accept the amendment. We believe that we have put in place a reasonable, fair and flexible provision. The amendment is inflexible. It would place an absolute duty in all circumstances and we should be obliged to conform to that. We do not consider the amendment to be reasonable and we suggest to your Lordships that we should not support it.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 99 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 99A.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. He has gone into somewhat more helpful detail than perhaps he was able to do in Committee when I moved this amendment.
I was particularly interested in the point that he made concerning a person who would have to travel a short distance but who would not need to incur travelling expenses. If such a person could have walked but took a taxi, that would obviously be an abuse of claiming travel expenses. That was not quite the way that the Minister expressed the matter in Committee when I envisaged him thinking that people would
846
claim for shoe leather. That was what drove me to think that the answer from the Minister was less than satisfactory.
I am also grateful to him for addressing the issue of those who are destitute. Such people are, after all, being forced to report; they do not have a choice in the matter. I believe that the noble Lord has addressed my concerns in his response.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
10.45 p.m.
LORDS AMENDMENT
104 Clause 61, page 34, line 3, leave out from "is" to end of line 5 and insert "convicted in the United Kingdom of an offence, and either—

(a) the offence is one for which the maximum period of imprisonment is ten years or more, or

(b) the offence has been specified for the purpose of this subsection under subsection (3A)."

The Commons disagreed to Lords Amendment No. 104 but proposed Amendments Nos. 104A to 104E in lieu thereof—
104A Page 34, line 13, at end insert—
"(3A) A person shall be presumed to have been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime and to constitute a danger to the community of the United Kingdom if—

(a) he is convicted of an offence specified by order of the Secretary of State, or

(b) he is convicted outside the United Kingdom of an offence and the Secretary of State certifies that in his opinion the offence is similar to an offence specified by order under paragraph (a).

(3B) An order under subsection (3A)—

(a) must be made by statutory instrument, and

(b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."

104B Page 34, line 14, leave out "or (3)" and insert ", (3) or (3A)"
104C Page 34, line 16, leave out "or (3)" and insert ", (3) or (3A)"
104D Page 34, line 31, leave out "or (3)" and insert ", (3) or (3A)"
104E Page 34, line 35, leave out "or (3)" and insert ", (3) or (3A)"
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 104 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 104A to 104E in lieu thereof.
The other place have disagreed to Lords Amendments Nos. 104 to 106 and they have also disagreed with Lords Amendment No. 109 and restored Amendments Nos. 109A to 109D.
In putting forward Amendments Nos. 104A to 104E the other place have listened carefully to the thoughtful and helpful contributions that your Lordships, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, have made to the debate on how to define who is a particularly serious criminal.
The effect of the amendments made yesterday is as follows. We now have a clause which contains a two part definition of who is presumed to be a danger to the community. Both parts of the definition allow the person to whom it is supplied to rebut it on appeal. One part reflects the clause as it was originally drafted, so that a serious criminal, presumed to be a danger to

847
the community, will be anyone who has been convicted of an offence and sentenced to a period of imprisonment of two years or more. As I have explained before, we believe that the actual sentence imposed is the best general measure of seriousness because it takes full account of the individual nature of the offence and the circumstances of the offender. We have had that discussion several times and I shall not develop that further.
However, the other part of the definition draws upon an idea put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, which many of your Lordships have favoured. Its value was acknowledged yesterday by my honourable friend the Home Secretary. That is that the Secretary of State should be in a position to specify in an order offences which, whatever the length of sentence imposed, by their very nature connote such a degree of seriousness that conviction of one of them would he appropriate to create a presumption that the offender is a danger to the community. For such serious crimes one would of course expect a sentence of well in excess of two years to be imposed but 1 accept the point that we should cater for those rare situations where a shorter sentence is imposed.
To achieve that we have therefore inserted into the clause an order-making power which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, suggested. We will of course work closely with the Scottish Executive before making an order to ensure when listing any offences that there is equivalent treatment both sides of the Border. As your Lordships will know the criminal law in Scotland differs from that in England and Wales, having a wider range of offences covered by common law. It will be possible under this order-making power to cater for these differences.
On the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, the Government believe that Clause 61 as amended last night is the right way to proceed. We think that it is right to set a tough criterion of seriousness. It should be remembered that, whatever the nature of the crime, no refugee is at risk of removal if on appeal to the independent authorities he rebuts the presumption that he is a danger to the community.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has put forward a number of proposed amendments as alternatives to Amendments Nos. 104A to 104E. Their effect would be to define a particularly serious crime so narrowly as to make the possible application of the clause very rare indeed. I do not believe that the public would understand why, for example, a sentence of nine years for rape or a maximum sentence of seven years for child abduction would not he regarded as a particularly serious crime. Yet that appears to be the position that would be the consequence of the noble Lord's amendments.
The amendments would also alter the clause from being a firm definition of how Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention is to be applied to being merely a guide to construction. That would lose the elements of certainty and clarity that we want to achieve in this clause, so that is another reason why we could not accept the amendments.
848
The noble Lord has also put down an amendment to reinstate Amendment No. 109, which deleted the definitional provision in subsection (9)(b). I think that subsection is necessary. In order that Article 33(2) can be applied effectively in the light of Clause 61, the clause must refer to the different types of offender who may fall within its scope and provide for the different types of disposal by the courts and for the different types of institution where offenders may be detained.
The wording of subsection (9)(b) also links with the Government's two years or more actual sentence criterion. It is essential that it is retained. Otherwise the application of Article 33(2) would lead to problems in the courts.
We have understood the reservations which certain of your Lordships have about the possibility of Article 33(2) being applied to people who are convicted of an offence and who, in view of their mental disorder, are made subject to a hospital order. Very few hospital order cases are likely to arise in the context of Article 33(2). I accept that it is possible that there will be a case where a person needing to be detained for hospital treatment has been convicted of a minor offence—for example shoplifting—which would not usually involve a two year sentence and/or a case where the danger that the person poses is more to themselves than to the community.
However, we have to provide in this clause for hospital order cases because people in this category could be a danger to the community on release from detention. We must ensure that an exceptional and compelling case for removal is not jeopardised by the fact that a hospital order has been imposed rather than imprisonment.
It has always been our position that we would take real care when seeking to rely on this presumption in such circumstances. I would reiterate that a decision to apply Article 33(2) in a hospital order case would not be made without the most thorough examination of the person's personal circumstances, overall state of health and other relevant factors. The Secretary of State has a discretion whether or not to issue a certificate under this clause and he would not do so if he did not consider that Article 33(2) was applicable. If we decided to apply Article 33(2) in a case of this kind, it would of course be a decision which could he challenged on appeal, as with any certificate issued under these clauses. For those reasons I beg to support the amendment as made and to suggest that the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, are not appropriate.
Moved, that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 104 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 104A to 104E in lieu thereof.— (Lord Filkin.)
Lord Goodhartrose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 104 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 104A to 104E in lieu thereof, leave

849
out from "and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 104A to 104E in lieu thereof" and insert ", do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 104A to 104E in lieu thereof and do propose the following amendments in lieu of the Commons amendments—
104F Page 34, line 1, leave out subsections (2) to (5) and insert—
"(2) This section applies as an aid to the construction and application of Article 33(2) (exclusion from protection) of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28th July 1951 and its Protocol.
(3) A person shall be presumed to have been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime and to constitute a danger to the community of the United Kingdom if—

(a) he is convicted of an offence specified by order of the Secretary of State and sentenced to a period of imprisonment of at least ten years, or

(b) he is convicted outside the United Kingdom of an offence and sentenced to a period of imprisonment of at least ten years and the Secretary of State certifies that in his opinion the offence is similar in character to an offence specified by order under paragraph (a) and that the person could have been sentenced to a period of at least ten years had his conviction been a conviction in the United Kingdom for that similar offence.

(4) A reference to a person who is sentenced to a period of imprisonment of at least two years—

(a) does not include a reference to a person who receives a suspended sentence (unless at least ten years of the sentence are not suspended); and

(b) includes a reference to a person who is sentenced to an indeterminate period of custody (provided that it may last for 10 years).

(5) The Secretary of State may by order specify an offence under the law of any part of the United Kingdom for the purposes of subsection (3).
(5A) An order under subsection (5)—

(a) must be made by statutory instrument; and

(b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(5B) A presumption under subsection (3) that a person constitutes a danger to the community is rebuttable by that person.
(5C) A presumption under subsection (3) does not apply while an appeal against conviction or sentence—

(a)is pending, or

(b)could be brought (disregarding the possibility of an appeal out of time with leave)."

104G Page 34, line 31, leave out "(2) or"
104H Page 34, line 35, leave out "(2) or" "
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 104F to 104H standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Dholakia. I shall not speak to Amendment No. 109E. That will be spoken to by my noble friend Lord Avebury.
Amendment No. 104 and the associated Amendments Nos. 104A to 104E were totally inadequately discussed in the other place last night. Some noble Lords may feel that some of the debates on some of the earlier clauses or amendments have been unduly prolonged. That may be the case. It is certainly better to do that than to cut short an important debate in the way that it was cut short under the rules of the other place.
850
The removal of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and the addition of the further amendments in Amendment Nos. 104A to 104E, make the situation of refugees considerably worse than when the Bill was first introduced. The original Bill proposed that "serious crime" meant a crime for which a sentence of at least two years was imposed. In other words, the crime was serious by reason of the actual circumstances of an actual crime, leading to a sentence of two years.
The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, altered the basis and proposed that "serious crime" meant a crime for which a maximum sentence of at least 10 years could be imposed. In other words, the crime was serious by reason of the type of crime to which it belonged, irrespective of the actual facts of the case or the sentence imposed. Amendments tabled at Third Reading added power to add by order certain crimes as particularly serious, irrespective of the maximum length of the sentence.
If the government amendment stands, we shall be left with the worst of both worlds. Someone will be presumed—and this part of the presumption is irrebuttable—to have been convicted of a particularly serious crime if they have been sentenced to two years' imprisonment for any crime. They will also be presumed to have been convicted of a particularly serious crime if they have been convicted of any specified offence, even if the actual offence involved mitigating factors of such strength as to mean that no punishment or only an insignificant punishment was imposed; and again even if the conviction was made abroad by courts whose decisions are directed by the Government or liable to be influenced by corruption. Finally, the offences can be specified by the negative resolution procedure which we believe is entirely inappropriate for something that has this significant effect.
Our amendments go back to the concept of the length of sentence as an essential test of the seriousness of the crime. The crime must be specified in an order approved by the affirmative resolution procedure, and the actual sentence must be at least 10 years.
I accept that the 10-year period is too high. It might be better to make the test a sentence of five or, perhaps, seven years. However, we believe that two years is too short. We also believe that, as our amendment provides, the definition of a serious crime should be a guide to the interpretation of Article 33(2) of the refugee convention, not a free-standing definition. Otherwise, there is a severe risk that we might end up with our courts being forced to accept an interpretation of Article 33(2) that is not consistent with a generally accepted interpretation of that article.
The amendments in my noble friend's name are fairer and are more likely to satisfy the requirements of Article 33(2) of the refugee convention than the test that the Government want to apply. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 104 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 104A to 104E in lieu thereof, leave out "and do

851
agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 104A to 104E in lieu thereof" and insert", do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 104A to 104E and do propose Amendments Nos. 104F to 104H in lieu thereof.—(Lord Goodhart.)
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I shall speak, in particular, to Amendment No. 109 and Amendments Nos. 109A, to 109E.
I am grateful to the Minister for his careful explanation of the reasons why the power must be extended to persons who are the subject of a hospital order. However, I say, with great respect, that he took the matter no further than he did at Third Reading. We were not satisfied with the reasons that he gave then. I shall explain why.
Three principles underlie the applicability of Article 33(2). First, it should be restrictively interpreted and applied; secondly, it must be judged case by case; and, thirdly, the burden of proof lies principally on the state. The Minister said that there would be few hospital orders to which the section applied. That makes the case for individual consideration even stronger.
Can the Minister say how Article 33(2) is used at the moment? As I understand it, if a person is convicted of a serious offence, the court can make a recommendation for that person's deportation. At that point, the Secretary of State must consider whether Article 33(2) comes into play. The Minister may say that, sometimes, the courts do not make such a recommendation and that, in such cases, the Secretary of State would have no power to invoke Article 33(2). However, if they recognise that they can do that and that the decision on whether someone can be deported from the United Kingdom turns on whether the recommendation is made—the Secretary of State has no right to consider the matter, unless there is a recommendation by the court—the courts are capable of applying that power. That is particularly so in the few cases that, the Minister said, were the subject of hospital orders.
At Third Reading, the Minister said that it was reasonable to have a presumption that such persons persons subject to a hospital order under Section 37 of the 1983 Act—were a danger to the community but that that presumption could be rebutted. He also said on the same occasion, and he has repeated today, that a decision to apply Article 33(2) in a hospital case would not be made without the most thorough examination of personal circumstances, overall state of health and other relevant factors. How can he reconcile that with the presumption in the clause that Article 33(2) does apply, which has to be rebutted by the person concerned?
How can the examination of all those factors take place unless there is an objection to the application of Article 33(2) to which the Minister can address his mind? Does he do that of his own volition irrespective of whether the person has made an application, and, as we are considering persons subject to a hospital order,
852
does the Minister think that it will be possible for that to be done by the person of his own volition, considering that he is not deemed fit to plead in court?
The Minister acknowledged that a hospital order can be made by a court after a relatively minor offence and he has repeated the two examples he gave on Third Reading of shoplifting or taking a motor vehicle without consent. He said that the key issue is not the offence, but whether a person needs to be detained for hospital treatment. The right of a person to have his application for asylum considered will be forfeited, not because he has committed a serious offence as provided for in the convention, but because he is mentally ill. That must surely be a violation of Article 33(2).
UNHCR said at an earlier stage, and has repeated, that the broad nature of this provision covers people who have been neither convicted of a particularly serious crime nor even tried in relation to a charge of such a crime. In parentheses, we hear from Mr Blunkett that he is going to go ahead with the draft mental health Bill, which provides that a person can be detained without having committed any offence. As I understand it, if that comes into force, such a person would be subject to the provisions we are discussing now. In other words, someone can have committed no crime whatever, but Article 33(2) will be invoked and he will be deemed to be a person who is not a refugee.
I discussed the matter with Mind today. My impression from the short conversation was that the Home Office or the Department of Health—whichever it is—has not discussed the matter with it. From my description of the provision which the Minister puts before the House, it strongly disagrees. I must protest that the Home Office shoves through such a provision without discussing it at all with the principal agency working on behalf of mental health patients.
I know that we are at a late stage in the Bill and I shall not get anywhere with these amendments, but pushing the matter through against the interests of mental health patients is fundamentally wrong and contrary to the convention.
11 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the Minister and welcome the Government's conversion to the view that I had the honour to advance in Committee in July. I also welcome the generous admission made by the Home Secretary yesterday in another place in respect of the position hitherto adopted by the Government:
"I recognise that that is unacceptable".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/11/02; col. 191.]
The Home Secretary's statement plainly shows the value of your Lordships' House as a revising Chamber. These provisions were undebated in another place. Had they not been scrutinised and amended in your Lordships' House then we would not have arrived at

853
the position where the Government have recognised the anomalies in their original proposal and tabled the amendments before the House today.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, at this time of night and for many reasons I shall not disagree with the broad thrust of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. It is in part because one recognises that it has considerable value even though we do not always agree on many issues.
On the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I shall not repeat what I said when I spoke to the amendment. I recognise the argumentation but at heart the Government differ from that stance for the reasons I set out.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, as ever, tested me hard at this time of night on a number of issues. I will attempt to answer a number of them but I hope he will not consider me churlish if I say that they require more consideration than I can give off the cuff. Therefore, he is owed a thoughtful and reflective reply after I have reflected on the matters further.
As I indicated previously, we are not aware of any cases of a person subject to a hospital order having Article 33(2) applied to them. However, if a person has committed an offence and is subject to a medical order—and both points need to be in operation—there is nothing in the present law which prevents the Secretary of State considering deportation on conducive grounds and, if so, whether Article 33 of the Refugee Convention would prevent removal.
The effect of Clause 61 is to create a presumption that Article 33 would not prevent a removal. But that presumption is rebuttable and we would, as I stressed earlier, have to consider and would want to do so on a case-by-case and individual basis.
On his point about a draft mental health Bill, he asked whether, where no offence has been committed and an individual can be retained, that invoked Article 33(2) by virtue of the clause. No, because Clause 61(2) requires the conviction of an offence and a sentence to be imposed, as I implied when I spoke earlier on those points.
Those are in the nature of initial responses. As regards the other points, I will ensure that I reply within the week when have I inspected Hansard to see whether we have addressed them all. I am fairly sure that I have not.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I regret that we are faced with a situation in which an attempt to make the lot of refugees facing deportation somewhat easier has concluded by making their situation worse. Had it been possible to do anything about it, I would have wished to divide the House. Plainly, it is not and in that case I beg the leave of the House to withdraw the amendments standing in my noble friend's name.
Amendment No. 104F to 104H, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENTS
105 Page 34, line 8, leave out from "if" to end of line 13 and insert "he is convicted outside the United Kingdom of an offence, and either—
(a) the offence is one for which the maximum period of imprisonment under the law of any part of the United Kingdom in respect of an offence that is similar in character is ten years or more, or
(b) the offence is similar in character to an offence that has been specified for the purpose of this subsection under subsection (3A)."
The Commons disagreed to Lords Amendment No. 105 but proposed Amendments Nos. 104A to 104E in lieu thereof.
106 Page 34, line 13, at end insert—
(3A) The Secretary of State may by order specify an offence under the law of any part of the United Kingdom for the purpose of subsections (2) and (3).
(3B) An order under subsection (3A) may provide that the offence is specified for the purpose of—

(a) subsection (2) only;

(b) subsection (3) only;

(c) both subsections (2) and (3)

(3C) An order under subsection (3A) shall be made by statutory instrument and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
The Commons disagreed to Lords Amendment No. 106 but proposed Amendments Nos. 104A to 104E in lieu thereof.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 105 and 106 to which the Commons have disagreed. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 104.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 105 and 106 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
109 Page 34, line 42, leave out paragraph (b)
The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
109A Page 34, line 47, leave out "a period of custody" and insert "detention, or ordered or directed to be detained,"
109B Page 34, line 48, after "prison" insert "(including, in particular, a hospital or an institution for young offenders),"
109C Page 35, line 1, after second "to" insert "imprisonment or detention, or ordered or directed to be detained, for"
109D Page 35, line 2, leave out "of custody"
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 109 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 109A to 109D to the words so restored in the Bill. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 104.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 109 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 109A to 109D to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord Filkin.)
[Amendment No. 109E not moved.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
126 After Clause 68, insert the following new clause—
"Disapplication of section (Consequential and incidental provision) in relation to Part 4
Section (Consequential and incidental provision) shall not apply to this Part."
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
126A Because the power to make consequential and incidental provision should not be restricted in the manner proposed.
LORDS AMENDMENT
192 After Clause 101, insert the following new clause—
"Disapplication of section (Consequential and incidental provision) in relation to Part 5
Section (Consequential and incidental provision) shall not apply to this Part."
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
192A Because the power to make consequential and incidental provision should not be restricted in the manner proposed.
LORDS AMENDMENT
216 After Clause 123, insert the following new clause—
"Disapplication of section (Consequential and incidental provision) in relation to Part 6
Section (Consequential and incidental provision) shall not apply to this Part."
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
216A Because the power to make consequential and incidental provision should not be restricted in the manner proposed.
LORDS AMENDMENT
224 After Clause 136, insert the following new clause—
"Disapplication of section (Consequential and incidental provision) in relation to Part 7
Section (Consequential and incidental provision) shall not apply to this Part."
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
224A Because the power to make consequential and incidental provision should not be restricted in the manner proposed.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 126, 192, 216 and 224 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 126A, 192A, 216A and 224A. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment. No. 16.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 126, 192, 216 and 224 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 126A, 192A, 216A and 224A.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
225 Before Clause 137, insert the following new clause—
"Consequential and incidental provision
(1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision which he thinks necessary in consequence of or in connection with a provision of this Act.
(2) An order under this section may, in particular—

(a) amend an enactment;

(b) modify the effect of an enactment.

(3) An order under this section must be made by statutory instrument.
(4) An order under this section which amends an enactment shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(5) Any other order under this section shall be subject to annulment pursuant to a resolution of either House of Parliament."
The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—
225A Line 3, leave out "provision which he thinks necessary in consequence of or" and insert "consequential or incidental provision"
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 225A to Lords Amendment No. 225. I spoke to this Amendment with Amendment No. 16.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 225A to Lords Amendment No. 225.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Enterprise Bill
11.10 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 be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF LORDS AMENDMENTS TO WHICH THE COMMONS INSIST ON THEIR DISAGREEMENT AND COMMONS FURTHER AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF A COMMONS AMENDMENT NOT INSISTED UPON
[The page and line refer to HL Bill 92 as first printed for the
Lords.]
LORDS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 5, after "corporate" insert "with both a chairman and a chief executive"
LORDS REASON
The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
Because it is appropriate to make provision for two roles for a Chairman and a Chief Executive which should be performed by two people.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU
The Commons insist on their disagreement to Lords Amendment No. I but proposed the following amendments in lieu thereof—
1DPage 192, line 1, at end insert—
"4A(1) The Secretary of State shall, after consulting the chairman, appoint a person (who may, subject to sub-paragraph (2), also be a member of the OFT) to act as chief executive of the OFT on such terms and conditions as the Secretary of State may think appropriate.
(2) A person appointed as chief executive after the end of the transitional period may not at the same time be chairman.
(3) In sub-paragraph (2) "the transitional period" means the period of two years beginning with the day on which this paragraph comes into force."
IE Page 192, line 3, after "such" insert "other"
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1D and lE in lieu thereof.
We have always been clear that the Bill allowed the OFT to create a separate post of chief executive if it wished to do so. Last week, my honourable friend the Minister for Competition, Consumers and Markets and I reassured both this House and the other place that we envisaged that the arrangements at the top of the OFT would be reviewed when John Vickers retires in 2005, so that consideration would be given at the time to whether a separation of the roles of chairman and chief executive would then be desirable.
However, given the strong concerns expressed by this House that the OFT should definitely have a chief executive, Amendments Nos. 1 D and 1 E proposed by the Commons in lieu would make express provision for such a post on the face of the Bill. The amendments also provide for a transitional period of two years, during which time a combined chairman and chief executive of the OFT could be appointed.
The OFT's particular circumstances have been critical to our decision not to separate the role of chairman and chief executive between two different persons at the present time. We are conscious that the OFT is about to enter a period of substantial change as a result of this Bill and we want to ensure that there is an important degree of continuity to lead the OFT through it. We also want to honour the commitment made to John Vickers when he was appointed Director-General of Fair Trading.
For these reasons, we remain of the view that the OFT should not separate the roles of chairman and chief executive immediately. The transitional provision ensures that the commitments that were given to John Vickers are honoured and it will assist the OFT.
Noble Lords will also be aware that in creating the new statutory authority the Bill provides for a significant depersonalisation of competition and consumer regulation. As I have said previously, we expect the OFT to have a majority of non-executive members. A two-year transition period during which a combined chairman and chief executive may be appointed therefore seems to be sensible.
858
I now turn to Commons Amendment No. 2C in lieu. As I have said previously, and as my honourable friend the Minister for Competition, Consumers and Markets has said in the other place, the Government are happy to accept the principle that the OFT should have regard to the generally accepted principles of good corporate governance in its affairs.
However, we believe that it is necessary to amend Lords Amendment No. 2 to ensure that the OFT only has to have regard to the principle of good corporate governance which may be reasonably regarded as being applicable to it, and to ensure at the same time that the OFT must also have regard to other relevant general guidance concerning the governance of public bodies.
The previous Commons amendment, Amendment No. 2A which was designed to achieve this, was modelled on a similar provision in the Office of Communications Act 2002. We have listened to the opinions expressed by this House, which favoured instead an amendment modelled on the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Commons Amendment No. 2C is therefore based on that Act, which includes a provision to have regard to the principles of corporate governance that may be reasonably regarded as applicable to the authority. We have added to that model a reference to having regard to guidance aimed at public bodies. That is because the OFT will be a government body and must take proper account of guidance, rules and procedures for such bodies—for example, Treasury rules on public accounting.
In contrast, the Financial Services Authority is a private law body: a company limited by guarantee on which statutory functions are conferred. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 provision must therefore be amended, as Amendment No. 2C achieves, to be fully appropriate to the OFT. Amendment No. 2C reflects the will of the House that the OFT should have regard to the principles of good corporate governance with a provision modelled on the Financial Services and Markets Act. We have changed the provision only where necessary to ensure that it is fully appropriate to the OFT.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1D and lE in lieu thereof.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
11.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I thank the Government for their proposed solution, which we accept. Our intention was always to provide for the longer term. We accept the need for a transitional period, following which there will now be a chairman and separate chief executive of the newly created Office of Fair Trading. That will enable the present director-general, John Vickers, to complete his contractual term in accordance with the arrangements agreed with Ministers. We wish him well.

859
However, there is continuing and increasing concern about how best to regulate the regulators. I hope that the new structure, combined with a clear commitment to the principles of good corporate governance, represents the right way forward not only for the Office of Fair Trading but for other, similar public bodies.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, although only Amendment No. 1 was moved, the Minister spoke also to Amendment No. 2; so perhaps it is appropriate for me to say a word or two in response. We are extremely happy that the Government have been prepared to make their amendment FiSMA-compliant.
On Question. Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
2 Page I, line 8, at end insert—
"(4) In managing its affairs the OFT must have regard to the generally accepted principles of good corporate governance."
COMMONS AMENDMENT
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—

(a) to such general guidance concerning the management of the affairs of public bodies as the OFT considers appropriate;

(b) 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."

LORDS REASON
The Lords disagreed to Commons Amendment No. 2A to Lords Amendment No. 2 for the following reason—
2B Because the original Lords amendment adequately provided for the application of the principles of good corporate governance to the OFT.
COMMONS FURTHER AMENDMENT IN LIEU
The Commons do not insist on their Amendment No. 2A to which the Lords have disagreed, but proposed the following further amendment to Lords Amendment No. 2 in lieu thereof—
2C Line 2, leave out from "OFT" to end of line 3 and insert "shall have regard, in addition to any relevant general guidance as to the governance of public bodies, to such generally accepted principles of good corporate governance as it is reasonable to regard as applicable to the OFT."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2C to Lords Amendment No. 2.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2C to Lords Amendment No. 2.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENTS
176 Schedule 1, page 191, line 5, after "chairman," insert "a chief executive,"
The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
176C Because it is appropriate to make provision for two roles for a Chairman and a Chief Executive which should be performed by two people.
177 Page 191, line 7, after "chairman" insert "and the chief executive"
The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
177C Because it is appropriate to make provision for two roles for a Chairman and a Chief Executive which should he performed by two people.
178 Page 191, line 10, after "chairman" insert ", the chief executive,"
The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
178C Because it is appropriate to make provision for two roles for a Chairman and a Chief Executive which should he performed by two people.
179 Page 191, line 12, after "chairman" insert ". the chief executive"
The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
179C Because it is appropriate to make provision for two roles liar a Chairman and a Chief Executive which should be performed by two people.
180 Page 191, line 14, after "chairman" insert ", chief executive,"
The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
180C Because it is appropriate to make provision for two roles for a Chairman and a Chief Executive which should he performed by two people.
181Page 191, line 16, after "chairman" insert ", chief executive"
The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
181C Because it is appropriate to make provision for two roles for a Chairman and a Chief Executive which should be performed by two people.
182 Page 191, line 21, after "chairman" insert ", chief executive"
The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
182C Because it is appropriate to make provision for two roles for a Chairman and a Chief Executive which should he performed by two people.
183 Page 191, line 22, leave out "either" and insert "any"
The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
183C Because it is appropriate to make provision for two roles for a Chairman and a Chief Executive which should be performed by two people.
184 Page 191, line 23, after "chairman" insert ", chief executive"
The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
184C Because it is appropriate to make provision for two roles for a Chairman and a Chief Executive which should be performed by two people.
185 Page 191, line 29, after "chairman" insert ", chief executive,"
The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
185C Because it is appropriate to make provision for two roles for a Chairman and a Chief Executive which should be performed by two people.
186 Page 191, line 33, after "chairman" insert ", chief executive"
The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
186C Because it is appropriate to make provision for two roles for a Chairman and a Chief Executive which should be performed by two people.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU
The Commons insist on their disagreement to Lords Amendments Nos. 176 to 186 but propose Amendments Nos. 1D and 1E in lieu thereof.
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 numbered176A to 186A.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Georgia
  Georgia
  Asif Ali Zardari
  Asif Ali Zardari
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Sudan
  Sudan
  Cayman Islands
  Cayman Islands
  Depleted Uranium
  Depleted Uranium
  Gulf War Illness
  Gulf War Illness
  Betting Tax
  Betting Tax
  Prison Service: Race Relations
  Prison Service: Race Relations
  Works of Art: Illicit Trading
  Works of Art: Illicit Trading
  Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, Section 11
  Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, Section 11
  L21A1 Baton Round
  L21A1 Baton Round
  British Nationality Applications Guidance
  British Nationality Applications Guidance
  Capita: Criminal Record Checks
  Capita: Criminal Record Checks
  Equality Regulations
  Equality Regulations
  Council for Science and Technology
  Council for Science and Technology
  Pig Swill Feeding Ban
  Pig Swill Feeding Ban
  Chile: Avian Influenza
  Chile: Avian Influenza
  Government Industry Forum on Non-Food Uses of Crops
  Government Industry Forum on Non-Food Uses of Crops
  Primary Care Trusts
  Primary Care Trusts
  NHS Bank
  NHS Bank
  School Admission Arrangements
  School Admission Arrangements
  Interdepartmental Childcare Review
  Interdepartmental Childcare Review
  Women: Increase in State Pension Age
  Women: Increase in State Pension Age
  Social Fund
  Social Fund
  Television: Audio Description
  Television: Audio Description
  Green Tourism
  Green Tourism
  IRA Ceasefire
  IRA Ceasefire
  Belfast Agreement: Cross-Border Bodies
  Belfast Agreement: Cross-Border Bodies
  Belfast Agreement: Language Implementation Body
  Belfast Agreement: Language Implementation Body
  Northern Ireland Office: Security
  Northern Ireland Office: Security
  Irish Language Agency
  Irish Language Agency
  Arts Council for Northern Ireland Funding
  Arts Council for Northern Ireland Funding
  Ulster-Scots Agency: Interim Chief Executive
  Ulster-Scots Agency: Interim Chief Executive
  North/South Ministerial Council Secretariat
  North/South Ministerial Council Secretariat
  William Mackessy
  William Mackessy
  Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure: Linguistic Diversity Branch
  Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure: Linguistic Diversity Branch
  PEACE II and INTERREG IIIA Monitoring Committees
  PEACE II and INTERREG IIIA Monitoring Committees
  Northern Ireland: 11-plus Transfer Arrangements
  Northern Ireland: 11-plus Transfer Arrangements
  Northern Ireland: Selective Schools
  Northern Ireland: Selective Schools
  Council of Europe Framework Convention on National Minorities
  Council of Europe Framework Convention on National Minorities
  Belfast Agreement: Implementation
  Belfast Agreement: Implementation
  e-commerce Electronic Signature Trust Services
  e-commerce Electronic Signature Trust Services
  e-Government Interoperability Framework
  e-Government Interoperability Framework